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 19, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Retirement-Age Point Beach Reactors Court Disaster with Sirens Off, Engines Racing

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021
 By John LaForge

A change to “emergency response” has been made at the old Point Beach nuclear reactors south of Green Bay. The operator, NextEra Energy Point Beach, has turned off the site’s disaster warning sirens. No more will the familiar wail warn of potentially catastrophic radiation releases or spills from the two reactors — which are 51 and 49 years old.

The siren system has been replaced with what’s called “IPAWS” for Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. NextEra says on its website, “The emergency alert system will broadcast official information on local radio stations. Alerts will be sent to your cell phone. If you have functional needs or do not own a cell phone, contact your emergency management agency to be registered for notification and assistance.”

That is, the system sends disaster warnings only to radios and cell phones. Are yours always on all night? Without sirens to wake sleeping nearby populations in the event of an overnight reactor disaster, potential victims can pretend that accidents only happen in daytime.

A quick search reveals:

  • the 1986 Chernobyl explosions and meltdown began at 1:23 a.m.
  • the 1979 Churchrock, New Mexico, uranium mine waste spill — the largest accidental radioactive material release in US history — broke at 5:30 a.m.
  • the Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, partial meltdown in 1979 started at 4:00 a.m.

Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan is a close watchdog of Point Beach and the 28 other reactors on the Great Lakes. He wrote in an email to Nukewatch, “If they can afford them, I sure hope everyone has their TV, radio, computer, or cell phone on in the middle of the night when the [IPAWS] alarm is sounded.”

The “bathtub curve” is derived from a tub’s cross-sectional shape. It’s a graphic representation of the failure rate of machines or technologies over the system’s operational life. The curve illustrates three periods: 1) the high failure rate of start-ups known as early failures; 2) the reduced failure rate of mid-life, known as random failures; and 3) an increasing failure rate due to aging known as wear-out failures. Failures and accidents during the wear-out period become increasingly more likely with age.

Paul Gunter, at Beyond Nuclear in Takoma Park, Maryland, specializes in reactor hazards and operations. He wrote in an email, “Removing the audible stationary sirens from within the emergency planning zone will significantly diminish the reactors’ early warning notification system and the radiological defense-in-depth strategy.”

Gunter points to the “bath tub curve” depicting failure rates over time in systems from toasters to nuclear reactors. “At startup, high rates of failures result from design flaws, mis-assembly and defects. A period of stable operations ensues, but over time, the aging of systems, structures and components leads to material degradation and a steeper rate of failures,” Gunter wrote.

In 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted NextEra’s request to give the old reactors 20-year license extensions, letting them rattle and hum until they’re 60. In November 2020, NextEra applied for a second extension that, if granted, would allow its two reactors to churn out radiation until they’re 80 years old. Adding even more risk to the reactors’ “golden years,” NRC in 2011 approved a 17 percent increase in power output from both units. These changes to original design and engineering limits are akin to dear old gramps gunning the engine of his vintage jalopy with the lousy breaks, racing down main street and running red lights with the whole family involuntarily along for the ride.

Tragic warning from Germany

Germany’s deadly flooding in July with at least 210 fatalities is a tragic example of how retiring warning sirens can be catastrophic.

In some towns sirens failed when the electricity grid crashed, and elsewhere there were no sirens at all, the Los Angeles Times reported July 24. (“Residents of flood-stricken German towns say they got inadequate warning of deluge”) The German daily Badische Neueste Nachrichten reported August 6 that sirens were removed in many places or weren’t working. There had been some 80,000 sirens across Germany when the Cold War ended, but in the 1990s the federal government handed responsibility over sirens to local communities and, in cost-cutting steps, thousands of them, many in the flooded areas, then halted their regular maintenance or removed sirens altogether. In 2015, Germany’s Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance said only 15,000 sirens still existed, Germany’s N-TV reported July 9.

Second only to the endless hazards of radioactive waste, disaster response preparedness has always been the bane of nuclear power systems — the only industrial machines required to have evacuation plans prior to start-up. Taking down warning siren systems only increases the likelihood of catastrophe. Running old reactors harder and without sirens amounts to reckless endangerment.

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

Click the links below to access articles from the Summer 2021 Quarterly Newsletter. Page numbers take you to the pdf of each page as they appear in the print version. Individual articles are also tagged by issue category.

