Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • 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
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

July 16, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

An Appeal to the Personnel of Büchel Air Base

L to R: Marion Kuepker, John LaForge, Susan Crane, CeeCee Anderson, Max Smay, Ann Suellentrop, Anthony Donovan — at the Main Gate, Büchel Air Base, Germany
From the United States peace delegation to Germany, July 2018

We feel an overwhelming responsibility to warn you of the unlawful nature of your work in support of the mission of Büchel Air Base, i.e., preparations for nuclear war.

It is likely that your superior officers have inadequately informed you of the legal implications of your work here. Participation by individual military or civilian personnel in actions they know to be or could assume to be unlawful cannot be justified by citing superior orders.

The endorsement by the United States and Germany of the Geneva Conventions, Air Force Service Manuals, and the Nuremberg Principles make the refusal of unlawful orders a legal obligation. Taken together, the Constitution of the United States, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and your military service manual(s) prohibit citizens or military personnel from cooperating with policies they know to be unlawful. Furthermore, U.S. and German judges are competent and responsible to restrain the execution of internationally outlawed government policy.

In the August 31, 1987 Draft Report on the Principles of International Law and Nuclear Weapons, the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy warned that: “The threat to use nuclear weapons constitutes ongoing international criminal activity: namely, planning, preparation, and conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocol I of 1977, and the Hague Regulations of 1907…”

With the U.S. Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” and expert legal advice in mind, we hereby warn and appeal to the men and women of Büchel Air Base to stop participating in the perpetuation of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as detailed in the following international legal prohibitions; and we urge you to end your personal participation in the U.S. and German governments’ unlawful nuclear war planning.

1. Relevant Law

• U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Set. II, “the supremacy clause”: “All treaties … shall be the supreme law of the land, and every judge in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
• The 1949 Geneva Conventions¬ on the laws of war prohibit reprisals, as do the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Army field manual The Law of War, the U.S. Law of Naval Warfare, and U.S. Air Force policies on International law: The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations.
• Nuremberg Principle One: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
• UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, July 7, 2017: Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
(a) Develop, test, 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 of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(e) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
(f) Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Crimes Under Provisions of the Nuremberg Principles “For Which There Shall Be Individual Responsibility”:

• Article VI: “Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.”
• Article VIII: “The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his government or responsible officials in Government Departments shall hot be considered as freeing them from responsibility…”
• Article IX: “At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization.”

3. Crimes Under Treaties, Pacts, Protocols, Charters, Conventions

• The 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg limits all warfare to military forces alone.
• The 1899 Hague Regulations which especially prohibit the employment of poison or poisoned arms, the killing or wounding treacherously of individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army, and the employment of arms, projectiles, or materials of a nature to cause superfluous injury.
• The 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol which prohibits the use of poisonous or other gasses, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices.
• The 1928 Kellog-Briand Pact which condemned and renounced recourse to war as an instrument of national policy.
• The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide which criminalizes all “conspiracy to commit genocide” against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
• The 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at Article I prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons to other states, and at Article II prohibits the reception of nuclear weapons from other states. So-call “nuclear sharing” agreement by which Germany receives, deploys and trains to use U.S. B61 hydrogen bombs is an open violation of this Treaty by both countries who are both signatories to the NPT.

4. Violation of natural law and religious teachings

The threatened use of nuclear weapons violates Natural Law by putting at risk the entire living ecosystem, the genetic heritage of planet Earth, and the very existence of the human race. Hundreds of religious leaders have proclaimed that nuclear weapons are inherently immoral and that planning for their use violates religious laws against premeditated murder. For example:
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said May 22, 2010: “Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world’s people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age.”
Pope Benedict XIV said Jan. 1, 2010: “[O]ne can only encourage the efforts of the international community to ensure progressive disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons, whose presence alone threatens the life of the planet and the ongoing integral development of the present generation and of generations yet to come.”

5. Precedent

Nuremberg Tribunal Judgment, Oct. 1, 1946, in which the court, upon trying German civilians and military personal, found:
• “International law, as such, binds every citizen, just as does ordinary municipal law. Acts adjudged criminal when done by an officer of the government are criminal when done by a private individual.”
• “The activities with which the accused were charged were commercial transactions conducted by civilians…. Any civilian who is an accessory to a violation of the laws and customs of war is himself also liable as a war criminal.”
• “The fact that a person acts pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact available for him.”
• “The laws and customs of war are addressed to anybody who is in a position to assist in their violation.”

