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 11, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Forest Fires Are Setting Chernobyl’s Radiation Free

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2020
Quotations excerpted from the report by Jane Braxton in the The Atlantic’s Aug. 10, 2020 edition.

In the 1,000-square-mile exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear reactors in Ukraine…

“… wildfires … have grown larger and more frequent. Each fire releases radionuclides, just as [Vasyl Yoschenko, a Ukrainian radio-ecologist] and his colleagues documented…. But none has incinerated the landscape at the scale of the fires that burned this past April. They were far larger than any since the 1986 disaster, burning for weeks and scorching nearly 165,600 acres.…[See Summer 2020 Nukewatch Quarterly, p. 6]

“Monitors in Norway, 2,000 miles away, detected increased levels of cesium in the atmosphere. Kyiv was smothered in smoke. Press reports estimated that the level of radiation near the fires was 16 times higher than normal, but we may never know how much was actually released: Yoschenko, [Sergiy] Zibtsev [a forestry professor at the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine], and others impatient to take on-the-ground measurements were confined to their homes by the coronavirus pandemic.…

“When Chernobyl’s trees burn, they send their stored radionuclides aloft as inhalable aerosols. Instead of blasting from a single source, as it did in 1986, the contamination now comes from the trees that cover some 660 square miles around the nuclear power plant.… If Chernobyl forests burn, contaminants will migrate outside the immediate area,” says Zibtsev. “We know that.”

[Beginning in 1993, Zibtsev] “spent the next five summers collecting soil and vegetation samples that were later analyzed for traces of radionuclides. The radiation he found there was higher than it had been in the period immediately following the explosions, a surprising observation until Yoschenko’s 2003 experimental burn explained it: Fires had burned 12,500 acres in 1992….

“In 2015, a rash of fires in Chernobyl brought international attention to their dangers. From April to August 37,066 acres burned within the exclusion zone…. “April’s fires … scorched 23 percent of the exclusion zone… nearly four and a half times the size of fires in 2015….”

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

October 11, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

DOE Report on Hazards of Pacific Island  Plutonium Waste Dump Called “Flippant”

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2020
Graffiti on Runit Dome, a concrete cap over some 3 million cubic feet of plutonium contaminated waste from nuclear bomb tests, on Runit Island of the Marshall Islands, urges the United States to remove the toxins that were dumped into an unlined bomb crater by the US military. Photo: Mika Makelainen / Yle

Between 1946 and 1958, the US performed 67 nuclear bomb test explosions in the Marshall Islands, equaling 1.6 Hiroshima-size explosions a day for twelve years. The Marshallese people were relocated away from testing sites, but did not escape the radioactive fallout that spread through the islands, causing burns, birth defects, and cancers. Some were purposely allowed to return to radioactive areas to inform US research. In the 1970s, over 110,000 cubic yards or 3.1 million cubic feet, of plutonium-contaminated soil and debris from the bomb tests were collected and abandoned on Runit Island under the “Runit Dome,” an unlined crater—left by a bomb test—covered with a concrete cap.

In 2019, Congress ordered the Department of Energy to address the threat of radioactive material leaking from Runit Dome, and to draft a repair plan. The DOE’s 2020 report claims the dome “is not in any immediate danger of collapse or failure,” but does admit that rising sea levels could affect the stability of the cracked contrete. Groundwater contamination could increase and, the report says, “no definitive data exists on how these events might impact the environment.” The DOE planned a groundwater radiochemical analysis program, though it’s now paused due to current travel restrictions. The DOE claims that rising levels of plutonium found in lagoon waters near the dome are due to existing contamination in sediments, not from materials spreading from the unlined crater. A dome repair plan was not included in the DOE report, although according to the World Health Organization the dome was never a long-term solution.

