Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by 2 Comments

Fukushima After Meltdowns: 13 Years of Accidents, Quakes, Insults

By John LaForge

The catastrophic earthquake, tsunami, and triple reactor meltdowns that struck northeast Japan at Fukushima in March 2011 began a pollution disaster that keeps growing and surprising. The following updates show the worst-ever reactor incident is still a present tense event. Even without going into the 20 million tons of radioactive debris piled in mounds of bags at 100,000 Japanese sites, failing plastic containers holding corrosive nuclear sludge produced by the wastewater filter system, or airborne dispersal of hot particles from incinerators all across Japan burning Fukushima debris, this issue’s update is still over-long. China and Russia have banned all Japanese seafood imports after Japan began disposing of contaminated wastewater in the Pacific. Between the deliberate dispersal of radioactive wastes and accidental spills and leaks, all in the most earthquake-prone country on Earth, the dreams of clean, cheap nuclear power turn to nightmares immediately upon waking.

Students in Seoul, South Korea shaving their heads to protest the wastewater dump. Indonesian activists sued the Japanese government. Photo: CNBC 2021.
Still Finding Broad Contamination of Wild Foods

Edible mushrooms found in Narusawa village in Yamahashi prefecture, 227 miles from the Fukushima meltdowns, were found with high levels of radioactive cesium, according to Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. The ministry also reported higher-than-permitted contamination of edible plants in three other prefectures between 86 and 292 miles from Fukushima. The mushrooms in Narusawa had 50% more cesium-137 than permitted by regulations. The United States is more at ease with people eating cesium-137 than Japan, allowing twelve times as much in food, and doesn’t make an exception for baby food. Radioactive cesium was released in large amounts during the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima.— Japan Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Dec. 2023; The (Malaysia) STAR, China.org, and Xinhua news, Nov. 7, 2023

January Earthquake Overstressed Reactors

The severe magnitude 7.6 earthquake that struck western Japan January 1, killing 82 and leaving 31,000 homeless, shook and “inflicted stress” on parts of two nuclear reactors that “exceeded the limit” of their design capacity, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority said in a report. Both reactors at Shika in Ishikawa Prefecture on the west coast were offline when the quake struck, but Shinsuke Yamanaka, chief of the NRA, told reporters that jolts from undersea seismic faults which triggered the quake “must be factored in as new knowledge” when updating safety standards. Yamanaka urged operator Hokuriku Electric Power Co. to find out why the Shika reactors’ electric transformers have both broken down and have “partially prevented the [reactors] from receiving power.” The earthquake and tsunami-caused loss of offsite power at Fukushima-Daiichi in March 2011 resulted in the collapse of cooling systems and the catastrophic meltdown of three large reactors there. Japan’s 54 reactors are all on its coastline and vulnerable to earthquakes which strike its islands nearly every day. — The Guardian, Jan. 1; Kyodo News, Feb. 21, 2024; World Data Info.

‘Cleanups’ See Radiation Leaks and Spills

According to Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) which still operates the Fukushima site, ten of 16 valves mistakenly left open by workers spewed some 5.5 metric tons of highly radioactive wastewater onto the site in early February. The leak sprang from machinery used to remove radioactive cesium and strontium from wastewater severely contaminated after it passes through hundreds of tons of melted reactor fuel called “corium” amassed deep within the three destroyed Fukushima reactors. Tepco, the only source reporting on the incident, later claimed that only 1.5 tons had spilled. An accident in October contaminated four workers who were sprayed with radioactive wastewater when a hose broke.

