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 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

ALEC and Nuclear Industry Fighting Against Renewables in Illinois

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois — A May 29 voice vote of the Illinois House passed pro-nuclear resolution HR-1146, a bill that would provide massive subsidies to the state’s unprofitable nuclear power reactors and curb the growth of truly “clean,” renewable energy sources. Watchdog groups have reason to believe the bill, introduced by House Speaker Michael Madigan, was largely written by Illinois nuclear utility giant Exelon Corporation as part of a larger effort organized on the national level by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

“This Resolution is not just a pro-nuclear resolution. It is an overt effort to destroy renewable energy statewide, a way to keep dirty coal plants running, and a way to continue and make permanent the outdated system of ‘centralized baseload power,’” said David Kraft, Director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) in Chicago.

Exelon is now investing $12-15 million per year, along with other ALEC members, in a pro-nuclear industry front group called Nuclear Matters. ALEC’s July 2014 Energy Task Force Meeting, where the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon rules were a focus of discussion, included a presentation from Nuclear Matters. In the last two years, ALEC has focused on attacking renewable energy standards in at least sixteen states, but, despite its massive financial investments, these efforts it has been largely unsuccessful. It did succeed in freezing the Ohio renewable energy standard for two years earlier this year. The Progressive magazine has launched an “ALEC Exposed” campaign, with more information available at www.progressive.org. — NEIS Press Release, May 29; Energy and Policy Institute Briefing, July 2014

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Savannah River Site Becoming World’s Nuclear Dump

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014

COLUMBIA, South Carolina — As the Department of Energy (DOE) comes closer to finalizing plans to accept highly radioactive used commercial reactor fuel from Germany at its Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, watchdog groups are becoming increasingly concerned that SRS is quietly becoming the world’s nuclear dumping ground — despite serious safety and contamination concerns.

In addition to the potential transport of German waste to the site, SRS is slated to receive or has already received waste from Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, and perhaps other countries yet to be identified, such as Japan. According to the group SRS Watch, SRS will soon import almost 7,000 gallons of liquid high-level waste from the Chalk River Laboratories in Canada, adding to an already volatile liquid waste tank system onsite. The Ottowa Citizen discovered secret shipments of foreign plutonium to the site in February and March of this year. Japan is planning to transfer highly enriched uranium and plutonium to the US, and with the closure of the WIPP cite in New Mexico and no plans for a high-level waste disposal facility, that waste is likely to be dumped at SRS as well.

SRS is located on an earthquake fault and a large aquifer, with sandy soil and high levels of rain. SRS Watch Director Tom Clements, who claims the waste is a DOE strategy to keep the SRS open, says, “The SRS already has more nuclear waste than it knows how to deal with.”

— Atlanta Progressive News, June 9, 2014

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

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Depleted Uranium’s Toxic Legacy Perpetually Endangering Exposed Populations 

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014

Two major reports are bringing renewed international attention on the US military’s scandalous use against Iraq of munitions made of radioactive waste called “depleted uranium,” or DU. The Pentagon has employed the controversial DU shells because of their reported armor-piercing power and because the United States military is saddled with 700,000 tons of the waste uranium-238.

The first report, “Laid to Waste: depleted uranium contaminated military scrap in Iraq,” published in June by the Dutch organization PAX, is based on newly released US Air Force firing coordinates and shows that US pilots fired DU into civilian areas of Iraq and at Iraqi troops during the 2003 invasion and occupation. The actions defied the Air Force’s own legal advice that the toxic and radioactive ammunition be used only against hardened targets in compliance with the laws of war.

The PAX report’s principle warning is that the lack of legal obligations requiring environmental clean-up after using DU weapons — at least 488 tons in the 1991 and 2003 attacks — leaves Iraqi civilians continuously exposed to the highly hazardous debris years after the war.

The second report, “Malignant Effects: depleted uranium as a genotoxin and carcinogen,” published in September by the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons with funding by Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, details the scientific evidence that internal contamination by DU is destructive of DNA — the building blocks of cells.

