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

September 1, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Point Beach Courts Disaster, Sirens Off

By John LaForge

A change has been made to the “emergency response” protocol at the old Point Beach nuclear reactors on Lake Michigan, south of Green Bay. The operator, NextEra Energy Point Beach, has replaced the site’s disaster warning sirens.

No more will the familiar wail warn of potentially catastrophic radiation releases or spills from the two reactors — which are 51 and 49 years old, respectively, well past their originally licensed maximum of 40 years.

The siren system has been replaced with an “Integrated Public Alert and Warning System” (IPAWS). NextEra says on its website that emergency alerts will be broadcast on public radio and through cell phone alerts, but not sirens.  They assure us: “If you have functional needs or do not own a cell phone, contact your emergency management agency to be registered for notification and assistance.”

That is, the system will send disaster warnings only to radios and cell phones. Are yours always on all night? The lack of sirens to wake sleeping nearby populations assumes that nuclear accidents only happen in daytime.

In fact, the Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, partial meltdown in 1979 started at 4 a.m.; the 1979 Churchrock, New Mexico, uranium mine waste spill broke at 5:30 a.m.; and the 1986 Chernobyl explosions and meltdown began at 1:23 a.m.

“I sure hope everyone has their TV, radio, computer or cell phone on in the middle of the night when the [IPAWS] alarm is sounded,” Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan, a watchdog of Point Beach and the 28 other operating reactors on the Great Lakes, wrote in an email.

Paul Gunter, at Beyond Nuclear in Takoma Park Maryland, specializes in reactor hazards and operations. He wrote in an email, “Removing the audible stationary sirens from within the emergency planning zone will significantly diminish the reactors’ early warning notification system and the radiological defense-in-depth strategy.”

Gunter points to the “bathtub curve” (pictured) depicting failure rates in every technology from toasters to nuclear reactors. “At startup, high rates of failures result from design flaws, mis-assembly and defects. A period of stable operations ensues, but over time, the aging of systems, structures and components leads to material degradation and a steeper rate of failures,” Gunter wrote.

In 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted NextEra’s request to give Point Beach reactors 20-year license extensions, letting it produce radioactive waste for 60 years. Adding more risk to the reactors’ “golden years,” NRC in 2011 approved a 17 percent increase in power output from both units. The approval seems like dear old gramps gunning the engine of his jalopy, racing down main street and running red lights with the whole family involuntarily along for the ride.

Germany’s recent deadly flooding event, which killed at least 210 people, provides a tragic example of how retiring the sirens can be catastrophic. As the Los Angeles Times reported on July 24, 2021,“Residents of flood-stricken German towns say they got inadequate warning of deluge”; sirens in some towns failed when the electricity grid crashed; elsewhere there were no sirens at all. The Associated Press reported July 25 that Germans said warning systems failed and “At least 132 people were killed in the Ahr Valley alone.”

After nuclear waste, emergency and disaster response have always been the bane of nuclear reactors — our only industrial machines required to have evacuation plans before start-up. Taking down warning siren systems only increases the likelihood of catastrophe. It amounts to reckless endangerment. ###

Filed Under: Chernobyl, Environment, Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

August 4, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Rejection of US Hiroshima Myths Long Overdue

By John LaForge, published by PeaceVoice

Hiroshima was “a military base.” The US atomic bombings “ended the war,” and they “prevented an invasion and saved lives.” Our government’s tests of atomic weapons on people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 76 years ago were rationalized using these myths which transformed indiscriminate destruction into a “good thing.” This mythology stands as a roadblock to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The “good bomb” story is still believed by many in the United States because of decades of deliberate myth-making started by President Truman. He announced after Hiroshima, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” Some 140,000 people were killed in Hiroshima, another 70,000 in Nagasaki. Almost all were civilians. The bombs were dropped miles from the nearest military base in both cases.

