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 28, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Plume of Radiation Douses Europe Again

Ruthenium-106 Persists in the Environment for 10 years

Russia Denies Responsibility for Major Release Recorded in 43 Countries

By Bonnie Urfer

Sometime in the last week of September, somewhere south of the Ural Mountains, 1,000 miles east of Moscow near Mayak, Russia, something happened that sent a plume of radioactive ruthenium-106 across Europe. Detectors in France showed the radiation between September 27 and October 13. Italy picked it up on Sept. 29. In all, according the International Atomic Energy Agency, the release affected 43 countries, including Russia. Production of ruthenium-106 occurs in the core of a nuclear reactor or during reprocessing of used reactor fuel. In response to the unclaimed, yet significant release, an independent commission of scientists from Russia and Europe hopes to pinpoint the source of the contamination, their greatest fears being additional accidents or releases from the unidentified source.

A map from the French agency IRSN identified, on the basis of the model-measurement comparison, the most plausible release zone. The mesaurements suggest that the release came from the near the border of Russia and Kazakhstan.

Bellona, the international environmental NGO based in Oslo, reported Nov. 27: “Since late September, it’s become clear that a huge release of the radioactive isotope ruthenium-106 took place at the Mayak Chemical Combine, Russia’s notorious and sprawling nuclear fuel reprocessing complex located near Chelyabinsk in the southern Ural Mountains. … But you won’t be hearing that from the Russians,” because they are busy denying or criticizing reports of the plume, and floating alternative theories.

Moscow’s history of denials, including waiting 30 years to admit the 1957 Mayak, Kyshtym nuclear fuel explosion that released 50-100 tons of high-level radioactive waste to the environment, its delay in admitting a Chernobyl reactor had exploded in 1986, and more recently, an iodine-131 plume detected in July of 2017, make today’s disavows worthless.

Since the only origin of ruthenium-106 is a nuclear reactor, and because monitors detected no other isotopes, the search narrows to several possibilities near the Russia/Kazakhstan border: a facility that either separates the isotope from a “bouquet” of others produced in a reactor; a factory that uses it to produce medical isotopes for cancer and tumor treatment; the Mayak facility itself during “vitrification” or processing of waste fuel; or a road accident involving transport of the radioactive material. Another possibility is a metal smelting mishap like happened in Spain in May 1998. The metal recycling company Acerinox melted scrap containing cesium-137, and detectors in Switzerland alerted authorities to the cesium plume that doused much of Western Europe then.

Russia denies culpability although officials there monitored the spread of the radiation and admitted something happened. Some 368 confirmations recorded the plume in Europe. A spokesperson with Russia’s nuclear entity, Rosatom, claims the level of contamination registers 20,000 times less than the allowed annual dose. “Allowed dose” sounds harmless, cumulative exposure over a lifetime increases the risks of cancer. Russia, as reported in the New York Times on Nov. 15, said, “One of the countries in the eastern part of the European Union was more likely to be the source, according to Rosatom, due to the high radiation levels over Italy, Romania and Ukraine.”

Ruthenium-106 has a half-life of 373.6 days, meaning that after one year half will have decayed (to rhodium-106) and half remains. Radioactive elements remain in the environment and the food chain for the 10 half-lives it takes to decay away.
“Ruthenium compounds should be regarded as highly toxic and as carcinogenic,” says the Royal Society of Chemistry. News organizations reporting on the contamination uniformly failed to inform the public that this dispersal adds to the radioactivity that carpeted Europe when Chernobyl burned for 40 days in 1986. Not a single story we reviewed noted that, as with all radioactive substances, 10 half-lives are needed for the ruthenium to decay away. In addition, ruthenium is a beta particle emitter, and beta radiation does the greatest damage when inhaled or ingested. In the body, ruthenium goes to the bone.

The radiation present in the village of Argayash in the Chelyabinsk region, measured nearly 1,000 times higher than normal. France’s Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) reported the contamination “major.” Russia monitored ruthenium-106 above the southern Ural Mountains in September. Nice, in southern France, experienced the worst concentrations of the isotopes between Oct. 2 and 9. The IRSN’s report of Oct. 9 says that if the accident had happened in France, people for miles around would have been evacuated and warned.