These wastewater accidents were international scandals and forced Japan’s industry minister Ken Saito to make a face-saving spectacle out of publicly shaming Tepco president Tomoaki Kobayakawa. On Feb. 21, the minister demanded more “safety awareness and preventive measures.” Minister Saito even told Kobayakawa to investigate the accidents. The Tepco exec. dutifully apologized to the minister, as reporters took notes on the theatrical scolding. — Associated Press, Feb. 21; China Global Television Network, Feb. 16; NHK, Japan Public TV, Feb. 14; Reuters and China Daily, Feb. 7; New York Times and Reuters, Feb. 1, 2024

Preparation work to release radioactive water at Fukushima January 19, 2023. /CFP. news.cgtn.com.
Japan’s Illegal Radioactive Dumping

Writing for Counterpunch last September, Robert Hunsiker noted two ways that Japan’s disposal of radioactive wastewater in the Pacific violates the law. First, the long-time president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Arjun Makhijani is quoted regarding the failure of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to enforce its global regulations. Makhijani writes, “[The IAEA’s] outright refusal to apply its own guidance documents … [and] Its constricted view of the dumping plan has allowed it to evade its responsibilities to many countries. Its eagerness to assure the public that harm will be ‘negligible’ has been carried to the point of grossly overstating well-known facts about tritium.”

Second, Hunziker cited an article by Victoria Cruz-De Jesus in the American University International Law Review, quoting: “Japan’s policy to release wastewater into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a violation of Japan’s obligations under UNCLOS Article 192, which requires state parties to ‘protect and preserve the marine environment.’ Additionally, Japan’s pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources violates UNCLOS Article 207.” Hunziker concluded Japan could have pursued options which complied with “some of its treaty obligations … but ultimately settled for the cheapest, easiest, most convenient, yet most harmful, policy.” — Robert Hunsiker, Counterpunch, Sep. 8, 2023

Warnings About Failed Water Treatment

Tatsujiro Suzuki is the vice director of the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University and one of Japan’s premier experts on nuclear power. He spoke to South Korea’s Hankyoreh English daily on Feb. 20, and said in part: “… in August 2018, Japanese media reported that around 70% of the [“treated”] water stored in tanks at Fukushima contained higher-than-permitted levels of cesium, strontium, and iodine, which are extremely harmful to the body. I was genuinely shocked. Tepco had persistently claimed that they had reduced the level of radionuclides … it’s essential that we treat the water in those storage tanks a second time.” Suzuki also pointed out that “there was no study done on the potential environmental impact,” and despite an “IAEA report that declared that the ‘treated water would have a negligible radiological impact to people and the environment,’” the IAEA did not “recommend or support” the Japanese dump plan in “any way.”

Ken Buesseler of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution wrote: “[I]n 2018, Tepco … announced for the first time that the tanks also contain concerning levels of other, more harmful radioactive materials such as cobalt-60 and strontium-90, which are much more likely to end up on the seafloor or be taken up by sea life … [the] data we have … come from a fraction of the tanks — about 200 — and don’t include other potential contaminants, such as plutonium.” — Hankyoreh English, South Korea, Feb. 21, 2024; Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Knowable Magazine, March 11, 2021

Japanese Court to Hear Lawsuit Vs Dumping

The case Citizens v. Tepco and the State of Japan was filed in Fukushima District Court in September last year. In it, 151 citizens appeal for an injunction to halt the release. Last November, more citizens including people from the fishing industry joined the suit. Among the claims of the plaintiffs is that the massive releases violate Article 4 of the “Protocol to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes.” Article 4 prohibits the “dumping” of wastewater into the sea, and the plaintiffs argue that the law applies to disposing of any and all radioactive waste in the oceans, including from pipelines. The legal dilemma is that pipelines pump radioactive wastes into the sea, but Article 4 prohibits “dumping” as it was practiced during the Cold War by rolling barrels from ships. — Grace Nishikawa and Dr. Marlies Hesselman, Blog of the European Journal of International Law, Jan. 16, 2024

“The Pacific Sub-Regional Polynesia Leaders Group meeting, 52nd Pacific Islands Forum. From Left: Secretary General – Henry Puna, Niue Premier – Dalton Tagelagi, Cook Islands Associate Minister Foreign Affairs – Tingika Elikana, Samoa Prime Minister – Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa, President of French Polynesia – Moetai Brotherson, American Samoa Governor – Lemanu Maunga, Wallis and Futuna President – Munipoese Muli’aka’ak, Tuvalu Prime Minister – Kausea Natano, Tonga Prime Minister – Hu’akavemeiliku Siaosi Sovaleni. MELINA ETCHES.” Nov. 7, 2023, Cook Islands News.
Pacific Island States Condemn Disposal

