Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Weekly Column
    • Depleted Uranium
    • Direct Action
    • Lake Superior Barrels
    • Environmental Justice
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
    • Mailing List Sign-Up
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • New Page! Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
    • Workshops
  • Donate

June 9, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

With Ballistic Missile Defenses, There’s a Secret to Success

The corporate gravy train known as Star Wars, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), or just Missile Defense—after having spent over $200 billion since 1983—is finally celebrating a successful test. On May 31, 2017 the Pentagon claimed that it hit a missile shot from the Pacific with a missile shot from California.

The veracity of the claim is impossible to confirm because, as always, the military did not provide details. Actual success is highly unlikely. Since 2002, the Pentagon has been allowed to keep secret all key test information, including flight test data on all its BMD experiments. The military’s blanket classification of these testing results was imposed in the face of highly embarrassing scientific evidence of test fakery and two years after the FBI began an investigation into fraud and cover-up inside the program.

Open missile hatches on one of US Navy’s 12 Trident ballistic missile-firing submarines. Each D-5 rocket can carry up to 8 nuclear warheads and have a range of 4,600 miles. 

On June 6, Nukewatch asked Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapon & Nuclear Power in Space if the secrecy rules are still in place. In an email Gagnon wrote: “Sure they are. Many of the tests are scripted, what [City University of New York physicist Dr.] Michio Kaku calls ‘strap down rabbit tests.’ They can’t afford to release [details]. It would sink their boat.”

Secrecy could be the only successful thing in the BMD program. It’s been savaged, by independent and government scientists for over 26 years. In 1997, Professor Gordon Mitchell of Univ. of Pittsburgh blasted “secrecy and misinformation on missile defense research,” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, arguing that the “shackles of secrecy and classification” should be removed so that scientific peer review could protect taxpayers from fraud. Mitchell wrote: “Given the lack of grave or immediate ballistic missile threat to the US … BMD research data should be presumptively public, not born secret.”

One program centers on a rocket known as Standard Missile 3 or SM-3, which the Pentagon claimed in 2010 had succeeded in 84% of its tests. But Dr. Theodore Postol, an MIT physicist, and George Lewis, a Cornell physicist, studied the military’s data and reported that only 10 to 20 percent of the tests worked. “The system … will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,” Postol told the New York Times May 18, 2010.

Postol has been exposing corruption in the scandal-ridden missile industry since the 1991 US war on Iraq. Back then, he proved that not one Patriot air defense rocket stopped a Scud missile. The Pentagon had claimed then the Patriot’s success rate was 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel.

Calling the program “delusional,” Postol, Lewis, Kaku, Mitchell, Gagnon and other long-standing critics remind taxpayers that any enemy sophisticated enough to field intercontinental ballistic missiles will produce decoys and other means confounding defenses. Laura Grego, a physicist with Union of Concerned Scientists, lampooned the Pentagon’s claim of a May 30 success, blogging that the military couldn’t honestly say that the test had actually worked unless it had evaded real countermeasures like decoy warheads.

In 2012, the National Research Council, the nation’s preeminent group of scientists, issued a 260-page report critical of the program, saying current enemy “countermeasures” make the anti-missile system unworkable. The report also called a planned $28 billion group of satellites used to track enemy warheads “unneeded.”

Time magazine nailed the military’s fundamental reason for secrecy with its July 10, 2000 headline: “Missile Impossible: This week’s $100 million test of the space shield is all but fixed.” In June that year, 53 House Democrats asked the FBI to investigate the anti-missile program for “serious allegation of fraud and cover up.” The bureau later looked into allegations that the giant military contractor TRW committed fraud and a cover-up while developing a key component of BMD system.