Director for health at IRSN, Jean-Christophe Gariel told National Public Radio that the matter might be referred to the United Nations. In spite of the alarm, the press repeated the standard nuclear mantra, “No danger to the public.”
The New York Times reported that “German and French nuclear security agencies concluded that the pollution had not threatened the health of Europeans or the environment in which they live.” Germany’s radiation agency commented, “You could inhale from that country’s Ruthenium cloud for a straight week and still have breathed in no more radiation than you naturally do in an hour.” Time magazine claimed on Nov. 10, that “The cloud was harmless and has dissipated.” Deutsche Welle reported on Oct. 5 that “Officials say there is no risk to human health whatsoever” and assured readers that ruthenium is one of the safer isotopes.

The radioactive plume began dissipating in the first week of October, and by the 13th the IRSN declared the air clear. Random testing of mushrooms and milk may take place although the agency says contamination of food from the dispersal is “unlikely” and export of food from the area is scarce so deems food monitoring unnecessary.

The story continues as the Russian/European scientific commission gets to work. Environmental groups have demanded a full investigation, an end to waste fuel reprocessing, and the phase-out of power reactor operations that produce the waste.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

December 28, 2017 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Wind Power Blows Away Nuclear

Electric power generated in 2017 by wind turbines in Germany exceeded the amount from hard coal and nuclear reactors for the first time, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems reports. Wind power in Germany has an installed capacity of about 54 gigawatts, outstripping all other main sources of electric power. On Nov. 23, about 46% of Germany’s electrical generation came from wind farms, according to WindEurope.org.

The financial firm Lazard reports that the life-cycle cost of nuclear power ranges from $112 to $183 per megawatt hour, while wind power ranges from $30 to $60. And the cost of utility-scale solar photovoltaic generation is $43 to $53 per megawatt hour. Adding storage, solar photovoltaic comes in at $82 per megawatt hour, down from $92 just a year ago.

— Brian Parkin, Bloomberg, Nov. 24, 2017; Philip Warburg, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Boston University.

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

December 28, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Elected Officials Slam Canadian Radioactive Waste Dump Plan

More than 100 Great Lakes mayors and elected officials want the Canadian government to say ‘No’ to a plan to bury radioactive waste within one mile of Lake Huron at the Bruce Nuclear station in Kincardine, Ontario.
The officials from both sides of the US-Canadian border slammed Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) plan in a Nov. 30, 2017 letter to Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna. McKenna has twice pushed back against OPG’s proposal, demanding extensive and more detailed answers to questions about the advisability of the near-lake location.

The open letter from mayors said OPG’s proposal to bury the waste so near Lake Huron “threatens the water supply of 40 million people” and notes that 230 resolutions having been passed by local, county and state governments representing over 23 million people opposing the construction of the dump.

Traverse City, Michigan Mayor Jim Carruthers who signed the letter, told Michigan Public Radio, “We know that there are other available sites in Canada that could house this kind of waste that are not so close…. That’s why I speak out for our environment and for our fresh water.”

The letter to McKenna is the latest in a series of efforts to oppose OPG’s plan by citizen groups and more than 200 local governments on both sides of the border in the Great Lakes area. Forty-six of the 104 signers of the letter were Michigan elected officials.

The letter said in part, “We find it irresponsible and deeply troubling that OPG failed and continues to refuse to investigate any other actual sites for its proposed nuclear waste repository despite being required to do so under regulatory guidelines and further as required by you in your Feb. 18, 2016, request.”

—Michigan Public Radio; and “Open Letter,” from 104 mayors to Minister McKenna, Port Huron, MI Times Herald, Nov. 30, 2017

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

December 28, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“It’s a Cover-Up, Not a Clean-Up” Nuclear Waste Smolders Across the United States

By Daniel Ross

Editor’s note: The much-longer original version of this article written for Truthout, March 30, 2017, was edited for space by Arianne Peterson.