The 31-page study details the persistent hazards to civilians posed by radioactively contaminated wreckage and hotspots “long after conflict ends.” If inhaled, drunk or eaten, embedded uranium particles emit alpha radiation that can alter or destroy DNA in ways that can cause cancer. Some studies have shown skyrocketing increases in birth abnormalities in areas heavily hit with DU weapons.

The authors recommend 1) full disclosure of targeting information, much of which is still kept secret by the Pentagon; 2) urgent initiation of civilian DU exposure studies; 3) the adoption of precautionary safeguards in the introduction of any new weapons; and 4) completion and adoption of an international agreement banning the use of uranium in weapons system. — Both reports are at International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, icbuw.org

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Slow-Motion Cancer Pandemic 

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014
By Harvey Wasserman

In the 35 years since the March 28, 1979 explosion and meltdown at Three Mile Island, fierce debate has raged over whether humans were killed there. In 1986 and 2011, Chernobyl and Fukushima joined the argument. Whenever these disasters happen, there are those who claim that the workers, residents and military personnel exposed to radiation will be just fine.

Of course we know better. We humans won’t jump into a pot of boiling water. We’re not happy when members of our species start dying around us. But frightening new scientific findings have forced us to look at a larger reality: the bottom-up damage that radioactive fallout may do to the entire global ecosystem.

When it comes to our broader support systems, the corporate energy industry counts on us to tolerate the irradiation of our fellow creatures, those on whom we depend, and for us to sleep through the point of no return.

Case in point is a new Smithsonian report on Chernobyl, one of the most terrifying documents of the atomic age.

Written by Rachel Nuwer, “Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly,” cites recent field studies in which the normal cycle of dead vegetation rotting into the soil has been disrupted by the exploded reactor’s radioactive fallout.

“Decomposers — organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay — have also suffered from the contamination,” Nuwer writes. “These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil.”

The Three Mile Island nuclear reactor complex in Middletown, Pennsylvania, shown here in 2011, continues to generate electricity with its Unit 1 reactor. TMI was the scene of the 1979 meltdown of Unit 2, one of the worst nuclear power disasters in United States history.
Photo by Bradley C. Bower/AP.

Put simply: The micro-organisms that form the active core of our ecological bio-cycle have apparently been zapped, leaving tree trunks, leaves, ferns and other vegetation to sit eerily on the ground whole, essentially in a mummified state.

Reports also indicate a significant shrinkage of the brains of birds in the region and negative impacts on the insect and wildlife populations.

Similar findings surrounded the accident at Three Mile Island. Within a year, a three-reporter team from the Baltimore News-American cataloged massive radiation impacts on both wild and farm animals in the area. The reporters and the Pennsylvania Department of Health confirmed widespread damage to birds, bees and large kept animals such as horses, whose reproductive rate collapsed in the year after the accident.

Other reports also documented deformed vegetation and domestic animals being born with major mutations, including a dog born with no eyes and cats with no sense of balance. To this day, Three Mile Island’s owners claim no humans were killed by radiation there, an assertion hotly disputed by local down-winders.

Indeed, Dr. Alice Stewart established in 1956 that a single X-ray to a pregnant woman doubles the chance that her offspring will get leukemia. (See The Woman Who Knew Too Much by Gayle Green, University of Michigan Press, 1999.) During the accident at Three Mile Island, the owners crowed that the meltdown’s radiation was equivalent “only” to a single X-ray administered to all area residents.

Meanwhile, if the airborne fallout from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could do that kind of damage to both infants and the non-human population on land, how is Fukushima’s continuous gusher of radioactive water affecting the life support systems of our oceans?

In fact, samplings of 15 tuna caught off the coast of California indicate all were contaminated with fallout from Fukushima.

Instantly, as always, the industry deems such levels “harmless.” The obligatory comparisons to living in Denver, flying cross country and eating bananas automatically follow.

But what’s that radiation doing to the tuna? And to the krill, the phytoplankton, the algae, amoeba and all the other microorganisms on which the ocean ecology depends?