For a more detailed look at anti-ballistic embezzlement, ask Nukewatch for its Special Report, “Missile Defense Fraud Goes Ballistic.”  — John LaForge

Sources: Global Network, June 6, 2017; New York Times, May 31, 2017, Sept. 12, 2012, & May 18, 2010; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 26, 2001; Extra!, F.A.I.R., Nov. 1, 2000; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1997.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Weekly Column Tagged With: nuclear weapons, Pentagon, weapons testing

June 1, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

New H-Bomb Production Defies Public Opinion, Common Sense, Nonproliferation Treaty, and Military Experts

The US is the only government that deploys nuclear weapons in other countries. US “B61” H-bombs are still being used in The Netherlands (20), Germany (20), Italy (40),Belgium (20) and Turkey (50-90).[1]

 

At center, the device holding the middle section of this B61-12 nuclear bomb was designed to allow technicians to safely move around different parts of the bomb without using hoists. Senior Mechanical Engineer Jeremy McCord at the Energy Department’s National Security Campus outside Kansas City designed and built this Assembly Tooling Lifting Alignment System, or “ATLAS.” Photo by Dan Sagalyn

In January 2014, the Obama administration approved and Congress fully funded development and production of a new nuclear warhead — under a program dubbed “life extension” — known as B61-12.

The new device is a so-called “variable yield” thermonuclear bomb, and is designed to have four separate explosive yields, to be chosen like from a menu: 0.3 kilotons (kt); 1.5 kt; 10 kt; and 50 kt.[2] The dial-a-massacre weapon can burn with between 50 and 83 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb that turned 140,000 people into powder and ash. Yet in the cold blooded jargon of nuclear war planners the B61-12 is known as “low-yield.” Business writer Jeremy Bender called it “tiny”![3]

With a projected cost of $12.2 billion the B61-12 may be the most expensive nuclear bomb in history. At about $25 million apiece, and weighing 700 pounds, each bomb will cost more than if it were made of solid gold ($14.6 million).

For 50 years, the B61 has been a major federal jobs program for the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico, which has engineered 15 different versions. Five B61 types are still in use: the B61-3, -4, -10, -7; and -11. The Obama administration announced plans to retire three of them and “convert” the B61-4 into the B61-12.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 300 of the current 820 B61s are kept at bases with B61-capable aircraft, “including 184 B61s deployed in Europe.” About 250 B61-7 and 50 B61-11 bombs are stored at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

Now in just an engineering phase, the first production of B61-12s could begin in 2022. Altogether about 480 may be built.

“One NATO exercise in 1962 estimated that 10 to 15 million German civilians would be killed in a tactical nuclear exchange,” Foreign Affairs reported.[4] The self-destructiveness of such war plans helps explain why the US European Command gave up “advocating for maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe,” the authors said. EUCOM leaders told an oversight task force in 2008 there would be “no military downside to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe.” They noted that, “prominent critics … have long argued that the military rationale for keeping nuclear weapons in Europe is an anachronism.”

“Militarily useless”

Opposition to the B61s and their replacement is gaining strength in the US and Europe where high-level politicians have called them “militarily useless.” Gen. James Cartwright, former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the B61s “redundant,” and Gen. Colin Powell favored eliminating them in the 1990s when he was Chair of the Joint Chiefs.[5] In 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Representatives Mike Quigley and Jared Polis tried to curtail the B61-12 program. In 2010, five NATO partners — Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Holland and Norway — asked that the B61s be permanently removed from Europe.

In its 2012 Posture Review, NATO’s 28 ministers pledged to work for a world without nuclear weapons. In Germany, thanks to widespread protest and education) every major political party has formally called for withdrawal of the B61s. In one widely published article, former NATO Secretary-General Willy Claes and three senior Belgian politicians wrote, “US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe have lost all military importance.”

Germany’s Der Spiegel online reported Dec. 9, 2016: “By be-coming a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975, the Germans committed ‘not to receive the transfer of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.’ During negotiations over German reunification in 1990, then-Chancellor Kohl also affirmed Germany’s ‘renunciation’ of the manufacture, possession and control of nuclear weapons.” — John LaForge
_____

[1] Hans Kristensen & Robert Norris, “US Nuclear Weapons, 2015,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April, 2015; Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 107-119.
[2] Hans Kristensen & Matthew McKinzie, Fed. of Am. Scientists, Jan. 14, 2016, https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/01/b61-12_earth-penetration.
[3] Business Insider, July 28, 2015.
[4] Barry Blechman & Russell Rumbaugh, “Bombs Away: The Case for Phasing Out US Tactical Nukes in Europe,” Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 2014.
[5] Richard Sokolsky & Gordon Adams, Foreign Affairs, Feb. 9, 2016.