The covert project to create the world’s first atomic weapon during WW II, coupled with the nuclear proliferation of the Cold War era, has left a trail of toxic and radioactive waste at sites across the nation that will necessitate, by some margin, the largest environmental cleanup in the nation’s history. The amount of money that has been poured into remediating the waste already is staggering. Still, it appears that the scale of the problems, and the efforts needed to effectively tackle them, continue to be underestimated by authorities responsible for their cleanup.

Since 1989, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management—the agency charged with cleaning up “legacy” radioactive waste—has spent over $164 billion disposing of nuclear waste and contamination. And yet between 2011 and 2016, the DOE’s Environmental Management liability grew by roughly $94 billion.

On Feb. 14, 2014, a drum of plutonium waste exploded underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Dispersed plutonium poisoned 22 workers internally. On May 30, 2014, observer teams took samples from the damaged drum. Dept. of Energy photo.

While cleanup coffers have generally shrunk, the amount of money funneled into refurbishing the nation’s nuclear arsenal has increased markedly. The US is already slated to spend approximately $1 trillion on a nuclear armament modernization program over the next 30 years. The fight over what the final budget will look like has only just begun. But beyond these hovering questions is something much more concrete: the sheer magnitude of the legacy waste problem.

Hanford: Beset with Costly Overruns

Hanford, Washington, is a Manhattan Project era facility perched on the lip of the Columbia River, and the scene of the largest single radioactive remediation in the US. Last year, the DOE championed “20 successful years” of environmental cleanup at Hanford, which was decommissioned in the 1980s. Fifty-six million gallons of toxic waste were subsequently stored in 177 large tanks, some of which have leaked high-level radioactive sludge into the environment. The cost for treating this waste alone now sits at $16.8 billion. The projected cost of cleaning the rest of the facility? $107.7 billion. That’s not all. At least a million gallons of radioactive waste have leaked into and polluted the waters of the Columbia River, contaminating fish eaten by Indigenous people in the area, and threatening drinking water supplies for communities down river.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee: “70 Years of Neglect”

The DOE’s 33,500-acre Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee was a uranium processing facility during the Manhattan Project. It has since been divided into three major cleanup sites. Still active, Oak Ridge is perhaps most notorious for widespread mercury pollution. The DOE estimates that roughly 700,000 million pounds of mercury stemming from the plant has contaminated the soils, and surface and ground waters both on and off the base, for decades.

The sheer breadth and complexity of the remaining problems at Oak Ridge splinter opinions as to what most urgently needs to be addressed. “They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but what happens when every wheel on your giant 18-wheeler is squeaking?” asked Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance. He said that multiple administrations have failed to address the problems at Oak Ridge: “This is 70 years of contamination matched by 70 years of neglect.”

Los Alamos National Lab

The Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is the site where the nuclear devices used in the first atomic tests of 1945 were made. A 46-page DOE cost estimate published last year lists 17 separate areas scattered throughout the 38 square-mile Los Alamos site still to be tackled, including unlined disposal pits, leaking underground storage tanks, polluted hillsides and canyon bottoms, waste landfills and old contaminated buildings.

Last year’s report estimates that the cleanup will be finished between 2035 and 2040 at a projected additional cost of $3.8 billion, and some consider that number on the conservative side.

West Lake, Missouri: “It’s Pretty Devastating”

In North St. Louis County, Missouri, West Lake landfill holds roughly 45,000 tons of soil mixed with radioactive Manhattan Project-era waste that was illegally dumped back in 1973. As close as 700 feet from the buried radioactive waste is an underground fire that has been slowly smoldering for at least six years.

“It’s pretty devastating,” said Dawn Chapman, who lives near the landfill. “It shakes your faith in your government. When you think about the Manhattan Project, you don’t think about living less than two miles from what is probably the world’s biggest serial killer.”

Critics are pressing for the US Army Corps of Engineers to take over responsibility for the cleanup from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Until then, many are concerned about Trump’s proposal to slash funding for the EPA by around 31 percent.

Concerns About the Future

Hanford, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and West Lake provide only a snapshot of the wider picture. Consider the Rocky Flats Plant, a former nuclear weapons production site not far from Denver, Colorado. Rocky Flats wasn’t used to manufacture nuclear weapons until the Cold War era, but it’s still a glaring example of the pervasiveness of the nation’s ongoing nuclear headache.

