Environmental Justice

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radiation More Harmful to Girls and Women than to Boys and Men

By Mary Olson

Editor’s note: The author, the founder of the Gender and Radiation Impact Project,* spoke to the Vienna Conference on the Impact of Nuclear Weapons. Because of the significance of her findings on harms of radiation exposure, we share an edited version of her remarks.

If exposed to the same amount of radiation, girls under five are twice as likely to develop cancer as boys in the same age group. Graphic by Saro Lynch-Thomason, Fullsteam Labs.

On July 16, 1945, the first nuclear weapon [uranium fission] detonation was conducted in south central New Mexico and was code‐named “Trinity.” There were roughly 15,000 children, women, and men living within fifty miles of the test site.

My focus is on the prompt gamma and neutron pulse from fission — it is 5% of the total release. More than 2,000 nuclear explosions have already occurred. Our planet is already deeply contaminated, even without waging a full‐scale nuclear war.

My government chose to use the first nuclear weapons on cities full of people. More than 200,000 people perished in the blasts or soon after.

Five years later, the United States initiated a long‐term study of some of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Researchers assumed that humanitarian aid might “skew the results” of their study. They did not provide medical treatment to the victims they studied.

This data resulting from the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is used widely, including by me, here. I need to say I am sorry. I deeply regret this history. I continue to use these numbers because what they say is vital to our survival.

Radiation is invisible but we can see the damage it has done to chromosomes. Dicentric [or double centered] and other chromosomal aberrations are common in people who have suffered acute radiation exposure.

When reproductive cells are harmed, deformations are one outcome. This happens to all babies: plants, animals, and humans. [Adults] can also suffer loss of fertility, spontaneous abortion, and miscarriage, possible heritable mutations, and avoidance of reproduction due to uncertainty. Nuclear colonialism is responsible for disproportionate harm to Indigenous Peoples from nuclear weapons testing.

A clear spike in the death of infants [under 1 year old] followed the 1945 Trinity nuclear detonation. This finding was only recently reported by Tucker and Alvarez in 2019. The consequences of nuclear tests are tragic and often irreparable.

When genetic material inside a living cell is damaged, sometimes our bodies can repair that damage. Otherwise the abnormal cell may sit quietly in the body for years or even decades before it makes us sick.

There is no way to predict which exposure will result in cancer. …even an exposure too-small-to-measure could, sometimes, result in cancer death.

The 2006 report, The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, #7, or “BEIR VII” assumes that the victim’s radiation exposure was an acute external exposure (the moment of the bomb explosion). Internalized radioactivity from fallout or other environmental contamination was not considered.

Children’s bodies are small, so the same amount of radiation delivers a larger dose [to children than to adults]. Since children are growing, the cells in their bodies are dividing more rapidly. The DNA in cells is more likely to be damaged when [undergoing] cell division.

The atomic‐bomb survivors in Japan were grouped by the age they were at the time of the bombing. These groups were tracked over their lifetimes. Cancers and cancer deaths were counted. The focus of the data is on the outcome of the prompt radiation exposure from the bombs.

There are problems with this data, but we can broadly say that those who were five years or younger when exposed had the most cancer at some point in their lives.

Here is the news: Girls in this youngest age group were twice as likely to get cancer at some point in the next 60 years, than were boys. For every male in the birth‐to-5-year group that suffered cancer, two females got cancer. This is not childhood cancer — it is total incidence.

The BEIR VII report is where these numbers are found; the report itself does not discuss gender as a risk factor. I first published my findings in 2011, and they are independent confirmation of work published in 2006 by Dr. Arjun Makhijani and his team.
It is extremely important to understand that little girls are not a “sub‐population.” Girls are an inextricable link of the human life cycle.

Biological sex was also a factor for those who were adults at the time of the bombings.

Over their lifetime women exposed as adults suffered 50% more cancer death than did men in the same age group. For every 2 men in these cohorts who died of cancer, three women died of cancer.

… females suffered more cancers than males in every age group, and the difference is greatest when the exposure was in childhood.

