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

March 15, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima: Six Years On

A five-year-old undergoes a thyroid exam in February 2015 at a clinic at a temporary housing complex in Nihonmatsu, about 40 miles from the devastated Fukushima reactor site. Photo: Toru Hanai, Reuters.

By John LaForge

Spring 2017 Quarterly

March 11 marks the 6th anniversary of the world’s worst nuclear reactor disaster: the 2011 meltdown of three large power reactors on the Pacific Coast of Japan—Fukushima Daiichi—following a staggering 9.0 magnitude earthquake—the biggest in recorded Japanese history—and its 50-foot tsunami. The “station blackout” or total loss of electric power and cooling in six reactors, and the consequent hydrogen explosions and uncontrolled overheating and “melt-through” of three reactors, has resulted in the most devastating and complicated radiation catastrophe in history.

Fukushima is regularly misreported as less drastic than the singe-reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl, in Ukraine, in 1986. But France’s Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, reported five years ago that Fukushima was already the biggest single spill of man-made radioactive materials into to the marine environment ever seen or recorded.1 At least 300 tons of highly contaminated runoff have poured daily into the Pacific ever since.

Dr. Helen Caldicott says in the documentary short “Fukushima: Beyond Urgent,” that aired Feb. 13 says, “Japan is by orders of magnitude many times worse than Chernobyl.” In Crisis Without End (2014), Caldicott warned: “The Fukushima disaster is not over and will not end for many millennia. The radioactive fallout, which has covered vast swaths of Japan, will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. It cannot simply be ‘cleaned up,’ and it will continue to contaminate food, humans, and animals.”

The disaster of “Fukushima squared” (earthquake + tsunami + station blackout times three melted reactor cores) was caused by deliberate decisions made by General Electric, Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the government: to build reactors in earthquake zones; to place emergency back-up generators in flood-prone basements; and to ignore long-standing warnings about inadequate seawall protection.

For these reasons, Nukewatch never calls what’s happened at Fukushima an accident. Rather, we believe with Mayor Tamotsu Baba, of the town of Namie, who said in August 2011 that his “people were unnecessarily exposed….” and that the government’s withholding of warnings about radioactive fallout was comparable to “murder.”2

Radiation-caused illnesses, cancers and fatalities that result from reactor disasters (Windscale in England, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima) are scientifically predictable and known in advance. Researcher Arnie Gunderson noted two years ago that “Two reports recently released in Japan, one by Japanese medical professionals and the second from Tokyo Electric Power Corp., acknowledged that there will be numerous cancers in Japan, much greater than normal, due to the radioactive discharges from the triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi… I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that there will be at least 100,000 and as many as one million more cancers in Japan’s future as a result of this meltdown… The second report received from Japan proves that the incidence of thyroid cancer is approximately 230 times higher than normal in Fukushima Prefecture… So what’s the bottom line? The cancers already occurring in Japan are just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sorry to say that the worst is yet to come.”3

Japanese soldiers collect contaminated leaves in Fukushima Prefecture. AFP/Getty Images.

Japanese authorities now overseeing Fukushima’s disaster response are pressuring citizens to live in or return to areas that are contaminated with up to four times the annual radiation exposure allowed in similarly contaminated areas around Chernobyl.4 Thousands of Japanese incinerators are burning thousands of tons of contaminated debris collected in clean-up efforts—spreading radiation to the winds; and millions of tons of related debris will reportedly be used in road construction throughout Japan, exposing highway workers and nearby residents to long-term radiation risks.

On this somber anniversary, we remember the 19,000 people killed by the tsunami, the 160,000 evacuees who fled radiation zones contaminated by wreckage, and the infants, children and parents who endlessly endure examinations and treatments for thyroid problems stemming from the disaster.

The total cost of decommissioning the destroyed reactor complex and providing compensation to victims has repeatedly doubled. A December 2016 estimate puts the cost at $250 billion.5

The Japan Times reported this February that “Scientists still don’t have all the information they need for a cleanup that the government estimates will take four decades….. It is not yet known if the fuel melted into or through the containment vessel’s concrete floor, and determining the fuel’s radioactivity and location is crucial to inventing the technology to remove the melted fuel.”6

According to Dr. Shuzo Takemoto, a professor of Geophysics at Kyoto University, “The problem of Unit 2… If it should encounter a big earth tremor, it will be destroyed and scatter the remaining nuclear fuel and its debris, making the Tokyo metropolitan area uninhabitable. The Tokyo Olympics in 2020 will then be utterly out of the question.”7

Dr. Caldicott wrote this February, “should there be an earthquake greater than 7 on the Richter scale, it is very possible that … structures could collapse, leading to a massive release of radiation as the building falls on the molten core[s] beneath.”8

“Voluntary” evacuees to lose housing support

Some 27,000 so-called “voluntary evacuees”—people who fled their homes in areas beyond mandatory evacuation zones after the disaster began—were to lose their six-year-old housing subsidies at the end of March, 2017.

