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

May 10, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Husky Energy Needs a Push

In “A Risk Too Great: Hydrofluoric Acid in US Refineries,” the United Steelworkers (USW) union presents information that all Superior, Wis. and Duluth, Minn. residents should read. The 23-page review explains what’s so deadly and dangerous about Husky Energy’s continued use of “HF” at its Superior refinery — which erupted with explosions and an uncontrollable fire April 26 —  and why it should be banned.

HF is a ferocious contact poison capable of causing blindness, cardiac arrest and agonizing deaths. It burns through soft tissues such as skin, eyes, lungs and the GI tract, and seeks the bones. HF even interferes with nerve function so that symptoms of exposure may not be immediate, and HF burns may not initially be painful. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) has found that “in a worst-case scenario, the amount used at the Superior refinery could seriously injure or kill up to 180,000 people in the Twin Ports area if the tank holding the hydrogen fluoride were compromised,” the Minneapolis StarTribune reported.

Husky’s refinery reportedly held about 15,000 pounds of the toxic material at the time of the fire. As the USW’s 2013 report makes clear, there are now “processes that are much safer than either sulfuric acid or HF.” Local mayors have seen the light.

Mayor Jim Paine of Superior wrote May 1st that he “asked them [Husky Energy] to discontinue” all use of hydrofluoric acid “and to report back to me on any … challenges that might prevent them from doing so.” And Duluth Mayor Emily Larson wrote in a news release that she joined in Paine’s demand and wanted to strengthen it. “Choosing the known risks of hydrogen fluoride is not … being a good corporate partner. It elevates danger to our environment and our people,” Larson wrote.

The combination of the hair-raising April 26 explosions and fires, the CPI study, this USW report, and enough public pressure, can bring further use of HF by Husky to an end. The community only needs to prod the mayors to overcome roadblocks and delays designed to dilute this common sense demand and to push aside distracting or obstructionist tactics of Governor Walker and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce who will say corporate tax breaks aren’t for safety improvements.

As the Steelworkers remind us, “In April 2011, Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso, Chairperson of US Chemical Safety Board said, ‘Serious incidents at refineries continue to occur with alarming frequency.’ ” (April 26 was the anniversary of Chernobyl.) “The trail of US refinery disasters and non-compliance with regulations is a potent reminder of the potential for catastrophe,” the USW report says. A few US refinery accidents with hydrofluoric acid give fair warning:

  • On March 5, 2012, at the CITGO refinery in Corpus Christi, TX an HF leak of between 300 and 500 pounds took place from a flange with a history of leaks. The line had been temporarily repaired with clamps on several occasions while CITGO continued running.
  • In Ohio, on Feb. 28, 2017 Marathon Canton caused a refinery leak of what the company estimated to be 145 pounds of HF.
  • Also at CITGO Corpus Christi, a July 19, 2009 explosion and fire burned for two days. About 42,000 pounds of HF was released and a sprinkler system failed to “knock down” the HF vapors. An estimated 4,200 pounds of HF traveled beyond the property line, and pure luck — like with the Superior explosions and fires — saw wind push the plume toward an unpopulated area.
  • At Sunoco Co. in Philadelphia March 11, 2009, a release of HF sent 13 workers to hospitals because of exposure to a 22-pound release of HF.
  • On April 8, 2004, at Giant Industries Refinery in Jamestown, NM, flammable gasoline components caught fire near the HF unit injuring six employees, four with burns requiring hospitalization.
  • On October 30, 1987 the Marathon Corp. in Texas City, TX caused the worst and scariest refinery release of HF vapors in US history. Fifty-square blocks were evacuated and over 900 people received hospital treatment for injuries. As in Superior, wind direction kept the incident from being even worse.

After the 2005 BP Texas City Refinery disaster, the Steelworkers published “Beyond Texas City: The State of Process Safety In The Unionized US Oil Refining Industry.” This report looked at conditions at 51 unionized refineries and found that highly hazardous conditions were pervasive. “The study concluded that the refining industry is ripe for future disasters,” the 2013 USW report says.

