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

March 13, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Recovery a Vexing Radiation Colossus

By John LaForge

Over 19 million tons of radioactively contaminated soil have been collected in 1-ton bags and stacked in thousands of places in Japan, since the triple meltdowns of March 2011. Eleven million tons could be incinerated. KYODO photograph.

On its 8th anniversary, a brief rundown of Fukushima’s triple reactor catastrophe and the failed recovery schemes is in order.*

Fukushima caused the worst dump of radioactivity to the Pacific Ocean in history. “This event is unprecedented in its total release of radioactive contamination into the ocean” wrote Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for PBS News Hour in March 2016. Buesseler has been recording Fukushima’s Pacific Ocean contamination since it started 3/11/11. While Fukushima is often called the “2nd worst” radiation accident behind Chernobyl, Buesseler said, “More than 80% of the radioactivity from the damaged reactors ended up in the Pacific — far more than reached the ocean from Chernobyl.” Buesseler reported this radiation gusher continues. “It is incorrect to say that Fukushima is under control when levels of radioactivity in the ocean indicate ongoing leaks, caused by groundwater flowing through the site and enhanced after storms,” he wrote.

  • The worst airborne radiation spill in 25 years: Like the Chernobyl disaster that spread radiation across the Northern Hemisphere, Forbes reported March 28, 2011 that the US EPA recorded Fukushima’s radioactive iodine-131 in rainwater in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts at levels above the max allowed in drinking water. The EPA’s air monitoring also found Fukushima’s radioactive iodine-131 in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, and Nevada. Nothing close to this immense, hemisphere-wide radiation dispersal had happened since Chernobyl in 1986.
  • Japanese foods were tainted widely. Traces of radioactive cesium were found in popular baby formula according to Japan Today, Dec. 7, 2011. How many hundreds of thousands of babies had eaten it? The Japan Times reported April 22, 2011 that Fukushima’s iodine-131 was detected in the breast milk women living near Tokyo, 150 miles from the meltdowns. The public demanded an investigation into the impact on mothers and babies. In April 2013, Japan’s Ministry of Health reported that cesium-137 and cesium-134 found in produce and rice crackers 225 miles away from Fukushima “are high enough to cause residents to exceed the annual radiation exposure limit in just a few months, or even weeks.”
  • Fukushima is the world’s worst reactor disaster by volume of fuel melted and waste in cooling pools. Major reactor meltdowns at Santa Susanna in California (1959), Windscale in England (1957), Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania (1979), or Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986), involved a single fuel inventory. Fukushima’s meltdowns involve three reactors’ full of melted and mangled fuel rods, and an additional 1,573 uranium fuel rods in damaged condition in damaged pools of cooling water. The three masses of melted fuel may never be recovered much less containerized.
  • Fukushima caused the largest evacuation in the history of nuclear power: 160,000 evacuated from the zone first set at 12, and later expanded to 19 miles. (116,000 were forced to leave Chernobyl’s dead zone.) Two weeks after the start of the meltdowns, people from between 12 to 19 miles away were encouraged to “voluntarily evacuate.” The US government recommended that US citizens stay 50 miles away.
  • Of the colossal volumes of radioactive debris produced by the catastrophe, the New York Times listed these on March 2017: 400 tons of contaminated cooling water produced every day since March 11, 2011; 3,519 containers holding 60,000 tons of radioactive mud or sludge; 64,700 cubic meters of discarded protective clothing; branches and logs from 220 acres of deforested land; 200,400 cubic meters of radioactive rubble; and 3.5 billion gallons [17 million cubic yards] of radioactive soil. According to Greenpeace, 11 million tons of this radioactive soil is to be being incinerated, spreading new airborne contamination. (Will the resultant contaminated soil itself be collected and incinerated.)
  • This most vexing of reactor disasters has seen ever-changing estimates of the amount of radiation released. The amount released to the air was “twice as large as previous estimates by research institutions both in Japan and overseas,” according to a Feb. 2012 report by the Meteorological Research Institute. The volume and variety of radioactive waste is astounding. Greenpeace reported in December 2017 that while heavily contaminated towns like Iitate and Namie had topsoil scraped off from populated areas, the problem remained because the soil removal left “islands … which are surrounded by forested mountains, for which there is no possible decontamination.” Consequently, the cleaned-up areas “are subject to recontamination through weathering processes and the natural water and lifecycle of trees and rivers.” Because of how long cesium-137 persists in the environment, “this will be an on-going source of significant recontamination for … 300 years.”
  • The failed “ice wall” made to divert groundwater away from the reactors’ foundations — smashed and cracked by the earthquake — means that hundreds of tons of water keeps pouring every day into the wreckage of reactor chambers where it is contaminated by contact with the masses of melted uranium fuel, and either rushes out to sea or is collected for filtration in the failed Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS).
  • The notorious failure of the APLS, intended to partially clean up highly contaminated cooling water and groundwater, means that one-million tons of waste water now held in 1,000 giant tanks near the coast is not cleaned up at all, and must be filtered again by an as-yet-unknown method that needs to be designed and engineered from scratch. Meanwhile the tanks are vulnerable to another earth quake that could happen any time. Japan Times reported March 29, 2018, “Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean.”

