Quarterly Newsletter

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Pretzel Logic and NATO’s Threat to Prevent Coercion

By Lindsay Potter and John LaForge

At its June 29 summit in Madrid, NATO ministers approved a new “Strategic Concept,” the public rationale for its ready willingness to use nuclear weapons (known as “deterrence”). Self-contradictory and heavy with euphemism, the paper says “nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression,” painting nuclear weapons with a gloss of propriety using language identical to all nuclear weapons states including Russia, North Korea, and China. The “Concept” casually rejects NATO member states’ binding obligation to disarm — agreed to in the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) — asserting: “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” This promise to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely openly negates the paper’s assertion of NATO’s compliance with the NPT. The document claims that NATO is “strongly committed to [the NPT’s] full implementation, including article VI, which is the promise to denuclearize,” and seeks “to create the security environment for a world without nuclear weapons.” Yes, of course, because the best way to prevent a fire in your house is to walk around carrying a lit torch. The “concept” openly admits that “NATO … relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe.” And to confirm that it is willing to commit mass destruction with radiation and firestorms, the ministers promised, “NATO will … ensure the credibility … of the nuclear … mission”; “NATO’s … posture is based on … nuclear … capabilities”; and “We will … deliver … high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors.” Of course, the great majority of nation states find that nuclear weapons pose the most immediate and worst threat to human survival, as witness the 122 states that voted to adopt the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear weapons. Common sense aside, NATO’s “concept” says that “strategic nuclear forces, particularly those of the United States, are the supreme guarantee of the security of the Alliance.”

— Strategic Concept here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Coverup, not Cleanup, at Santa Susana, California Meltdown Site

By Bob Mayberry

Eighteen miles northwest of Hollywood and thirty miles from downtown Los Angeles, high in the Simi Hills, sits a government research site where rocket fuels and nuclear reactors were developed and tested. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), established in 1949 and home originally to Rocketdyne, has been the site of numerous radiation leaks, toxic chemical spills, and one partial reactor core meltdown. The soil on the entire site is toxic, but the responsible parties are doing nothing about it.

In January of this year, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) entered into “non-binding, confidential” negotiations with Boeing, the site’s current owner, which require Boeing to clean up no more than 1% of the contaminants. Under this proposed agreement, or Memo of Understanding (MOU), a panel will be chosen, by Boeing, to set the terms of the cleanup, without public input.

Removing the final hurdle for Boeing, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the MOU at their Aug. 11 meeting in Santa Clarita. The Board ignored over 200 activists and residents who opposed it. Daniel Hirsch, retired director of the Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, called the MOU “a tragedy,” adding, “it made effective the larger deal with Boeing to let them have vastly higher levels of contamination in place.” The polluter will be in charge of the cleanup.

Fairewinds Associates’ analysis of soil and dust around the California Woolsey Fire found that the fire “caused radiation from the Santa Susana Field Lab to become airborne and travel as far as nine miles into surrounding communities.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity published Fairewinds’ paper “Radioactive microparticles related to the Woolsey Fire in Simi Valley, CA.” Graphic by Fairewinds.

Sordid history: meltdowns, spills, and negligence

In 1957, 1971, and 2005, fires at the SSFL caused massive radiation releases and intense radioactive saturation of the soil. In 1959, a catastrophic meltdown of the experimental Sodium Reactor released an estimated 15 to 459 times more radiation than the infamous Three Mile Island meltdown, causing radiation monitoring equipment to go “off-scale,” meaning the radioactivity in the air was too great to measure. The partial meltdown was particularly dangerous because “experimental” reactors lack the typical cement and steel containment structures associated with nuclear reactors like TMI.

For 20 years, the Department of Energy (DOE) successfully covered up the partial meltdown. However, in 1979, UCLA student Michael Rose and Hirsch, his faculty advisor, discovered internal company documentation of the meltdown. Later that year, Rocketdyne officials confirmed the accident.

In 1996, Boeing Corp. purchased Rocketdyne, thereby inheriting responsibility for cleanup of the SSFL. In 2005, Boeing paid restitution to 100 families affected by cancer, but the Santa Susana Advisory Panel estimates up to 1,600 deaths are directly due to radiation exposure from the site.

By 2006, Boeing had violated toxic discharge permits more than eighty times, releasing chromium, dioxin, lead, mercury, and other toxins into Bell Creek, which flows into the Los Angeles River. From 1988-1995 the incidence of cancer within two miles of the SSFL was 60% greater than in the general Southern California population.