Officially, the cleanup at Rocky Flats was finished over 10 years ago, at a total cost of $7 billion. It has frequently been championed as a success story. But some experts are concerned about plutonium that remains buried there. “It’s a cover-up, not a cleanup,” said former Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments member Mary Harlow. In particular, advocates are concerned about plutonium buried on a “wildlife refuge” that has now been opened to the public. “It’s just too dangerous for people to go walking around out there,” Harlow said.

For Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs, any increased spending on the nuclear modernization program at active facilities like the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has even more troubling implications.
“We’re on an extremely dangerous trajectory,” Kelley said. “We’re on a slippery slope to a new nuclear arms race.”

—Daniel Ross is a Los Angeles-based journalist.

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

December 28, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Mining Industry Repealing Wisconsin Anti-Pollution Laws

By Kelly Lundeen

On November 8, Wisconsin lawmakers repealed the state’s “Prove-It-First” sulfide mining statute and sent it to Gov. Scott Walker for his signature. The law allowed for a mine to be licensed if its proponents could demonstrate that a similar mine had operated for 10 years and been closed for 10 years without causing acid mine drainage or polluting water. Since the requirement was never met, the statute has protected Wisconsin waters from sulfide mines since 1998. But beginning in 2013, Gov. Walker and Koch brothers-funded mining industry backers made repeal of the moratorium a top priority. Meanwhile, Republican Rep’s Jesse Kremer of Kewaskum, Rep. Cody Horlacher of Mukwonago, and Sen. Duey Stroebel of Saukville introduced bills to repeal state laws limiting air and water pollution not regulated under federal law.

A coalition of indigenous, environmental, and sports organizations mobilized to protect “Prove it first.” Over 20 years ago, many of the same groups had united around opposition to the metallic sulfide mining at Flambeau and Crandon, and saw the successful passage of the moratorium.

Back in the late ‘90s, both current Nukewatch staffers, John LaForge and I, were independently active in the anti-pollution struggle. For me, collecting postcards to support the Mining Moratorium and protesting the Crandon Mine was an early introduction to environmentalism as a geology student at University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire; and for John it meant organizing nonviolent action with Flambeau mine opponents from across the state.

Exxon’s Crandon mine proposal was stopped and the mine site sold to the Mole Lake Ojibway and the Forest County Potawatomi. The Flambeau Mine came and went, and the closed mine site has never been fully reclaimed after 20 years even though tailings were shipped off site. The Flambeau copper/gold operation was one of the major tools used by both sides of the moratorium repeal debate. Mining advocates claimed falsely that the site had been cleaned up, while opponents referred to the company’s own records to prove the site is polluting Stream 3, which feeds the Flambeau River. Flambeau mine site owners have never secured a mine reclamation “Certificate of Completion” due to the pollution—proven by 45 violations of water quality standards documented in a report by the Flambeau Mining Co. itself (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto). Unfortunately, industry-manufactured lies that “the Flambeau River remains fully protected” have dominated public discussion of the repeal.

At the state’s legislative hearings to repeal the moratorium, Nukewatch members and supporters joined dozens of others to testify. We gathered with our local network and used presentations, letters to the editor, and protest to educate the public and Assembly representatives.

“After hearing this,” said State Representative Romaine Quinn who attended a Nukewatch-organized presentation by Dr. Laura Gauger, “no, I don’t find myself supporting the mining bill.” However, Quinn voted for repeal.

Prior to the repeal bill’s passage, the author, Sen. “Toxic” Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, said, “exploratory companies tell me they are back in play (in Wisconsin) if we change the law.” Tiffany predicted that the bill could prompt companies to start early exploration work for copper, zinc, gold and silver as early as 2018.

—Dr. Robert E. Moran, “Summary: Flambeau Mine: Water Contamination and Selective ‘Alternative Facts,’” April 2017; Ecowatch, Jan. 4, 2013

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Office News, Quarterly Newsletter, Sulfide Mining

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • …
  • 223
  • 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