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 15, 2018 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Does Living Near Operating Reactors Cause Childhood Cancers? Nuclear regulators don’t want you to know

Fall Quarterly 2018
By Cindy Folkers, Beyond Nuclear

More than 60 studies have shown increases of childhood leukemia around nuclear facilities worldwide. Despite this finding, there has never been independent analysis in the US examining connections between childhood cancer and nuclear facilities. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct such a study, but then withdrew funding, claiming publicly that it would be too expensive.

In fact, documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal that NRC employees had already determined the study would show no impact. Internal emails indicate that staff was presupposing a conclusion for which they had no evidence, demonstrated by statements like “even if you found something that looked like a relationship [between cancer and radiation], you wouldn’t know what to attribute it to,” and “most people realize that all the evidence shows you’re not going to find anything.” The evidence, however, had not yet been fully collected and examined.

And studies in Europe found elevated rates of leukemia among children 5 and under living near nuclear power plants.

Not protective and unaccountable
Pregnancy and unborn children are the most vulnerable to serious damage from radiation exposure. Beyond Nuclear International

While the NRC claims it protects public health, its radiation exposure standards fail to account fully for:

  • impacts on the placenta
  • impacts on fetal blood forming cells
  • impacts on fetal and embryonic organs
  • estrogenic impacts
  • disproportionate impacts on women
  • genetic impacts after the second generation
  • cumulative damage of repeated radiation exposure

NRC exposure data and computer modeling is designed to demonstrate compliance with the NRC’s regulations, but not to assess health impacts. The NRC has already stated numerous times that it believes low doses of radiation, the kind NRC claims its licensees are allowed to release, pose risks so low that health impacts may not be discernible. We don’t know if NRC’s claims of no discernible or attributable public health impact from nuclear power are actually true since no one has ever looked properly.

Pregnant women

Pregnancy and unborn children are the most vulnerable to serious damage from radiation exposure. Studies in Germany and France show an association between operating nuclear facilities and childhood cancer. However, given the demonstrable bias of the US NRC toward low doses having no health impact, it is essential that a US study go forward under the auspices of outside, independent experts, in order to examine what is happening in the US.

Ground-breaking study plans were threat to current health assumptions

Under the original and now canceled study, the NRC had tasked the NAS to use the most advanced methods in order to update the study the NRC currently uses to claim its reactors are safe. That study, published in 1990, had several shortcomings including the way the authors define and examine disease, assumptions about doses, location of cases, and who is examined.

The NAS was considering two study designs, one examining specifically children. This study type, dubbed by one expert as a case-control nested in a cohort, is very similar in basic design to studies conducted in France and Germany, which show increases in childhood leukemia around nuclear power facilities.

The NRC scuttled the NAS study in 2015, dubiously claiming it would have cost too much and taken too long. Upon examination, however, it is clear that the NAS study would have challenged the fundamentals of the NRC’s health assessment regime.

To date, most radiation studies have routinely suffered from a host of improper methodologies, making it impossible to discern health impacts. The NAS was considering using new ways of examining the issue by implementing a more detailed, more thorough, publicly shared research protocol.

The protocol included:
  • Making the study process and underlying assumptions public while the study was being conducted
  • Allowing public comment during the study process
  • Standardizing raw health data and making it available to researchers and the public
  • Standardizing and verifying pollutant data
  • Integrating independently collected pollutant and meteorological data
  • Examining and redoing the current health models
  • Tailoring health studies to local conditions
  • Creating new health models, specifically for the radionuclide carbon 14, which concentrates in fetal tissue more than maternal tissue.

This detailed and accessible protocol could have opened the NRC’s regulatory regime to exhaustive scrutiny, revealing just how inadequate it is for examining health impacts in the first place, never mind protecting public health. Further, with such careful research, NRC could have feared that the NAS study would point to an association between environmental radiation and cancer, as other studies have, although FOIA documents consisting mostly of internal emails did not specifically demonstrate this fear.

Mothballed study could be revived, made better

While the NAS child study design and protocol had much to recommend it, what’s unclear is whether it would have been free of all of the flaws that have historically plagued radiation health assessments. When the study was cancelled, independent experts still had concerns.

Historically, industry and radiation regulators have insisted that a causal link must be absolutely established between radiation and disease. For protection of the public, however, experts claim the standard should be a lower bar of association with disease. If this study moves forward under the NAS, it needs to relinquish concepts and methods that favor causation.