Since the report was based soley on US government data, critics have demanded an independent evaluation of the dome’s condition. US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and Rhea Moss-Christian, Chair of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Commission, accuse the DOE of downplaying the health and environmental risks posed by rising sea levels and storm surges on the dome’s decrepit concrete. Moss-Christian’s commission has condemned the lack of consultation between the DOE and independent scientists or the Marshallese people. The absence of data in the report makes it “disappointing,” said Rep. Gabard, who even called it “flippant.” Moss-Christian said, “So my main takeaway from the report is that many risks are still ‘unknown.’” —CM

—Guam Daily Post, July 29; Los Angeles Times, July 27; and DOE “Report on the Status of Runit Dome,” June 2020.

Filed Under: Environment, Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

October 11, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

14-Hour Fire May Have Wrecked Nuclear-Powered French Submarine 

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2020

Fire broke out June 12 in France’s nuclear-powered submarine La Perle while it was in drydock in the Mediterranean port of Toulon. The submarine burned for 14 hours before firefighters extinguished the blaze, Reuters reported.

The fire was doused when foam was used to flood the sub’s rear compartments. Maritime officials said the Perle’s “reactor rooms remains untouched.” The French navy said that there were no casualties and no risk of radiation release “because the nuclear [reactor] fuel had been removed during the renovation of Perle,” the Agence France Presse (AFP) reported. “There was a fire, but no, there was not a nuclear accident,” said Defence Minister Florence Parly, according to AFP. “There was absolutely no nuclear fuel aboard and not a single weapon,” Parly said.

One of six French “attack” submarines assigned to hunt other subs and guard other nuclear-armed, long-range missile submarines, Perle did not carry nuclear weapons. Launched in 1993, Perle is already eligible for decommissioning, and the fire damage may force its retirement. —CM

—The National Interest, June 19; Defense News, June 16; Agence France Presse, and Reuters, June 13; and Forbes, June 12, 2020

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

October 11, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Moody’s Says Climate Crisis Threatens Nuclear Reactors

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2020

According to an August 18 report by Moody’s Investors Service, “over half” of US nuclear reactor generating capacity “face growing credit risks” in the next 10 to 20 years due to flooding, hurricanes, heat stress and other predicted impacts of climate change.

“The consequences of climate change can affect every aspect … from fuel handling and power and steam generation to maintenance, safety systems and waste processing,” the report said.

The highest risk or “red flag” category includes reactor sites that are “highly exposed to historical and/or projected risks,” Moody’s said. The report gives five nuclear stations the red flag because of potential floods. Another 13 reactor sites got redflags for heat stress. The threat of windstorms, sea-level rise, and water stress each put one reactor complex in the red flag category, because “proximity of power plants to large bodies of water leaves them vulnerable to flooding, hurricanes, and storm surges, which increases the risk of damage,” Moody’s said.

The simultaneous risks of earthquakes and tsunamis, such as devastated Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan in 2011, were not assessed in the report.

—Beyond Nuclear; and S&P Global, Aug. 18, 2020

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

October 11, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Ontario Reactor Operator Cancels Great Lakes Rad Waste Dump

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2020

Some 40 million Canadians and US residents who rely on the Great Lakes for fresh water are celebrating the June 24 cancellation of plans to dig a deep underground dump for radioactive waste near the shore of Lake Huron. The firm Ontario Power Generation (OPG) spent 16 years seeking approval for a dump on Bruce Peninsula northwest of Toronto, but it failed to sway public opinion or convince Canadian regulators that its half-mile deep “abandonment,” less than 1 mile from Lake Huron, could keep the waste’s radioactivity out of the drinking water.

After years of steadfast opposition by thousands of nuclear critics, scientists, community and political leaders from the Great Lakes region, hundreds of flaws were found in OPG’s applications and assessments and even the pro-nuclear Canadian government in Ottawa demanded better risk analysis from the firm.

Perhaps the last straw came Jan. 31, when the Saugeen Ojibway Nation overwhelmingly voted against the deep repository in a Community referendum. OPG earlier promised that it would not continue with the project if it did not have the First Nation’s backing.

—Detroit Free Press, Beyond Nuclear, June 26, 2020

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • …
  • 222
  • 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