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

May 2, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Twin Reactors at Indian Point, 25 Miles from NYC, Leak Radioactive Water—Again

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2016
By Arianne Peterson

Entergy Corp. notified the State of New York February 5 that it had found “alarming levels” of radioactivity in three monitoring wells at its Indian Point Nuclear Facility near Buchanan, New York, 25 miles from the Bronx. One well’s radioactivity had increased by nearly 65,000 percent, and initial tritium* readings from the well water were as high as 8 million picocuries+ per liter—400 times the limit for drinking water set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Entergy is the New Orleans-based nuclear utility that operates the twin, 40-year-old reactors at Indian Point, supplying 25 percent of New York City’s electricity.

According to officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the leak was caused by a drain overflow as workers were transferring radioactive water. A sump pump that was supposed to filter the water into another treatment system was apparently out of service. While tritium was the predominant contaminant, the leak is also likely to contain strontium-90, cesium-137, cobalt-60, and nickel-63—heavier isotopes that move more slowly.

Environmental groups, including Riverkeeper and the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, cite the leak as one more reason to decommission the aging facility, which contains two operating and one permanently closed nuclear power reactors.

“Indian Point had seven different malfunctions since May of 2015… the next one could be a catastrophe,” said Paul Galley of Riverkeeper, a grass roots group dedicated to protecting the Hudson River from the Indian Point reactors next to it. The Hudson is used as a primary drinking water source for at least seven communities and a backup source for 9 million residents of New York City and Westchester County. The NRC and Entergy consider the facility’s periodic radioactive spills to be safe because they are diluted by the rest of the river water.

“The NRC says there is no safe level of tritium contamination,” Gallay said. “When tritium is released in concentrations as high as 400 times the standard for drinking water, it is not out of the realm of possibility that people recreating in the Hudson River will come into contact with that material, or consume fish that ingested some of this material. There is certainly a risk to the environment.”

Entergy holds a permit that allows it to regularly pour radioactive contaminants from Indian Point into groundwater, the Hudson River, and the air. In 2008, the company reported it had intentionally released 877 curies (877 trillion picocuries) of liquid radioactive effluent into the Hudson. A 2005 leak from a crack in its 400,000 gallon onsite waste storage pond prompted Entergy to dig dozens of test wells. According to a 2010 report from Beyond Nuclear, “the radioactive leaks under Indian Point have created at least two large underground radioactive ‘lakes’ containing concentrations of tritium, strontium-90 and likely other longer lived isotopes.”

“Tritium,” explained David Lochbaum, nuclear safety expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, “is just the first item reported. It tends to be the leading edge of any spill since it is the lightest and most mobile of the radioactive contaminants. The other isotopes slow down as they go through the soil. That other stuff is on its way, however. Tritium just wins the race.”

The decades of leaks and safety violations at the site—as well as the fact that there is no effective evacuation plan to help protect the 20 million people living within 50 miles of the reactors in the event of a larger accident—have caused New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to urge federal officials not to renew the facility’s operating license. Indian Point’s 40-year licenses for its two operating reactors expired in 2013 and 2015 respectively. The NRC is still considering Entergy’s 2007 application for a 20-year renewal of each. Gov. Cuomo, who in December ordered an investigation into the facility and the risks it poses to the surrounding area, has also ordered an investigation into the recent leak, saying, “This failure continues to demonstrate that Indian Point cannot continue to operate in a manner that is protective of public health and the environment.”

Besides the age and condition of the 42- and 40-year-old reactors, the station’s three miles of inaccessible underground piping—which cannot be inspected and have leaked in the past—are a major cause for regulatory concern.

Susan Shapiro of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition called on the NRC to penalize Entergy for exceeding its operating license and its state discharge permit. She said, “If you have a mom and pop gas station and they have an underground leak, they would be immediately shut down until the leak is plugged. In New York State, all groundwater has to be potable and contamination is not permitted. But Entergy is getting away with contaminating our groundwater just because they are under the auspices of a government agency that doesn’t feel as strongly about our water. For me, that is shocking.”

—Beyond Nuclear, “Leak First, Fix Later,” 2010; New York Daily News, Feb. 7 & 8; and Energy Matters, Feb. 12, 2016.

*Tritium is the radioactive form of hydrogen and is produced in great quantities inside nuclear reactors and inside waste fuel rods stored onsite in deep pools of cooling water.

+One picocurie (abbreviated as pCi) is one trillionth of a curie. A curie (abbreviated as Ci) is a large measure of radioactivity, defined as radioactive decay at a rate of 37 billion atomic disintegrations per second.

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

May 2, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Global Wind Power Capacity Tops Nuclear for First Time

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2016

The capacity of wind power generation worldwide reached 432.42 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2015, up 17 percent from a year earlier and surpassing nuclear reactor generated electricity for the first time, according to data released by global industry bodies.

The generation capacity of wind farms newly built in 2015 was a record 63.01 GW, corresponding to about 60 nuclear reactors, according to the Global Wind Energy Council based in Brussels. The global nuclear reactor generation capacity was 382.55 GW as of Jan. 1, 2016, the London-based World Nuclear Association said.

Wind energy has captured renewed attention as technological innovation has considerably lowered its generation costs while nuclear reactors continue to suffer a backlash following the 2011 Fukushima meltdowns.

Wind power is the leading energy source in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, the wind energy council said as it released the data last week.

China led all other countries in wind energy generation capacity with 145.10 GW. China promotes wind power to shift from coal and other fossil fuels to combat air pollution and global warming.

Coming in second behind China is the United States with 74.47 GW, followed by Germany with 44.95 GW, then India with 25.09 GW, and then Spain with 23.03 GW. Japan produced 3.04 GW.

—JL 

—Kyodo News Service, Japan Times, Feb. 20, 2016

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

December 14, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Child Cancer Cases Soar in Fukushima Contamination Zone

Thyroid Cancer Rates 20 to 50 Times Higher Than Average in Area Surrounding Reactor Meltdowns
Excerpted from the Toronto Star, October 8, 2015

A new study says children living near the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer at a rate 20 to 50 times that of children elsewhere.

“This is more than expected and emerging faster than expected,” lead author Toshihide Tsuda told the Associated Press during a visit to Tokyo. “This is 20 times to 50 times what would be normally expected.”

Most of the 370,000 children in Fukushima prefecture (state) have been given ultrasound checkups since the March 2011 meltdowns at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant. The most recent statistics, released in August, show that thyroid cancer is suspected or confirmed in 137 of those children, a number that rose by 25 from a year earlier. Elsewhere, the disease occurs in only about one or two of every million children per year by some estimates.

The study was released online this week and is being published in the November issue of Epidemiology, produced by the Herndon, Virginia-based International Society for Environmental Epidemiology.

Right after the disaster, the lead doctor brought in to Fukushima, Shunichi Yamashita, repeatedly ruled out the possibility of radiation-induced illnesses. The thyroid checks were ordered just to play it safe, according to the government.

But Tsuda, a professor at Okayama University, said the latest results from the ultrasound checkups, which continue to be conducted, raise doubts about the government’s view.

David J. Brenner, professor of radiation biophysics at Columbia University Medical Center, agreed. He said in a telephone interview that the higher thyroid cancer rate in Fukushima is “not due to screening. It’s real.”

Nearly 40 Percent of Fukushima Crisis Responders Received Over One Year’s Dose of Radiation

Some 38 percent of those involved in the emergency response operations at the Fukushima complex in March 2011 suffered radiation exposure exceeding the amount permitted to the public by the government, Japanese authorities in Tokyo announced October 28 after surveying nearly 3,000 workers.

The new government-run study revealed that 38 percent of the Self-Defense Forces, police officers and firefighters involved in the immediate operations following the triple reactor meltdowns in March 2011, were exposed to radiation levels higher than the annual public limit.

“The new survey comes as a surprise to the public as they were made to believe that the workers assisting in evacuation efforts suffered zero exposure as they were wearing full-body radiation suits and masks,” Tokyo’s daily Mainichi Shimbun/Reuters reported October 28.

Deadly Amount of Radiation Near Damaged “Containment”

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said October 29 that extremely high radioactivity levels—enough to kill a human being after 45 minutes of exposure—were present in a building connected by a pipe to the so-called containment vessel of reactor No. 2, the Japan Times reported October 30. The reactor was nearly demolished by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami-caused station black out. The loss of coolant caused the uranium fuel in three out of Fukushima’s six reactors to run out of control and melt down. Radiation levels inside the devastated reactors are too ferocious for monitoring even by remote controlled robots, which have repeatedly malfunctioned in the harsh radiation environment. The paper reported, “Extremely high radiation levels and the inability to grasp the details about melted nuclear fuel make it impossible for the utility to chart the course of its planned decommissioning of the reactors at the plant.”

 

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

December 14, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Radiation Plume in Pacific Reaches West Coast 

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2015-2016
By John LaForge

Officials from Fukushima’s owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Co., have said leaks from the destroyed reactor complex with “at least” two trillion Becquerels of radioactivity poured into the Pacific between August 2013 and May 2014. Yet this nine-month period isn’t the half of it.

“[W]e should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history,” Dr. Ken Buesseler, researcher with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said September 27.

Instead, the US EPA halted its emergency radiation monitoring of Fukushima’s radioactive plume in May 2011, only three months after the disaster began. Japan isn’t even monitoring seawater near Fukushima, according to the September 28 Ecologist: “Japanese government and IAEA ignore radiation risks to coastal population.”

The amount of cesium in seawater that Buesseler’s researchers found off Vancouver Island is nearly six times the concentration regularly recorded in the Pacific—cesium lingers in the oceans after being deposited in fallout from nuclear bomb tests that ended in 1963. The six-fold increase in Pacific cesium is a stunner and indicates that increases have steadily been accumulating since the Fukushima disaster began pouring contaminated water into the sea in 2011. Cesium-134 concentration in the same waters was only about twice the long-standing (bomb test fallout) average in November of last year, the International Business Times reported.

Dr. Buesseler announced his latest assessment after his team found that cesium drift from Fukushima had reached North America. Further, instead of assuring the public that the radiation plume is harmless, Buesseler said, “[E]ven if they were twice as high and I was to swim there every day for an entire year, the dose I would be exposed to is a thousand times less than a single dental X-ray.”

Cesium is increasing in the levels and number of samples with measurable radioactivity from Fukushima. …levels of cesium were more than 10 million times higher in 2011 off Japan than off the US and Canada today. These levels around Fukushima were a direct threat to marine life. Within months, levels remained thousands of times higher near Japan relative to pre-disaster concentrations and this led to the closure of fisheries, which is important as there is a greater health concern with ingesting these contaminants, than say swimming in the ocean at the same levels. 
—Dr. Ken Buesseler, Nov. 11, 2015

This comparison confusingly obscures important differences between external exposure (from X-rays or swimming in contaminated seawater), and internal contamination from ingesting radioactive isotopes, say with seafood.

Dr. Chris Busby of the Low Level Radiation Campaign in England explains the distinction this way: Think of the difference between merely sitting before a warm wood fire on one hand, and popping a burning hot coal into your mouth on the other. Internal contamination can be 1,000 times more likely to cause cancer than the same exposure if it were external, especially for women and children. And because cesium-137 stays in the ecosphere for 300 years, long-term bio-accumulation and bio-concentration of cesium isotopes in the food chain (in this case the sea food chain), are the perpetually worsening consequences of what has spilled and is still pouring from Fukushima.

Bags of radioactive waste piled up at a temporary storage site in Tomioka, Fukushima Prefecture. Four years after the nuclear disaster began, a final disposal site for tainted debris it created has yet to be designated.

Today, globalized radioactive contamination of the commons by private corporations has become the financial, political and health care cost of operating nuclear power reactors. The International Business Times article noted: “The planet’s oceans already contain vast amounts of radiation, as the world’s 435 nuclear power plants routinely pump radioactive water into Earth’s oceans, albeit less dangerous isotopes than cesium.”