Filed Under: Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Weekly Column

May 29, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Prison Gang” Peace Delegation to Join International Call for Ouster of US Nuclear Weapons from Germany

Transparente beim Ostermarsch

For the first time in a long-standing campaign to remove US nuclear weapons from Germany, a delegation of US peace activists will participate in protests at the Büchel Air Base, July 12 to 18, demanding the withdrawal of the 20 remaining US H-bombs still deployed there. Notable among the 11-person delegation are seven participants who have served a combined total of 36 years in US jails and prisons for protest actions taken against nuclear weapons programs and the war system.

The delegation of eleven US activists* — from Wisconsin, California, Washington-DC, Virginia, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Maryland — has been brought together by Nukewatch and will join the coalition of 50 German peace and justice groups and organizations converging on the air base.

An international banner displayed at the Nukewatch office.

This past March 26, activists in Germany launched a 20-week-long series of nonviolent protests to rid Büchel of the US B61 nuclear-armed gravity bombs. The actions continue through August 9, the anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945. The US delegation will join the International Week, July 12 to 18, along with peace activists from Belgium, The Netherlands, and France, as well as Germany.

“The world wants nuclear weapons abolished,” said US delegate Bonnie Urfer, a long-time peace activist and former staffer with the nuclear watchdog group Nukewatch, in Wisconsin. “To waste billions of dollars replacing the B61s when they should be scrapped is criminal considering how many millions are in need famine relief, emergency shelter, and safe drinking water,” Urfer said. Urfer has spent 6 and 1/2 years incarcerated for a string of misdemeanor-level protests she calls “civil resistance” against war, nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

The US delegation and the German public is particularly concerned that the US is planning to produce 480 new hydrogen bombs — the so-called “B61-12”—  to replace the 180 B61 bombs now deployed in five European NATO countries including the 20 at Büchel. Production is not expected to start before 2022.

“Our united resistance will stop the new, illegal nuclear bombs nobody needs,” said Marion Küpker, a disarmament campaigner and organizer with DFG-VK, Germany’s oldest peace organization, this year celebrating its 125th anniversary. “We want Germany to be nuclear weapons free,” Küpker said.

Under a scheme known as “nuclear sharing,” Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey, and The Netherlands still deploy and conduct NATO nuclear war maneuvers using the US H-bombs, although all six states are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Articles I and II of the NPT explicitly prohibit nuclear weapons from being either transferred to or accepted from other countries. The US is the only country in the world that arms other countries with its nuclear weapons. (China may lease a nuclear-powered submarine but not nuclear weapons from Russia.)

Although the planned B61 replacement bomb is a completely new weapon, the Pentagon calls the program “modernization” in order to skirt the NPT’s prohibitions. The new bomb is being touted as the first ever “smart” or precision nuclear weapon, built to be guided by satellites, and aimed with a new tailfin attachment, making it unprecedented. New nuclear weapons are unlawful under the NPT, and President Barak Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review required that “upgrades” to the Pentagon’s current H-bombs must not have “new capabilities.” Overall cost of the new bomb, which is not yet in production, is estimated to be up to $12 billion.

German Parliament resolved to evict US H-bombs

The March 26 start date of “Twenty Weeks for Twenty Bombs” is significant for Germans. First, on March 26, 2010, Germany’s Bundestag voted overwhelmingly — across all parties — to have the government work to remove the US weapons from German territory. In 2008, US and NATO officials claim that “deterrence” makes retaining the B61 important in Europe, but the US European Command said that there would be “no military downside to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe.”

Second, on March 27 this year the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York launched formal negotiations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. The UNGA will convene a second session, June 15 to July 7, to produce a binding “convention” banning any production, possession, deployment, or use of nuclear weapons, in accordance with Article 6 of the NPT. (Similar treaty bans prohibit poison and gas weapons, land mines, and cluster bombs.) A formal Draft Treaty was unveiled May 22 in Geneva. Nuclear-armed countries led by the United States tried unsuccessfully to derail the negotiations and boycotted the first round. Germany’s government under Angela Merkel joined the boycott in spite of broad public support for nuclear disarmament.

A huge majority of the German public supports both the UN treaty ban and the ouster of US nuclear weapons from its territory. According to a poll commissioned by the German chapter of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and published in March 2016, a staggering 93% want nuclear weapons banned. Some 85% agreed that the US weapons should be withdrawn from Germany, and 88% said they oppose US plans to replace the current H-bombs with the new B61-12.