*Detailed well-documented reports by Greenpeace provide some of the best background and investigative information. See:
* Reflections in Fukushima: The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, Seven Years On,” March 2018 (https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/publication/1657/reflections-in-fukushima-the-fukushima-daiichi-accident-seven-years-on/)
* Nuclear Scars: The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima,” 9 March 2016 (http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/publications/reports/climate-energy/2016/nuclear-scars/)
* Fukushima Fallout: Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer,” 16 February 2013
(https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/20130218-Greenpeace-Report-Fukushima-Fallout.pdf)
* “Lessons from Fukushima,” February 2012 (http://www.greenpeace.org/slovenia/Global/slovenia/Dokumenti/Lessons-from-Fukushima.pdf)

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Nuclear Power, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

February 20, 2019 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Fukushima Still Plagues Pacific Ocean Fishery, Government & Industry See No Evil

At right, Harrison, British Columbia, where some soil and salmon were found to be contaminated with radioactivity from Fukushima last March. Harrison is 4,600 miles from Fukushima.
By John LaForge

The Japanese fishing community and nuclear watchdog groups are raising alarms over government plans to dump into the Pacific over 1-million tons of highly contaminated waste water from three devastated nuclear reactors at Fukushima.

The London Telegraph reported last October that Japan’s “plan to release the approximately 1.09 million tons of water currently stored in 900 tanks … has triggered a fierce backlash from local residents and environmental organizations, as well as groups in South Korea and Taiwan fearful that radioactivity from the second-worst nuclear disaster in history might wash up on their shores.”

Greenpeace issued a report Jan. 22, 2019 condemning the plan, reminding the public that the owners/operators of Fukushima — Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) — admitted in 2018 that its waste water treatment system (the Advanced Liquid Processing System or ALPS) had failed. “Despite the much-vaunted Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) plant at Fukushima, Tepco has confirmed that levels of strontium-90 are more than 100 times above legally permitted levels in 65,000 tons of water that have already been through the ALPS system,” the South China Morning Post reported last January.

Outrage within the fishing community was palpable during a series of public hearings last year which were designed to convince skeptical observers that pouring more radiation in the Pacific is a good idea. The magnitude-9 earthquake, and the tsunami it caused on March 11, 2011, left more than 27,500 people dead or missing in northeast Japan, and triggered the largest release of radioactivity to the ocean in history.

Dumping Radioactive Water Poisons Fish

Since Fukushima’s triple catastrophe — earthquake, tsunami, and radiation plumes — there has been relentless news of seafood contamination. On Feb. 2, 2019, the Japan Times reported that radioactive cesium far above the legal limit was detected in fish caught off Fukushima, according the Fukushima Prefecture’s Fishery Cooperative Association. Skate, a variety of ray, that was caught over 180 feet deep, was found with 161 Becquerels-per-kilogram of radioactive cesium-137, exceeding the allowable limit of 100.

However, since cesium-137 is a reactor-borne element not found in nature, the established 100 Bq/kg limit is arbitrary. None whatsoever should be “permitted” because any internalized cesium-137 can potentially cause health problems. Any cesium that we eat and which is not excreted, adds to previously ingested radioactive materials. Radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the site of three mangled reactors at a rate of around 2 billion Becquerels a day, according to a 2018 Japanese study, the Japan Times reported March 29, 2018.