Why is biological sex a factor in harm from exposure to ionizing radiation? We don’t know. One hypothesis, from my mentor, the late Dr. Rosalie Bertell, is the greater amount of radio-sensitive reproductive tissue in female bodies. This, and other research questions, need to be tested by qualified institutions of excellence. The answers will impact all of us.

Three points to take away:
1. Ionizing radiation is harmful to living cells—harm is greater when children are exposed, compared to adults.
2. At any age, radiation is more harmful to females than to males. Young girls are most harmed by radiation (measured as cancer across their lifetime). Radiation protection rules do not yet reflect this finding. Prior to the work reported here, it was presumed that radiation, like the weapons that make it, was indiscriminate. Not so.
3. These points provide strong evidence for the jurisdiction of Humanitarian Law over fission — most especially, nuclear weapons.

The future is in our hands.

— Key sources: Olson, 2011, NIRS Briefing Paper: “Atomic Radiation is more harmful to women,” https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/radiation/radiationharm2pg.pdf; Olson 2019, “Disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation and radiation regulation,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2019.1603864; Makhijani, et al, October 2006, Science for the Vulnerable, Institute for Energy & Environmental Research; https://ieer.org/projects/healthy-from-the-start/.

* Gender and Radiation Impact Project, 30 Westgate Pkwy, #362, Asheville, NC 28715; (828) 242‐5621; www.genderandradiation.org

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Reactors and Weapons Electrify a Warzone

Throwing gas on a burning roulette table

By John LaForge

Photo by ANDREY BORODULIN/AFP via Getty Images

The risk of catastrophic radiation releases is in the news again. Today it’s not because of the frequently recurring earthquakes jolting the site of three simultaneous reactor meltdowns at Fukushima-Daiichi, in northeast Japan. This year’s radiation risk focus is the shooting war in Ukraine, a country with 15 operational nuclear reactors, and in particular the Zaporizhzhia complex in the city of Enerhodar. The site has six large reactors lined up like dominoes, and hundreds of tons of thermally hot and ferociously radioactive waste that must be continuously cooled in huge, engineered pools on site. As of September 15, all six reactors have been put to cold shut down for a multitude of reasons, but their hot cores and hot waste systems all still require millions of gallons of cooling water every day.

Shrouding the risks of reactor meltdowns in a cloud of grim apprehension are thinly veiled threats of attacks using nuclear weapons by Russia and NATO. Major news services repeatedly showcase supposed nuclear weapons threats hinted at by Russian authorities, while NATO’s and the United States’ official and long-standing threat of nuclear first-use — and their stationing of US nuclear bombs in five European NATO states — doesn’t warrant a mention. The risk of nuclear weapons detonations is said to be as high as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this is due as much to NATO’s threatening “Strategic Concept” declaration of June 29 as to anything President Vladimir Putin of Russia has said.

News reports repeatedly claim that the Zaporizhzhia reactor complex—which is on the Dnieper River and close to the fighting in the south—is being shelled and rocketed by both Russian and Ukrainian forces. CNN reported August 18: “Kyiv has repeatedly accused Russian forces of storing heavy weaponry inside the complex and using it as cover to launch attacks, knowing that Ukraine can’t return fire without risking hitting one of the six reactors. Moscow, meanwhile, has claimed Ukrainian troops are targeting the site. Both sides have tried to point the finger at the other for threatening nuclear terrorism.”

However, this “both” sounds like an absurdity, since Russian troops surrounded the vast complex soon after invading, and seized it in March. These occupying Russian forces have kept the reactor site running using its Ukrainian engineers. For Russia to attack the site would be to fire on its own personnel, endanger the operating technicians, and risk catastrophe. As such, news reports that Russia is firing on the complex appear to be disinformation or propaganda.

The Mayor of Enerhodar on August 31 again accused Russia of doing the shelling, but the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said during his visit there the next day, “We don’t have the elements to assess that.” What’s more likely is that the Russians are using the huge reactor site as a safe area, amassing equipment and munitions on the sprawling compound, as CNN noted.

