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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Gains Strength

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

On Nov. 1, 2018 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of welcoming the adoption of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and calling on UN member states to join the treaty. The TPNW could come into force by the end of 2019, according to a report from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.

So far, 60 states have signed the treaty and 19 have ratified. It will enter into force and become international law after 50 states ratify. Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN, told Reuters in October, “We have about 25 or 30 countries that say they will be ready [to ratify] by the end of 2019, so it’s definitely possible” to pass the 50-country mark in 2019. The TPNW puts nuclear weapons in the same outlaw category as biological weapons, poison gas, land minds and cluster munitions, all of which are banned by treaties.

A newly launched watchdog publication, the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor will now measure progress related to signing, ratification, and entry into force of the TPNW.

Beatrice Fihn at Peace Prize Forum

“We started asking the people in power, ‘What’s your plan?’ …The serious hypocrisy at the heart of the [nuclear] doctrine was very conveniently ignored. Hypocrisy like the belief that increasing fear and uncertainty is the key to provide security. Hypocrisy like claiming, “Nuclear weapons mean power and security and stability, but weak and fragile states will not pursue them, that’s dangerous!’ Hypocrisy like asserting nuclear weapons prevent war, while going to war based on the real or made-up threat of states developing nuclear weapons. Hypocrisy like threatening to mass murder civilians as a means to promote peace….

“The real power of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is the creation of the conditions for all states to reject nuclear weapons. Because it has become clear that they are heinous and shameful and have no place in a modern democracy that adheres to international norms of human rights, and the moral and legal prohibitions against targeting civilians in war.”—Augsburg Peace Prize Forum, Minneapolis, MN, Sept. 15, 2018

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Filter Failure: A Million Tons of Toxic Water Far Too Radioactive for Release to the Pacific

By Dr. Gordon Edwards
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

Irradiated nuclear fuel is millions of times more radioactive than fresh nuclear fuel, due to the hundreds of varieties of human-made radioactive elements that are created during nuclear fission, many of which remain trapped in the irradiated fuel. See www.ccnr.org/hlw_chart.html

Irradiated fuel is so fiercely radioactive that it generates more than enough heat to melt the core of a nuclear reactor, just by the ongoing disintegration of radioactive atoms, even after the fission process has been completely stopped. Continual cooling of the core is essential after shutdown.

As soon as the 2011 Japan earthquake happened, all three operating reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi were shut off immediately. But nobody knows how to shut off radioactivity. The heat generated by the radioactive waste inside was what melted the cores of those three shut-down reactors at a temperature more than twice the melting point of steel. Lack of backup electricity resulted in lack of cooling. Overheating occurred, and meltdowns soon followed.

Those melted cores are still there, lodged somewhere in the sub-basements of the reactors. The melted fuel still has to be cooled, even seven and a half years after the accident.

Normally, when irradiated fuel is removed from an operating reactor, it is placed in a large pool of circulating water for about ten years. Cooling in such a pool is necessary to allow time for radioactivity levels to drop to the point where irradiated fuel no longer needs forced cooling to prevent spontaneous overheating.

Every day, for the first several years following the triple meltdown, hundreds of tons of water were pumped down into the melted cores and back up again, in order to cool the melted fuel—to prevent it from overheating again, releasing even more radioactivity into the atmosphere and groundwater.

By the time the water was pumped back to the surface it had become heavily contaminated with radioactive poisons that were flushed out of the melted reactor cores. Every day, new steel tanks had to be built at the surface to hold the highly contaminated water—much too radioactive to disperse into the ocean or the local environment. A small forest had to be cut down to make room for even more tanks to hold the radioactive waste water.

Today, there are more than a thousand such tanks covering large areas of land adjacent to the reactor site. These tanks hold about 900,000 tons of radioactive water. More contaminated water is being added to this dismal inventory every week, as cooling of the melted cores continues.