The Polynesian bloc called for a pause in Japan’s dumping of radioactive wastewater during the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Cook Islands last November. The bloc includes Niue, Cook Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, Tuvalu, and Tonga. The Pacific Islands Forum has consistently objected to Japan’s ocean dumping. The Forum also includes Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. In June 2023 the Forum declared Japan’s sanctioned pollution of the Pacific “is not merely a nuclear safety issue. It is rather a nuclear legacy issue, an ocean, fisheries, environment, biodiversity, climate change, and health issue with the future of our children and future generations at stake.” — Cook Islands News, Nov. 7; China Global Television Network Jun. 27, 2023.

by Leave a Comment

Nuclear Power Poisons the Planet-Shut Down Xcel’s Monticello Reactor

By Nukewatch and WILPF Earth Democracy Committee

Author and anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman recently asked, “if atomic reactors can’t economically compete, can’t be insured, operate un-inspected, worsen climate chaos, are sitting ducks for terror attack, and so much more….why are they still running?

The answer is clear: they are the unspoken infrastructure for our nation’s bomb-making machine.”

Nuclear power is the flipside of nuclear weapons and carries its own dangers.

The latest propaganda craze pushing nuclear power is riding the wave of the climate change movement, greenwashing nuclear power as if it were “clean and carbon-free.” New theoretical nuclear reactor designs are being promoted as real and improved, of which they are neither. Old reactors are getting license renewals rubber stamped to run until the ripe old age of 80 years by the federal government and bailed out to the tune of tens of billions of dollars by taxpayers. The U.S. and international partners recently committed to tripling nuclear energy production by 2050. Uranium mining in the U.S. is being revived.

Nuclear power comes with high risk to water, Earth, and all of life: risk of allowable and accidental radioactive releases, accumulation of radioactive waste which sits on river banks, and all the waste heat (thermal pollution) produced by the reactor. The high-level radioactive waste created at reactors is dangerous for a million years. Every storage siting solution that gained political support has been an environmental justice catastrophe, always earning the opposition it deserved from Indigenous and other local communities.

The benefits of nuclear power could potentially outweigh these risks if it could actually solve our climate crisis, but on the contrary, it cannot even withstand climate change. As global water temperatures increase, reactors which rely on water to cool have had several shutdowns during heat waves over the last six years to avoid meltdowns. Proximity to cooling water is the reason reactors must be sited near water bodies, but that in turn puts the onsite radioactive waste in danger as sea levels rise.

That brings us to Xcel Energy’s nuclear reactor in Monticello, Minn. along the banks of the Mississippi River, 200 miles from the headwaters of the Great River and upstream from the source of drinking water for 20 million people, including those in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minn.

This spring Xcel Energy is expected to issue its environmental impact statement regarding its application for a 20-year operating license extension to the operating life of the reactor. This begins a 30-day public comment period on the “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” (Draft SEIS), wherein anyone concerned with the continued operation of the leaking, accident-plagued, 54-year-old reactor can send comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Washington, D.C. Once the comment period opens Nukewatch will provide sample comments you may submit at nukewatchinfo.org/monticello.

The Monticello reactor made national headlines in March 2023, when Xcel disclosed publicly that it had leaked cooling water contaminated with radioactive tritium, iodine, and xenon into the groundwater under the facility. Xcel and local news media reported that an extremely high concentration of radioactive tritium contaminated the leaked wastewater: 5 million picocuries per liter, or 250 times the allowable levels for drinking water. According to WCCO TV, Xcel said that a “small amount of leaked water may have reached the Mississippi River.”

The nuclear beast raises its head along the entire nuclear fuel chain – in newly operating uranium mines, at enrichment facilities, weapons testing sites, and power reactors. Right now, we have a unique opportunity to chime in on whether one reactor continues to run. Will you stand up and take this simple action today? Submitting public comments opposing the continued radioactive pollution from this nuclear reactor is something we can all do to stop the nuclear beast in one of its many forms.