Cesium and its Fukushima siblings are already measurable in Alaska and northwestern Canada. They’ll hit California this year. The corporate media will mock those parents who are certain to show up at the beaches with radiation detectors. Concerns about the effect on children will be jovially dismissed. The doses will be deemed, as always, “too small to have any impact on humans.”

But reports of a “dead zone” thousands of miles into the Pacific do persist, along with disappearances of salmon, sardines, anchovies and other ocean fauna.

Of course, atomic reactors are not the only source of radioactive fallout. Atmospheric bomb testing from 1945 to 1963 raised background radiation levels throughout the ecosphere. Those isotopes are still with us.

Burning coal spews still more radiation into our air, along with mercury and other lethal pollutants. Fracking for gas draws toxins up from the earth’s crust.

Industry apologists say reactors can moderate the climate chaos caused by burning those fossil fuels. But fight

The Three Mile Island nuclear reactor complex in Middletown, Pennsylvania, shown here in 2011, continues to generate electricity with its Unit 1 reactor. TMI was the scene of the 1979 meltdown of Unit 2, one of the worst nuclear power disasters in United States history. 

Photo by Bradley C. Bower/AP.

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

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Air Force, Targeting China, to Spend $81 Billion on New Nuclear Bomber

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014

In July, the US Air Force issued a request for proposals for its latest nuclear weapons delivery system, the long-range strike bomber (LRS-B), and officials expect to award a contract for the project next spring. The Pentagon has been secretive about the details of its plans for the aircraft, nicknamed the “China Bomber” because of its potential for defending US economic interests in the South China Sea. According to an Air Force statement, “The new bomber will be a long-range, air-refuelable, highly survivable aircraft with significant nuclear and conventional stand-off and direct-attack weapons payload.” 

Each of the 80-100 warplanes the Air Force plans to purchase is expected to cost $550 million, not including development costs, bringing the price tag for the program to $55 billion. According to calculations by defense analysts, that cost will rise to $81 billion with research and development included. If these costs estimates are accurate, the cost of each LRS-B will still come in lower than that of its predecessor, the B-2 bomber, each of which cost taxpayers $2 billion.

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter justified the massive expenditures for the new bombers because the “B-2 is an older airplane that’s getting expensive [to maintain]” and “it’s not as stealthy as we’re now capable of making aircraft.” The US Air Force’s nuclear-capable bomber fleet currently includes 76 of the far older B-52s and 20 B-2s, which became operational in 2003. The LRS-B is expected to be ready by the mid-2020s and could be designed to “enable future unmanned capability.”

A Boeing Corp. artist’s rendition of the US Air Force’s proposed long-range strike bomber or LRS-B, dubbed the “China bomber” by critics.

A June 2014 briefing by the Congressional Research Service sheds light on the strategic purpose of the project. Noting that “over 80% of crude oil supplies to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan flow through the South China Sea,” the report says, “Long-range bombers … could actively and passively maintain situational awareness of the vast Asia-Pacific maritime region and possibly keep in check any potential adversary looking to threaten the United States and its allies’ access to the Asia-Pacific’s commons.”

Indeed, when President Obama first took office in 2009, his defense secretary put a halt to initial plans for the project, citing the Air Force’s long history of massive overruns for bombers. However, once concerns arose about China’s military and advances in anti-aircraft defense systems, the Obama administration decided to push the project, despite the budget sequestration that called for a $500 billion reduction in military spending over the next nine years.

A partnership between major weapons contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing is expected to bid on the $81 billion contract against Northrup, which was just awarded up to $9.9 billion for a 10-year “indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity” maintenance contract on the B-2 bombers it sold the Air Force a decade ago. States with bomber manufacturing infrastructures are courting the industry giants with tax break incentives, with California promising Lockheed a $420 million break for locating the project within its borders.

— Congressional Research Service, June 4, DefenseNews.com, June 13, DefenseOne, July 9, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 20, 2014; Bloomberg, Dec. 5; 2013. — ASP

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 200
  • 201
  • 202
  • 203
  • 204
  • …
  • 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