Thousands of Japanese, wary of government assurances that radiation was limited to official exclusion zones, chose to leave their homes. Many families reported suffering health problems beyond the officially contaminated area, including nose bleeds and nausea.

A local Fukushima Prefecture government spokesman told the news agency AFP that areas not covered by the original evacuation orders have been deemed safe, so housing subsidies were no longer necessary. “The environment is safe for leading a normal life and that means we are no longer in a position to provide temporary housing,” he told AFP.9

Greenpeace has said, “This amounts to economic coercion of those individuals and families that are victims of a nuclear disaster they had no part in creating. The group called on the Japanese government to cease its return policy, provide full financial support to evacuees, and “allow citizens to decide whether to return or relocate free from duress.”10

Groundwater from the mountains behind Fukushima gushes into the quake-smashed reactor foundations, pours over the melted fuel and becomes highly contaminated. This water then runs to the Pacific Ocean which is undergoing the largest radiation dump in recorded history.

A deeply trenched and drilled underground wall of ice that was supposed to divert ground water away from the reactors failed. Nuclear Engineering International reported last August 23 that according to experts, “little or no success was recorded in the wall’s ability to block the groundwater and the amount reaching the buildings has not changed after the wall was built.”

The Pacific covers more than 30% of the Earth’s surface, and with a surface area of more 62 million square miles, its basin is larger than the landmass of all the continents combined.

Part of the reason that whole-sea contamination can result from Fukushima was revealed last February when radiation gauges for the first time got near the melted fuel.

What the Tepco called “astounding” and “unimaginable” levels of radiation were recorded in January and February inside reactor 1. The radiation reading 530 sieverts per hour in January and 650 sieverts/hr on Feb. 9, Tepco said.11

News accounts first called this a “spike” in radiation levels, since the highest reading even during the disaster’s first days was 73 sieverts/hr.

The Washington Post reported that Azby Brown of the citizen science group Safecast, said “It doesn’t necessarily signify any alarming change in radiation levels at Fukushima. It’s simply the first time they’ve been measured that far inside the reactor.”12

On Safecast’s website, Brown wrote: “While 530 Sv/hr is the highest measured so far at Fukushima Daiichi, it does not mean that levels there are rising.” Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear also said “The 530 sieverts or 53,000 rems per hour has probably been there the whole while since March 2011.”

Further, the 530 sievert reading was taken some distance from the melted fuel, so the actual lever could be 10 times higher than recorded, according to Hideyuki Ban, of Japan’s Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, who spoke to the Washington Post.

Dr. Caldicott writes that “These facts illustrate why it will be almost impossible to ‘decommission’ units 1, 2 and 3 as no one could ever be exposed to such extreme radiation.”

Exposure to just one sievert is enough to result in infertility, hair loss and cataracts. According to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, a mere four sieverts can kill a person.

Notes

1 “Fukushima Disaster Produces World’s Worst Nuclear Sea Pollution,” Maritime Executive.com, Oct. 28, 2011

2 “Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril,” New York Times, Aug. 9, 2011

3 GreenMediaInfo.org, Nov. 18, 2015

4 Editorial Board, “Fukushima’s voluntary evacuees,” Japan Times, Dec. 3, 2016

5 “Tepco: Fukushima nuclear clean-up, compensation costs nearly double previous estimate at $250 billion,” Australian Broadcasting Corp./ABC News Online, Dec. 16, 2016

6 Emi Urabe, “Fukushima Fuel-Removal Quest Leaves Trail of Dead Robots,” Japan Times, Feb. 17, 2017

7 Shuzo Takemoto, “Potential Global Catastrophe of the Reactor No. 2 at Fukushima Daiichi,” Feb. 11, 2017

8 “The Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown Continues Unabated,” Independent Australia, Feb. 13, 2017