*The United States delegation includes: Steve Baggarly, Norfolk, VA;  Kathy Boylan, Washington, DC; Zara Brown, Minneapolis, MN; Susan Crane, Redwood City, CA; Ralph Hutchison, and Carmella Cole, both of Knoxville, TN; Sr. Carol Gilbert and Sr. Ardeth Platte, both of Baltimore, MD; Leona Morgan, Albuquerque, NM; and Bonnie Urfer and John LaForge, both of Luck, WI.

For more information, contact John LaForge: nukewatch1@lakeland.ws; 715-472-4185; or Marion Küpker (Germany) mariongaaa@gmx.de +49 (0)172 771 32 66.

*Detailed information about the US delegation to Büchel:

https://buechel-atombombenfrei.jimdo.com/international/u-s-biographies-in-english-2017/

Filed Under: Direct Action, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, US Bombs Out of Germany

May 27, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Draft Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Unveiled

Seven square miles of Hiroshima, shown in August 1945, was smashed and burned by a US bomb 20 times smaller than the smallest H-bomb in today’s US nuclear arsenal.

Forty years ago I started reading legal arguments against nuclear weapons. With an atomic ignoramus in the White House asking “Why can’t we use ‘em?,” Bill Durland, Dave McReynolds, Peter Weiss, Jackie Cabasso, Francis Boyle, John Burroughs and others have been explaining why for decades.

Radiation is “analogous” to gas, and attacks that are analogous to gas warfare are banned by the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol. The 1907 Hague Regulations prohibit the use of poison or poisoned weapons, and radioactive fallout is poisonous to say the least. Indiscriminate destruction was forbidden by the 1945 Geneva Conventions. The 1945 Nuremberg Charter (written by US judges) outlaws planning and preparation of massacres — a monumental change in treaty law, since it implicates nuclear war planners before nuclear weapons cause massacres.

In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1653, “Recalling that the use of weapons of mass destruction, causing unnecessary human suffering, was in the past prohibited, as being contrary to the laws of humanity and to the principles of international law, by international declarations and binding agreements …to which the majority of nations are still parties.”

UNGA  resolution 1653 in part “Declares that:

a) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is … a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations;

b) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to [hu]mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity;

c) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is a war directed not against an enemy or enemies alone but also against [hu]mankind in general, since the peoples of the world not involved in such a war will be subjected to all the evils generated by the use of such weapons;

d) Any State using nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is to be considered as …acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing a crime against [hu]mankind and civilization; and

        Requests that the Secretary-General to consult the Governments of Member States to ascertain their view on the possibility of convening a special conference for signing a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons for war purposes….”

Member states must have said, “Let’s wait,” as that was 56 years ago. In 1968, the Non-Proliferation Treaty obligated the US and the other signers to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” Forty-nine years later, “at an early date” sort of sticks in the throat.

In 1996, a global movement pushed the International Court of Justice or World Court to hear arguments from UN Member States on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court concluded that “the threat of use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law…” The Court also reminded the world that the Nonproliferation Treaty requires not just good faith negotiations, but that the Members “bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

Finally, the “early date” has arrived, and last March at least 130 countries joined the long-sought-after negotiations for a treaty ban. Then, on May 22, 2017, the “Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” was calmly delivered to the United Nations for consideration this July. Its language is clear, compelling, and a little awe-inspiring.

The preamble says in part:

        Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and the consequent need to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances,

        Cognizant that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and for the health of future generations, and of the disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation on maternal health and on girls, …

        Affirming that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control…

The Articles declare that “Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

a) Develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;

c) Receive the transfer or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly, or indirectly;

d) Use nuclear weapons;

e) Carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion…

There are lengthy sections about verifiable compliance and enforcement, all to be finalized this summer.

Beatrice Fihn, the Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, celebrated the news this way: “The release of a draft treaty to ban nuclear weapons is a milestone in the decades-long effort to ban these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction because of their inhumane and catastrophic impacts. Once adopted, the treaty will constitute an important step toward their eventual elimination.”

How about a toast!