This USW study also warns: “The potential impact of a large-scale HF release in a heavily populated area is so great that it may be impossible for any refiner or community to be fully prepared. Even highly effective systems sometimes fail. It would take multiple failures to trigger a major release, but the lesson of catastrophic accidents from Bhopal to the Deepwater Horizon [to Fukushima] is that multiple failures can occur.”

Alternatives like solid acid catalyst systems and an ionic liquid process both eliminate the use of either HF or sulfuric acid. “Substitution of a less dangerous chemical for a highly toxic one is … promoted by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and its Center for Chemical Process Safety,” the USW says.

These alternatives “are produced without the dangers to workers, communities and the environment posed by current processes.” It seems gang at Husky Energy only needs to be pushed hard enough by us. –John LaForge

Filed Under: Environment, Weekly Column

May 4, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Russian Sea Monsters: Rudderless Reactors on the High Seas

The Akademik Lomonosov, a barge containing two nuclear reactors, leaves St Petersburg. Anton Vaganov/TASS (Photo by Anton VaganovTASS via Getty Images)

Did you hear the one about the Exxon Valdez, Fuku-Chernobyl, Gulf Oil Titanic?  Yeah: Russia floated two nuclear reactors on a barge to power oil rigs in the Arctic Ocean and nothing went wrong!

Unsatisfied with trouncing Japan at the Winter Olympics, 14 gold medals to four, Moscow wants to topple Tokyo as Oceanic Polluter No. 1. As it stands, Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi triple reactor catastrophe which began March 11, 2011 “has caused by far the largest discharge of radioactivity into the ocean ever seen,” as the journal Nature reported Nov. 14, 2012.

To top this, the geniuses in Russia plan to drag a teetering ocean barge, carrying two nuclear reactors full of hot, fissioning not-yet-melted fuel, around the Arctic Ocean looking for icebergs, shoals or oil tankers to crash into. What better way to smoke Japan’s inglorious world record? And, instead of going to all the trouble of pouring cooling water over three smoldering melted reactor cores and watching the contamination run to sea for seven years (and counting) as in Fukushima, Russia’s sea monster can go down in a whole gale like the Edmund Fitzgerald, putting all the cesium, plutonium, strontium and the rest directly into the Arctic without all the fuss.

The April 28 launch of the barge Akademik Lomonosov presents such an outrageous risk to sea life and seacoasts that even Newsweek said of it on April 30th, “Russia’s ‘Nuclear Titanic’ Raising Fears of ‘Chernobyl On Ice.’” Having hoisted this petard from St. Petersburg April 28 en route to Murmansk, the plan is to have real eco-terrorists there load the two reactors with uranium fuel and set it to test at fissioning. Then the 12-story building is to be towed so far east — 3,000 miles to Pevek — that Sarah Palin might be able to see it.

No wonder the biggest insurance companies on Earth refuse to sell accident coverage to reactor operators. Lovers of nuclear power hate this social problem like the plague since it gives their science a bad name and makes their “clean and safe” sales pitch look like snake oil. The same pro-nuclear “small government” and “free market” enthusiasts pretend it isn’t big corporate welfare for the federal Price-Anderson Act to cover reactor disaster claims above $12.6 billion with tax-payer-funded liability insurance. (Utilities would never “risk the farm” by running their reactors without the handout; they’d sooner shut them all down. Owners and stock holders rest easy saying, “The tax-paying rubes have us covered — and they don’t even know it.”)