“It is not difficult to figure out who is shooting at this power plant”

Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group in New Mexico, asserted August 14, “It is not difficult to figure out who is shooting at this power plant, and the dam, and hydroelectric facility on the Dnieper [River], which are necessary for its operation and safety even in a shutdown condition.” With Ukraine forces shelling the area on a regular basis, there is an ongoing chance that munitions aimed at Russian forces surrounding the site could strike one of the reactors, one of its high-level waste storage units, or power lines that supply the site with electricity to circulate cooling water.

Robert Mardini, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, told The Guardian, “The slightest miscalculation could trigger devastation we will regret for decades,” adding that the stakes were “immense … When hazardous sites become battlegrounds, the consequences for millions of people and the environment can be catastrophic and last many years.”

In this context, Reuters news agency reported Sept. 1, “Russia’s defense ministry said up to 60 Ukrainian troops had crossed the Dnieper in boats at 6:00 a.m. local time, in what it said was a ‘provocation’ aimed at disrupting the IAEA visit’ referring to an International Atomic Energy Agency delegation. It said ‘measures had been taken’ to destroy the opposing troops.” Reuters could not verify those reports.

Additional risks were highlighted the week of August 25, when wildfires knocked out electric power to the complex. Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear reactor agency, said fires at a nearby thermal power plant caused the reactor complex’s last remaining electric power line to disconnect twice. The site’s three other lines were “lost earlier during the conflict,” the agency said, according to CNN, and the cut-off caused emergency diesel electric generators to start up in order to keep cooling water circulating, preventing potentially disastrous overheating and even reactor and/or fuel pool meltdown(s).

Electricity was restored to the site the next day, but the shutoff terrified observers who were reminded that massive radiation releases can be caused by a power outage — like the station blackout and destroyed backup generators that caused three meltdowns in Fukushima.

Russia’s invasion is doubtless an international crime under the UN Charter, and the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The world has justifiably condemned it, as it recalls the thundering denunciation of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which declared: “To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Of course this applies as well to NATO’s and the United States’ supremely criminal wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Panama, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

Russia’s February 24 invasion of Ukraine is the first bombardment and invasion of a country with operational nuclear power reactors. For the global anti-nuclear movement — whose teachers, scientists, physicians, and parliamentarians have warned that reactors are sitting-duck dirty bombs, perpetually threatening major radiation releases — its worst-case scenario of deadly risks have been realized, foisted upon the world in an enormously dangerous powder keg we can call “nuclear Russian roulette.” The US role so far has been to play “weapons testing trade show host,” offering over $40 billion in weapons, artillery, ammunition, military training, logistics, and satellite-aided intelligence to enrich our arms merchants and throw gas on the burning roulette table.

The tragic irony of war zone nuclear targets in Ukraine is the country’s zealous embrace of nuclear power on one hand, and its horrifying, ongoing experience of Chernobyl on the other. Chernobyl’s 1986 unit 4 reactor explosions, 40-day graphite fire, and hemisphere-wide radioactive fallout have killed between half-a-million and 900,000 people. In a world not turned upside-down, Ukrainians would be the last people on Earth to risk damaging nuclear reactors.

– CNN, Aug. 18; Reuters, Sept. 1; Reuters, Sept. 1; The Guardian, Sept. 3

August 31, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Point Beach Reactors Pose Needless Risks

By Al Gedicks*

On July 31, 2021 the operators of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant on the shore of Lake Michigan had to shut down the 52-year-old reactor after a cooling pump failed and waste heat was vented into the atmosphere.

According to Physicians for Social Responsibility and Nukewatch, two anti-nuclear groups, the shutdown “was caused by a failure to adequately monitor and maintain the aging and outmoded components in the Point Beach reactor” (“Questions about nuclear safety,” La Crosse Tribune, August 14, 2022).

ups have told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that the plant is operating beyond the 40- year lifespan of its 1960s design and questioned the agency’s oversight of the plant’s safety.

One of the most serious safety questions for aging nuclear reactors is the problem of neutron embrittlement of the nuclear reactor. Scientists have long been aware that neutron radiation from inside the nuclear core would gradually destroy the thick metal reactor that surrounds the core.

According to nuclear expert Arnold Gundersen: “If embrittlement becomes extensive, the dense metallic reactor can shatter like glass…creating what the NRC calls a Class 9 Accident, which is the worst nuclear catastrophe acknowledged by the NRC…The NRC has identified that NextEra’s Point Beach Reactors are the most embrittled operating reactors in the United States.” NextEra Energy is the owner of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in Two Rivers.

Neutron embrittlement happens to all reactors, but the issue is especially crucial in reactors built before 1972, such as Point Beach. Those vessels were built using copper – which is no longer used in reactor construction because it is more prone to embrittlement – in the walls and welds.

The NRC estimated that both the Point Beach 2 reactor, located on Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan shoreline, and the Palisades nuclear power plant, also located on the Lake Michigan shoreline in Covert, Michigan, were expected to reach the traditional embrittlement screening limits in 2017. Some scientists have called embrittlement the single most important factor in determining the life span of a reactor.

Unlike the Palisades reactor that has announced permanent closure by May 31, 2022, Point Beach has sought permission to operate 20 more years, despite increasing age-related degradation risks. The current licenses for the two reactors are set to expire in 2030 and 2033.

With thermal shock from rapid cooling or from overheating, the steel vessel could crack, releasing coolant from around the fuel rods, leading to a core meltdown, as it did at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan on March 11, 2011. Pressurized thermal shock is a problem most severe in the older generation of reactors such as Point Beach.

In 1982, Demetrios Basdekas an NRC Reactor Safety Engineer, expressed his concern about the age-degradation risks of reactor embrittlement in a letter published in the New York Times: “There is a high, increasing likelihood that someday soon during a seemingly minor malfunction at any of a dozen or more nuclear plants around the United States, the steel vessel that houses the radioactive core is going to crack like a piece of glass. The result will be a core meltdown, the most serious kind of accident, which will injure many people, and probably destroy the nuclear industry with it.”

The casualty and property damage figures from the NRC’s “CRAC-2 Report on Accident Consequences for Point Beach, Units 1 & 2, Two Rivers, Wisconsin,” show that a reactor meltdown would have catastrophic negative impacts on health and the economy of nearby neighborhoods and the people who live and work in those communities.

This level of risk justifies serious consideration for shutting down the plant. Renewable energy sources would provide safer alternatives to this threat.

* Al Gedicks is executive secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council in La Crosse. This report was first published in La Crosse Tribune as ‘Nuclear Safety Must be Focus’, Aug. 31, 2022

June 21, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

New Office in Justice Dept. to Fight Environmental Racism

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2022

Julia Kane, Grist

The Biden administration on May 5th unveiled a new government office for communities that have been targeted and plagued by polluters for decades.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is launching its first-ever Office of Environmental Justice, which, along with other federal agencies, will bring cases against polluters, prioritizing the communities most affected by environmental harm.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference, “Communities of color, Indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change.”

The new environmental justice office commits the DOJ to fighting these problems by “vigorously and transparently working to secure environmental justice … in communication with the communities most affected by the underlying violations of federal law,” Garland said.

The Office of Environmental Justice will be led by Cynthia Ferguson, an attorney in the department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan noted the return of “supplemental environmental projects” as a law enforcement mechanism the Trump administration had banned. The projects allow convicted polluters to fund local anti-pollution initiatives as part of penalties for breaking environmental laws. Regan said the projects were “a tool to secure tangible public health benefits for communities harmed” by illegal pollution.

Jane English, the NAACP’s environmental and climate justice program manager, welcomed the news writing: “As climate change worsens, it is imperative that our leaders produce real, tangible solutions to protect Black and frontline communities and correct existing and past harms, all while initiating direct law enforcement corrective responses to egregious harms and environmental injustices.”