We understand our duty to obey the U.S. Constitution, Nuremberg Law, and German and U.S. statues which taken together require that we act to prevent unlawful government actions conducted in our names, even war crimes, before the fact.
As an act of conscientious objection to nuclear war preparations, and as an act of crime prevention and responsible citizenship, we are here peacefully resisting the unlawful conspiracy by the United States and German Air Forces to commit massacres using nuclear weapons. We are here on behalf of all those who are unaware of the threat that such planning poses to life and liberty, who are unaware of the binding legal prohibitions that outlaw planning for nuclear war, or who feel powerless to take effective action against the Büchel Air Base’s illegal nuclear war planning and preparations.
We call upon all men and women of good faith to join us in the endeavor to prevent and ban the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons, to participate in nonviolent public resistance to nuclear war planning, and pursue the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

US Peace Delegation to Büchel Air Base, July 2018
ANN SUELLENTROP, Kansas City, Kansas; SUSAN CRANE, Redwood City, Calif.; JOHN LaFORGE and BONNIE URFER, both of Luck, Wisc.; ANTHONY DONOVAN, New York, NY; VICTOR WHITE, Oceanside, Calif.; CEE’CEE’ ANDERSON, College Park, Georgia; DENNIS DuVALL, Prescott, Ariz.; MAX SMAY, Boise, Idaho

Filed Under: Direct Action, Nuclear Weapons, US Bombs Out of Germany

July 12, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Summer 2018 Nukewatch Quarterly Newsletter

Click the links below to access articles from our Summer 2018 Quarterly Newsletter. Page numbers show the pdf version of each page. Individual articles are also tagged by issue category.

Cover and Page 8

National and Personal Interests in Negotiations Between North Korea and the United States
Tritium and Cesium Contamination at Long-Closed Wisconsin Reactor

Page 1

Sea Monsters: Rudderless Reactors on the High Seas

Page 2
Shunning Nuclear Weapons: Averting a Global Catastrophe: A Global Appeal by the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross
World’s Biggest Submarine Base Targeted by Plowshares Action

Page 3

Rad Waste’s “Gaseous Ignition” & “Exothermal Events” are Explosions
Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island: Just the Tip of Disaster Iceberg

Page 4 Fukushima

Fukushima Radiation Contamination Worse Than Initial Estimates
Fukushima’s “Hot Particles” Travelled Extreme Distances
Locals Appalled that Contaminated Soil Could be Used in Road Building, Poisoned Water Could be Dumped

Page 5

German Campaigners See Progress in Confronting US Nuclear Weapons
Screw Nevada…and New Mexico and Texas
Trump Orders Perry to Stop Retirements of Failed Nuclear & Coal Generators

Page 6

On the Bright Side
Cellphone Radiation and Cancer
Through the Prism of Nonviolence: Judicial Border Walls
Coming to an End – Dreams of Monju Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor

Page 7

Nuclear Shorts

  • Pentagon Scrubs Climate Change References from Report
  • “Wasting billions in federal taxes just the pits”
  • “We’re Not a Warlike People, We Just Like War” —George Carlin
  • China Renews Nuclear No-First-Use Policy at Major Military Council
  • Trying to Kill a New Nuclear Missile
  • Plutonium Missing from University Lab

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter

July 11, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

National and Personal Interests in Negotiations Between North Korea and the United States

Summer Quarterly 2018  (Updated June 21, 2018)
By Kelly Lundeen
“Now you are here in the South, and I wonder when I can cross over to the North,” South Korean President Moon Jae-in (R) asked April 27 as North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un stepped over the curb demarcating the two countries and they shook hands. “Why don’t you now?” Kim said. President Moon has been instrumental handling Trump, calming tensions, promoting a peace treaty, and normalizing relations. Photo: Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

Extreme fluctuations in relations between North Korea and the rest of the world in recent months have kept war hawks and peace doves at the edge of their seats. At one moment the United States and North Korea were lobbing nuclear threats at one another, sounding closer than ever in recent history to a potential military conflict. In the next moment, North and South Korea were signing a “Peace Declaration” to denuclearize the Korean peninsula at an unprecedented meeting in the Demilitarized Zone. A historic summit between the presidents of North Korea and the United States was announced, then cancelled by Mr. Trump, and, then went ahead. Finally the Singapore Summit brought a sigh of cautious relief with many hopeful signs that relations will continue in the direction of peace. The new approaches to these relations are in line with the agendas of changing leadership of the three countries and understanding those help explain the unfolding news.