9 AFP, Straight Times, Jan. 17; and Japan Today, Jan. 18, 2017

10 Greenpeace, “Nuclear Scars: The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima,” March 2016, p. 22

11 Japan Times, Feb. 9, 2017

12 Washington Post, Feb. 8, 2017

 

 

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

March 15, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Unaccounted Radioactive Iodine Plume Reported Across Europe

Chart by French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety, press release, Feb. 13, 2017; & Independent Barents Observer, Kirkenes, Norway, Feb. 19, 2017

By John LaForge

Spring 2017 Quarterly

A plume of radioactive iodine-131 was detected “in the ground-level atmosphere” over large areas of Europe during the month of January 2017, France’s Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Institute de Radioprotection et de Süreté Nucléaire, or IRSN) reported February 13. The source of the reactor-borne contamination remains unknown.

The agency noted that because iodine-131 has a relatively short hazard life (half of it decays away in eight days), its detection “is proof of a rather recent release.”

The IRSN was unable to identify the source of the radio-iodine, but its press release noted that it was certainly “of anthropogenic origin,” the result of a release from a nuclear reactor or a reactor fuel facility accident. The agency acknowledged that “iodine-131 in the air could come from an incident with a nuclear reactor.”

The Independent Barents Observer reported that a monitoring station in Svanhovd, Norway was the first to measure the airborne iodine-131 during the second week of January. IRSN noted that, “The preliminary report states it was first found during week 2 of January 2017 in northern Norway. Iodine-131 was also detected in Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, France and Spain, until the end of January.”

The highest documented amounts of the radio-iodine were reported in Poland and Spain (see chart). Both the IRSN and the Barents Observer accounts called the observed amounts of radio-iodine “tiny,” and IRSN also used the phrase “trace amounts”—the scientific term-of-art that refers to very small volumes of radioactive isotopes.

Airborne radioactive materials are ordinarily measured in terms of the number of atomic disintegrations (Becquerels) in a given cubic meter of air. France’s IRSN said, “At Svanhovd, [Norway] measurements in the period January 9-16 show levels of 0.5 micro Becquerel per cubic meter air.” A micro Becquerel is one-millionth of a Becquerel.

Neither of the accounts noted that airborne iodine-131 can be ingested by breathing or by swallowing contaminated food or water, nor that internal radioactive contamination is more dangerous than external exposures. Iodine-131 accumulates in the thyroid gland where it is associated with the development of thyroid cancer.

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

March 15, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Spikes in Radioactive Emissions from Nuclear Power Stations

These data were from Gundremmingen, a boiling water reactor in Southern Germany. The chart shows that normal emission concentration (of noble gases) during the rest of the year was about 3,000 Becquerels-per-cubic-meter (3kBq/m³), but during refueling on Sept. 22, 2011 this sharply increased to ~700 kBq/m³, with a peak of 1,470 kBq/m³, in other words a “spike.” This data shows that NPRs emit much larger amounts of radioactive noble gases during refueling than during normal power operation. From the new data, Nuremberg physicist and statistician, Dr. Alfred Körblein, estimated … that about two thirds of the NPR’s annual emissions occur during refueling.

By Dr. Ian Fairlie

Up until very recently, it was impossible to obtain information on the time release patterns of radioactive emissions from nuclear power reactors (NPRs). Despite requests, British nuclear utilities and UK government regulators repeatedly refuse to publish any time-related data. Averaged annual emissions were released. But not monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly real-time emission data.

I [believe] most radioactive emissions from nuclear reactors are not spread evenly across the whole year, but happen during short refueling periods which occur about once every year or two and which last a few days or so.

These short spikes could explain a matter which has puzzled radiation protection agencies for decades: the reason for apparent increases in childhood leukemias near NPRs all over the world. Governments have insisted that these increased leukemias could not be caused by radioactive emissions from NPRs, because their estimated radiation doses were 100-1,000 times too low. But these estimates are riddled with uncertainties, and they don’t take the time patterns of radioactive emissions into account.

In September 2011, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in Germany released a press notice which contained data on half-hourly releases of radioactive noble gases from an NPR for the very first time anywhere in the world. This information is shown in the chart below for seven days in September 2011.

How was this data released?

In May 2011, German Green Members of Parliament entered the Bavarian State Parliament for the first time where they formed the Government in coalition with the Socialist Party. After several requests, the new Bavarian Government insisted that the state nuclear regulator release non-averaged data on emissions. The highly reluctant nuclear regulator was compelled to respond. In other words, the Green MPs obtained the data because they had the political power to force its release: there is a lesson here for environmentalists.

