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

October 29, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Power & Weapons Don’t Mix

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2019
By John LaForge
The US military tested then cancelled plans to power rockets with reactors. Radiation vented from the unshielded flying reactor and even working as planned Project Pluto’s nuclear ramjet, above, would spew contrails full of radioactive fission products. US government photo.

Nuclear weapons and reactors give science a bad name. Combining the two can be a suicide mission.

Five Russian government scientists and three others were killed August 8 near Nyonoksa, on the White Sea in Russia’s far north, by the accidental explosion of what was reportedly a small nuclear reactor inside a missile. Exactly what kind of nuclear device blew up remains unclear.

According to news reports—frustratingly vague because of government secrecy and conflicting statements by federal agencies—the Russian Federation weapons experts who died were testing a new “nuclear-powered” Cruise missile, or trying to retrieve a failed one that fell into the sea. Pentagon analysts code-named the experimental missile “Skyfall.”

CBS News reported Aug. 12 that the explosion “could have contaminated the White Sea with radioactive waste.” Then, Sept. 4 Bellona—the environmental institute based in Oslo—reported that irradiated debris from the explosion had washed up on a nearby beach.

Rosatom, the Russian Federation’s reactor and weapons agency, said in a statement Aug. 10 that the scientists who died were testing a “liquid propellant rocket engine” at a missile test site about 40 miles from the city of Arkhangelsk, Al Jazeera reported. But Bellona reported that news services citing intelligence sources had said, “the blast occurred during a mission to salvage a nuclear powered cruise missile from the bottom of the White Sea, off Russia’s Arctic coast.”

The blast caused an international sensation, partly because a radiation spike was reported 18 miles away in Severodvinsk, a city of 183,000 people, and partly because of sketchy and contradictory information coming from Russian Federation authorities.

City officials with the Emergencies Ministry in Severodvinsk said airborne radiation levels had risen to 20 times above the area’s average, the Associated Press reported Aug. 14.

The defense ministry insisted the day of the explosion that no radiation had been released.

The online magazine Slate reviewed published accounts and reported Aug. 13 that Russian news outlets said “radiation readings briefly spiked to 200 times normal background levels, according to the New York Times, but those reports were quickly taken down. On Aug. 13, Russia’s TASS news agency reported that the state weather agency said radiation levels in the nearby city of Severodvinsk rose between four and 16 times after the explosion. … while the Russian defense ministry initially said there was no background radiation elevation at all.”

Rosatom officials initially told the media that what exploded was a “nuclear battery,” like the plutonium-238 packs—called “radioactive thermal generators” or RTGs—used by the United States and Russia to power instruments onboard long-distance outer space probes. “This is a nuclear battery” or a “nuclear isotope power source” for a rocket engine, said a spokesman for Rosatom, noting that the word “reactor” had nothing to do with the explosion.

However Rosgidromet, the Russian Federation’s national weather agency, reported that among the radioactive isotopes that were dispersed, some in particular—strontium-91, barium-139, barium-140, and lanthanum-140—could only have come from a nuclear reactor accident.

On Aug. 26, Bellona confirmed that “The presence of decay products like barium and strontium is … proof that it was a nuclear reactor that exploded,” quoting Nils Bøhmer, a Norwegian governmental nuclear safety expert, who spoke to the Barents Observer. “Had it been an RTG, none of these isotopes would have been detected,” Bøhmer said.

Hospital Workers Kept in the Dark

Secrecy regarding the exact nature of the accident extended to the surviving victims and the hospital staff that treated them.

Several of those seriously injured in the accident were brought to the Arkhangelsk Regional Clinical Hospital. The Moscow Times and Reuters reported that as many as six of the injured were transported by helicopter to Moscow “wrapped in film” to be treated for radiation exposure.

The Moscow Times reported Aug. 16 that three injured men arrived at the hospital “naked and wrapped in translucent plastic bags.” The state of the patients made staff suspect they were dealing with something very serious.

The New York Times said Aug. 26 that doctors and nurses in Arkhangelsk “were not warned that patients arriving from the [explosion] site were contaminated with radiation, and treated them without protective clothing.”

The Barents Observer reported that 10 of the doctors who treated the injured were sent to the Federal Medical Biophysical Center in Moscow for medical treatment. When one of the doctors was later found to have radioactive cesium 137 in his tissue, the regional government in Arkhangelsk issued a statement saying the contamination was “with some degree of certainty” unrelated to the accident, and “likely from fish, mushrooms, lichens, seaweed” contaminated by another source, the statement said.