What’s in it for the US?

As North Korea is now a nuclear weapons state, the official US government position was to demand “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea.” Skeptics of the motives behind US leadership allege that the summit was planned to fail; that is, the US projects an image of working toward reconciliation while never having disavowed bellicose intentions. A week after the Summit, those fears have yet to be affirmed.

Throwing a curveball into the decades-long US policy of military threats, diplomatic hostility, and harsh trade sanctions, is the US “dealmaker” seeking to fulfill his need for celebrity, and desires for economic expansion into new territories and cutting military costs related to defense of other nations.

“President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize,” suggested South Korean President Moon Jae-in. This absurd prospect may have strategically furthered the continued opening of diplomatic relations with North Korea. The tension between those supporting long-standing US policy and others embracing Trump’s chaotic treatment of North Korean President Kim Jong-un (calling him a “madman” one month and “honorable” the next) has led to roller coaster relations.

The North Korean Deterrent

North Koreans have a justified fear that the US is looking for regime change. Both John Bolton, the recently appointed National Security Advisor, and Vice President Mike Pence have promoted the “Libyan model” in relation to the North. In Libya, relief from sanctions was offered in exchange for international oversight as the country relinquished its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Despite Libya’s disarmament, it was bombarded by the US and NATO allies in 2011, and Col. Muammar Gaddafi was publicly assassinated by US-supported militias. Additionally, the North views the regular joint military exercises by the US and South Korea as rehearsals for invasion and regime change. On June 17 Trump announced a halt to the exercises which he even referred as “war games.” The North has long offered denuclearization in exchange for a halt to the exercises and a non-aggression pact.

Again in May, a statement from the South Korean president’s office said: “The North showed willingness on denuclearization…. If military threats to North Korea decrease and regime safety is guaranteed, the North showed that it has no reason to retain nukes.” And now, that was agreed to in the peace agreement in Singapore. North Korea agreed to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” while the United States “committed to provide security guarantees” to North Korea.

What Does North Korea Want?

In 2017 there was a New Year’s announcement that the North was close to completing its nuclear program, and at the end of the year the government declared that mission accomplished. Tim Shorrock, who writes for the Korea Center for Investigative Journalism and The Nation, who was raised in South Korea and Japan, remarked about the nuclear weapons program that, Kim “does have the weapons, though [the] interesting thing about his program last year was that they stopped short of actually getting a weapon onto a missile that can enter the atmosphere and hit a target. So, they do not have a nuclear-armed ICBM that can hit the United States at this time. They may be two or three years away from that.”

High on the North Korean priority list are a peace treaty, a non-aggression pact, an end to the military drills, but also energy and food to ameliorate chronic malnourishment. “The policy of the North Koreans has been something called the Byungjin Line and it has been a dual track. One has been the pursuit of its nuclear and missile program,” said Christine Ahn, of Women Cross DMZ. “The other track has been improving the economy of North Korea, and that is so critical to understanding what is the incentive also for North Korea to be willing to give up its nuclear weapons, because they want so much to advance their economy,” she said.

Prospects and Progress

Whatever may happen between the United States and North Korea, there are high expectations for realization of parts of the Declaration of Peace between South and North Korea. That is what drove the South Korean grassroots movement that led the candlelight revolution when, according to Ahn, “almost for half a year where one in three South Koreans, 16 million people took to the streets to call for the impeachment of [President] Park Geun-hye” and in turn elected Moon Jae-in. Within two months of being elected Moon Jae-in reached out to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to meet. On Jan 1, 2018 Kim accepted the offer, followed by a slew of diplomatic moves fostering new levels of trust and common ground among the US, South Korea and North Korea. On April 27 the two Korean leaders met in Panmunjeom. Kim Jong-un was the first North Korean leader to ever set foot inside South Korea.

Some of the points in the Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace can be pursued independently between the Koreas. In the Declaration Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un pledged “there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun.” In the brief document they agreed to three points to improve relations between the Koreas, alleviate military tension and establish a peace regime, determining the future of the “Korean nation on their own accord.”