To date, researchers have started radiation health studies by presuming that there will be no impact because doses are too low—a contention that, in reality, remains scientifically unproven. Many studies reveal the opposite. Any new such research needs to ensure that the basis for health assessments is a focus on health outcomes, not dose models that are fraught with uncertainties.

While NRC licensees [like reactor operators] attempt to monitor environmental contamination, the NRC has never incorporated biological monitoring, which might prove useful after spike releases from various facility outages. There are several techniques that have been used in other health studies, which a revived cancer study could weave into any child or adult health assessment.

A truly independent and scientifically robust study would attempt to address these issues in addition to using the other enlightened protocols the NAS was considering. With the public process and protocol review suggested by the NAS for this now mothballed study, perhaps these remaining shortcomings would finally have been addressed as well. The NRC made sure that did not happen. However, according to Ourania Kosti, the NAS researcher coordinating the study, the NAS has left the door open to completing it. “I think it is important to update the findings of the 1990 study using better methodologies and information,” Kosti said. “This is the reason the Academies agreed to carry out the update. The Academies remain willing to do the study, if asked to.”

—Cindy Folkers is the radiation and health specialist at Beyond Nuclear, in Takoma Park MD.

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

October 15, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Japan Study Finds Rise in Cancer—Officials Deny Link to Fukushima

Fall Quarterly 2018
By Joseph Mangano

It is now seven years since the catastrophic reactor meltdowns at Fukushima, Japan, of March 2011. Enormous amounts of radioactive chemicals, including cesium, strontium, plutonium, and iodine were emitted into the air, and releases of the same toxins into the Pacific have actually never stopped, as workers struggle to contain over 100 cancer-causing chemicals.

When tiny metal particles of the chemical element iodine enter the body through breathing, food, or water, they attack the thyroid gland, which is critical to physical and mental development. The dangers of radioactive iodine are nothing new. A 1999 National Cancer Institute study estimated that iodine in atom bomb explosions in Nevada from 1951 to 1962 caused thyroid cancer in up to 212,000 US children born in the 1950s and 1960s.

Only one official study on Fukushima’s harm to the Japanese civilian population exists, a screening for thyroid cancer in 380,000 local children under the age of 18. In January, the journal Thyroid reported 187 cases after five years. A typical population of 380,000 children would produce 12 cases in five years.

Japanese officials deny the notion that the Fukushima disaster caused this high number. “It is difficult to think that the cases are related to radiation exposure,” said a committee in the Fukushima area. Skeptics claim that doctors are examining thyroid glands in the screening far more carefully than usual, which inflates the numbers. Others take exception to this claim and believe the findings are the result of exposure to Fukushima fallout.

One way to understand whether Fukushima is the cause of this huge increase is to look at child thyroid cancer data in other areas affected by the meltdown[s], where no special screening program was conducted. The United States is such a place. Fukushima fallout, driven by prevailing west-to-east winds, entered US air space across the nation days after the meltdown[s began]. Although Environmental Protection Agency data show radiation levels well above normal during that period, officials have dismissed the notion that [the public] might have been harmed, based on the belief that radiation exposures were too low.

Cancer cases from all US states are on the Centers for Disease Control website up to 2014. The four-year intervals 2007 to 2010 and 2011 to 2014, which represent periods before and after Fukushima, can be compared.

Results show that thyroid cancer rates rose:

—33 percent for children ages 0-14;

—13 percent for young adults;

—11 percent for middle-aged adults;

—7 percent for the elderly.

The number of US child thyroid cancer cases diagnosed jumped from 645 during the four years prior to Fukushima, to 854 during the four years following Fukushima. Again, no change has been made in the method of diagnosing thyroid cancer. The two ways, which have long been in use, include (1) doctor’s detection of a lump in a routine physical; and (2) the child reporting symptoms and consulting a physician. This is a real and significant increase.

A key additional finding is that the US thyroid cancer rate rose for all age groups after Fukushima. But the 33 percent increase among children far exceeds rises in young adults, middle-aged adults, and the elderly—exactly what would be expected if Fukushima were a factor, as, although radiation is harmful to people of all ages, it is most damaging to the fetus, infant, and child.

Denial of scientific fact is not new in the nuclear world, which has operated in a political fishbowl since the atomic era began in the 1940s. For years, as atom bombs were tested above ground, both [US] and Soviet officials denied any health threat to people from these explosions. The leaders knew the truth, as a 1963 treaty signed by President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev banned above-ground tests. But not until decades later, when the Cold War had ended, did the National Cancer Institute study peg the number of thyroid cancer cases in children caused by bomb fallout at up to 212,000.