Fifty million Becquerels of cesium per-cubic-meter were measured off Fukushima soon after the March 2011 start of the three meltdowns; cesium-contaminated albacore and bluefin tuna were caught off the US West Coast only four months later; 300 tons of cesium-laced effluent has been pouring into the Pacific every day for the 4½ years since; the Japanese government on September 14 openly dumped 850 tons of partially filtered but tritium-contaminated water into the Pacific. This latest dumping foreshadows what it will try to do with thousands of additional tons now held in shabby storage tanks at the devastated reactor complex.

The fact that Fukushima has contaminated the entire Pacific Ocean must be viewed as cataclysmic. The ongoing introduction of its radioactive runoff may be slow-paced, and the inevitable damage to sea life and human health may take decades to register, but the “canary in the mine shaft” is the Pacific tuna population which should now be perpetually monitored for cesium.

Last November Buesseler warned, “Radioactive cesium from the Fukushima disaster is likely to keep arriving at the North American coast.”

Mayors in Fukushima OK Disposal of “Low-level” Rad-waste

Town leaders in Fukushima Prefecture December 2 accepted a government-proposed disposal plan for storing relatively low-level radioactive waste at an existing facility inside the prefecture. The federal plan calls for the Ecotech Clean Center, a privately run disposal facility in the town of Tomioka, near the destroyed Fukushima No. 1 reactor complex, to be nationalized. The center will then store about 650,000 cubic meters of radioactive garbage contaminated by the disaster.

Fukushima Governor Masao Uchibori then met with Koichi Miyamoto, the mayor of Tomioka, and Yukiei Matsumoto, mayor of the town of Naraha, which accommodates a transportation route to the facility. All the residents of Tomioka, which is less than 20 kilometers from the Fukushima complex, are still living as evacuees because of high radiation levels in the town.

In spite of controversial radiation levels, the government is pushing to lift evacuation orders still in place throughout Fukushima prefecture. The federal government’s plan for overall disposal is to build final facilities in six prefectures that were contaminated with large amounts of the radioactive waste, but prefectures other than Fukushima are strongly opposed to the proposals.

According to an Environment Ministry report, “designated wastes”—contaminated with between 8,000 and 100,000 Becquerels of radioactivity per kilogram—exist in 11 other prefectures. Fukushima Prefecture’s acceptance may fuel calls for concentrating such final disposal there rather than having to overcome widespread opposition elsewhere.

Federal officials first presented their disposal plans to local governments in December 2013. This November, Tokyo unveiled “regional economic promotion measures”—called bribes by skeptics of the dumping, because they include a grant of $81 million—such as the creation of an industrial complex, and “additional safety measures.”

Sources: Japan Times & Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 3, 2015

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

December 14, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radioactive Waste Ignites in Underground Nevada Dump

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2015-2016
By John LaForge 
A 40-second cellphone video captured five explosions and some of the plume of smoke and debris from the buried nuclear waste ignition near Beatty, Nevada, Oct. 18.

On Sunday, Oct. 18, an underground fire caused a string of at least five explosions in a long-closed-down low-level radioactive waste dump in the desert, 10 miles from Beatty, Nevada. The fire and explosions, which produced plumes of debris and white smoke, were caught on a 40-second cellphone video.* The Associated Press reported that debris from the dump was blown up to 190 feet by the explosions. Officials closed 140 miles of US Highway 95 for almost 24 hours because of the rad-waste explosions and fire, and because heavy flooding damaged roads in Nye County the same day.

Neighbors complained later that they were not told of the fire or why the highway, their only escape route, had been closed. Beatty resident Cindy Craig said to CBS News, “We didn’t even get told about it until the next day.” In an Oct. 20 conference call with reporters, Nevada State Fire Marshal Peter Mulvihill said, “We don’t know exactly what caught fire. We’re not exactly sure what was burning in that pit.”

