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 21, 2022 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Sen. Markey: ‘It’s possible they don’t know what they’re doing’

Company Plans to Dump Radioactive Water from Pilgrim Reactor Into Cape Cod Bay

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2022
By Linda Pentz Gunter

At the conclusion of a close to four-hour public “field hearing” held in the community of Plymouth, Massachusetts on May 6, 2022, Senator Ed Markey, D-MA, pulled no punches.

The Senate hearing invited a number of witnesses to testify on “Issues Facing Communities with Decommissioning Nuclear Plants,” with this session specifically focused on the nearby Pilgrim nuclear reactor, which closed in 2019.

As part of the decommissioning process, Holtec International, the company that purchased the Pilgrim nuclear reactor from previous owner, Entergy, is preparing to dump a million gallons of radioactive water from the site into Cape Cod Bay as part of its decommissioning activities.

As the hearing drew to a close, Markey questioned Holtec’s competency and the leniency of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal regulator ostensibly tasked with protecting public health and safety.

“It’s possible these problems may be more a reflection of its inexperience, and not arrogance,” Markey said of Holtec. “That they don’t know what they are doing.”

A proposed NRC rule-making is in the works that would “update” (read “weaken”) federal decommissioning regulations for the nuclear industry.

“The commission’s proposed decommissioning rule shows it to be a captive agency,” said Markey, one that “shows no interest in engaging the public, which would provide even a semblance of accountability.”

Referring to the NRC’s failure to stop Holtec from looting its own taxpayer-funded decommissioning funds for company profit, Markey added that “without a stronger regulator, I fear that the only thing that will be emptier than the decommissioning trust fund will be the public’s trust in our government.”

Markey serves on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and is chair of its Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety.

John Lubinski, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and Holtec International founder, president and CEO Kris Singh, were the key witnesses in Markey’s crosshairs at the hearing.

U.S. Representative Bill Keating, a Massachusetts Democrat whose district includes Plymouth where the Pilgrim reactor is located, joined Senator Markey in questioning the witness panel.

With the license now transferred from Entergy to Holtec, the New Jersey-based company has begun to decommission Pilgrim, dismantling and disposing of the reactor hulk and “cleaning up” the radioactive site.

The decommissioning work includes draining the “spent fuel” pool that sits atop the reactor building and that is presently filled with a million gallons of radioactive water. The water was used to cool and shield hundreds of tons of extremely hot high-level [radioactive] waste (the used irradiated fuel) for the past fifty years.

Any decision-making about the fate of a decommissioned reactor such as Pilgrim, said Markey, should include the meaningful participation of all impacted communities. Instead, he saw decision-making being left solely in the hands of Holtec, the apparent preference of the NRC and its current regulations, together with the agency’s decidedly “hands-off” oversight.

Pilgrim Reactor
Alternatives to ocean dumping

Both Lubinski and Singh agreed during the hearing that there were alternative ways of dealing with the radioactive water that did not involve directly dumping it into Cape Cod Bay. These would include evaporating the contaminated water into the atmosphere or shipping it off-site by truck or rail to another community.

But these “solutions” are of course far from such, and involve transport risks and environmental justice issues as well.

Currently, one of the two sites being considered to take all of the country’s high-level nuclear waste indefinitely — at what are misleadingly termed Consolidated Interim Storage Sites [emphasis added] — is in New Mexico and owned by, yes, Holtec.

That is indeed where Holtec would like to send the high-level radioactive waste transferred from Pilgrim into its on-site casks. But the liquid waste water left in the fuel pool is what the company wants to dump into the Bay.

That’s because it’s clearly the fastest, cheapest, and easiest method. Indeed, Singh bragged about the rapidity of Holtec’s decommissioning activities at Pilgrim, as if speed f

Pilgrim Reactor Evacuation Map

ills one with confidence. Quite the reverse.

The risks around this greed for speed were already flagged by Union of Concerned Scientists physicist Ed Lyman, who told NBC Boston in January, “The danger, of course, is that in their attempt to reduce the costs and timeline for decommissioning, that they will cut corners in a way that might jeopardize public health and safety.”

When questions arose during the May 6 hearing about the safety of Holtec’s onsite radioactive waste storage casks, Singh said they were not only impermeable to missile attack or a crashing airplane but that one could later “have a barbecue” on top of a cask — a strange choice given the images of fire and nuclear waste do not make happy company.

Naturally, the Cape Cod fishermen and lobster- men’s associations, along with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office and area resident organizations, are vehemently opposed to the radioactive water dumping given the impact it could have on their livelihoods.

Bivalves — especially, oysters, clams and mussels — serve as filters for radioactive isotopes and bioaccumulate radiation.