The incurious can be excused for accepting this cover-story — even though it was publicly rejected at the time by great thinkers and writers including Albert Camus and Dorothy Day — because documents that prove the president and his administration lied were kept secret for decades.

One is the April 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey, led by Dr. Paul Nitze who would later become Navy Secretary and later still a presidential advisor to Ronald Reagan. Nitze’s extensive official government study demolished Truman’s whitewash, concluding, “Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated,” according to The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth by historian Gar Alperovitz.

Likewise, the 1946 report of the Intelligence Group of the War Department’s (now Pentagon’s) Military Intelligence Division — only discovered in 1989 — concluded that atomic bombings had not been needed to end the war. The Intelligence Group “judged that it was ‘almost a certainty that the Japanese would have capitulated upon the entry of Russia into the war,’” according to The Decision.

The judgment of Major General Curtis LeMay made six weeks after Nagasaki was more emphatic. Gen. LeMay headed the 21st Bomber Command and directed the firebombing of Osaka, Tokyo and 58 other Japanese cities. LeMay said Sept. 20, 1945, at a New York press conference reported in The New York Herald Tribune, “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.” A surprised reporter asked, “Had they not surrendered because of the atomic bomb?” and LeMay answered, “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

So for 76 years debate has raged about whether the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethical. Truman’s shrewd deception that mass destruction “saved lives” has long obscured the (previously classified) historical record, as well as the voices of high-level critics who rejected the big lie.

In 1945, Brig. General Bonnie Feller wrote, “Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan’s unconditional surrender.”

President Eisenhower said, “First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s Chief of Staff, said later in life, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

Returning to Paul Nitze, after 43 years in government spent promoting nuclear weapons, he went from the Strategic Bombing Survey’s crushing of Truman’s Hiroshima myth in 1946, to obliterating all the remaining excuses for nuclear weapons in 1999. He wrote in The New York Times:

I see no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get rid of our nuclear weapons. To maintain them … adds nothing to our security. … I can think of no circumstances                           under which it would be wise for the US to use nuclear weapons, even in retaliation for their prior use against us.

Today, the global clamor for abolition is invigorated by the entry-into-force of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. With it, we have a new opportunity to renounce fairytales about the atrocities of August 6 and 9, to eliminate the needless costs of perpetual nuclear threats (“deterrence”), to cease our radioactive terrorism, and to finally scrap our nuclear arsenal. ###

Also published at:

* http://www.peacevoice.info/2021/08/04/rejection-of-us-hiroshima-myths-long-overdue/ * https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/08/06/rejection-of-us-hiroshima-myths-long-overdue/ * https://sierracountyprospect.org/2021/08/04/myths-rejected-8-4-21/ · https://www.laprogressive.com/the-atomic-bomb/ (LA Progressive 8/9/21) * StarDemocrat (Easton MD)-www.stardem.com/opinion/columns/rejection-of-u-s-hiroshima-myths-long-overdue/article_bfa3be15-48d7-586d-8550-516ab86ebd0b.html *https://www.newagebd.net/article/145997/rejection-of-us-hiroshima-myths-long-overdue * https://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/opinion/rejection-of-myths-long-overdue/article_16c92098-f9df-11eb-8f0d-cf4d80bec32b.html * https://www.radiofree.org/2021/08/06/rejection-of-us-hiroshima-myths-long-overdue/* https://spotonflorida.com/southeast-florida/3003632/rejection-of-us-hiroshima-myths-long.html * https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2337046296313/rejection-of-myths-long-overdue * https://twitter.com/Antiwarcom/status/1423835843542716424 *https://spotonmaryland.com/eastern-shore/577998/rejection-of-us-hiroshima-myths-long.html -and-*www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/p1csht/rejection_of_us_hiroshima_myths_long_overdue/

Filed Under: Environment, Nuclear Weapons, War, Weekly Column

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Navajo Nation Calls Out Feds Over Shoddy Uranium Mine Cleanup Plans

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Leona Morgan

“From 1944 to 1986, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo lands,” according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website “Navajo Nation: Cleaning Up Abandoned Uranium Mines.” Some remediation has been done through two five-year cleanup plans, but is severely underfunded, and the sites are never restored to pre-mining conditions.