Cesium-137 has been found in Canadian fish as well. The Haida Gwaii Observer in Queen Charlotte, B.C. reported last March 16, 2018 on a press release issued by Krzysztof Starosta, a chemist at Simon Fraser University’s nuclear science lab. Starosta reported that in his study, cesium-137 “levels found in both the salmon and soil samples remained below Canada’s safety guidelines, posing minimal health risk to B.C.’s salmon and human populations.” The use of the word “minimal” by Starosta is a trivialization of “some” risk, especially when considered in view of the cumulative effect of eating contaminated fish over a lifetime.

Likewise in the United States, in April 2014 the Oregon Statesman Journal reported on a study by Oregon State University that found that Fukushima radiation in albacore tuna caught off the Oregon coast tripled after the 2011 meltdown. “You can’t say there is absolutely zero risk because any radiation is assumed to carry at least some small risk,” said lead author, Delvan Neville, in OSU’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics. In October of 2012, Albacore tuna caught off Washington and Oregon and Blue fin tuna off of California were also found contaminated with Fukushima cesium.

Since 2016, TEPCO has repeatedly claimed — and news reports repeatedly noted — that its “advanced [ALPS] processes had reduced the cancer-causing radioactive contaminants” such as strontium-90, iodine-129 and ruthenium-106 in the water “to non-detectible levels.” Then, last October, the Telegraph noted, “[T]he ALPS has consistently failed to eliminate a cocktail of other radioactive elements, including iodine, ruthenium, rhodium, antimony, tellurium, cobalt and strontium.” According to the Telegraph, “Iodine 129 has a half-life of 15.7 million years and can cause cancer of the thyroid; ruthenium 106 is produced by nuclear fission and high doses can be toxic and carcinogenic when ingested.”

“In late September [2018], Tepco was forced to admit that around 80% of the water stored at the Fukushima site still contains radioactive substances above legal levels…” the Telegraph said.

TEPCO has admitted for example that in several of the storage tanks, levels of deadly, long-lived strontium-90 are 20,000 times the allowable limit levels set by the government. Pouring this carcinogenic brew into the sea is reckless endangerment of the commons. There ought to be a law.

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Nuclear Power, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Woolsey Fire Started at Toxic Santa Susana Lab

Distrust of Agencies Spur Independent Study of Contamination from Site

By Physicians for Social Responsibility-LA, & Parents vs. SSFL
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

The Woolsey Fire began on November 8 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)—a heavily contaminated experimental reactor and rocket testing facility 30 miles from Los Angeles—and burned much of the site. Government assurances that the fire did not risk increased exposures to SSFL contamination have been met with distrust and skepticism, in part because the very entities claiming there was no toxic risk from the SSFL fire are the ones responsible for contaminating it in the first place and violating commitments to clean it up.

In the face of broad public rejection of official reassurances by the troubled state toxics agency,  community members near the SSFL will participate in an independent study of potential migration of contamination from the site following the Woolsey Fire. Fairewinds Energy Education, a non-profit organization founded by former nuclear industry scientists, will conduct the study of dust and soil samples collected from homes in the area and sent to an East Coast laboratory for analysis.

Government agency reassurances lack credibility in large measure because: Within hours of the fire, with no data whatsoever, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a statement claiming there were no releases of radioactive or toxic materials.

DTSC claimed in a Nov. 9 statement that no contaminated areas of SSFL had burned. Subsequent satellite photos demonstrated that a large portion of the site did burn, much of it contaminated. DTSC then tried to walk back its initial false claims. Similarly, the US Department of Energy (DOE) initially claimed the fire hadn’t touched any of Area IV inside SSFL. When satellite photos also disproved this assertion, DOE retracted it.

Days after the fire at SSFL stopped, DTSC said it and others took measurements. But the primary concern was release of contamination in the smoke during the fire.

DTSC reported that its measurements, taken days after the fire, found no contamination even at SSFL. However, DTSC has for decades acknowledged the site is heavily contaminated, which is why extensive cleanup has been required in formal agreements between DTSC and the polluters. The US Environmental Protection Agency conducted a $40 million, multi-year study which found 500 locations at SSFL with elevated radioactivity.

Claims by DTSC that its post-fire measurements could find no contamination at SSFL even though extensive corporate pollution at the site is undisputed, suggests: (1) agency measurements are so insensitive the agency cannot detect contamination that is there; (2) DTSC is inflating background values to make additional contamination appear not to exist; and (3) it is lying about its actual results. If the measurements were somehow correct, and there is no longer any contamination at SSFL after the fire, it would mean the fire drove off existing contamination from the SSFL site and into the outlying communities. The agency’s claims of being unable to detect any contamination, even at the polluted SSFL sites, raise serious questions about the validity of DTSC’s statements.