For detailed information on the radioactive leak, the license extension, and sample comments to submit, see: nukewatchinfo.org/monticello.

by 1 Comment

Tritium Leaks at Monticello Nuclear Reactor: It Ain’t Just Hydrogen

Concentrations 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to Xcel website. Concentration 5 according to Minn. Public Radio, Apr. 24. Concentrations 6, 7 according to USGS.
By Kelly Lundeen

The word ‘tritium’ dotted regional headlines this year, accompanied by misleading information about the radioactive substance. The March 17, 2023 weekly edition of Monticello Times announced, “400,000 gallons of water contaminated with radioactive tritium leaked from Monticello nuclear power plant.” Again on March 23, the Times followed up, “Xcel, regulators knew of tritium leak four months before notice.” On March 16, the St. Paul Pioneer Press assured the public that “Regulators monitor tritium leak at Xcel Energy’s Monticello nuclear plant.”

The large radioactive water leak at a concentration of 5 million picocuries-per-liter (pCi/L) of tritium was discovered one year ago by the Monticello reactor’s operator, Northern States Power. Four months later a second leak appeared when the fix failed. This forced the reactor to be shut down for a week, prompting regulators to finally release information about the leak to the public.

Xcel claims to have fixed the leak and continues pumping and collecting the radioactive groundwater to store onsite for reuse. The firm is also building a 600-foot underground wall 20 feet from the Mississippi River to prevent the radioactive groundwater from entering the River, even though, on July 20, Minnesota Public Radio warned, “Xcel: Leaked groundwater containing tritium may have reached Mississippi River in Monticello.”

Xcel has dodged questions about how far the radioactive water could have spread. The company claims that no tritium has been detected beyond the reactor facility boundaries, nor entered the Mississippi River, yet it has never specified where its testing is being done. Groundwater moves between 1 foot-per-day and 1 foot-per-decade, but the Mississippi River in Minnesota flows about 12,000 cubic feet-per-second, which could quickly disperse the tritiated water. Groundwater typically provides about 40-50 percent of the surface water to rivers, meaning the contaminated groundwater could have entered the Mississippi without being detected depending on where water is tested.

What is tritium?

What is this radioactive isotope that made headlines in mainstream newspapers? Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Much of the news coverage about the tritium leak at the Monticello reactor is deceptively reassuring. Mainstream media parrot misleading myths about tritium peddled by industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Myth # 1

“Tritium is safe because it is ‘naturally occurring’ in the environment,” Pioneer Press, March 16

While it is true that tritium occurs in nature, its only natural source is in the upper atmosphere. In the chart below you can see that estimated naturally occurring tritium in groundwater — deposited from the upper atmosphere — ranges from 6 to 26 pCi/L. Additional tritium has been dispersed due to atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and routine or accidental nuclear reactor discharges.

Myth #2

“Tritium emits a weak form of radiation, a low-energy beta particle,” NRC

Radiation from tritium is not low-energy, but rather low-range, and its emissions are concentrated in a small space. It can be eight times more biologically damaging than other types of radiation if ingested or inhaled, and can even incorporate into DNA molecules affecting chromosomes.

Myth #3

“Tritium is a mildly radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally,” Minnesota Public Radio, August 17

Tritium atoms replace hydrogen atoms in water molecules making the water itself radioactive. It is not simply water with tritium, it is tritiated water. Once it is part of water it follows the water cycle, traveling through groundwater, absorbed by roots of plants and into our food, or evaporated into the atmosphere and returned to the Earth through precipitation.

The body cannot distinguish clean water from tritiated water, making it more dangerous than other radionuclides. Its capacity to be exchanged with hydrogen gives it the special ability to bind with organic materials in plants, food, humans, and other animals.

Hydrogen is one of the building blocks of the human body and of all life. Humans are about 60 percent water. Tritium, disguised as hydrogen, is therefore more dangerous due to its similarity to hydrogen, not less dangerous. When a fetus is growing, its tissue collects tritium at twice the concentration of maternal tissue.

Around nuclear power facilities, children are the ones who suffer the most. They are about one and a half times more likely to be born with embryonal cancer and have over double the likelihood of childhood leukemia, caused by standard operation alone. That doesn’t include the accidents.