Some of the specific points of the Declaration have begun to be fulfilled. The week after it was signed, South Korea ended their loudspeaker broadcast into North Korea. South Korean police even prevented activists from unloading a truck with 5,000 anti-North Korean leaflets. North Korea shifted its clocks by 30 minutes to be in sync with South Korea. A direct telephone link between the two leaders has been set up.

Other gestures indicating openness to reconciliation have been made. In addition to freezing nuclear weapons testing, North Korea has unilaterally destroyed its underground nuclear testing facility, and on May 9 released three United States prisoners. In the Singapore Summit North Korea also committed to returning remains of US veterans of the Korean War.

Even the United States has made concessions. According to the New York Times on May 3, Trump ordered the Pentagon to find ways to reduce the number of troops in South Korea. Later in May Trump abandoned further sanctions that he had been seeking.

The South Korean movement that nonviolently overthrew Park Geun-hye lit the fire for peace in Korea. The momentum for peace has been built and shot down over and over. Today it is moving in a direction that lets the doves be optimistic about one thing for the first time in a long time, even if for a brief moment.

—Sources: “Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit”, June 12, 2018; Wall Street Journal, May 28; Agence France Presse, May 6; New York Times, May 3; The Intercept, May 2; Democracy Now!, April 30; “Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula,” April 27, 2018

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

July 11, 2018 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Tritium and Cesium Contamination at Long-Closed Wisconsin Reactor

The Genoa La Crosse reactor in Wisconsin has been shut down since 1987, but is still undergoing dismantlement, a dangerous process that has caused radioactive contamination.
Summer Quarterly 2018
By John LaForge

Last February, the Genoa La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, on the Mississippi River near Genoa, Wisconsin, was found to be leaking radioactive tritium into the groundwater.

The La Crosse Tribune reported March 14 that the firm LaCrosseSolutions, Inc. reported a reading of 24,200 picocuries-per-liter* in water taken from a monitoring well on Feb. 1. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows tritium in drinking water up to 20,000 picocuries-per-liter. This allowable contamination is ten times higher than what the European Union allows.

The tritium in the groundwater from La Crosse’s reactor is a danger to everyone drinking it, but the Tribune reported that the monitoring well water is “not used for human consumption.” This assurance did not come as a relief to people in the area using well water that’s not been tested. Tritium stays in the environment for 123 years, about ten of its radioactive “half-lives” of 12.3 years. This time scale gives the it a lot of time to move through the water and enter the food chain. As an emitter of beta particle radiation it isn’t a great danger outside the body, but can do damage inside the body if inhaled or ingested.

The EPA estimates that seven out of 200,000 people who drink water with 20,000 picocuries-per-liter of tritium for decades would develop cancer. However, because tumors or other cancers may not appear for decades, victims or their survivors are generally unable to be compensated.

LaCrosseSolutions is working an $85 million contract to deconstruct or “decommission” the long-shuttered and partly dismembered La Crosse boiling water reactor. The small unit was shut down in 1987, 31 years ago, after operating for 20 years. Yet it’s still poisoning the environment with radioactive leaks. Unlike other heavy industries, nuclear power’s machinery can keep on poisoning its surroundings even three decades after its profitable public service has ended.

Operating reactors release tritium from vent stacks in the form of tritiated water vapor. This can produce radioactive rainfall, “which can contaminate surface water bodies as well as groundwater,” according to Annie and Arjun Makhijani, of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. But since the La Crosse reactor has ceased operations, the tritium is no long released into the air but now its legacy is poisoned ground, contaminated and corroded pipes and duct work, and tritium leaking into the ground.

Dairyland Power Co-op, which operated the reactor from 1967 to 1987, but transferred its license to LaCrosseSolutions in 2016, isn’t alone in its contamination of groundwater. In June 2011, part two of the Associated Press’s comprehensive four-part investigation of US nuclear power, found that tritium leaks were underway at 48 of 64 US reactor sites, three-quarters of all the country’s commercial reactor operations, “often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping.”

LaCrosseSolutions’s Dirty Clean-up

In addition to the poisoning of groundwater with leaking tritium, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on March 26 that LaCrosseSolutions had spilled 400 gallons of radioactively contaminated water directly into the Mississippi River in February 2017.

