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

June 30, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

U.S. Depleted Uranium to Make Ukraine War Dirtier

By John LaForge

The Biden administration is expected to supply Ukraine with highly controversial depleted-uranium munitions which are to be fired from the Abrams battle tanks the U.S. is sending to Kyiv, the Wall St. Journal reported June 13.

Any delivery of U.S. depleted uranium (DU) weapons to Ukraine would be in addition to the State Department’s Dec. 22, 2022 approval of the sale to Poland of as many as 112,000 heavy 120-millimeter DU shells, which was announced by the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

The British Ministry of Defense announced last March 20 that it too would send depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine  along with its Challenger battle tanks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded at the time charging that sending DU into Ukraine would mean the U.K. was “ready to violate international humanitarian law as in 1999 in Yugoslavia.”  The reference may be to the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights which in 2002 labeled the use of DU “inhumane” and a violation of treaties like the Hague Conventions which expressly forbid any use of “poison or poisoned weapons.”

The Wall St. Journal’s understated sub-headline on June 13 warned: “The armor-piercing ammunition has raised concerns over health and environmental effects.” Indeed, between 1997 and 2004, USA Today, the Associated Press, New York Daily News, Life magazine, CNN, and others reported that studies were finding a significantly increased rate of birth abnormalities among children of U.S. Gulf War veterans and among Iraqi children born after 1991. (“DU in UKRAINE – John Pilger & Phil Miller,” Consortium News, May 11, 2023; “Tainted uranium, danger widely distributed,” USA Today, June 25, 2001)

The Journal’s article acknowledged that “The United Nations Environment Program said in a report last year that the [depleted uranium] metal’s ‘chemical toxicity’ presents the greatest potential danger, and ‘it can cause skin irritation, kidney failure, and increase the risks of cancer.’”

However, the paper “balanced” this U.N. warning by quoting John Kirby, a National Security Council coordinator, who reportedly dared to say last March that “studies indicate it isn’t a radioactive threat.” In fact, the most damning reports about the harmful health and environmental effects of exposure to DU contamination come from the U.S. military itself. (See below.)

If the shells are used in the Ukraine war, the soil, water, crops, and livestock of the territory being contested will likely be contaminated with uranium and the other radioactive materials that are in the armor-piercing munitions. This is because when DU smashes through tank armor, it becomes an aerosol of dust or gas-like particles that can be inhaled and carried long distances on the wind.

In 2003, experts at the Pentagon and the United Nations estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes of DU were used by U.S.-led forces during their attack on Iraq in March and April that year. That same year, the British Royal Society, declared that hundreds of tons of DU used by Britain and the U.S. against Iraq should be removed to protect the civilian population, contradicting Pentagon claims it was not necessary. (“Scientists Urge Shell Clear-Up to Protect Civilians, Royal Society spells out dangers of depleted uranium,” The Guardian, April 17, 2003)

After NATO’s use of DU weapons in Kosovo in 1999, the Council of Europe called for a world-wide ban on the production, testing, use, and sale of DU weapons, asserting that DU pollution would have “long term effects on health and quality of life in South-East Europe, affecting future generations.” The call went unheeded.

Background

Depleted uranium is uranium hexafluoride or uranium-238, a waste material left from reactor fuel and nuclear warhead production. It is radioactive and a toxic heavy metal, and there are between 560,000 and 700,000 metric tons of this waste stored in the United States. On March 25, 1997 the New York Times reported the volume as 1.25 billion pounds. The military calls DU munitions “armor piercing cartridges” avoiding the taint of the word “uranium.”

In 1991, between 300 and 800 tons of DU munitions were blasted into Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait by U.S. forces. The Pentagon says the U.S. military fired about 10,800 DU rounds — about three tons — into Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. Over 31,000 DU rounds — about ten tons — were shot into Kosovo in 1999 according to NATO. In Iraq, in the number of birth abnormalities skyrocketed following the massive use of DU in the Persian Gulf War. (“EU begins inquiry of veterans’ cancer,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, January 4, 2001) In Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age (International Physicians Press, 1992), the authors say, “… plutonium is probably the most carcinogenic substance known.”