The DTSC has failed to explain how a fire can burn hundreds of acres of contaminated vegetation growing in contaminated soil and not release some of those contaminants. It is a scientific impossibility. Community members and elected officials have repeatedly asked DTSC to disclose all data and methodology to back up its implausible assurances, but four weeks after the fire no data whatsoever have been released.

“DTSC says at some point it will release a summary of its conclusions, suggesting it is taking weeks to ‘massage’ the data,” said Denise Duffield, associate director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles. At a Nov. 15 press conference, Governor Brown said he too was “very skeptical” of assurances by his own agencies that there were no toxic releases from the fire at SSFL.

In the absence of credible, trustworthy government assessments of the risk of radioactive releases during the fire, the Fairewinds study will rely on “citizen scientists” and volunteers to carefully collect samples of dust or soil from area homes and property. Samples will be analyzed by the Fairewinds team, which released a detailed sampling protocol for the project. PSR-LA and Parents vs. SSFL have assembled a team of trained staff and volunteers to assist with sample collection. “I’m excited to be a part of this project and serve my community,” said Jeni Knack, a Simi Valley resident with prior training in sampling who will help lead field operations. “We’ve already received over 150 requests for sampling assistance from residents.”

Health advocates are grateful for the study, though they acknowledge its limitations. It occurs after the fire is over, when a primary risk was inhalation of radioactivity carried in the smoke while SSFL burned. The study will focus solely on radioactive materials, not the hundreds of toxic chemicals that have contaminated SSFL’s soil and vegetation. Further, it may not be possible to identify whether radioactive particles migrated before or after the fire. “We understand the study won’t address all concerns,” said Duffield. “Contamination from SSFL has been migrating off site for years, and now the Woolsey Fire may have caused even more migration.”

Melissa Bumstead, a West Hills resident whose young daughter has twice survived a rare leukemia she blames on SSFL, agrees. “Given what our family and our community have been through, it’s horrible that we even have to worry about potentially radioactive smoke and ash by the Woolsey Fire,” Bumstead said. Bumstead has mapped over 50 rare pediatric cancers in the area, and launched a Change.org petition for cleanup that at press time had been signed by over 531,000 people. “I don’t trust DTSC at all. They’re responsible for cleaning up the site’s contamination but they continue to benefit SSFL’s site-owner, Boeing, instead of the community.”

Community members and health advocates say that their focus now is ensuring that SSFL is finally and fully cleaned up. “Our greatest frustration is that if DTSC had kept its word, the site would be cleaned up by now and we wouldn’t have new worries related to the fire,” Duffield said. In 2010, DTSC signed agreements with the Department of Energy and NASA that committed them to clean up all detectable contamination in their operational areas by 2017. DTSC also in 2010 committed to require Boeing Corporation, which owns most of the site, to cleanup to comparable standards.

But the cleanup has not yet begun, and DTSC is currently considering proposals that could even leave all of SSFL’s contamination permanently on site. Boeing mounted a formidable greenwashing campaign against a full cleanup, and DTSC issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) last year indicating that much of the contamination would not be removed. Community members worry that if the DEIR is finalized, their hopes for the full, mandated cleanup will be dashed.

“We’re asking governor-elect Newsom to step in now,” Bumstead said, “We need him to direct DTSC to honor its cleanup commitments and radically reform that agency. They’ve failed us and other communities across California. We’re thankful to Fairewinds for getting involved and helping us make decisions based on trustworthy data.”

Residents interested in participating in the study can go to http://bit.ly/SSFLstudy to sign up. To sign the petition to get Santa Susana cleaned up click here.

—Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles has worked for the cleanup of SSFL for over 30 years, and Parents vs. SSFL is a grassroots group demanding full compliance with SSFL cleanup agreements as required by law.