Cover
Uproar over Japan’s Decision to Disperse Fukushima Waste Water
Navajo Nation Calls Out Feds Over Shoddy Uranium Mine Cleanup Plans

Page 2
Iran’s Uranium Processing Site Bombed by Israel?
Nukewatch Staffer, Convicted of Trespass & Property Damage in Germany, will Appeal 
More Leaking from Hanford Rad Waste Tanks
Wielding the Ban on Nuclear Weapons 

Page 3
Tracking Health Casualties from Fukushima 
UN Experts ‘Deeply disappointed’ by Decision to Discharge Fukushima Water 

Page 4
Fukushima Waste Water: “The ocean is not Japan’s trash can” 

Page 5
Fukushima Waste Filter Leaves Corrosive Radioactive Sludge 
Reassessing Tritium’s Threats to Humans and the Environment

Page 6
Navy Commanders’ Public Brawl over Legality of Nuclear Attack Orders
German High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal by Nuclear Resisters 
Compensation Proposed for Vets Harmed in Palomares Plutonium Disaster 

Page 7 Nuclear Shorts
Mi$$ile Defen$e$ Fail but $till Get Billion$
Nuclear Weapons Lobbyists Win Contracts that Buy More Lobbying
“Advanced” Reactors: Not So
Maj. Gen.: ICBMs “incredibly dangerous” 
Workers Evacuated after “Alarming” Leak from Maryland Research Reactor 

Page 8
“No First Use” of Nuclear Weapons — Complicated Common Sense
Weapons Wastes Spark Concerns across New Mexico
New York Times Editors Make Radiation Disappear
NM Attorney General Sues to Halt Waste Imports

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Uproar over Japan’s Decision to Disperse Fukushima Waste Water

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By John LaForge

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s Cabinet on April 13 “gave permission” to Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) to release over 1.25 million metric tons (1.38 million US tons) of Fukushima’s radioactive waste water into the Pacific Ocean.

Japan’s cabinet said the waste water will be diluted with additional seawater before being pumped into the ocean, and that the dumping will start in two years. The government said the dispersal will continue for at least 30 years, painting a picture of indefinitely perpetuating Fukushima’s globalized pollution.

Harsh rejection of the decision was immediate and widespread, coming from Russia, China, North and South Korea, the Philippines, New Zealand, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and several Pacific Island nations, as well as the fishing industry, marine scientists, and environmentalists.

Greenpeace Japan said in a press release the decision itself and any such dumping would violate international maritime law and that the planned release “completely disregards the human rights and interests of the people in Fukushima, wider Japan, and the Asia-Pacific region.”

The Biden Administration and the International Atomic Energy Agency both announced support for the decision, but criticism came from around the world, with South Korea and China considering law suits.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in told officials look into petitioning the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or filing an injunction there over Japan’s decision, Al Jazeera reported.

According to a statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Beijing also considers Japan’s plan to be a “possible violation of international law,” the French news service AFP reported.

China and Japan both demanded apologies after Chinese foreign ministry representative Zhao Lijian posted this famous Japanese woodblock print altered to show radioactive waste being poured into the ocean. The image of “The Great Wave off Kanagawa” made in the 19th century by artist Hokusai, was changed to illustrate Japan’s April 13 decision to pump its huge volume Fukushima waste water into the Pacific beginning in 2023. Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said April 26 that he was lodging a protest, seeking both an apology and the cartoon’s removal. “It is the Japanese government which needs to revoke its wrong decision and apologize,” Zhao said the next day.

Part of the reason for the backlash is that 70 percent of the waste water now stored in over 1,000 giant tanks is still contaminated with dozens of highly radioactive materials.* Tepco’s Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) — a novel filter system that the company claimed would remove 62 isotopes from the water — has not worked. The company says it will re-filter the waste before it starts pouring it into the Pacific.

“This water is contaminated with such radionuclides as cesium-137, carbon-14, tritium (some of which will form the more dangerous ‘organically bound tritium’), strontium-90, cobalt-60, iodine-129, plutonium-239, and more than 50 other hazardous radionuclides,” reported Rick Steiner, a marine biologist in Anchorage and former University of Alaska professor of marine conservation, in the Anchorage Daily News April 25.

Likewise, physicist Iain Darby and researcher Azby Brown with Safecast wrote in Japan Times, “In late 2018, the company admitted that 70 percent of the tanks — more than 750,000 tons of treated water — still contained above-limit levels of strontium-90, ruthenium-106, cobalt-60, and many other radionuclides that the system had failed to adequately remove.” Safecast is an international nonprofit that conducts citizen monitoring of environmental radiation and other hazards.

Apologies to artist P. Chappatte on this page as we added the Fukushima banner to his 2006 cartoon.

Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Agency said that radioactivity in the released yet continuously accumulating waste water will be “within international limits,” and Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso went so far as to say the waste would be “safe to drink.” (See p. 4) However, Prof. Steiner also reported that Tepco had admitted its waste water contains significant amounts of radioactive carbon-14. “As carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, and is known to bio-accumulate in marine ecosystems and cause cellular and genetic impairment, this is a very serious concern. Fukushima carbon-14 will be added to the elevated radioactive carbon-14 load in the oceans from nuclear weapons tests last century — “bomb carbon” — now found in organisms even in the deepest part of the ocean, the Marianas Trench,” he wrote.

Japan’s dumping decision means that alternatives recommended by experts were rejected in favor of the cheapest choice. Other options include expansion and long-term tank storage to allow the waste’s radioactivity to decrease, replacing the ALPS filter with a system that removes tritium and all the rest, or evaporation of the waste water.

Kazue Suzuki, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Japan, said the government had “discounted the radiation risks and turned its back on the clear evidence that sufficient storage capacity is available on the nuclear site as well as in surrounding districts.”

Korean experts warned that “radioactive materials not properly filtered and discharged into the sea could be hazardous to those living in Korea and its neighboring China,” the Korea Herald reported. Choi Yoon, a professor at South Korea’s Kunsan National University, told Al Jazeera April 24, “When radioactive materials such as cesium or tritium flow into the ocean, they are absorbed into living things, mainly plankton. And through the food chain, radioactive materials accumulate in bigger fishes that eat lots of plankton or smaller fishes.”

“Through the sea’s currents, it can affect fishes near the Korean Peninsula, East Asia and even the entire world although the degree of dilution may vary,” Yoon said.

From the South Pacific the Guardian reported that Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, a Vanuatu [Pacific island nation] stateswoman and member of the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific movement said, “If it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free.”

Only 30 percent of 1.25 million metric tons of Tepco’s filtered radioactive waste water, which passed through the Advanced Liquid Processing System, has been cleared of high-risk radioactive materials. Dangerous isotopes have been found in up to 875,000 metric tons of the stored waste. Ingestion of “strontium-90 increases the risk of developing leukemia and bone cancer, according to a report by the Korea Energy Information Culture Agency,” the Korea Herald warned.

Suzuki, with Greenpeace Japan, said, “The Japanese Government has taken the wholly unjustified decision to deliberately contaminate the Pacific Ocean with radioactive wastes.” The group’s international executive director Jennifer Morgan added that the plan for wastewater disposal “is a violation of Japan’s legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and will be strongly resisted over the coming months.”

For years leading up to Japan’s announcement, government officials, Tepco and nuclear power lobbyists have claimed that tritium, the radioactive form of hydrogen, is not harmful in small amounts. This statement is untrue; see “Reassessing” below and “UN Experts” on p. 3.

In dozens of reports on Japan’s decision, officials repeatedly acknowledged that radioactive tritium is routinely released into public waters by operating reactors, and that this has been a permitted industrial practice for six decades.

The “we do this all the time” admissions appeared to be presented as a kind of reassurance, as if polluting the Great Lakes and major rivers like the Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi is blasé. It continues because the nuclear industry and most government and regulatory agencies deny a connection between environmental radioactive pollution and the alarming rate of cancer incidence in humans.

*See:

• Ken Buesseler, “Opening the floodgates at Fukushima,” Science, Aug. 7, 2020; DOI: 10.1126/science.abc1507

• “Mix of contaminants in Fukushima wastewater, risks of ocean dumping,” Science Daily, Aug. 6, 2020
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200806153610.htm

• “Fukushima nuclear plant owner apologizes for still-radioactive water,” Reuters, Oct. 11, 2018; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-nuclear-water/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-apologizes-for-still-radioactive-water-idUSKCN1ML15N

• “Treated water at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive: Tepco,” Mari Yamaguchi, AP, Japan Times, Sept. 29, 2018; https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/09/29/national/treated-water-fukushima-nuclear-plant-still-radioactive/#.XAQcOGhKiUk

• “Treated water at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive,” Seattle Times, September 28, 2018; https://www.seattletimes.com/business/water-stored-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-still-radioactive

• “All options need to be weighed for Fukushima plant tainted water,” editorial, Ashi Shimbun, Sept. 6, 2018;
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201809060020.html

• “Residents blast water-discharge method at Fukushima plant,” The Asahi Shimbun, August 31, 2018
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201808310042.html

 

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Navajo Nation Calls Out Feds Over Shoddy Uranium Mine Cleanup Plans

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Leona Morgan

“From 1944 to 1986, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo lands,” according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website “Navajo Nation: Cleaning Up Abandoned Uranium Mines.” Some remediation has been done through two five-year cleanup plans, but is severely underfunded, and the sites are never restored to pre-mining conditions.

The EPA frames the cleanup of 524 abandoned uranium mines on Navajo Indian Country as a collaborative effort between the US federal agencies charged with the cleanup — US EPA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Navajo Area Indian Health Service, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry — and the Navajo Nation (Navajo). Over the course of the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed cleanup of the United Nuclear Corporation/General Electric (UNC/GE) Northeast Churchrock uranium mine, it has become glaringly clear that the federal government is not in collaboration or negotiations with Navajo at all, but rather dictating how to proceed.