The NRC determined that the spill of waste water containing the deadly isotope cesium-137 was a violation of federal regulations—one of three low-level violations identified in its annual inspection of decommissioning being done by LacrosseSolutions—and that the cesium-137 in water samples was at concentrations exceeding federal limits. The NRC did not issue a citation but found LaCrosseSolutions had violated NRC policy.

* A picocurie is one/trillionth of a curie, or 2.2 atomic disintegration per minute. A curie is a very large amount of radioactivity, about 2.2 trillion atomic disintegrations per minute, or 37 billion disintegrations per second.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

July 11, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Sea Monsters: Rudderless Reactors on the High Seas

Summer Quarterly 2018
By John LaForge

Joke: Did you hear the one about the Exxon Valdez-Fukushima-Chernobyl-Gulf-Oil-Titanic? Yeah: Russia towed a floating double reactor barge 3,000 miles in the Arctic Ocean to power off-shore oil rigs and nothing went wrong!

Announced with sarcastic headlines around the world, Russian engineers launched a giant ocean-going nuclear power barge, carrying two reactors, on a lengthy voyage over the Arctic Ocean from Russia’s far northwest to its far northeastern reaches.

Sailing from St. Petersburg April 28, the one-of-a kind Akademik Lomonosov presents such an obvious and appalling risk to sea life and seacoasts that even Newsweek magazine said in an April 30th headline, “Russia’s ‘Nuclear Titanic’ Raising Fears of ‘Chernobyl On Ice.’”

The barge has no propulsion of its own and must be tugged and towed for a year-long journey of over 3,000 miles. Its manufacturer, the Russian corporation Rosatom, said at the send-off celebration that it has built in “a great margin of safety” that is “invincible for tsunamis and natural disaster.” Chortles of “Titanic!” couldn’t be resisted since it’s been reported that when White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin was informed that Titanic was in trouble, he announced “We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.”

The teetering, 12-story-tall Akademik Lomonosov has travelled through the Baltic Sea and the North Sea—having so far avoided collisions with icebergs, shoals, or oil tankers—and docked May 17 at the far-northernwestern city of Murmansk, where planners intend to load its two reactors with uranium fuel and conduct startup tests. The government initially intended to load and test the reactors in downtown St. Petersburg, a city of 5.3 million. But Greenpeace activists and others successfully petitioned to have the dangerous operation done far away from the metropolis. The fueling and startup will still be done close to Murmansk, a city of 300,000 in Russia’s far northwest. Greenpeace reported: “Only a petition by 12,000 St. Petersburg citizens, questions in the city’s legislative assembly, and major concerns from Baltic Sea countries about transporting two reactors filled with irradiated fuel, without its own propulsion, along their rocky coasts, caused Rosatom to use some common sense and shift loading plans to a less densely populated area.

If the fission reactor tests go as planned, the barge is to be towed some 3,000 miles through the Arctic Ocean to the far northeastern Siberian city of Pevek and go online sometime in 2019.

In what could be called a Faustian Rube Goldberg scheme, the “floating Chernobyl” is supposed to provide electric power to oil drilling platforms. The breath-taking self-destructive carbon footprint of this fossil fuel-consuming, pollution-spewing sea monster can hardly be exaggerated. The mining, milling, processing and reactor fissioning of uranium, the production of radioactive wastes that need managed isolation for a million years, all done to drill for oil which is then transformed into pollution, cannot be smarter or cheaper than conservation and efficiency that cost next to nothing and are pollution-free.

As a public relations cover, the Nuclear Titanic will also provide electricity to the city of Pevek (pop. 100,000) and to a desalination plant, replacing four small reactors called the “Bilibino” complex, which is set for decommissioning beginning in 2021.

Undersea earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricane winds and rogue waves are dangerous, unpredictable and inevitable, but they are natural disasters. Placing hot, bobbing vulnerable nuclear reactors directly into a pristine wilderness like the Arctic Ocean in the face of such enormous risks is not just tempting fate, but constitutes reckless endangerment of the public commons. The Bellona Foundation in Oslo warned, using more diplomatic and understated terms, that “far-flung locations present hurdles to proper disaster response in the event of an accident.”

Most governments with nuclear stationary reactor operations understand them to be uniquely dangerous. Ordinary reactors stand alone among all the world’s potentially disastrous industrial operations in being required to have evacuation plans before powering up. But how to evacuate the oceans?

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • …
  • 266
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • 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
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • 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

© 2026 · Nukewatch