Why is this data important?

In order to refuel, reactor pressure vessels must be opened up. This releases large volumes of radioactive gases and vapors to the local environment. These include noble gases, H-3 (tritium), carbon-14, and iodine-131. Until now, nuclide amounts had only been published as annual averages throughout the world. Now, non-averaged values have been made available for scientific evaluation for the first time.

Could these spikes explain leukemia increases near reactors?

Yes. People living near nuclear power stations and downwind from them will be exposed to high doses of radiation during these emissions spikes—much higher than from releases during the rest of the year. Estimates range from 20 to 100 times higher. Recently the British National Dose Assessment Working Group published guidance on “Short Term Releases to the Atmosphere.”

This states that “…doses from the assessment of a single realistic short-term release are a factor of about 20 greater than doses from the continuous release assessment.” An older German study indicated that these doses could be a factor of 100 greater. …

Therefore higher doses from emission spikes could go a long way to explaining the increased incidences of child leukemias near NPRs shown by KiKK (2007 German government report) findings. IPPNW Germany warns of the probable health impacts of such large emission spikes. “Especially at risk are unborn children,” the physicians said..

“When reactors are open and releasing gases, pregnant women can incorporate much higher concentrations of radionuclides than at other times, mainly via respiration,” said Reinhold Thiel, member of the German IPPNW Board. “Radioactive isotopes inhaled by the mother can reach the unborn child via the blood and placenta with the result that the embryo/fetus is contaminated (‘labelled’) by radioactive isotopes. This contamination could affect blood-forming cells in the bone marrow later resulting in leukemia. This provides a plausible explanation for the findings of the KiKK study published in 2007 and 2008—that [children under five] living near nuclear power plants are considerably more at risk of cancer, particularly leukemia, than children living further away,” Thiel said.

—Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, was head of the Secretariat of the British government’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters. He posted a longer version of this article Jan. 19, 2012.

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

January 30, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Reactors Bankrupting their Owners

On January 22, FirstEnergy Corporation announced that its faulty and nearly-self-destructed Davis-Besse power reactor east of Toledo, Ohio, will be closed well before its license expires. But the shutdown is not because the reactor represents reckless endangerment of public health and safety. FirseEnergy was fine with that. No, the old rattle trap can’t cover its costs any more, not with the electricity market dominated by cheaper natural gas, and renewable wind and solar.

Davis-Besse’s early shutdown date has not been announced, but CFO James Pearson of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., the corporate division in charge of the wreck, said the reactor will close if lawmakers don’t approve a taxpayer bailout.

FirstEnergy said the financial sky was falling in March 2017 too. Its chief nuclear officer Sam Belcher [his real name] told the Toldeo Blade then — as the firm was preparing to float the bailout measure (SB 128) through the Ohio legislature — “The situation is urgent. In the absence of something happening, [taxpayer-funded welfare for the private, investor-owned company] we’re going to have to make some tough decisions.” So far, state lawmakers have refused to save the decrepit reactor using state property taxes. Lawmakers cite old-fashioned free market competition, and the failure of previous subsidies to save the mature, well-established reactor industry.

Serious accidents in 1977, 1985, 1998, and 2002 at David-Besse have endangered the reactor’s neighbors. The most hair-raising scare was the discovery in 2002 that corrosion had eaten through more than 6-inches of the reactor head’s carbon steel. The corrosion went undetected by federal and company inspectors for decades. Having gouged a hole in the reactor cover the size of a football, the corrosion left only 3⁄8 inch of steel holding back the high-pressure coolant. A break would have caused a massive loss-of-coolant accident and out-of-control overheating, resulting in catastrophic uranium fuel melting (known as a “meltdown”) and massive radiation releases.

Repairs took two years and cost $600 million, during which the Department of Justice penalized FirstEnergy over operating and reporting violations. FirstEnergy paid $28 million in fines. Yet the NRC allowed the company to restart David-Besse in 2004, and then to run the rust bucket for 40 reckless years, even after the company tacked on another $600 million in repairs in 2014.