Filed Under: Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Weekly Column

May 9, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

H-Bomb Production Site, Long Closed, Still Causing Nuclear Nightmares

Hundreds of radiation clean-up workers were running for their lives Tuesday, May 9, when a “highly contaminated” waste storage tunnel collapsed at the Hanford Reservation in Southeastern Washington State.

The US Energy Department ordered workers to “take cover” after  what it called a “cave-in” of a tunnel used to store highly radioactive  nuclear weapons wastes, some of it 72-years old and still ferociously carcinogenic. The earthen tunnels, near the so-called Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) area, were like berms and built above ground as a sort of radiation shielding system.

The Washington Post reported May 9: “Energy Department officials said there was ‘no indication of a release of contamination at this point’ but that crews were still testing the area.”

This is a typically vague assurance, the sort that follows radiation accidents of all kinds. Before emergency teams are even finished looking, officials make a soothing, highly nuanced statement. “No indication … at this point” should be read to mean: “We checked upwind of the dust cloud, so our meters would not register any radiation.”

As the renowned explorer Jacque Cousteau said in 1989: “A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident — a nuclear plant or on a nuclear submarine — is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’ They do this before they themselves know what has happened….”

The Hanford workers who ran for cover might have been panicked with memories of the Oct. 18, 2015 explosion and fire at a radioactive waste dump Beatty, Nevada. In that case buried, unknown sorts of radioactive waste reacted with rainwater that had seeped through both the waste trench’s earth covering, and through waste containers, causing five explosions and a plume of smoke and debris. The nuclear fireworks were actually caught on cellphone video. They may remember when 24 onsite workers inhaled the poison when a drum of weapons waste with plutonium exploded underground in Carlsbad, New Mexico on Valentine’s Day 2014.

DOE officials at Hanford asked the Federal Aviation Administration to put a temporary flight restriction over the area, the Post reported, most likely because of fears of a similar radioactive plume drifting from the cave-in. Former Energy Department official Robert Alvarez told the Post, “the tunnels now store contaminated train cars and a considerable amount of highly radioactive, ignitable wastes including possible organic vapors.”

A “very high-hazard operation”

Alvarez was understated when he told the Post the Hanford site is “a very high-hazard operation.”

Like the waste in Nevada, much of the toxic and radioactive junk at Hanford is “uncharacterized” and unlabeled, meaning cleanup workers can’t know either what sorts of deadly isotopes are in the wastes, or what radiation hazards might be present. Left over from the nuclear arms race with the former USSR, much of the radioactive waste material at Hanford is so radioactively and thermally hot that it’s a misnomer to call that period a cold war.

Nine plutonium production reactors ran onsite for 50 years. The last was shut down in 1988, and Hanford’s been a stop-and-start clean-up operation since 1989. Projected cost estimates for final abandonment and “good enough” declarations (no one suggests that the area can be reclaimed to the point that it can be inhabited) were once around $80 billion, but now run to $350 billion.

Over three billion gallons of groundwater beneath the 580 square-mile site have been poisoned with plutonium, uranium, americium, neptunium and dozens of other “trans-uranic” (worse than uranium) wastes. The groundwater drains to the nearby Columbia River, a drinking water source for tens of thousands in Oregon and Washington.

Hanford hosts 177 giant underground liquid waste storage tanks, which contain some 2.5 million gallons of radioactive sludge, stuck at the bottom. The tanks were filled with 56 million gallons of high-level or plutonium-contaminated wastes from the PUREX plant near where the “cave-in” took place. Most reports say the tanks “hold” 56M gallons” but as early as 1990 the DOE has acknowledged that 66 of them were leaking.

The PUREX facility was used for decades to produce plutonium for bombs from hot uranium fuel rods taken from the nine “production” reactors. Plutonium — the most toxic material currently known to science — was extracted using a gigantic “chemical bath” system involving harsh acids and chemicals, miles of piping and conduit inside cavernous buildings employing tens of thousands of workers — thousands of whom were exposed to deadly amounts of radiation.  McClatchy Newspapers reported in 2015 that at least 33,000 such workers died of cancers caused by their workplace radiation doses. The actual number is probably much higher.

Filed Under: Nuclear Weapons, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

  • Chernobyl
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2019 · Nukewatch