For years after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, health officials denied any local humans had been harmed, other than the 31 rescue workers who died after being heavily exposed while putting out the raging chemical fire in the reactor. Even today, the World Health Organization attributed only 5,000 thyroid cancer cases among children and 9,000 additional deaths from all cancers to Chernobyl. In all likelihood, these figures are hugely under-estimated. Other estimates—reflected in the book Chernobyl by Alexey Yablokov published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009, which used 5,000 references written in the Slavic language—suggest about one million excess deaths, and that the percentage of local children who are healthy slipped from 80 percent to 20 percent after the meltdown.

The effort to cover up damage to humans from Fukushima—led by industry and its willing partners in government, including scientific researchers—has seven years under its belt. This cover-up follows the usual post-meltdown recipe, including:

—Official announcements immediately after the meltdown that nobody was harmed;

—An official study focused on children with thyroid cancer, a very rare disease, to minimize the estimated damage;

—An unexpectedly large number of cases reported in the study, but repeated denials that Fukushima was a cause;

—Failure to conduct other studies or to provide any assessment of the broader potential harm to young people, including infant mortality, low-weight births, premature births, birth defects, and non-thyroid child cancers—or to screen for diseases affecting adults.

But all of the bureaucratic and corporate obfuscation, which will undoubtedly continue in the future, will not calm public fears. After a meltdown, people can tell that cancer rates are high. They know that more children are sick. More of their pets or farm animals are sick or die. They may not be health research experts, but their understanding of the truth always trumps the deceitful practices of an industry that has harmed so many. The “peaceful atom” concept first propagated in the 1950s to calm a world frightened by the prospect of a nuclear war between the United States and the USSR, has never been compelling enough to offset the dramatic and recurring cost to human health caused by nuclear power.

Nor are the Japanese people buying it. Of the 54 reactors operating in Japan in 2011, all were closed. Only five have been restarted, but these will most likely be shut permanently in the face of Japanese public anger. It is time for public health researchers to serve the public, despite persistent attempts to discredit them. They must conduct the needed studies and ensure that the truth about the consequences of [reactor] meltdowns—as well as lesser and more commonplace events such as chronic radioactive emissions—is understood not as “acceptable risks” but as some of the foremost threats to public health.

—Joseph Mangano is Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project and author of Mad Science, and Low-Level Radiation and Immune System Damage. He wrote this article for The Washington Spectator.

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

October 15, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Hokkaido Earthquake Causes Reactor Site Blackout, Recalls Fukushima Nightmares

Fall Quarterly 2018

An earthquake of magnitude 6.6 struck Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido Sept. 6, causing widespread power outages, landslides and blocked roads, leaving at least 20 dead, hundreds injured, and 20 missing. The quake also caused a blackout at the closed, 3-reactor Tomari nuclear power station, halting circulation of cooling water. Even in shutdown reactors, the uranium fuel remains ferociously hot. Operators had to switch to emergency diesel backup generators to keep cooling water circulating over the fuel rods. Conflicting reports about the recent quake said that Tomari’s reactors had been shutdown before the power outage (ever since the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi earthquake). However, the BBC reported Sept. 6, 2018 that “the reactor shutdown automatically.” Yomiuri Shimbun reported in August 2011 that Japan’s government had approved the restart of Tomari’s reactor No. 3, but that on May 5, 2012 reactor 3 was again shut down.

—Reuters, Japan Times, AP, Asahi Shimbun, and BBC, Sept. 6 and 7, 2018

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

October 15, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Tepco Admits Fukushima Water Treatment System Not Working

Fall Quarterly 2018
Huge waste water tanks crowding the compound of the destroyed Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station have been found to contain dangerous, long-lived radioactive substances, defying Tepco’s special treatment system, Kyodo News said.

Kyodo News reported Aug. 19 that the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (Tepco’s) water decontamination system is not removing all of the radioactive contaminants as the company previously claimed. Huge waste water tanks crowding the compound of the destroyed Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station have been found to contain dangerous, long-lived radioactive substances, defying Tepco’s special treatment system, Kyodo News said.