The EPA frames the cleanup of 524 abandoned uranium mines on Navajo Indian Country as a collaborative effort between the US federal agencies charged with the cleanup — US EPA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Navajo Area Indian Health Service, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry — and the Navajo Nation (Navajo). Over the course of the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed cleanup of the United Nuclear Corporation/General Electric (UNC/GE) Northeast Churchrock uranium mine, it has become glaringly clear that the federal government is not in collaboration or negotiations with Navajo at all, but rather dictating how to proceed.

Navajo EPA Superfund Director Dariel Yazzie and staff have been working to uphold the requests of the Diné Red Water Pond Road Community Association (RWPR) which will be most impacted if the controversial Churchrock cleanup plan is approved. UNC/GE proposes to “cleanup” the uranium mine by placing one million cubic yards of mine waste atop an existing mill waste disposal site, which is the same site as the 1979 Churchrock spill. For over a decade, RWPR has called for moving all radioactive wastes out of the area entirely. RWPR is opposed to the cleanup plan, despite the US EPA threatening that it may take several years before another is proposed.

Recently, Yazzie exposed how the US EPA doesn’t allow the Navajo Nation a seat at the table while making major decisions regarding cleanup, funds, contractors, etc. Yazzie has also slammed the NRC for moving forward a plan that is “incomplete,” as it does not include any of the recommendations from either the RWPR or the Navajo Nation, and is lacking information on design, engineering, and environmental studies and impacts. Yazzie joined the RWPR and countless others who have criticized the NRC for conducting virtual public meetings during the pandemic, while many locals did not have access to internet or phone service and were under lockdown — due to the severity of Covid-19 in Diné communities.

In her May 24, 2021 cover letter responding to the DEIS, Navajo EPA Executive Director Valinda Shirley condemned the US government’s failure in “assuring the stability and integrity” of the initial impoundment dam which breached in 1979, “despite the approved engineering.” Shirley explains, “This failure has drastically contributed to … mistrusting of the NRC, DOE, UNC/GE, EPA and their assurances on any environmental remediation activity.”

The Navajo Nation EPA is not only holding the federal government accountable to clean up the Churchrock area, but is also supporting community demands that the United States be named as the responsible party to fund cleanup of all abandoned uranium mines, and to work with affected communities to clean up to the highest standards.

At the request of Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez, the NRC has extended the DEIS comment period to October 31, 2021. For background info and talking points to send comments:

https://haulno.com/.

The RWPR’s annual event in remembrance of the July 16, 1979 uranium spill was not held last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This year, RWPR will do a private event. For updates: https://swuraniumimpacts.org/.

— Leona Morgan works with the Nuclear Issues Study Group in New Mexico. For background see: “A Second Churchrock Spill in the Making?” in the Winter 2020-2021 Nukewatch Quarterly. 

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

More Leaking from Hanford Rad Waste Tanks

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Kelly Lundeen

In the 1980s, when highly radioactive liquid wastes were found to be leaking from old, corroded underground tanks at the Hanford Reservation in Eastern Washington State, the Department of Energy announced that double-walled tanks were the answer.

Now a second double-shell radioactive waste tank has been found to be leaking at the superfund site, which holds the distinction of being the most radioactively contaminated site in the US. There are additional confirmed leaks in 67 single-shell tanks out of 177. 

One thousand, seven hundred gallons of radioactive waste have leaked into the soil from Tank B-109 since it was first suspected of leaking in March 2019, but the Department of Energy (DOE) waited over a year before launching an investigation. The leaking 123,000-gallon tank is loaded with liquid and solid waste from plutonium production done there from 1946-1976, and there are no plans to stop the leak. 

The Hanford site is responsible for producing two-thirds of the plutonium used for the United States’s cold war nuclear weapons. DOE spokesperson Geoff Tyree assured the public that, “Contamination in this area is not new and mitigation actions have been in place for decades.” 

“The tanks hold half a century’s worth of highly radioactive and poisonous by-products of nuclear weapons production,” and “about a million gallons of liquids has leaked,” the New York Times reported in 1997. If contaminated ground water reaches the Columbia River which borders the Hanford site, radioactive material could enter the food chain, “and could expose people to radiation for centuries,”the Times predicted back then.

At the last five-year review of the decades-long cleanup and waste treatment operations in 2017, the US Environmental Protection Agency Project Manager Dennis Faulk reported, “Contaminated in-area groundwater is still flowing freely into the Columbia” [River]. Ken Niles, retired head of the Oregon Department of Energy’s Hanford program admitted of the cleanup effort, “Its cost overruns and schedule delays are legendary.” Niles went on to say, “Some scenarios show treatment continuing well past the year 2100, and all scenarios show cost estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The citizen’s watchdog group Hanford Challenge paints a sobering picture for those who work around the tanks. “Since March 2014, over 100 workers suffered vapor exposures serious enough to seek medical evaluation,” the group reported in April. 

— State of Washington Department of Ecology, Apr. 29, 2021; Tri-City Herald, Aug. 10, 2020; Hanford Challenge, 2019; “Radioactive Waste Still Flooding Columbia River, EPA Says” Courthouse News, June 8, 2017; “Radiation Leaks at Hanford Threaten River, Experts say,” New York Times, Oct. 11, 1997

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

UN Experts ‘Deeply disappointed’ by Decision to Discharge Fukushima Water

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By the United Nations News

Three independent UN human rights experts expressed deep regret on [April 15] over Japan’s decision to discharge potentially still radioactive Fukushima nuclear plant water into the ocean, warning that it could impact millions across the Pacific region. 

“The release of one million tonnes of contaminated water into the marine environment imposes considerable risks to the full enjoyment of human rights of concerned populations in and beyond the borders of Japan,” said Marcos Orellana, Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment in a joint statement.

Given the warnings from environmentalists and some governments that the discharge would affect many people as well as the environment at large, the experts called the Government’s decision “very concerning.”

It comes after years of discussions with communities including the fishing sector (which was already severely hit by the 2011 disaster), environmental NGOs, neighboring countries, and civil society. “The decision is particularly disappointing as experts believe alternative solutions to the problem are available,” the letter said.

Noting that the water may contain quantities of radioactive carbon-14, as well as other radioactive isotopes, independent experts raised their concerns with the Japanese Government that discharging radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean threatens the health of people and planet. 

Meanwhile, in reply to expert concerns, the Japanese Government has suggested that the treated water stored in the tanks was not contaminated.

However, the experts upheld that the ALPS [Advanced Liquid Processing System] water processing technology had failed to completely remove radioactive concentrations in most of the contaminated water stored in tanks at Fukushima-Daiichi.

“A first application ALPS failed to clean the water below regulatory levels and there are no guarantees that a second treatment will succeed,” they said, adding that the technology did not remove radioactive tritium or carbon-14. 

Isotope concerns

While Japan said that the tritium levels are very low and do not pose a threat to human health, scientists warn that in the water, the isotope organically binds to other molecules, moving up the food chain affecting plants and fish and humans.

Moreover, they say the radioactive hazards of tritium have been underestimated and could pose risks to humans and the environment for over 100 years. 

“We remind Japan of its international obligations to prevent exposure to hazardous substances, to conduct environmental impact assessments of the risks that the discharge of water may have, to prevent transboundary environmental harms, and to protect the marine environment,” the experts concluded.

Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts, who serve in their personal capacities, are not paid for their work. 

— UN News, April 15, 2021

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • …
  • 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