Because the fire and explosions were caught on video, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Nevada National Guard, the US Departments of Energy and Homeland Security, and even the National Nuclear Security Administration all became involved in the emergency. After some fly-over radiation testing Oct. 19, Rusty Harris-Bishop, spokesman for the EPA’s Region 9 office in San Francisco, said, “No gamma radiation has been detected at this time.” However, monitoring above the area of the fire and explosions was initiated well after plumes of smoke from the explosions had dispersed.

Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly said that US 95 was reopened at 5:30 p.m. Oct. 19, after air testing found no contamination.

The state National Guard later sent a four-member team to the scene to test ground-level contamination. They reported Oct. 21 not having detected alpha or beta radiation on the ground after walking within six feet of the burned trench.

Closed for 23 years, the 80-acre dumping ground was run from 1962 until 1993 by US Ecology, earlier known as Nuclear Engineering Co. US Ecology still operates a 40-acre hazardous waste dump adjacent to the radioactive waste site. A 1997 New York Times report about an earlier nuclear waste explosion said these accidents illustrate “how even a long-shut weapons plant can hide unknown dangers, and raise questions about what lies ahead.”

The low-level radioactive waste dump, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, consists of 22 trenches up to 800 feet long and 50 feet deep, and its older trenches have radioactive waste within three feet of the surface, the Las Vegas Sun reported. The accident took place in what is called Trench 14, which is part of a stadium-sized pit that was filled with rad-waste in the 1970s, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Certain radioactive materials are known to catch fire when in contact with water, so the flooding that struck prior to the fiery explosions may have caused them. Unfortunately authorities do not know what sorts of radioactive isotopes are buried in the trenches there. Nor does anyone know how much radioactive waste burned in the fire.

Management of the dump was transferred from US Ecology to the state of Nevada in 1993. Asked by the Review Journal if an independent investigation should be conducted to validate the integrity of the probe given that the state is conducting an investigation of an incident that happened on its own land, Department of Public Safety Director James Wright told the paper that “at this point we feel we have to get the initial findings.”

Judy Treichel, head of the nonprofit Nuclear Waste Task Force, also questioned whether Nevada state officials should be conducting the investigation. “I wonder if the state environmental department is smart, skilled and motivated to really dig through this thing,” she told the Review Journal. “The state is the property owner. The state is on the hook if there are big costs.”

Waste buried at the Beatty site does not include used fuel from nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons programs, but contaminated tools, clothing, medical and laboratory wastes and hardware such as steam generators from power reactors.

Buried Waste Theoretically and Literally Explosive

The history of self-igniting wastes is frightening, and warnings about the likelihood of further explosions are as recent as last year.