Myth #4

“The tritium radiation does not travel very far in air and cannot penetrate the skin,” NRC

Soil, plants, and food grown near nuclear reactors have been found to be contaminated up to 60 miles from the reactor site. In the case of Monticello, this includes the entire Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area, a population of 4 million people.

Tritium is created as a byproduct in the coolant inside the reactor core. While it may not be able to penetrate skin, there are other points of exposure that make a protective layer of skin irrelevant. Tritium is released legally by regular operation of all nuclear reactors in the form of radioactive water vapor. As long as people living around the reactor breath, the tritium will be inhaled, easily bypassing the skin. It can also be ingested through consumption of food grown around the reactor.

This article would not have been possible without information collected from radiation classes offered by the Gender & Radiation Information Project and Beyond Nuclear. (genderandradiation.org/classes)

— Sources include: Xcel Energy Monticello Groundwater Status and Background, Nov. 21, 2022; Minn. Public Radio, April 24, 2023; United States Geological Society (USGS) National Ground-Water Monitoring Network 2008, 1998; “Treatise on Geochemistry,” Volume 5, 2003, Pages 319-364, published by USGS, 2003

by Leave a Comment

Nukewatch at UN Nuclear Ban Treaty Meetings

By Nukewatch Staff

Three years have passed since the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) received its 50th ratification, triggering its entry into force. In online meeting after online meeting, Nukewatch has collaborated with comrades to rally support for the nuclear ban treaty in the United States. Last summer, Nukewatch’s John LaForge met with nuclear abolitionists in Vienna for the first Meeting of States Parties. This November, Nukewatch gathered in person with even more friends from over a hundred civil society organizations and at least 30 countries for the second Meeting of States Parties that took place in New York City. Nukewatch staff Kelly Lundeen and John LaForge organized and participated in events inside and outside of the United Nations.

(L-R) Hinamoeura Cross, Petuuche Gilbert, Elizabeth Minor, Nukewatch’s Kelly Lundeen, and Mari Inoue spoke at a United Nations civil society event highlighting voices from nuclear-impacted communities Nov. 28 in New York. Photo by Tony Sahara.

Inside the UN headquarters, the Affected Communities and Allies Working Group, along with Nukewatch, Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and Article 36 co-hosted a side event titled “Perspectives on Ongoing Harm to Affected Communities and Next Steps with the TPNW,” which highlighted the impacts of nuclear imperialism by three nuclear powers, the U.S., France, and the U.K.

Tina Cordova of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium spoke about the health consequences of the Trinity Test as a member of the fourth generation in her family to be diagnosed with cancer. The U.S. government has denied Trinity’s impacts, which are partially at fault for New Mexico’s status as the U.S. state most dependent on Medicaid. Hinamoeura Cross, mother and French Polynesian parliamentarian, lives with leukemia and is also among the fourth generation in her family to have cancer. She shared the experiences of young French Polynesian women who have deliberately chosen not to have children to avoid the fate of French nuclear test survivors who have endured raising children with malformations, diseases, or losing their babies. Both Cordova and Cross were recipients of the Nuclear Free Futures Award given by Beyond Nuclear and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Petuuche Gilbert, of Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, reminded those present that uranium mining and milling are necessary for weapons production and have left irreparable environmental and intergenerational health consequences. However, mining and abandoned uranium mining communities, like the Grants district of New Mexico in his home of Acoma Pueblo, have been neglected by the TPNW. Mere Tuilau of Youngsolwara Pacific in Fiji brought to light the struggle of Fijian veterans, some as young as 15 when they were deployed to Kiribati, also known as Christmas Island. There they were exposed to U.K. nuclear testing in the 1950s and are now in dire need of access to health care and compensation.

Mari Inoue of Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World and Affected Communities and Allies Working Group spoke about the importance of a victim-centered approach, adopting stricter radiation protection standards, and affected communities’ disagreement with language in the TPNW that supports nuclear energy.