For years now, filtering equipment has been used to “decontaminate” this huge volume of water by removing over 60 varieties of radioactive contaminants. However, tritium (radioactive hydrogen) cannot be removed from contaminated water by any readily available filtration process, because radioactive water molecules incorporating tritium are chemically identical to ordinary water molecules. You cannot filter water from water. The tritium remains.

So, even if all other radioactive contaminants were totally removed, the 900,000 tons of water in storage would still remain heavily contaminated with tritium. For the last couple of years, experts from the nuclear industry have wanted to dump this contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean, claiming that tritium is not one of the most dangerous of radioactive materials.

Tritium gives off no penetrating gamma radiation, but if ingested through contaminated food or water, or inhaled as radioactive humid air, or absorbed directly through the skin, tritium damages living cells. It has been well-documented that tritium is a cancer-causing agent as well as a mutagen and teratogen, altering chromosomes and genes in a random fashion and causing abnormalities in developing embryos. See www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html .

Moreover, since tritium is biologically and chemically indistinguishable from ordinary hydrogen, it gets built right into the body’s organic molecules, including DNA molecules. Tritium also readily crosses the placenta, entering into the body of a developing child in the womb, resulting in the embryo having a higher concentration of tritium than the mother has.

Tritium is so difficult to control, and so easily dispersed into the air and the water around nuclear facilities, industry experts frequently advocate lax standards and permissive [dispersal] practices regarding tritium. See www.ccnr.org/GE_ODWAC_2009_e.pdf .

Japanese citizens, especially fishermen, do not trust the industry. TEPCO has lied to them repeatedly both before and after the 2011 disaster. These people have fought hard to prevent TEPCO from dumping the contaminated water into the ocean, despite TEPCO’s persistent efforts to browbeat them into submission by repeatedly insisting that tritium is nothing much to worry about.

Water Filtration Has Failed
[In September 2018 it was] revealed that there are dozens of other radioactive contaminants besides tritium in the contaminated water, and that these poisons are present at unacceptably high concentrations. [See report below.] TEPCO has claimed for years that all the radioactive materials had been removed, except for tritium.

It turns out that the previous “removal”… was far from perfect, in part because workers neglected to take the time or make the effort to frequently change filters. When filters get clogged they don’t work very well.

So the “tritium water” that TEPCO was prepared to dump is actually a stew of many other radioactive contaminants such as cesium-137, strontium-90, plutonium-239, iodine-129, and many more.

Beware of industry assurances. Their experts are predisposed to protect the nuclear establishment.

—Gordon Edwards is president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

See: “Water stored at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive,” Mari Yamaguchi, AP, via The Toronto Star, Sept. 28, 2018 

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Thyroid Cancer Increase Among Children and Teens Since Fukushima

Excerpted from Hayley Halpin, in TheJournal.ie
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

Over 180 teenagers and children have been found to have thyroid cancer or suspected cancer following the Fukushima nuclear accident, new research has found.

… As of November, the total of dead or missing from the earthquake and the tsunami stood at 18,434 people, according to the National Police Agency. In addition, more than 3,600 people—most of them from Fukushima—died from causes such as illness and suicide linked to the aftermath of the tragedy, government data shows.

The accident at the nuclear power station in 2011 has also raised grave concerns about radioactive material released into the environment, including concerns over radiation-induced thyroid cancer.

Ultrasound screenings for thyroid cancer were subsequently conducted at the Fukushima Health Management Survey.

The observational study group included about 324,000 people aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident. It reports on two rounds of ultrasound screening during the first five years after the accident. Thyroid cancer or suspected cancer was identified in 187 individuals within five years—116 people in the first round among nearly 300,000 people screened and 71 in the second round among 271,000 screened.  The overwhelming common diagnosis in surgical cases was papillary thyroid cancer—149 of 152 cases.

Pediatrician and renowned author Dr. Helen Caldicott reported to Nukewatch in a Dec. 6, 2018 email that, “The normal incidence of thyroid cancer among young people is one or two cases in a million, I looked it up.”