Officials told the doctor he probably ate “Fukushima crabs” while on vacation in Thailand.   —John LaForge

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

October 29, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radioactive Particles Possibly Migrating from California’s Woolsey Fire

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2019
By Kelly Lundeen and Maggie Gunderson

Last November, the Woolsey Fire near Los Angeles, California caused three immediate deaths and concern nationwide—from West Coast residents including the Kardashians to the East Coast nonprofit organization Fairewinds Energy Education.

What’s worrisome is the potential re-suspension and dispersal of radioactive contamination from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), a Superfund site where the fire began. A partial meltdown of the Sodium Reactor Experiment at SSFL—which was the first nuclear reactor meltdown in the US and cause of the fourth largest release of radioactive iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power—occurred in 1959 and was kept secret for two decades. See the cover story in the Winter 2018-19 Nukewatch Quarterly.

Responding to public alarm, both the US Department of Energy and the California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control initially assured the public that the 2018 Woolsey Fire had not affected the contaminated areas, that no radioactivity was released, and that there was no threat to nearby communities. When satellite photographs revealed the contrary, both agencies were forced to walk back their statements.

Following reactor meltdowns in Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), nearby wildfires have repeatedly re-suspended radioactive materials that were spewed, dispersed and deposited on surrounding territory. To ascertain where radioactively contaminated micro particles of dust and dirt may have migrated—in the winds that drove the Santa Susana fire all the way to Malibu Beach—Fairewinds Energy Education and Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA) have embarked on an independent sampling project. Fairewinds developed protocols for a “citizen science” program along with Dr. Marco Kaltofen, a radioactive dust expert and professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a private research university in Worcester, Mass. PSR-LA instructed area citizens in gathering more than 400 dust and soil samples following the fire, making this study statistically meaningful. Due to the high cost of the five-stage process using Geiger counters, liquid scintillation detectors, and scanning electron microscopes, only 20 of the first batch of 100 samples are currently at the laboratory. Learn more about the ongoing program at <www.fairewinds.org/woolsey-fire-blog>.

—M. Gunderson, Fairewinds Energy Education, Sept. 2019; Gar Smith, Nuclear Roulette, Chelsey Green Publishing, 2012, p. 63.

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

October 29, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

White House Approves Plan to Fire Reactors into Space

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2019

Twelve days after the experimental nuclear reactor-propelled rocket exploded in Russia killing eight scientists, and with funeral services for the dead barely complete, President Trump signed a White House memorandum supporting the rocketing of US nuclear reactors into outer space. Trump’s Aug. 20 memo gives NASA managers “180 days to create an Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board to ensure the safety of launching radioisotope power systems, fission reactors used for power and propulsion and more,” the New York Post reported. “The federal government and private companies have been eyeing nuclear-powered space exploration and nuclear reactors to fuel missions to the moon, Mars and beyond,” the Post reported.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine bubbled with enthusiasm at an August meeting of the National Space Council, saying his scientists could harness the heat from nuclear reactors to accelerate propellants to tremendous speeds.

Rex Geveden, president and CEO of BWX Technologies, claimed that a reactor-powered rocket could cut in half the travel time needed to reach Mars. Geveden said at the Space Council meeting, “If we are to fulfill these objectives to establish a long-term presence on the moon and to send the first crewed mission to Mars, nuclear power is arguably the most important to enable these bold goals.” BWX  Technologies sells reactor parts and reactor fuel to the government and the nuclear industry. NASA’s Bridenstine said nuclear-powered propulsion “gives us an opportunity to really protect life when we talk about the radiation dose when we travel between earth and Mars,” the Houston Chronicle reported.  —New York Post; www.space.com; and Houston Chronicle; Aug. 20, 2019

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized

October 29, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Governance in Canada: A Corporate Coup?

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2019
By Gordon Edwards

In November 2018, Canada’s Ministry of Natural Resources (NRCan) released a “Road Map” signaling its support for a group of multinational corporations, headed by SNC-Lavalin Corporation, to build, test, and deploy a new generation of nuclear reactors. [SNC-Lavalin is a $10 billion engineering, mining and nuclear conglomerate based in Montreal.]

There are no customers yet for these “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” (SMRs), and the Union of Ontario Indians opposes them altogether. But NRCan wants them installed widely, mainly in the north, to accelerate resource extraction … and to replace diesel in isolated settlements including indigenous communities.

This is the brainchild of SNC-Lavalin and its partners, Fluor, Inc. and Jacobs Corp.