In 2007, Boeing, NASA, and the DOE all signed a consent order agreeing to a cleanup. In 2010, NASA and DOE signed additional administrative orders promising to clean up respective portions of the SSFL to standards higher than were agreed to earlier — clean to background radiation levels. However, Boeing did not sign the administrative order and it remains subject to the 2007 consent order — which it has routinely ignored for 14 years.

Boeing’s practice has been cover-up, not cleanup

On November 8, 2018, the Woolsey Fire ignited near the SSFL and burned over 80% of the site in five days. According to Dr. Robert Dodge, president of the Los Angeles branch of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the chemicals on the SSFL site are “incredibly dangerous radionuclides and toxic chemicals … These toxic materials are in [the] SSFL’s soil and vegetation, and when it burns and becomes airborne in smoke and ash, there is real possibility of heightened exposure for area residents.”

Just nine hours after the Woolsey Fire began, the DTSC, charged with protecting “California’s people and environment from harmful effects of toxic substances,” announced that “the fire did not present any risks other than those normally present in a wildfire situation.”

However, three weeks after the fire was contained, independent researchers sampled soil in and around the SSFL and concluded that “site-related radioactive material … escaped the confines” of the SSFL. The most radioactive sample was collected nine miles from the SSFL. Had the 2007 Consent Order been enforced, the site would have been cleaned by the 2017 deadline, and radiation and toxic chemical exposure would not have been among the many dangers posed by the Woolsey Fire. Instead, the continuing presence of toxic substances at the SSFL site made the fire even more dangerous. Meanwhile, government agencies ignore the need for a cleanup and bow to the wishes of a corporation like Boeing.

For updates, see Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab: https://parentsagainstssfl.com/

— Bob Mayberry is a retired English and Theatre Professor at Cal State University-Channel Islands.

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Assassination, Pacifism, and Nuclear Capability in Japan

By Lindsay Potter

The religious cult behind the assassination of Japan’s Prime Minister (PM) Shinzo Abe has its roots in CIA anti-communist meddling and US spycraft dating back 75 years. Abe’s confessed killer, Tetsuya Yamagami, told police he shot Abe because of his ties to the Unification Church, or “Moonies,” founded in South Korea in 1954 to fight against communism. Details continue to surface of links between the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), opposition party members, and the Moonies, and of the church’s contributions to campaigns of sitting cabinet members. Clearly aligned with US foreign and military policy, the church has historical connections to the Republican Party and to former presidents Nixon, Bush I, Bush II, and Donald Trump. The LDP itself was formed by the CIA to quash left-wing movements in Japan. Abe’s grandfather and great uncle served as prime ministers, and his LDP has been in power for 63 of the last 67 years, since its inception in 1955. Deep ties between the LDP and CIA have raised suspicions due to the extreme rarity of Abe’s shooting in Japan, a country of 126 million with an average of ten gun deaths a year.

Deleting Article IX

Abe struggled but failed to repeal the constitution’s Article IX, the pacifist clause imposed by post-war US occupying forces which prohibits Japan’s use of military force in international conflicts. Following the July 8 assassination, voters rallied to the LDP and other “pro-amendment” (repeal) coalition parties, and for the first time they won a two-thirds parliamentary majority, the percentage required to revise the constitution. Article IX also forbids maintaining federal land, air, or sea forces, all of which Japan, with strong US support, has increasingly developed and armed in the name of “self-defense.”

Japan is deeply entangled with US and allied military operations. Since 2001, Japan has implemented new laws in the name of “counter-terrorism” militarizing Japanese Self Defense Forces (JSDF), establishing a base in Djibouti, and allowing JSDF to defend allies in combat. Japan’s navy in the Indian Ocean refueled US warplanes headed to Afghanistan and, in 2004, the JSDF deployed to Iraq for “reconstruction.”

Abe’s Nuclear Legacy

In 2002, Abe publicly claimed, like PMs before him, that Japan’s possession of nuclear weapons would not violate the constitution as long as they were for “defense.” Japan has enough plutonium and enriched uranium to develop nuclear warheads and it has ballistic missile capability. Last February, Abe promoted joining a NATO-style “nuclear sharing” pact and stationing US nuclear weapons in Japan. Both proposals would violate Japan’s three “non-nuclear principles,” limiting research, development, and utilization of nuclear reactors to peaceful uses.
The current PM Fumio Kishida hinted that a situation similar to the Russia-Ukraine conflict could break out between China and Taiwan, which US policy seems determined to provoke. As Japan prepares to release its first “national security strategy revision” since 2013, the document may publicly change Japan’s identity into a military power, potential host of American nukes, or proxy for US wars in the region.

