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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Compensation Proposed for Vets Harmed in Palomares Plutonium Disaster

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

A proposed federal law would see over 1,600 veterans exposed to plutonium dust while responding to a 1966 US nuclear weapons disaster in Palomares, Spain become eligible for VA benefits and health care. Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Representative Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., introduced the Palomares Veterans Act April 15 to remove barriers to benefits and compensation for the vets who responded to the 1966 disaster. Most of the 1,500 service members were sent to the site without protective clothing or warnings of the radiological hazards. They were exposed to internal and external alpha radiation, after two of the B52’s nuclear warheads were blown to pieces dispersing as much as 22 pounds of highly radioactive pulverized plutonium. (See Spring Nukewatch Quarterly.) 

The Palomares Veterans Act would amend current law and add the cleanup operations at Palomares to the Pentagon’s list of its “radiation risk activities.” Since many of the veterans of the dangerous cleanup duty have already died, the law would also make surviving spouses and their children eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation — a monetary benefit paid to eligible survivors of veterans whose death resulted from a service-related injury or disease.

In January 1966, a US Air Force B-52 bomber collided with an Air Force KC-135 tanker aircraft over the Spanish village of Palomares, resulting in one of the largest plutonium disasters in history.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

 Mi$$ile Defen$e$ Fail but $till Get Billion$

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

Over 60 advocates, former military officers, lawmakers, and government officials have asked the Biden White House to delay or cancel parts of the scandal-ridden missile defense program. In a June 3 letter they slam the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program, a $926 million item in this year’s $8.9 billion Missile Defense Agency’s budget. The program has been “rushed, chaotic and ultimately counter-productive …, has resulted in a failed test record [and] wasted billions of dollars,” the group wrote.

Military intelligence, famous for its oxymorons, identifies this photo as, “Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Sea-Based X band radar platform arrives in Pearl Harbor.” US Navy photo by Ryan McGinley.

The signatories include former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, former Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman, and former Senators Tom Harkin and Tom Daschle. They argue the Navy’s missile test interception last year “threatened Russia’s and China’s confidence in their strategic deterrent,” and they urged Biden to delay the Aegis missile program by limiting production of ships and missiles. The White House’s budget proposal included $1 billion for Lockheed Martin’s Aegis system, and $647 million for the interceptors. 

The World Policy Institute reported in 2004 that the four top missile-defense contractors back then — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, TRW and Raytheon — spent $34 million on lobbying and $6.9 million on campaign contributions in fiscal year 1997-‘98. The legal bribery pays off, as GMD outlays were estimated in 2013 to total $40.9 billion through fiscal year 2017, according to the House Committee on Oversight and the US Government Accountability Office. 

— Defense News, June 3, 2021; Hudson Institute 2019 annual report; “Missile Defense Fraud Goes Ballistic,” Nukewatch Special Report, 2005.

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Nuclear Weapons Lobbyists Win Contracts that Buy More Lobbying

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

In June, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) published “Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending,” and its details will help abolitionists demonstrate how the nuclear weapons industry protects its government contracts. Last year the United States spent $37.4 billion on nuclear weapons and just the 21 major nuclear weapons producers profiled in the report spent $117 million in lobbying Congress. For every $1 they spent lobbying, an average of $236 in nuclear-weapons-contract money came back. For example:

•Boeing spent $15.6 million lobbying and was awarded $105 million for nuclear weapons work.

•Lockheed Martin, spent $15 million lobbying, and was awarded $2.1 billion for nuclear weapons work.

•Northrop Grumman spent $13.3 million lobbying, and was awarded $13.7 billion for nuclear weapons work.

•Raytheon Technologies spent $15.2 million lobbying, and was awarded $450 million for nuclear weapons work.

ICAN’s 73-page report details $5-to-$10 million in donations that the nuclear weapons contractors made to “think tanks” whose writers promote weapons programs, manufacture fear, and discourage disarmament, enabling lawmakers to con their constituents and to vote for more weapons. 

— ICANw.org, “Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending,” June 2020

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Advanced” Reactors: Not So

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

Promoters of “advanced” nuclear reactors tout them as the best future energy source, but the reality is familiar and dismal. A new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that new reactor designs generate large volumes of radioactive wastes (same as always), are no safer to operate than old designs, and actually increase the risk of radioactive materials falling into the wrong hands.

Untested new designs, often promoted by companies that have lost money from the closure of old reactors, are usually called molten salt reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactors, or high-temperature gas reactors, and are as unsafe as they sound, the UCS says. The schemes all require fuel reprocessing or special uranium fuel, both of which involve complicated supply chains and encourage nuclear terrorism. As usual, questions about long-term storage of (especially liquid) radioactive waste created by the reactors go unanswered by proponents. 

This makes it doubly dissapointing that in his recent infrastructure plan President Biden included new reactors as an “important technology.” Tests to establish that the new designs are at all safe will take years. By the time any new designs are properly tested, the UCS said, scientists and engineers could have used government funding to scale-up safe, cheaper, and more reliable renewables like wind and solar. Advancing with nuclear likely leaves us with old fashioned problems that are hugely expensive, dangerous from the start, and deadly waste generators. 

— “3 Advanced Reactor Systems to Watch by 2030,” Energy.gov, April 12; “Not So Advanced,” Natural Resources Defense Council, March 24; “Scientists Say Advanced Nuclear Reactors Not Safer than Conventional Plants,” Insurance Journal, March 22; “‘Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better,” Union of Concerned Scientists, March 18, 2021

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Maj. Gen.: ICBMs “incredibly dangerous”

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021

Maj. Gen. Anthony Genatempo, commander of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center in New Mexico, told Air Force Magazine in June that replacing today’s Minuteman III missiles is crucial for the Air Force personnel “who have to be around that incredibly dangerous weapon system.” Genatempo said the things that keep him up at night regarding Minuteman missiles are heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems … that have never been replaced — and the failure of “which would take a missile offline for an unknown amount of time as it is fixed.”

Genatempo then pivoted and claimed that the long-range, land-based nuclear weapons are “safe and reliable.” He was trying to promote the Minuteman’s retirement and said, “We are building [the replacement] to be a 70-year weapon system….” Never mind the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty in which the US pledged to pursue nuclear disarmament “at an early date.”

The general’s concern may be feigned, since even a computer failure that cut off contact with 50 Minuteman III missiles at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming in October of 2010 was said by Lt. Gen. Arlen Jameson to have had “no real bearing on the capabilities of our nuclear forces…” inadvertently confirming that land-based nuclear weapons are obsolete and needless. 

— Air Force Magazine, “New GBSD Will Fly in 2023,” June 14, 2021; CNN, “Computer problem blamed for missile site malfunction,” Oct. 28, 2010

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • …
  • 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