Tepco admitted that previously undisclosed radioactive isotopes in the treated water include iodine-129, ruthenium-106, and technetium-99. According to Tepco, a maximum of 62.2 becquerels-per-liter of iodine-129—seven times the 9 becquerels/L legal limit—was found in the water filtered by Tepco’s Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). The ruthenium and technetium have radioactive half-lives of 373 days, and 213,000 years respectively.

Water samples taken from some of the large tanks showed exceedingly high levels of iodine-129 which has a radioactive half-life of 16 million years. Tepco has been trying to get permission to dump the contaminated waste water—920,000 tons—into the Pacific Ocean, claiming falsely it is contaminated only with tritium and trace amounts of other isotopes. Tepco’s property has 880 of the large, hastily built tanks and is running out of room for more.

The company’s admission of faulty water filtration has raised questions about what more is in the waste water that Tepco is so eager to dump. A government panel debating how to deal with the waste water has focused on the tritium. The ethics of dumping radioactive materials into an international body of water are often completely ignored.

A complete list of the radioactive isotopes in the treated waste water has not been disclosed by Tepco, and the company said it hasn’t checked the concentration of radioactive materials in each tank. ALPS has regularly been described by the company and media as being capable of removing everything but tritium.

Regional fishing groups have fought the dumping plan claiming it will ruin seafood sales and wreck their livelihoods.

The Fukushima-Daiichi reactor complex was devastated when the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami caused a station blackout, shattered reactor foundations, wrecked backup generators used for cooling, and caused three reactors to suffer explosions and complete fuel meltdowns. Since then, tons of water are constantly poured into the reactor buildings to cover and cool three large masses of melted fuel, and it becomes extremely toxic and radioactive in the process. The water is filtered by the novel ALPS system, but removing the radioactive contaminants has so far proven to be unworkable.

—The Mainichi, Aug. 30; Kyodo, and Japan Times, Aug. 19, 2018

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

October 11, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

So Long to Japan’s “Breeder” of Radioactive Waste

Opponents of nuclear power rally outside Monju fast breeder reactor. Getty Images
Fall Quarterly 2018
By Kelly Lundeen & John LaForge

The Monju fast-breeder nuclear reactor in central Japan is the latest to join the long line of failed attempts to prove breeder technology. Even though Monju has been largely shutdown since a bad accident in 1995, proponents of the “sodium cooled” technology still promised miracles like perpetual power generated by producing more reactor fuel than was used. Monju limped along in cold shutdown after the accident, until 2018 when Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority put the final nail in its coffin and approved a plan for decommissioning—just like similar dead-end projects in the US, UK, Germany and France. One headline in Nikkei Asian Review read, “Japan to shut troubled ‘dream’ nuclear reactor: The decades-old plant cost almost $10 billion and hardly ever operated.” It operated only 250 days in the 14 years since its 1994 start up.

Japan expects to spend over $3.5 billion to decommission the giant machines which it estimates will take 30 years, (four years just to remove its 530 fuel rods) and engineers estimate the process will create 26,700 tons of radioactive waste. There is no process yet designated for removal of the 760 tons of radioactive liquid sodium coolant. The operators still have no licensed and approved destination for the high-level waste fuel rods, beyond placing them in an onsite cooling pool.

The theory behind breeder reactors was to produce more fuel than they use. Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors like Monju were to use plutonium fuel rods to produce more plutonium. Most breeder experiments, such as Monju, are cooled by liquid sodium, the “liquid metal,” an extremely dangerous chemical that ignites on contact with air and explodes on contact with water. The designers aspired to create a “plutonium economy” to make nuclear power viable long after the supply of uranium was depleted. Another breeder pipe dream was that the reactors would reduce the volume of solid radioactive waste by extracting plutonium from waste uranium fuel rods and turning it into fuel. The Achilles heel in this plan is its generation of huge volumes of liquid high-level waste.

Even after 60 years and tens of billions of dollars invested, not a single breeder reactor experiment has succeeded. “Despite its theoretical attractiveness in converting non-fissile into fissile material, the breeder reactor has turned out to be a far tougher technology than thermal reactors. Unfortunately the dream of breeder reactors has remained a theory. The magic of fuel multiplication has not yet been realized on any meaningful scale.” This assessment, written nearly 20 years ago by Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska in The Nuclear Power Deception, has been confirmed over and over again. Nevertheless, Russia, India and China continue to invest in the concept.

—The Mainichi, Aug. 30, 2018; Nikkei Asian Review, Apr. 6, 2018; Japan Times, Dec. 6, 2017

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • …
  • 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