–Grist, May 6, 2022; U.S. Department of Justice original document

May 9, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Cape Cod Bay in the Crosshairs — Holtec’s Reactor Waste Water Threat

By John LaForge

Still dreaming of a nuclear reactor that is clean, safe and cheap? Holtec Decommissioning International Corp. is trying to turn that dream to a nightmare.

The newly minted subsidiary intends to dump roughly one million gallons radioactively contaminated nuclear reactor waste water into Cape Cod Bay, which happens to be a part of the protected Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The million gallons are stagnating in the shutdown Pilgrim reactor’s waste fuel pool, formerly used to cool extremely hot uranium fuel rods which are taken from the reactor core (at around 5,092 degrees Fahrenheit) when fresh fuel is emplaced.

Holtec’s pollution plan has produced such a tsunami of public opposition that Massachusetts Senator Ed Marky convenes a congressional subcommittee field hearing in Plymouth, Massachusetts Friday, May 6, to air questions about an array of vexing problems with decommissioning the Pilgrim reactor, which is on the northwest shore of Cape Cod Bay. Markey is Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety.

Diane Turco is director of Cape Downwinders, a grassroots watchdog group working to protect local communities from the radiation risks created by Pilgrim. The group has helped bring critical attention to Holtec’s scandalous proposal and has organized gut-reaction outrage into a broad-based coalition of resistance that includes the fishing community, the labor movement, the real estate industry, as well as country’s major environmental organizations.

While Markey’s field hearing is being arranged, and Holtec works the bribery zone trying to win support, Turco has had to spend countless hours preparing to defend against trumped-up trespass charges resulting from a tour of the Pilgrim site she gave to a pair of National Public Radio reporters. The charge is crass political harassment, since neither of the reporters were charged, and attorneys have told Turco that a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution is a no-brainer. But the court has not agreed to hold a motion hearing, so she has to prepare testimony and expert witnesses for a May 9 trial, even though the court could do the right thing and dismiss.

Waste water’s contents still secret

In a phone interview, Turco told me that Holtec has not even made public the radioactive character of the waste water it wants to spew to the public commons. If the state department of environmental protection has been informed, it has not divulged either the sorts of isotopes in the water or their concentration. This secrecy makes impossible an valid assessment of the risks involved and only aggravates public fear and hostility.

“If Holtec had true concern for public health and the environment and worked with transparency as they promised, it would halt any dumping until a viable solution is found acceptable”, Turco told the Cape Cod Times last December. “[D]umping into Cape Cod Bay just highlights the fact that the [US] Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Holtec don’t have a solution for what to do with nuclear waste. Contaminating our environment is …is immoral.”

The thought of Holtec’s river of poison being poured into Cape Cod brings to mind a wartime atrocity like poisoning wells. Holtec says it intends to dilute the radioactive waste water (like Tepco Corp’s plan to pour 1 million tons of radioactive waste water into the Pacific beginning next spring), but this is an irrelevant distraction.

The volume of radioactive chemicals, metals, or isotopes will not be changed or reduced at all by diluting. The same total of radioactive materials and their radioactivity are merely spread through a larger volume of water — all of which will then be poisoned for a very long time. Strontium-90 taints the water for 300 years (ten half-lives); iodine-129 for 160 million years; carbon-14 for 57,000 years. All such cancer-causing radionuclides cio-accumulate and bio-concentrate in the ocean’s web of life and can contaminate seafood like Cape Cod’s famous mussels, clams and oysters — becoming internal radiation emitters.

Last January 12, Sen. Markey and three other members of congress wrote to Holtec opposing the proposed discharge into Cape Cod Bay. The letter encouraged Holtec to consider alternative methods of disposal, none of which are good answers to nuclear power’s endless waste dilemma. Operators of the closed Vermont Yankee reactor shipped its poison water out of state, which moved the radiation risk to someone else’s water table. Evaporation is an option that risks spewing radionuclides on the wind. Nuclear power stories just don’t have happy endings. ####

— A version of this piece ran at CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/05/06/cape-cod-bay-in-the-crosshairs-holtecs-reactor-waste-water-threat/) May 6-8, 2022