Reactors Shuttered by Bankruptcy or Accident Risk from Calif. to New Jersey

With combined debt estimated at $3.5 billion and losses mounting daily, CFO Pearson said FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. will file for bankruptcy. Not just Davis-Besse, but the firm’s Perry reactor northwest of Cleveland, and Beaver Valley reactors 1 & 2, northwest of Pittsburg, will also likely be closed.

Elsewhere in nuclear reactor phase outs, California utility regulators decided January 11 not to save Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) from the free market, but to close the company’s two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon when their licenses expire in 2025. The San Francisco Chronicle noted that PG&E opened the complex in 1985 in the face of massive protests over the risk of disaster posed by extremely close earthquake faults, one only 650 yards away. Even after Fukushima, state and federal regulators shrugged “earthquake schmirthquake,” and forced the public to play Russian roulette with the old jalopy. (A record-breaking 9.0 magnitude earthquake off the northeast coast of Japan in March 2011 caused the world’s worst nuclear power disaster at Fukushima, a triple reactor meltdown that is still a geyser of radioactive gases and gusher radioactive water seven years on.) Unlike the bribe-happy legislatures in New York and Illinois, proponents of nuclear power have been unable to convince California state law makers to fund a bail out of PG&E.

In 2013, Southern Calif. Edison, owners of the San Onofre reactors north of San Diego, abruptly decided to close them. Reactors 2 and 3 have been churning out high-level radioactive waste since 1983 and 1984 respectively. The hulks ran into trouble when massive repairs and upgrades failed inspections. In May 2013, US Sen. Barbara Boxer said the reactors were “unsafe and posed a danger to the 8 million people living within 50 miles” and called for a criminal investigation into Edison’s installation of faulty replacement steam generators.

Other decrepit reactors that have closed or are closing soon including: Fort Calhoun in Nebraska, closed at the end of 2016; Oyster Creek* in New Jersey set to close in 2019; Pilgrim* in Massachusetts closing in 2019 or sooner; FitzPatrick* near Oswego, NY and FE Ginna in Ontario, NY (which were set to close in 2017, before state legislators agreed to a bail out); Clinton and Quad Cities* reactors in Illinois, which would have shut down in June 2017 except for another state taxpayer bailout. In 2016, two unfinished Bellefonte reactors in northern Alabama were cancelled. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s initial 1970 order for the two units dragged on for decades, costing electric customers $6 billion, before the agency declared them a lost cause.

Xcel Energy’s single unit Monticello* reactor on the Mississippi River in Minnesota can’t be far behind in this string of closures, especially considering its age and nasty accident record.

* These reactors are clones of the General Electric “Mark I” designed and built by the same engineers that put together the three earthquake-and-tsunami smashed and melted Fukushima-Daiichi reactors in Japan. –John LaForge

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

December 10, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Palisades Reactor to Close in 2018

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017

Entergy announced Dec. 8 that it will permanently shut down its Palisades atomic reactor on Lake Michigan by October 1, 2018, 13 years before its license expires. The long-troubled, 45-year-old single reactor joins a growing list of dangerous and expensive industry dinosaurs that can’t compete.

The Palisades unit reportedly has the most embrittled reactor pressure vessel of any in the US, so nearly two more years of operation raises the frightening prospect of a catastrophic release of radioactivity due to a “pressurized thermal shock fracture” of the vessel.

The good news is that, after permanent shutdown and removal of irradiated nuclear fuel from the reactor core, a meltdown can no longer happen, and high-level radioactive waste will no longer be made. Of course area residents and environmental watchdogs will have to make sure that dismantlement of the facilities, cleanup of the area, and management of the high-level radioactive waste on-site are done with as little risk to the workers and the surrounding community as possible.

In addition, a just transition must be put in place for the 600 workers at Palisades, and for the host community. There is a tremendous radioactive mess at Palisades that needs to be cleaned up, and high-level radioactive waste that must be safeguarded and isolated from the environment for 1 million years. Entergy’s workers and the public must be protected throughout, and the site’s complete cleanup must include radioactively contaminated groundwater, soil, and Lake Michigan sediments.

Palisades’ catastrophically vulnerable waste storage pool must be emptied, and the high-level waste transferred to Hardened On-Site Storage. Further, this storage pool must be maintained, albeit emptied of waste, even after decommissioning, so that in an emergency, if a dry cask has to be emptied, and its highly radioactive waste fuel transferred to a new dry cask, there is a place to do it.

—Beyond Nuclear, Dec. 8; Energy Busines Review, Dec. 9, 2016

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • …
  • 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