Navajo EPA Superfund Director Dariel Yazzie and staff have been working to uphold the requests of the Diné Red Water Pond Road Community Association (RWPR) which will be most impacted if the controversial Churchrock cleanup plan is approved. UNC/GE proposes to “cleanup” the uranium mine by placing one million cubic yards of mine waste atop an existing mill waste disposal site, which is the same site as the 1979 Churchrock spill. For over a decade, RWPR has called for moving all radioactive wastes out of the area entirely. RWPR is opposed to the cleanup plan, despite the US EPA threatening that it may take several years before another is proposed.

Recently, Yazzie exposed how the US EPA doesn’t allow the Navajo Nation a seat at the table while making major decisions regarding cleanup, funds, contractors, etc. Yazzie has also slammed the NRC for moving forward a plan that is “incomplete,” as it does not include any of the recommendations from either the RWPR or the Navajo Nation, and is lacking information on design, engineering, and environmental studies and impacts. Yazzie joined the RWPR and countless others who have criticized the NRC for conducting virtual public meetings during the pandemic, while many locals did not have access to internet or phone service and were under lockdown — due to the severity of Covid-19 in Diné communities.

In her May 24, 2021 cover letter responding to the DEIS, Navajo EPA Executive Director Valinda Shirley condemned the US government’s failure in “assuring the stability and integrity” of the initial impoundment dam which breached in 1979, “despite the approved engineering.” Shirley explains, “This failure has drastically contributed to … mistrusting of the NRC, DOE, UNC/GE, EPA and their assurances on any environmental remediation activity.”

The Navajo Nation EPA is not only holding the federal government accountable to clean up the Churchrock area, but is also supporting community demands that the United States be named as the responsible party to fund cleanup of all abandoned uranium mines, and to work with affected communities to clean up to the highest standards.

At the request of Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez, the NRC has extended the DEIS comment period to October 31, 2021. For background info and talking points to send comments:

https://haulno.com/.

The RWPR’s annual event in remembrance of the July 16, 1979 uranium spill was not held last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This year, RWPR will do a private event. For updates: https://swuraniumimpacts.org/.

— Leona Morgan works with the Nuclear Issues Study Group in New Mexico. For background see: “A Second Churchrock Spill in the Making?” in the Winter 2020-2021 Nukewatch Quarterly. 

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Iran’s Uranium Processing Site Bombed by Israel?

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Bob Mayberry

On April 11, 2021, an explosion at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site destroyed the power supply to its underground uranium processing centrifuges. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, called the attack an act of “nuclear terrorism,” and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif condemned the bombing as a “war crime.” Iran said there were no fatalities.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was with former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem April 11, the day Iran’s uranium processing site was bombed most likely by Israeli agents with US approval. Photo: Menahem Kahana/UPI/Pool

The New York Times reported that “American and Israeli intelligence officials said there had been an Israeli role.” The morning of the bombing, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem.

Israel, which has between 80 and 400 nuclear weapons and has never joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the attack. Iran has no nuclear weapons and ratified the NPT in 1970.

Prior to the April attack, Iran began using new advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium-235 up to 20 percent. Enriched uranium is produced by feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into centrifuges that separate the uranium-235, the most suitable isotope for nuclear fission. Uranium enriched to 90% or more can be used to make nuclear weapons, the BBC noted. Shortly after the attack, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran would begin enriching uranium to 60%. Although Rouhani repeated that Iran’s nuclear activities were “exclusively peaceful,” France, Germany and the UK all expressed “grave concern” since there is no civilian atomic reactor using uranium enriched to 60%. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki described Iran’s decision — not the bombing of a uranium processing complex — as “provocative.”

On April 29, Israeli Intelligence Minister Eli Cohen said, “Israel will not allow Iran to attain nuclear arms.… Our planes reach everywhere in the Middle East, and certainly Iran.” Meanwhile, White House officials met with Israeli delegates and agreed only on the “significant threat” posed by Iran. The Israeli ambassador to the US announced that the Biden administration would consult with Israel about any renewal of the anti-nuclear deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed to in 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, the UK, the US and Germany — together with the European Union. What Israel’s act of war provokes from Iran remains to be seen.

— Reuters, “Our warplanes can reach Iran, Israeli minister warns amid nuclear talks,” April 29; Reuters, “Iran to begin 60% uranium enrichment after nuclear site incident,” April 13; Associated Press, “Iran blames Israel for sabotage at Natanz nuclear site,” April 12; and New York Times, “Blackout Hits Iran Nuclear Site in What Appears to Be Israeli Sabotage,” April 11, 2021

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, War

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • …
  • 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