—TheJournal.ie (an Irish news website and member of the Press Council of Ireland), Dec. 5, 2018. With reporting by Agence France Presse.

 

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Energy Report: How Does Nuclear Survive?

World Nuclear Industry Status Report asks: Is Nuclear Power a Strategic Asset, liability, or Irrelevant?

By Kelly Lundeen

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

Global nuclear power generation increased 1% in 2017, compared to a 35% increase in solar, and a 17% increase in wind power, according to the 2018 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Total investment in new nuclear for 2017 was $16 billion, but the total invested in wind and solar energy was $260 billion. Globally, renewables provide 19% of total installed electric generating capacity.

Without China’s steep increases in nuclear power generation, nuclear generation would have declined worldwide for the third year in a row. Nuclear made up 10.5% of electric generation worldwide, down from its peak of 17.5% in 1996. Lead author Mycle Schneider said the report shows that nuclear power is “a threatened species.”

The Danish firm Ørsted, after conducting the largest global survey of public opinion about a transition to renewable energy, found “82% believe it is important to create a world fully powered by renewable energy” that does not include nuclear.

Do nuclear weapons need nuclear power?

Considering the inability of nuclear to compete in the market (illustrated by bankruptcies at Westinghouse and Areva), a decrease in investment in nuclear, and the international preference for renewables, why do some countries continue to pour money into new reactors and into license extensions for old ones? The World Nuclear Industry Status Report asked this question for the first time.

The largest investments in nuclear power come from states with nuclear weapons programs, not from private industry.

A leaked June 2018 US Department of Energy memorandum admits what many have suspected. “The entire US enterprise—weapons, naval propulsion, non-proliferation, enrichment, fuel services, and negotiations with international partners—depends on a robust civilian nuclear industry. Without a strong domestic nuclear power industry, the US will not only lose the energy security and grid resilience benefits, but it will also lose its workforce technical expertise, supply chain, and position of clean energy leadership.”

Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) condemned the memo, writing, “For years, the nuclear industry insisted that civilian nuclear power had nothing to do with weapons programs… Now, in a desperate attempt to keep no-longer-competitive nuclear [reactors] from being shuttered, the industry claims there really has been a connection all along…. The whole point of the body of the [Energy Secretary, Rick] Perry letter is that there is a close connection between US nuclear power and our nuclear weapons programs.”

As states choose whether to invest in renewables or nuclear, they should take a lesson from the market.

—Green Citizens’ Action Alliance, Nov. 15, 2018; World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Sept. 4, 2018; The National Interest, Aug. 8, 2018; Letter to Secretary Rick Perry, Jun. 26, 2018; E & E News, Jun. 6, 2018; Ørsted, 2017

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Weaponized Insects from the Pentagon?

By John LaForge

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

The Pentagon has a laboratory project underway that envisions millions of insects spreading viruses to crops in order to strengthen their resilience against pests, droughts, and floods, etc.—and the prospect has critics crying foul. “Once you engineer a virus that spreads by insect, it is hard to imagine how you would ever control it,” Guy Reeves, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany, told the New York Times. “You haven’t just released a transmissible virus—you’ve released a disease,” Reeves said. “The United States knows better than to return to a biological arms race,” he said. Biological weapons have been banned under international law since 1975. But the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency started Insect Allies research in 2016 to try and turn agricultural pests into “troops” that could deliver protective genes into plants. Reeves, lead author of a paper published Oct. 5, 2018 in Science, warns that such genetic modifications could also be weaponized, could not be controlled in the field, and could move hostile governments to launch similar programs. The project’s manager Blake Bextine acknowledged the critics’ concerns that unleashed swarms of infected insects could be put to dreadful uses, either destroying crops or spreading disease. “With any of these new technologies that are going to be revolutionary, there’s some inherent dual-use potential.”

—New York Times, Oct. 5, 2018; New Eastern Outlook online, Oct. 29, 2018

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, War

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • …
  • 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