It is hard to imagine that Japan’s population, with its historical aversion to nuclear weapons, would allow nuclear weapons in any way. But Abe brought nuclear reactors back on-line in spite of majority public opposition. Meanwhile, Kishida, who’s from Hiroshima, advocates nuclear disarmament and was the first Japanese PM to attend a Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Still, under heavy US pressure, Japan has not signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and did not attend the treaty’s First Meeting of States Parties in Vienna, even as an observer. How will Kishida’s personal politics stand up to entrenched LDP policy and to Washington’s incendiary affronts to China, especially as Japan sits between nuclear-armed neighbors? Japan’s nuclear posture remains ambiguous: a large economy returning to nuclear power, poised for contested constitutional revision, in a precarious position as tensions escalate in the Pacific.

—Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug. 24; The Guardian, Aug. 1; and CNN, July 11, 2022.

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radiation More Harmful to Girls and Women than to Boys and Men

By Mary Olson

Editor’s note: The author, the founder of the Gender and Radiation Impact Project,* spoke to the Vienna Conference on the Impact of Nuclear Weapons. Because of the significance of her findings on harms of radiation exposure, we share an edited version of her remarks.

If exposed to the same amount of radiation, girls under five are twice as likely to develop cancer as boys in the same age group. Graphic by Saro Lynch-Thomason, Fullsteam Labs.

On July 16, 1945, the first nuclear weapon [uranium fission] detonation was conducted in south central New Mexico and was code‐named “Trinity.” There were roughly 15,000 children, women, and men living within fifty miles of the test site.

My focus is on the prompt gamma and neutron pulse from fission — it is 5% of the total release. More than 2,000 nuclear explosions have already occurred. Our planet is already deeply contaminated, even without waging a full‐scale nuclear war.

My government chose to use the first nuclear weapons on cities full of people. More than 200,000 people perished in the blasts or soon after.

Five years later, the United States initiated a long‐term study of some of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Researchers assumed that humanitarian aid might “skew the results” of their study. They did not provide medical treatment to the victims they studied.

This data resulting from the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is used widely, including by me, here. I need to say I am sorry. I deeply regret this history. I continue to use these numbers because what they say is vital to our survival.

Radiation is invisible but we can see the damage it has done to chromosomes. Dicentric [or double centered] and other chromosomal aberrations are common in people who have suffered acute radiation exposure.

When reproductive cells are harmed, deformations are one outcome. This happens to all babies: plants, animals, and humans. [Adults] can also suffer loss of fertility, spontaneous abortion, and miscarriage, possible heritable mutations, and avoidance of reproduction due to uncertainty. Nuclear colonialism is responsible for disproportionate harm to Indigenous Peoples from nuclear weapons testing.

A clear spike in the death of infants [under 1 year old] followed the 1945 Trinity nuclear detonation. This finding was only recently reported by Tucker and Alvarez in 2019. The consequences of nuclear tests are tragic and often irreparable.

When genetic material inside a living cell is damaged, sometimes our bodies can repair that damage. Otherwise the abnormal cell may sit quietly in the body for years or even decades before it makes us sick.

There is no way to predict which exposure will result in cancer. …even an exposure too-small-to-measure could, sometimes, result in cancer death.

The 2006 report, The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, #7, or “BEIR VII” assumes that the victim’s radiation exposure was an acute external exposure (the moment of the bomb explosion). Internalized radioactivity from fallout or other environmental contamination was not considered.

Children’s bodies are small, so the same amount of radiation delivers a larger dose [to children than to adults]. Since children are growing, the cells in their bodies are dividing more rapidly. The DNA in cells is more likely to be damaged when [undergoing] cell division.

The atomic‐bomb survivors in Japan were grouped by the age they were at the time of the bombing. These groups were tracked over their lifetimes. Cancers and cancer deaths were counted. The focus of the data is on the outcome of the prompt radiation exposure from the bombs.

There are problems with this data, but we can broadly say that those who were five years or younger when exposed had the most cancer at some point in their lives.

Here is the news: Girls in this youngest age group were twice as likely to get cancer at some point in the next 60 years, than were boys. For every male in the birth‐to-5-year group that suffered cancer, two females got cancer. This is not childhood cancer — it is total incidence.

The BEIR VII report is where these numbers are found; the report itself does not discuss gender as a risk factor. I first published my findings in 2011, and they are independent confirmation of work published in 2006 by Dr. Arjun Makhijani and his team.
It is extremely important to understand that little girls are not a “sub‐population.” Girls are an inextricable link of the human life cycle.