It will cost Japan over $300 billion in compensation to evacuees and the injured of Fukushima, and a couple of hundred billion more to sweep the cesium, plutonium, strontium, tritium and the rest under a rug, into the Pacific Ocean — or to build roads with it. Our very own General Electric Corp. brought those good Fuku’ reactors to life and it’s managed to avoid liability (by getting Congress to put the taxpayers on the hook for accidents), even after the Great East Japan Earthquake rattled then blew apart three large reactors in the worst radiation disaster in history. (We’ve got 23 identical models in the US.) The 1986 Chernobyl reactor disaster will have cost the world $9 trillion by 2015, according to Natalia Mironova, a thermodynamic engineer in Russia.

Undersea earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricane winds and rogue waves are natural disasters known to be both extremely dangerous and inevitable. Daring to place hot bobbing vulnerable nuclear reactors directly into a public commons like the Arctic Ocean in the face of such enormous risks is not just tempting fate. It is saying, ‘We don’t care about permanent atomic violence if it happens to plants, animals and the seafood web — even if we need the food and the water.’

It’s another atomic industry embarrassment that only nuclear power reactors — alone among all the dangerous, large-scale industrial enterprises on Earth — are legally required to have evacuation plans approved before going online. But how to evacuate the sea?

Also published in Counterpunch.org on May 4, 2018.

Filed Under: Environment, Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

April 26, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Chernobyl Anniversary Begs Comparisons to Fukushima

Photo: The cement tomb built in 1986 over the destroyed Chernobyl reactor No. 4 in Ukraine needed replacement by 1996. It finally got re-covered in 2016. Similar abandonment has been recommended for three wrecked General Electric reactors in Fukushima, Japan.

The radiation dispersed into the environment by the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan has exceeded that of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, so we may stop calling it the “second worst” nuclear power disaster in history. Total atmospheric releases from Fukushima are estimated to be between 5.6 and 8.1 times that of Chernobyl, according to the 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Professor Komei Hosokawa, who wrote the report’s Fukushima section, told London’s Channel 4 News then, “Almost every day new things happen, and there is no sign that they will control the situation in the next few months or years.”

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated that about 900 peta-becquerels have spewed from Fukushima, and the updated 2016 TORCH Report estimates that Chernobyl dispersed 110 peta-becquerels.[1] (A Becquerel is one atomic disintegration per second. The “peta-becquerel” is a quadrillion, or a thousand trillion Becquerels.)

Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4 in Ukraine suffered several explosions, blew apart and burned for 40 days, sending clouds of radioactive materials high into the atmosphere, and spreading fallout across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere — depositing cesium-137 in Minnesota’s milk.[2]

The likelihood of similar or worse reactor disasters was estimated by James Asselstine of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), who testified to Congress in 1986: “We can expect to see a core meltdown accident within the next 20 years, and it … could result in off-site releases of radiation … as large as or larger than the releases … at Chernobyl.[3] Fukushima-Daiichi came 25 years later.

Contamination of soil, vegetation and water is so widespread in Japan that evacuating all the at-risk populations could collapse the economy, much as Chernobyl did to the former Soviet Union. For this reason, the Japanese government standard for decontaminating soil there is far less stringent than the standard used in Ukraine after Chernobyl.

Fukushima’s Cesium-137 Release Tops Chernobyl’s

The Korea Atomic Energy Research (KAER) Institute outside of Seoul reported in July 2014 that Fukushima-Daiichi’s three reactor meltdowns may have emitted two to four times as much cesium-137 as the reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl.[4]

To determine its estimate of the cesium-137 that was released into the environment from Fukushima, the cesium-137 release fraction (4% to the atmosphere, 16% to the ocean) was multiplied by the cesium-137 inventory in the uranium fuel inside the three melted reactors (760 to 820 quadrillion Becquerel, or Bq), with these results:

Ocean release of cesium-137 from Fukushima (the worst ever recorded): 121.6 to 131.2 quadrillion Becquerel (16% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq). Atmospheric release of cesium-137 from Fukushima: 30.4 to 32.8 quadrillion Becquerel (4% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq).

Total release of cesium-137 to the environment from Fukushima: 152 to 164 quadrillion Becquerel. Total release of cesium-137 into the environment from Chernobyl: between 70 and 110 quadrillion Bq.

The Fukushima-Daiichi reactors’ estimated inventory of 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq (petabecquerels) of cesium-137 used by the KAER Institute is significantly lower than the US Department of Energy’s estimate of 1,300 quadrillion Bq. It is possible the Korean institute’s estimates of radioactive releases are low.

In Chernobyl, 30 years after its explosions and fire, what the Wall St. Journal last year called “the $2.45 billion shelter implementation plan” was finally completed in November 2016. A huge metal cover was moved into place over the wreckage of the reactor and its crumbling, hastily erected cement tomb. The giant new cover is 350 feet high, and engineers say it should last 100 years — far short of the 250,000-year radiation hazard underneath.

The first cover was going to work for a century too, but by 1996 was riddled with cracks and in danger of collapsing. Designers went to work then engineering a cover-for-the-cover, and after 20 years of work, the smoking radioactive waste monstrosity of Chernobyl has a new “tin chapeau.” But with extreme weather, tornadoes, earth tremors, corrosion and radiation-induced embrittlement it could need replacing about 2,500 times. — John LaForge

_______________

[1] Duluth News-Tribune & Herald, “Slight rise in radioactivity found again in state milk,” May 22, 1986; St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch, “Radiation kills Chernobyl firemen,” May 17, 1986; Minneapolis StarTribune, “Low radiation dose found in area milk,” May 17, 1986.

[2] Ian Fairlie, “TORCH-2016: An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,” March 2016 (https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/GLOBAL_TORCH%202016_rz_WEB_KORR.pdf).

[3] James K. Asselstine, Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Testimony in Nuclear Reactor Safety: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, May 22 and July 16, 1986, Serial No. 99-177, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.

[4] Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 74, July 2014, pp. 61-70; ENENews.org, Oct. 20, 2014.

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

April 19, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Explosive and Linguistic Events with Radioactive Waste

This week’s explosive news from the “more bang for the buck” folks is that up to three barrels of unspecified “radioactive material” either ruptured or burst or exploded at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), near Idaho Falls, on April 11. “An exothermal event” is how Energy Department (DOE) spokesperson Danielle Miller described the prompt deconstruction of the rad waste drum(s).

“Exothermal” is a nice distraction that means “a chemical reaction accompanied by the release of heat.” The usage reminds me of the May 1996 “gaseous ignition event” involving hydrogen gas in a fully loaded high-level rad waste cask at Wisconsin’s Point Beach reactor site. The cask contained 14 tons of highly radioactive used reactor fuel, and the eruption of Public Relations inventiveness popped the container’s 4,000-pound lid right off.

The Idaho Lab accident was reported by ABC News, Associated Press, the Seattle Times, the Japan Times, and Fox Radio News among others.* PR people at INL have said three 55-gallon drums holding “transuranic” (heavier-than-uranium) radioactive sludge may have “ruptured.”

One theory about the cause, according to the AP, is that “radioactive decay made the barrel[s] heat up and ignite particles of uranium.” Unfortunately for those who put out the smoldering barrels, “When the firefighters left the building emergency workers detected a small amount of radioactive material on their skin,” the AP reported April 12.

The very next sentence in this story was that the DOE’s Miller said, “None of the radioactive material was detected outside of the building where the rupture occurred” — except for the contaminated firefighters who somehow don’t count.

Because of decades of “secretive record-keeping” it is hard to find out exactly what is in the burst barrels and got on the firefighters. INL officials do not “know the exact contents,” Joint Information Center spokesman Don Miley reportedly said.

Nuclear waste explosions are us

The ruptured Idaho Lab barrels reportedly contain a mixture of fluids and solvents sent from the long-shuttered Rocky Flats plutonium weapons production site near Denver, the AP reported April 13. The name Rocky Flats should have rung a bell for INL’s “they haven’t run into this” Don Miley.

Plutonium bomb fabrication at Rocky Flats caused the second largest industrial fire in US history, Sept. 11, 1957. The blaze howled for over 13 hours, consuming two tons of plutonium and destroying all 620 industrial filters designed to trap particles. Between 30 and 44 pounds of respirable plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 escaped through chimneystacks, drifting downwind to Denver. When smokestack monitors were reconnected, radioactive measurements were 16,000 times greater than “allowable” standards. No emergency response was taken to protect the people of Denver.

Exploding rad waste has been around a long time and has a sordid history.  In September 1957 at Kyshtym in Russia, a tank holding 70 million metric tons of highly radioactive waste exploded and produced a massive plume that contaminated 250,000 people across 410 square miles. This risk always comes with high-level rad waste. It helped cancel the plan to use Yucca Mountain, Nevada for abandonment of commercial nuclear power waste, because physicists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory reported in 1995 that the material could erupt in a catastrophic explosion. In December 1993, DOE assistant secretary Thomas Grumbly told the New York Times that high-level rad waste in tanks at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Hanford Site in Washington State, and at Idaho Lab could also “fly apart” if it fuel fell to the bottom of storage pools and caused a “critical mass” to accumulate.

At Hanford, hydrogen gas that builds up inside large tanks of high-level liquid rad waste could “possibly cause an explosion that would release radioactive material,” the AP reported in June 2013. In 1990, Ronald Gerton, then a director of waste management there said, “A spark could really set it off,” referring to 22 tanks that generate enough hydrogen gas to cause and explosion “powerful enough to blow them open,” the Milwaukee Journal reported. The Environmental Policy Institute had warned of this risk in September 1987, reporting that the probability of such an explosion may be as high as one-in-50.

Back at the Idaho Lab, spokesman Don Miley said, “They haven’t run into anything like this actually happening” but he has a short memory. It happened four years ago, on Valentine’s Day 2014, at the DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. A barrel of plutonium waste exploded underground, contaminating the entire facility, including the elevator and ventilator shafts, and internally poisoned 22 workers who inhaled the plutonium-laced dust.

More recently, on October 18, 2015, a fire and explosions spurred by rainfall hurled 11 buried barrels of radioactive chemical waste from a trench into the air and spewed debris like a geyser 60 feet high, at a “US Ecology” site near Beatty, Nevada. This shocking fire in one of 22 shallow trenches of radioactive waste couldn’t be put out with water hoses because water started it in the first place. Authorities had to close US Highway 95, cancel school, and await more explosions while they let the fire burned itself out. US Ecology had its records seized by Nevada’s Radiation Control Program, which has never disclosed what sorts of radioactive materials were burned in exploded Trench 14 — although dump site is known to hold a total of 47 pounds of plutonium and uranium isotopes.

In the Idaho Lab accident, the first responders “got some radioactive contamination on their skin, but emergency workers washed it away,” the DOE’s Danielle Miller told reporters. And, she added, “The firefighters did not inhale any of the radioactive material.” Miller can’t possibly know this, but it could be true, someday, when our noses and mouths aren’t attached to our skin.

*Sources:

Keith Ridler, Associated Press, “Radioactive sludge barrel ruptures at eastern Idaho nuclear facility” (AP), April 13, 2018; and Keith Ridler, “Radioactive sludge barrel ruptures at Idaho nuclear site,” Seattle Times (AP), April 12, 2018;

Japan Times (AP), “Sludge barrel ruptures at Idaho nuclear site; no injuries or public risk reported,” April 13, 2018;

ABC News, “Radioactive material washed off 3 firefighters,” (AP) April 12, 2018;

Associated Press, “More Barrel Ruptures Possible at Idaho Nuke Site,” April 12, 2018;

FOX  news radio (AP), “Incident Reported At Idaho Nuclear Site, Crews Responding,” April 12, 2018;

Danielle Miller, DOE Idaho Communications announcement, April 12, 2018, which noted, “Later, there were indications that a third drum may have been involved.”

— John LaForge

 

Filed Under: Environment, Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

April 13, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Keeps Polluting Long After Shutdown

By John LaForge

Last month, the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, on the banks of the Mississippi River in Wisconsin, was found to be leaking radioactive tritium (the radioactive form of hydrogen) into the groundwater.

Again, clean, safe, cheap nuclear power comes to the aid of a hungry nation.

The La Crosse Tribune reported on March 14 that the company LaCrosseSolutions (a subsidiary of Utah-based EnergySolutions) reported a reading of 24,200 “picocurie”-per-liter in water taken from a monitoring well on Feb. 1. The US Environmental Protection Agency allows up to 20,000 picocuries-per-liter tritium in drinking water.

The EPA estimates that seven of 200,000 people who drink such water would develop cancer. So the nuclear industry has somehow earned a government license to kill, if you will. But, hey, 24,200 picocuries per-liter isn’t that much over the allowable cancer rate.

LaCrosseSolutions is working an $85 million contract to “decommission” the La Crosse reactor. The small water boiler was shut down in 1987, 31 years ago, but damn if it isn’t still trashing the environment. You gotta hand it to the long reach of the nuclear industry: It keeps on poisoning even three decades after going of business.

The Dairyland Power Coop isn’t alone in its despoiling of the Earth. (The coop ran the reactor from 1967 to ’87, and then transferred its license to LaCrosseSolutions in 2016.) In June 2011, Jeff Donn’s four-part, year-long investigation for the Associated Press reported that tritium leaks were found at 48 of 75 US reactor sites, three-quarters of the country’s commercial reactor operations, “often from corroded, buried piping.”

La Crosse’s reactor-borne tritium in the groundwater is a danger to everyone drinking it, but the Tribune news report noted, “[T]he monitoring well was just 25 feet below the surface and not used for human consumption.” This should come as a great relief to anyone in the area using well water that’s not been tested.

Operating reactors also spew tritium from 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, its legacy is poisoned ground, contaminated and corroded pipes, and leaked tritium in the ground.

LaCrosseSolutions’ Dirty “Clean” Up

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on March 26, 2018 that in February 2017 LaCrosseSolutions had spilled 400 gallons of radioactively contaminated water directly into the Mississippi River. The NRC announcement also noted that there was a risk to public health from the spill, although the way the La Crosse Tribune reported it was: “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says there was little risk to public health.”

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.

An analysis found cesium-137 in water samples at concentrations that exceed the federal limits, the La Crosse Tribune reported. The NRC did not issue a citation but found LaCrosseSolutions had violated NRC policy.

The Tribune’s reporter Chris Hubbuch called up Professor Jeff Bryan who teaches chemistry at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse. Prof. Bryan said, “Potential exposure to ionizing radiation [from drinking contaminated water] was very low, about 1/100th the exposure for an hour on a commercial flight.”

This “apples and tires” comparison is not just useless, it deliberately misinforms readers who might think voluntary external exposure to cosmic radiation inside planes is no different from internal, involuntary radiation exposure from drinking water contaminated with cesium-137.

I wrote to the good professor and asked him if people on commercial flights are exposed to cesium-137. He didn’t reply. (They are not.) I asked if there is any internal cesium exposure on a commercial flight. Again, no answer. (There is none.)

Prof. Bryan told the newspaper what he thought about LaCrosseSolutions’ cesium spill into the Mississippi: “This was a really dumb accident. Stupid, but not hazardous.”

The National Academy of Sciences does not agree with Prof. Bryan. The NAS’s most recent report on the subject (known as BEIR VII) concluded that every exposure to radiation produces a corresponding cancer risk. There is no such thing, Professor Bryan, as radioactive pollution that is not hazardous.

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • …
  • 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