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

White House Says Radiation Good for You

By John LaForge
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

“Bowing to the nuclear industry, the Trump administration appears to be relying on fringe researchers who reject mainstream science to roll back radiation safety laws,” the Natural Resources Defense Council Reports. “Despite substantial evidence that any level of ionizing radiation poses a cancer risk, the US Environmental Protection Agency is currently pursuing a little-noticed change that could lead to weaker protections for workers at nuclear plants, medical technicians conducting X-rays, and those living near Superfund sites contaminated by radioactive material,” the NRDC said Oct. 2, 2018.

The EPA’s “new proposal pulls from scientific outliers friendly to the nuclear industry who claim low-level exposure to this and other toxins could actually benefit the body. One problem: The National Academies of Science (NAS) and the EPA’s own scientists have studied this idea [known as ”hormesis”] and summarily dismissed it as bunk,” the group noted.

The NRDC was referring to NAS’s 7th edition of “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation” (BEIR-VII), where it emphatically rejected “hormesis” as it has done many times. The NAS concluded that any radiation exposure, no matter how slight, carries a risk of causing cancer or other illnesses. The EPA itself has said for years on its website, “Based on current scientific evidence, any exposure to radiation can be harmful (or can increase the risk of cancer) … In other words, it is assumed that no radiation exposure is completely risk free.”

Dr. Peter Crane, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission attorney told the New York Times in September 29, 2015, “[The NAS], along with the rest of mainstream scientific authority, regard hormesis as wholly without merit.”

The Associated Press noted last Oct. 2, “Critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure … any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.”

The motive behind the EPA’s proposal was made clear by Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the Univ. of Massachusetts, who said in 2016, “This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save [industry] billions and billions and billions of dollars.” Ed Lyman, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Courthouse News “the vast majority of scientific work” finds there is no acceptable level for radiation exposure. And if the administration uses the work of Calabrese it would be an example of choosing the outlier instead of what’s generally accepted.

There is no specific date for adoption of the new rule.

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Melting Glaciers Releasing Bomb Test Radiation

Glaciers on Russia’s northern Novaya Zemlya island are releasing radioactive materials dispersed by nuclear weapons tests during the ’50s and ’60s.
By Kelly Lundeen
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

In a new twist on global warming, glaciers containing radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing are melting and releasing the radioactivity into the seas. This fall Russian researchers aboard the Akademik Keldysh set out to Novaya Zemlya, the largest Russian Arctic archipelago in the far north, where the rapidly-melting glaciers have been found to be radioactive.

Novaya Zemlya is shrouded in secrecy and closed off to almost everyone but the armed forces. It is the site of the 58-megaton H-bomb test code-named “Tsar bomb” on October 30, 1961—the largest nuclear explosion ever detonated on Earth, one of 86 nuclear weapons tests on the island from 1957 to 1962.

In the Kara Sea off the northern coast of Russia and east of Novaya Zemlya is a radioactive waste dumping area where 16 Russian nuclear reactors (six of them still containing the high-level radioactive waste fuel), 17,000 containers of rad’ waste, and 17 entire ships and barges loaded with rad’ waste were sunk clandestinely by the Soviet Union between 1960 and 1990.

This radioactive dumping ground was the primary object of the research team on the Akademik Keldysh. The team’s preliminary studies concluded that the containers are not leaking yet. However, one glacier on Novaya Zemlya near the weapons test site was found to hold large “concentrations of radioactivity,” according to deputy director of the Institute of Oceanology, Mikhail Flint. The researcher refused to divulge the exact amount and acknowledged only that in “parts of the moving glacier there were found doses that twice exceeded that baseline level on Novaya Zemlya.”

At the time of the above-ground weapons testing, the predominant wind direction was to the north, dispersing radioactive fallout across the glacial ice of the island—ice that is now melting “at record speeds” according to researchers.

Glacier’s retreat: These images compare the terminus of one glacier from the red arrow to the yellow arrow off Novaya Zemlya. Source: American Geophysical Union.

The expedition also noted the terminus of one glacier had retreated 1.2 miles from its previous location only four years ago when they measured it in 2014.

In 2016, a Polish study warned of the high possibility of the release of radioactivity stored in Arctic glaciers due to increased melting. Later that year, Russian oceanographers found that traces of radionuclides from the Novaya Zemlya bomb tests had reached the Arctic Ocean, which is north of the Kara and Barents Seas.

—TASS, Oct. 8, 2018; Barents Observer, Oct. 9 and March 15, 2018; The Arctic, Nov 14, 2016; ScienceDirect.org, Oct. 2016

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • …
  • 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