Nukewatch also attended the UN meetings of 90 nations. More than 65 civil society events took place in New York, and there were dozens of solidarity actions worldwide for the Global Day of Action against Nuclear Weapons. During the week, a delegation of 23 parliamentarians, from 14 countries not yet party to the TPNW, met calling for governments to sign and ratify the treaty. The UN meetings concluded with a declaration reaffirming commitments to getting more countries to join the ban, denouncing nuclear deterrence as policy, and unfortunately restating nations’ so-called “inalienable” right to nuclear energy. The Third Meeting of States Parties to the treaty will take place March 3-7, 2025 in New York.

Outside of the United Nations, Nukewatch brought the message of hope of the nuclear ban treaty to the nuclear-armed states that boycotted the meetings. At the Rally and March to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Nukewatch’s Kelly Lundeen read a letter urging the U.S. and Russia to join the TPNW and work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. When she tried to deliver the letter to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations it was rejected by security at the door, despite several prior attempts to alert them of the visit.

Kelly and John returned to the U.S. Mission two days later on November 30 with Catholic Workers, New York War Resisters League, and Raging Grannies to make sure their message was heard inside. Kelly was part of a blockade of all three entrances that shut down the Mission offices for two hours resulting in the arrest of 18 people. She said, “Nuclear weapons have been banned. The world has spoken. As a U.S. citizen ashamed of what my country has done, I’m here to stand in solidarity.” All 18 were released from jail later that afternoon with a ticket for a court appearance.

Resources and further reading:

by Leave a Comment

Study Finds Low- Level Radiation Deadlier than Previously Thought Nuclear Industry Pushes Deregulation

By John LaForge

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is being pushed by the industry to “drastically weaken its safety and security regulations,” writes Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in The Hill.

Industry lobbyists claim that proposed new, experimental, untested, and unlicensed “micro” or “small modular” reactor designs will be so much safer than today’s faulty units, that they will need less oversight and regulation.

Lyman points out that these design plans, which have “new safety and security risks,” exist only on paper or have a limited or mostly irrelevant practical record.

Still the nuclearists have convinced many in Congress that NRC rules and regs are to blame for the collapse of new reactor licensing and construction in the U.S.

The current NRC is drafting a new “Part 53” rule that requires applicants to provide ‘experimental evidence’ that demonstrates an achievable high level of reactor safety. NRC Chair Christopher Hanson has pointedly demanded that the industry “show [their] work.”

But the industry meddled deeply in the rule-making process because it wants to delete any requirement for “probabilistic risk assessments” — technical analyses of all the things that could go wrong with new reactors and how well safety systems might work during emergencies. As Lyman writes, “it is hard to imagine a ‘risk-informed’ licensing process that does not require applicants to quantify risks.”

While the industry promotes the weakening of worker protections, new evidence suggests that radiation exposure standards should be toughened. The British Medical Journal for August 16, 2023, published a major new study of over 300,000 nuclear industry workers. The principle finding was that prolonged exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation is associated with a higher risk of death from cancer than previously thought.

The international team analyzed deaths among a huge cohort of 309,932 workers in nuclear industries in the U.K., France, and the United States. They calculated that for every cumulative unit of radiation (or “Gray”) that workers were exposed to, the risk of death from solid cancer increased by 52%.

Matthew Dunn, vice president of Medical Physics at the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, said, “This study provides good evidence that even low doses of radiation in medical, occupation, or environmental settings have the potential to cause cancer.”

Paul Pharoah, professor of Cancer Epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said, “The researchers found a 50% increase in risk per Gray of ionizing radiation with evidence that the increase in risk per Gray is greater at lower doses — for 0 to 20 mGy there was a 130% increase in risk per Gray.”

“People often assume that low dose rate exposures pose less carcinogenic hazard than the high dose rate exposures experienced by the Japanese atomic bomb survivors,” the team wrote in the BMJ. “Our study does not find evidence of reduced risk per unit dose for solid cancer among workers typically exposed to radiation at low dose rates.”

—The Hill, July 25; The Independent, Aug. 17; Technology Networks, Aug. 18, 2023

The National Cancer Institute is studying cancers and other risk factors resulting from the dramatic increase among the U.S. population of exposure to radiation through medical diagnostic tools involving radiation. Photo: National Cancer Institute.

 

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