The U.S. Department of Energy admitted in January 2000 that the metal in DU shells is often contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and americium, long-lived, highly radioactive isotopes, much more hazardous than DU, or uranium-238. (“Pentagon admits plutonium exposure: NATO shells used radioactive metals,” London, AP, The Capital Times, February 3, 2001; New York Times, February 14, 2001)

While the U.S. military repeatedly declares that its uranium weapons contain uranium-238, and that its DU shells “are less radioactive than natural uranium,” the United Nations Environment Program and others demonstrated that uranium shells used by the U.S. and the U.K. were contaminated with fission products including plutonium. (“DU at Home,” The Nation, April 9, 2001)

Government evidence of harm

* In 2002, the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found in a preliminary report that DU produces one-million times as much chromosome damage as would be predicted from its radioactivity alone, and that it causes a form of long-term “delayed reproductive death” of cells. The AFRR institute then canceled the funding of this research.

* In 1997, the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute reportedly found that, “In animal studies, embedded DU, unlike most metals, dissolves and spreads throughout the body depositing in organs like the spleen and the brain, and a pregnant female rat will pass DU along to a developing fetus.”  The Army’s Office of the Surgeon General’s 1993 manual “Depleted Uranium Safety Training” says the expected effects of DU exposure include a possible increase of cancer (lung and bone) and kidney damage. It recommends that the Army “… convene a working group … to identify countermeasures against DU exposure.”

* In 1995, the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute reported, “The radiation dose to critical organs depends upon the amount of time that depleted uranium resides in the organs. When this value is known or estimated, cancer and hereditary risk estimates can be determined.” Depleted uranium has the potential to generate “significant medical consequences” if it enters the body, the AEPI found.

* In 1990, the Army’s Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command radiological task group said that depleted uranium is a “low level alpha radiation emitter … linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage.” The group’s report said that “long term effects of low doses [of DU] have been implicated in cancer … there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero.”

* In 1984, the Federal Aviation Administration warned its investigators, “If particles are inhaled or ingested, they can be chemically toxic and cause a significant and long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue.”

* In 1979, the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command warned, “Not only the people in the immediate vicinity (emergency and fire-fighting personnel) but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to airborne uranium dust.”

Any threatened or actual use of poisonous, gene-busting depleted uranium munitions in Ukraine cannot be considered lawful or ethical and must be condemned unreservedly by civil society on all sides of the Ukraine war.  ###

— John LaForge is a co-director of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog group in Wisconsin, and is co-editor with Arianne Peterson of Nuclear Heartland, Revised: A Guide to the 450 Land-Based Missiles of the United States. A version of this was published June 30, 2023 by CounterPunch.org.

 

Filed Under: Depleted Uranium, Environment, Environmental Justice, Radioactive Waste, War, Weekly Column

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Former Nuclear Officials: New Reactors Not the Answer

Nuclear-energy-is-a-dead-end-Greenpeace-anti-nuke-protest, Nuclear terrorism kills millions, enriches the few, sfbayview.com/

The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K. issued a joint statement outlining why nuclear power is not the answer to climate chaos and is not a viable nor sustainable source of energy for the health of people or planet. After years of work inside the industry, they should know. The four leaders issuing the joint statement are: Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and founder of Maxean, an energy company; Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, a university professor and former Head of Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection, and Nuclear Waste for Germany’s Federal Environment Ministry; Dr. Bernard Laponche, a French engineer and author, former Director General for the French Agency for Energy Management, and former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy, and Nuclear Safety; Dr. Paul Dorfman, an associate fellow and researcher at the University of Sussex and former secretary to the U.K. Government. Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters.

“The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping up, along with destructive storms, storm surge, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to global heating. … At the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether [it] is economically viable, the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with [radioactive] waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution.

“As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all been involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change. The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe nor smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design. Nuclear as a strategy against climate change is:

• Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production.

• More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables rollout.

• Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.

• Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.

• Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental, and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.

• Militarily hazardous – newly promoted reactor designs increase risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

• Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storms, storm surge, inundation, and flooding hazards, resulting in international economic impacts.

• Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including ‘Advanced’ and Small Modular Reactors.
• Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.

• Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear’s impracticably lengthy development and construction timelines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.”

— Reprinted and edited for space from Power, Jan. 25, 2022.

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

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Holtec Push to Restart ‘Zombie’ Palisades Reactor

By Lindsay Potter

In January, Holtec International applied a second time for billions in taxpayer-funded federal and state bailouts to restart the Palisades nuclear reactor on the shore of Lake Michigan – source of drinking water for over 12 million people. This despite Holtec’s continued plans to illegally dump more than two million gallons of radioactive wastewater from other decommissioned reactors into the Hudson River and Cape Cod Bay. Former owner Entergy shut down the reactor eleven days ahead of schedule in May 2022 due to risks from Palisades’ crumbling infrastructure, among the world’s most embrittled. Holtec failed to explain how it will find funding, train operators, procure $50 million in fresh nuclear fuel, obtain an operating license, or develop quality control. The NRC granted permission to destroy decades of safety documents as part of decommissioning, further complicating a possible restart. A recent letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, with 115 signatories, requests the DOE deny Holtec’s bailout application, urging Palisades does not qualify. The DOE denied Holtec’s first application for a federal bailout, filed in July 2022. — Beyond Nuclear press releases, Feb. 14, Feb. 6, Jan. 23, 2023 and Dec. 19, 2022.

Palisades Reactor on the shore of Lake Michigan. Photo Credit: beyondnuclear.org/

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

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

PG&E Seeks License Exemption at Diablo Canyon

By Lindsay Potter

A coalition of environmental action groups is fighting reversal of the slated closure of Diablo Canyon, California’s last two nuclear reactors. As a result of the coalition’s 2016 lawsuit against twice-bankrupted owners, Pacific Gas & Electric, the state had agreed to shut down the reactors at the end of their licensing periods in 2024 and 2025. PG&E admitted a shift to renewables could save California ratepayers $1 billion. However, the Civil Nuclear Credit earmarked $1.1 billion in subsidies to keep Diablo Canyon open and California promised a $1.4 billion ‘forgivable’ loan. On March 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed to allow the two reactors to operate beyond the end of their existing licenses, through the next five years, side-stepping the standard licensure process. California lawmakers lauded the step, although many previously supported shutting down Diablo Canyon. The NRC decision does not guarantee approval beyond 2030, but gives PG&E time to complete a 20-year license extension application.

California’s Governor and State Legislature withdrew from the closure agreement in September, claiming the twin reactors will prevent blackouts during heatwaves. Diablo Canyon produces less than 9 percent of California’s electricity, or 2.2 GW. It was running during blackouts in summer 2020, and California added 3.0 GW of solar in 2021 alone. A 2015 NRC report found the reactors could not withstand seismic shock from any of the dozens of nearby faults. Newsom’s revival plan would exempt PG&E from halting their ocean water cooling system and complying with environmental review. Necessary upgrades to Diablo Canyon could cost billions more – which draws funding and grid capacity away from renewable sources. — Reuters, Feb. 14; Associated Press, Jan. 25; LA Times, Mar. 2, 2023 and Aug. 16, 2022

Photo Credit: The Seattle Times

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

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Run of the Mill: Uranium Fire at Y-12

By Lindsay Potter

On February 23, a fire broke out in a highly enriched uranium processing building at the Y-12 nuclear weapons manufacturing facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The fire was contained, all 200 workers evacuated, and reports say there was no spread of radioactive contamination. Built in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, the risk of uranium fires is anticipated as the facility deteriorates and accumulates large stockpiles of unstable and poorly stored uranium. Lest this sound alarming, from 1997 to 2006, at least 22 fires and explosions were recorded at the site, averaging two a year and more than any other facility in the federal nuclear complex — just business as usual. — USA Today, WABI TV, Feb. 22, 2023; report by Robert Alvarez, Oct. 9, 2006

 

The Y-12 Uranium Processing Facility under construction in early-April 2022. Photo credit: https://www.y12.doe.gov/tags/upf?page=12.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • …
  • 67
  • 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