Two bills that would endeavor to block Holtec’s plan to dump the radioactive water are making their way through the Massachusetts House and Senate.

However, according to reporting by Cape and Islands, it is not clear that a state ban would be sufficient and the radioactive water dump might still go ahead. “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said repeatedly that Holtec is allowed to do so, within federal limits, and needs no further permits,” the publication reported.

— Linda Pentz Gunter is the editor and curator of BeyondNuclearInternational.org and the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear.

–CounterPunch, May 11, 2022

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

June 21, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

New Study: Cancer Epidemic is Result of Internal Fallout Radiation, Grossly Miscalculated

Peer-reviewed report reveals massive errors in radiation protection law and likely cause of global cancer epidemic.

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2022

By the Low Level Radiation Campaign

Fig. 2. Standardised Mortality Ratios for all cancers in three LSS exposure groups, low, medium and high, compared with unexposed Okayama Prefecture [48,49]. Persons age 0–34 at the time of the bomb. Cancer deaths from 1971–1990. (N = 1437 cancer deaths; p-values all <0.0001).

 

A new report by British radiation scientist Christopher Busby shows that current radiation exposure limits are based on a risk model that is totally unsafe when applied to internal irradiation. For the purposes of setting radiation exposure limits for common radioactive materials released to the environment, today’s model is deadly, the study says, and was dishonestly assembled back in the 1950s.

The new paper, “Ionizing radiation and cancer: The failure of the risk model,” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Treatment and Research Communications.[1] In the paper Dr. Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, presents comprehensive evidence that today’s radiation protection standards are grossly inadequate, particularly regarding internal radioactive materials that are ingested or inhaled.

The new study also illuminates the way in which the U.S.-influenced international radiation effects model was constructed between 1956 and 1977. The model still used by regulatory agencies today artificially minimized internal radioactivity across the whole human body in such a way that it could be argued that the radiation’s health effects were vanishingly small. In reality, radiation effects at the DNA level and inside the cell (where cancer starts) are thousands of times higher than the official model says. Likewise, the incidence of cancers caused by radiation exposures is also thousands of times greater than the failed risk model predicts.

The official risk model, which wrongfully minimizes radiation’s harmfulness, enabled the development of nuclear weapons, nuclear power reactors, and “depleted uranium” weapons. Today’s “Linear No Threshold absorbed dose” model was assembled before the discovery of DNA as the target for radiation health effects, yet has not been essentially altered since then, in spite of scientific evidence which strictly falsifies it. Consequently, atmospheric nuclear weapons tests have resulted in the global cancer epidemic and caused more than 100 million deaths among those exposed, the paper explains.

“I have worked for more than 30 years on this issue, and I have been attacked on the internet. My Wikipedia entries are constantly changed by trolls in an invisible war against the idea that internal radiation is very dangerous. I have stuck to the issue and refused to back off, because it is critical for life on the planet,” Busby said. A previous journal article by Busby shows that the Japanese lifespan study of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was dishonestly manipulated to minimize radiation’s health effects.[2]

Dr. Busby, who was previously Visiting Professor at the University of Ulster, together with Professors Alexey Yablokov, Alice Stewart, Inge Shmitz-Feuerhake, Rosalie Bertell, and Molly Scott Cato, set up the independent European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) in Brussels in 1998. The ECRR risk model was published in 2003 and 2010, and a new version is due this year.

— The Low Level Radiation Campaign is a research and lobby group in England promoting a scientific understanding of radiation risk.

– Science Direct, Volume 31, 2022

[1] Christopher Busby, “Ionizing Radiation and Cancer — The failure of the Risk Model,” Cancer Treatment and Research Communications, Vol. 31, April 21, 2022
[2] Christopher Busby, “The Hiroshima A-Bomb Black Rain and the Lifespan Study — Resolution of the Enigma,” Cancer Investigation, Vol. 39, Issue 10, Sep. 16, 2021.

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

June 21, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Zero-Emission Canada Possible

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2022
By John LaForge
David Suzuki Foundation Study

Canada can achieve 100% carbon-emission-free electricity production by 2035 by urgently promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency, smarter transmission, and by avoiding the cost, pollution, and delays of nuclear power, fossil gas, carbon capture, and carbon offsets. So says the David Suzuki Foundation in a new study. The report details an overhaul of Canada’s electricity sector and identifies vast potential to expand wind and solar capacity, sources cited by the International Energy Agency as “the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in history.” Energy transition pioneer Amory Lovins told the Guardian, “far better to deploy fast, inexpensive, and sure technologies like wind or solar than one that is slow to build, speculative, and very costly. Anything else makes climate change worse than it needs to be.”