  • In February 2014, at a deep underground dump in New Mexico, a barrel of military rad-waste “burst after it arrived at the dump, releasing radioactive uranium, plutonium and americium throughout the underground facility,” according to National Public Radio. The so-called Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is an experimental project inside a deep salt deposit where the Pentagon is burying plutonium-contaminated wastes left from decades of nuclear weapons production. NPR’s March 26, 2015 story concerned the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 277-page report about the February explosion. The report says, “Experiments showed that various combinations of nitrate salt, Swheat Scoop® [cat litter], nitric acid, and oxalate self-heat at temperatures below 100°C.” The DOE report used the terms “thermal runaway” and “self-heat” rather than the word “explosion.” The underground accident contaminated 22 workers internally, spread plutonium contamination throughout the deep underground chambers, and shut down the operation. For almost two years, the DOE has been working to reopen the facility.
  • In expert hearings held in southern Ontario in Sepember 2014, Dr. Frank Greening made identical warnings about the potential explosiveness of Canadian radioactive waste if it were to be buried next to Lake Huron under plans made by Ontario Power Generation. (See p. 7)
  • In May 1997, an explosion ruptured a water line, and blew out windows and a door in the defunct Plutonium Reclamation Facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State, which for 40 years was the site of plutonium production for nuclear weapons. While no longer in operation, “plutonium-bearing material still remains” the DOE said at the time. Four months later the New York Times reported that the explosion “sent the lid of a big steel tank flying into the ceiling, cracking open the roof of the airtight building, and releasing a brown cloud of noxious, but not radioactive chemicals.” Eight workers, outside the building when the explosion took place, were sent for medical exams after reporting sore throats, headaches, and a metallic taste in their mouths.
    The 360-square mile Hanford Nuclear Reservation, on the bank of the Columbia River in southeast Washington State, was the site of nine plutonium production reactors during the Cold War nuclear weapons buildup and is now the one of most radioatively contaminated places in the world. Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images
  • In May 1996, a welding spark caused a waste cask explosion at Wisconsin’s Point Beach reactor on Lake Michigan. The blast of hydrogen gas was “powerful enough to up-end the three-ton lid while it was atop a storage cask filled with high-level waste.” The reactor’s owner called that accident merely a “gaseous ignition event,” but was later fined $325,000.
  • In 1995, government physicists Charles Bowman and Francesco Venneri at Los Alamos National Laboratory predicted that wastes buried at the (now-cancelled) Yucca Mountain high-level dump, 20 miles from Beatty, Neveda waste fire, might erupt in a nuclear explosion and scatter radioactivity to the winds or into groundwater, or both. Bowman and Venneri found that the explosion dangers will arise thousands of years from now—after steel waste containers dissolve and plutonium begins to disperse into surrounding rock. Former DOE geologist Jerry Szymanski said, “You’re talking about an unimaginable catastrophe. Chernobyl would be small potatoes.”
  • During the 1980s and 1990s the DOE reported that tanks holding high-level liquid radioactive waste at the Hanford Reservation and at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina could catch fire or explode from the build-up of hydrogen gas. According to the Seattle Times, twice in six months the DOE warned that 20 of 177 waste tanks could explode under certain conditions. The huge underground tanks store about 56 million gallons of the waste at Hanford. Likewise at the Savannah River Site, the Environmental Policy Institute reported in 1987 that tanks holding millions of gallons of liquid high-level wastes were at “substantial risk of exploding”—also from the combustion of either hydrogen gas or organic vapors. The chances of a tank explosion at Savannah River were reportedly as high as one in 50. Fifty-one large tanks there each hold between 750,000 and 1.3 million gallons of the unstable, thermally hot and highly radioactive liquids. At the two highly contaminated government sites, decades have been devoted to attempts at draining the tanks and solidifying the liquid wastes to prevent them from further contaminating groundwater. At Hanford alone, where 10 of 177 tanks had been emptied as of June 2013, the project has already cost $36 billion.
  • The worst known tank explosion took place at Chelyablinsk, in Russia’s Ural Mountains, the site of plutoniumproduction. On September 29, 1957 a high-level liquid-waste storage tank exploded—throwing a 160-ton lid off of the container, and spreading mainly strontium-90 across more than 64 square miles. The tank held 70 to 80 tons of highly radioactive waste, all of which was dispersed. The plume of radiation further contaminated the Techa River, fourteen lakes, and travelled at least 300 kilometers northeast from the explosion. At least 34,000 people were exposed to radiation—externally and internally—for one to three years before 10,700 were relocated from their homes. At least 200 people died from radiation sickness, and later the names of 30 small towns and a few larger ones were permanently removed from maps of the area.

The caustic, radioactive “self-heating thermal runaway” in Beatty, Nevada is only the latest warning not to bury radioactive waste. Putting the materials that act like explosive nuclear time bombs out-of-sight and out-of-mind will not keep us safe.

For such wastes, only above-ground, monitored, hardened, retrievable storage can ever come close to protecting the environment and human health. A halt to the on-going mass production of radioactive waste is the only economical path to finding improved and sustainable means of waste management.

Sources: Associated Press, Oct. 19, 20, 21 & 26; Boston Herald, Oct. 19; Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oct. 19, 20, 21 & 22; FoxReportDaily, Oct. 20; Las Vegas Sun, Oct. 21 & 22; and CBS Las Vegas, Oct. 22, 2015

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • …
  • 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