In 2015, Canada’s government under Joseph Harper put the consortium of the three corporations in charge of federally-owned nuclear facilities and Canada’s $8 billion radioactive waste liability. Billions of tax dollars have been pouring into its coffers via Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, a government corporation…. Tasked with reducing Ottawa’s radioactive liability quickly and cheaply, the consortium—operating as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL)—launched a series of alarming initiatives:

  • CNL proposes to pile on the surface one million cubic meters of mixed radioactive waste in a huge earthen mound 5 to 7 stories high, covering 11 hectares [27+ acres] at Chalk River, less than a kilometer from the Ottawa River. This scheme, a drastic departure from previous plans, flies in the face of international guidelines. It is opposed by 140 municipal resolutions including 82 from the Montreal region.
  • CNL plans to “entomb” the radioactive remains of two reactors beside the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers—dumping the reactors’ contaminated insides into the sub-basement, then flooding it with grout, creating permanent radioactive waste “mausoleums.” This approach violates promises that decommissioned reactor sites would be returned to “green field” status, and defies warnings against “entombment” by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  • CNL is moving federally owned radioactive waste from Pinawa (Manitoba), Douglas Point (Ontario), Bécancour (Quebec), and Port Hope (Ontario) to Chalk River. Of the 2000 planned shipments, 500 are so radioactive that shipping containers must be shielded to protect drivers and the public from excess gamma radiation exposure. Fifty truckloads will carry the most highly radioactive material on Earth, irradiated nuclear fuel, from Pinawa, Douglas Point and Bécancour.
  • CNL is putting Canada’s federal nuclear sites at the disposal of the global nuclear industry, as testing grounds for an experimental Small Modular Reactor.

In effect, Canadian nuclear policy is being written by these private multinational corporations as a fait accompli, and Ottawa is complaisant.

“Canada does not yet have a federal policy for the long-term management of non-fuel radioactive wastes,” said Jim Carr, then NRCan Minister, in July 2018. We need one. Future generations require our diligence; other countries look to Canada for examples of responsible radioactive waste handling, transport, and long-term management. Government needs to take charge. Such decisions should not be left to corporate contractors.

The era of large nuclear reactors is over. Fewer reactors are operating today than 10 years ago. Projects for new reactors have ruined giant companies like Areva and Westinghouse. Nuclear energy’s share of global electricity production has plummeted from 17 percent in 1997 to 10 percent today.  The “Nuclear Renaissance,” ballyhooed since 2001, is a flop.

So how to keep the industry afloat? Maybe try manufacturing smaller reactors? But small reactors are more expensive per unit of energy; one has to sell hundreds or thousands of them to break even. Mass-production may partly overcome bad economics—but this brings its own difficulties. There are over 150 different designs for SMRs, each utilizing different fuels, different coolants, different moderators. The chance that any one design will corner the market and secure the sales volume needed to turn a profit is almost nil.

In July 2019, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissions invited public comments on the first of several SMRs to be built at Chalk River—a high-temperature gas-cooled molten salt reactor with a graphite moderator, and pebble-like enriched fuel.

The age of nuclear power is winding down, but the age of nuclear waste is just beginning. Public consultations with First Nations and other Canadians are needed to formulate acceptable policies regarding the characterization, segregation, packaging, labelling, transport and long-term management of radioactive wastes. Meanwhile, CNL’s plans and SMRs should be put on hold, and the consortium’s contract should be cancelled.

— Gordon Edwards, PhD, is a Canadian scientist, nuclear consultant, and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

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

October 29, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Nuclear Titanic” Arrives at Russian Seaport

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2019

The world’s first floating nuclear power reactors (two on one barge) arrived Sept. 15 at the town of Pevek in Russia’s Far Eastern region of Chukotka, 53 miles across the Bering Strait from Alaska. Dubbed a “Chernobyl on ice” and the “Nuclear Titanic” by critics, the reactors are supposed to supply power to a remote, Siberian mining complex. The reactors began their dangerous 3,100-mile journey through Arctic waters when the barge left Murmansk August 23. Russia’s state nuclear reactor agency Rosatom has said it wants to see the twin reactors aboard the 472-foot barge Akademik Lomonosov operational by the year-end. The head of Rosatom, Alexei Likhachev, reportedly said in a statement that nuclear reactors making electricity for mining is, “a small step towards sustainable development in the Arctic.” Other ocean-going vessels including submarines, ice breakers, and aircraft carriers use onboard reactors for propulsion. But not until now have nuclear reactors been built to bob on the high seas to provide electricity for on-shore projects.

—Reuters, Power Technology, and Agency France Presse,  Sept. 16; & Reuters, May 21, 2019

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • …
  • 94
  • 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