— The Energy Mix online, May 27, 2020; the Guardian, Mar 26, 2022

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

June 21, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

U.S./German Radioactive Waste Importation on Hold

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2022
By Bob Mayberry

The U.S. and Germany have agreed to export highly radioactive waste fuel from the Jülich Research Center in Germany to the U.S. Energy Department’s Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina. Critics note that the transfer would appear to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has been put on hold.

According to the watchdog group SRS Watch, the Jülicher Nuclear Waste Management Company (JEN), located near the German-Dutch border, has large quantities of radioactive graphite pebbles that fueled Germany’s now defunct gas-cooled reactors. SRS originally agreed to import and process, and ultimately dump the German waste fuel at the SRS — and perhaps elsewhere in the U.S. However, objections raised by SRS Watch, and by German colleagues opposed to the export, resulted in new agreements between the SRS and JEN to commercialize the processing of irradiated graphite fuel, which includes both low- and highly enriched uranium.

H-Canyon reprocessing plant at SRS, July 30, 2015, ©High Flyer

These agreements also stand in violation of the nuclear weapons non-proliferation policies under the 1970 NPT, which requires the production of risk assessments before any processing of waste fuel. Tom Clements, a director of SRS Watch who first brought the secret deal to light, reports that any shipping of Germany’s waste reactor fuel would also be illegal under German law.

The DOE has refused to prepare such assessments, claiming that the graphite fuel poses no weapons proliferation risk.

According to Reuters, Germany agreed in 2014 to pay $10 million to the U.S. to outsource the waste fuel to SRS. But former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley threatened to fine the DOE up to $100 million a year for the delay in cleaning up the site’s colossal Cold War radioactive waste problems.

Consequently, the U.S.-German agreement has been delayed, and the parties have shifted their focus to commercializing the processing of the waste. However, techniques for removing highly enriched uranium from this aged and highly radioactive “pebble bed” experimental fuel have still not been developed.

–  SRS Watch, April 11, 2022;  Newswires, 21 February 2020; Reuters, 28 July 2014

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

June 21, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

U.S. Renewable Energy Output Surges Ahead of Nuclear

Nuclear-Free Future, photocredit: Sierra Club
Nukewatch Quarterly 
Summer 2022
By Lindsay Potter

In 2021 domestic renewable energy — wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and geothermal — outproduced nuclear power for the second year running, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) found. Clean sources were responsible for 795 million megawatt-hours (MWh), 21% of energy production, while nuclear totaled 778 million MWh, or 20%. Solar Industry Mag reported April 26, 2022, that wind, the largest producer of renewable energy in the U.S., increased outputs by 12% in 2021 (14% in 2020), and utility-scale solar produced 28% more in 2021 (26% in 2020). The EIA predicts an additional 10% hike in renewable production for 2022. Globally, hydro-electric together with solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal produce more than twice as much energy (24.2%) as nuclear (10.3%), according to world-nuclear.org.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 (WNISR) found that nuclear power production fell by more than 100 terawatt-hours (TWh), the greatest drop aside from the standstill following the Fukushima disaster. Although hydro-electric steadily outproduced nuclear over the last 30 years, other renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass have now globally surpassed nuclear. Proof possible: for the first time this year, hydro, wind, and solar together generated more than all fossil fuels in the European Union — though France still relies on nuclear for 71% of its energy.

Competitive clean energy casts shade on the need for nuclear, as the industry flounders to innovate expedient and economic technology. Given the minimum of 10-15 years needed to bring new Small Modular Reactors online, trials in Argentina, China, and Russia have been unimpressive. Furthermore, WNISR announced “net capacity addition” fell for nuclear to 0.4 gigawatts (GW) and rose by more than 250 GW in the renewable sector last year, leading the report to conclude “nuclear is irrelevant in today’s electricity capacity newbuild market.” The WNISR also cites cost, health effects, climate change effects, the global impact of COVID-19, and “bribery, corruption, and counterfeiting” in the nuclear industry as additional evidence that nuclear power is dying.

By 2050, the EIA predicts that wind and solar technologies will become as affordable as natural gas, as nuclear and coal continue to fall out of use. To make way for clean energy Congress must severe ties with dying industries, promote carbon fees and sunset credits, shut down pipelines and drilling leases, and halt initiatives to develop new poisoned nuclear theories or bailouts that keep dangerous reactors running past their licensed closure dates.

Solar Industry Mag, Apr 26, 2022; World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021; Deutsche Welle, Sept 28, 2021; EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2022

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • …
  • 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