Biological sex was also a factor for those who were adults at the time of the bombings.

Over their lifetime women exposed as adults suffered 50% more cancer death than did men in the same age group. For every 2 men in these cohorts who died of cancer, three women died of cancer.

… females suffered more cancers than males in every age group, and the difference is greatest when the exposure was in childhood.

Why is biological sex a factor in harm from exposure to ionizing radiation? We don’t know. One hypothesis, from my mentor, the late Dr. Rosalie Bertell, is the greater amount of radio-sensitive reproductive tissue in female bodies. This, and other research questions, need to be tested by qualified institutions of excellence. The answers will impact all of us.

Three points to take away:
1. Ionizing radiation is harmful to living cells—harm is greater when children are exposed, compared to adults.
2. At any age, radiation is more harmful to females than to males. Young girls are most harmed by radiation (measured as cancer across their lifetime). Radiation protection rules do not yet reflect this finding. Prior to the work reported here, it was presumed that radiation, like the weapons that make it, was indiscriminate. Not so.
3. These points provide strong evidence for the jurisdiction of Humanitarian Law over fission — most especially, nuclear weapons.

The future is in our hands.

— Key sources: Olson, 2011, NIRS Briefing Paper: “Atomic Radiation is more harmful to women,” https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/radiation/radiationharm2pg.pdf; Olson 2019, “Disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation and radiation regulation,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2019.1603864; Makhijani, et al, October 2006, Science for the Vulnerable, Institute for Energy & Environmental Research; https://ieer.org/projects/healthy-from-the-start/.

* Gender and Radiation Impact Project, 30 Westgate Pkwy, #362, Asheville, NC 28715; (828) 242‐5621; www.genderandradiation.org

October 17, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

International Meetings Shame Nuclear Weapons, Promote Reactors

By John LaForge

There were several major gatherings focused on nuclear weapons this summer. In Vienna in June there was the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Forum, the Vienna Conference on the effects of nuclear weapons, and the First Meeting of Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW); and in August was the Review Conference of the Nonproliferation Treaty at the UN in New York City. I was lucky and fascinated to observe all of them.

The formal UN sessions in Vienna and New York reminded the world that the nine nuclear-armed governments are out of step with the overwhelming majority of governments that want nuclear weapons abolished, and that the nine don’t intend to give up their arsenals. The five nuclear powers that have ratified the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) have, for 50 years, ignored the treaty’s binding obligations, principally its Article VI promise to denuclearize. All of the nuclear powers boycotted the Vienna meetings and urged their allies to stay away, betraying their fear of the TPNW’s power to stigmatize and delegitimize the Bomb.

Diplomatic sparks flew just once in New York, when China pointed out August 2 that stationing US nuclear weapons at NATO air bases in Europe violated the NPT’s articles I and II against transferring nuclear weapons to other countries. Germany hastily replied in writing that its “nuclear sharing” was legal because it was instituted long before the NPT became law. I thought of the 19th Century slaver who may have said he could keep his people in chains because he had enslaved them before the Emancipation Proclamation.

At the NPT RevCon in New York, I was alarmed to hear nearly every member state speaker promote nuclear reactor production like they were hucksters at an industry expo. In contrast, Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear International, speaking in Vienna, explicitly pointed out that nuclear reactors in war zones like Ukraine are stationary time bombs constantly posing a risk of catastrophic radiation releases. Sadly, the spectacular success of the TPNW is tainted by the treaty’s embrace of “peaceful” reactor development.

The dilemma of opposing nuclear weapons while promoting nuclear reactors was accidentally revealed in New York by the representative of the Philippines. He said power reactor sales are an “equity” issue in which the Global South shouldn’t be denied the “benefits” of nuclear-powered electricity that the North enjoys. The speaker then immediately noted that the world can’t tell whether or not Iran’s reactor fuel program is weapons related.

Because power reactors are simultaneously dirty targets in wartime, and H-bomb proliferation machines all the time, nuclear power and weapons proliferation are two lethal sides of the same poison coin.

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

By Lindsay Potter and John LaForge

By Bob Mayberry

Sordid history: meltdowns, spills, and negligence

Boeing’s practice has been cover-up, not cleanup

By Lindsay Potter

Deleting Article IX

Abe’s Nuclear Legacy

By Mary Olson

Editor’s note: The author, the founder of the Gender and Radiation Impact Project,* spoke to the Vienna Conference on the Impact of Nuclear Weapons. Because of the significance of her findings on harms of radiation exposure, we share an edited version of her remarks.

By John LaForge

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected