Radiation Exposure

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Eleven State Attorneys General Oppose Trump’s Drastic Overhaul of Nuclear Power Regulation

From the office of Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown

A coalition of 11 state attorneys general took action at the end of August to oppose two U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposals, which are part of a dangerous wholesale revision of its long-standing regulations. In comments submitted to the NRC, the attorneys general argue that the monumental changes the NRC has proposed threaten to put public health and safety at risk.

The AG coalition joined thousands of angry citizens who wrote to the NRC condemning the proposed deregulation.

The coalition filed comments opposing two proposed NRC rule changes. The first includes sweeping changes to radiation exposure standards and oversight with serious impacts on state programs and worker and public safety. The proposal would increase levels of radiation ⸺ from power reactors, radioactive waste canisters and dump sites, medical devices and treatments, uranium mining and fuel fabrication facilities, etc. ⸺ to which workers and the public could legally be exposed, and would reduce monitoring and reporting requirements. The NRC’s proposal would also eliminate the science-backed “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” standard for allowable radioactive pollution. The NRC has not provided a scientific basis for abandoning this internationally recognized, long-standing protection, the group said.

In their August 31 comment letter, the attorneys general argue that the NRC failed to support its proposals with evidence, failed to propose or consider alternative approaches to achieve its stated goals, and failed to allow the public or the states adequate time to comprehend and meaningfully review the unprecedented volume of proposed regulatory changes the NRC has introduced this year.

The coalition also submitted comments opposing a second NRC proposal that could allow large parts of nuclear power reactors to be built without environmental review or community engagement in the decision-making process.

The attorneys general argue that several other provisions in the proposed rule create unwarranted risks to public safety and amount to the NRC abdicating its oversight role and safety mandate.

The coalition notes that the proposed changes have the potential to negatively impact communities with preexisting environmental justice concerns. The attorneys general assert that, if finalized, the proposed rule would violate the Administrative Procedure Act and fail to comply with the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Last month, a coalition of attorneys general jointly submitted a comment letter opposing the NRC’s proposal to revise its NEPA regulations. That proposal would unlawfully fast-track nuclear reactor construction by ignoring foreseeable environmental impacts and limiting public participation. The attorneys general argued that, if finalized, the proposed rule would also violate the Administrative Procedure Act and fail to comply with NEPA.

Submitting the August 31 comment letters were the attorneys general of Maryland, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Questions Emerge over Infant Health near Diablo Canyon Nuclear Site

By Ella Heydenfeldt, The Independent, May 7, 2026

Edited for space by Nukewatch Staff

A recent Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health analysis found higher cancer mortality rates in U.S. counties located closer to nuclear reactors, while a nonprofit-led report questioned whether decades of Diablo Canyon’s operation may be tied to worsening infant health in surrounding San Luis Obispo [S.L.O.] County. Federal regulators and health officials, however, maintain that radiation exposure from the site is too low to pose a measurable risk.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace members argue continued operation of the two pressurized water reactors poses unnecessary risks and costs. They point to roughly $700 million in state support, the growing accumulation of radioactive waste, the negative effects on sea life from the reactors’ once-through cooling system, and their discharge of heated seawater into the ocean.

**San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace has been opposing dangers posed by Diablo Canyon and nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, and rad waste since 1969. Photo: Mothers for Peace.**

Declining Infant Health: Correlation or Causation?

On April 29 Radiation and Public Health Project epidemiologist Joseph Mangano presented an analysis of state data showing San Luis Obispo County’s infant health and mortality have been negatively impacted since reactor startup.

Based on publicly available health statistics, the report — “Local Newborn Health Declined As California Nuclear Plant Operates” — states that infant mortality has shifted from a healthy 16-22 percent below the state average in 1968, which is the year reactor construction started and such record-keeping began, to 14 percent below average after Diablo Canyon went into operation in 1985, to about one percent above average today. (Statewide, infant mortality declined from roughly 21 deaths per 1,000 births in 1968 to about 5 per 1,000.) Premature births and birth defects followed similar patterns, with one category of defects reported at 114 percent above the state average.

“One does not find causation through epidemiology,” Mangano said. His report does not establish that emissions from Diablo Canyon caused the changes. But, “the Harvard study changed everything,” Mangano added.

That 2026 study examined nationwide data from 2000-2018 and found that counties closer to nuclear reactors, including S.L.O., had a “robust and consistent” higher rate of cancer mortality, even after adjusting for socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental factors. The association was strongest among older adult men with the most common form of cancer being lung cancer. The researchers emphasized that the study — the first this century to analyze nuclear reactor proximity and cancer deaths across affected counties — do not establish causation, did not measure radiation exposure directly, and pointed to the need for further study.

The Radioactive Tooth Fairy

For reactor operator PG&E, “Diablo Canyon, as with all nuclear [reactors] power plants in the U.S., is regulated and monitored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has found our operations meet all safety and security performance objectives,” stated Carina Corral, head of communications for the power company.

Corral added, “PG&E does not consider this report credible. Mr. Mangano has launched similar false claims in the past, also debunked by medical experts, including those at the S.L.O. County Public Health Department as ‘fundamentally flawed.’”

Looking specifically at individual radiation exposure differs from the Harvard analysis and Mangano’s report, which rely on large-scale population and mortality data. This difference of approach complicates the effort to understand the effect of nuclear power plants on health, if any.

Mangano argues that observable shifts in public health data, combined with evidence of radioactive exposure, are enough to warrant concern and further investigation. Regulators and many scientists maintain that without clear causal evidence, the risks remain unproven.

Jean Yamamura contributed reporting to this story.

November 2, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Japan’s Waste Dispersal from Triple Meltdown: Not Just Tritium

By John LaForge

Radioactive cooling water, contaminated after being used to cool melted uranium and plutonium fuel inside three destroyed reactors is being dispersed to the Pacific Ocean by Tepco, the owner of the world’s only triple meltdown disaster site: Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan. In addition, large amounts of groundwater and rainwater, that continuously pour into the wrecked reactors through earthquake-caused cracks in foundations, also become contaminated and require storage and treatment. After limited decontamination, the wastewater is allowed to add to oceanic pollution even in the face of international criticism, protest, and several national bans on the importation of Japanese seafood from the region.

The Citizens Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo (CNIC) reported last summer, in its “Nuke Info Tokyo” #232, that many radioactive materials contaminate the wastewater being sent into the Pacific.

While Fukushima’s owner Tepco, Japan’s government, and the corporate media regularly claim that tritium is the only radioactive Fukushima waste that is in the wastewater being dispersed, the chart (at right) records other highly radioactive materials in the wastewater, and total amounts through the end of 2025.

The total amount of nuclides released other than tritium were calculated from their residual concentrations in the treated water and the total amount of the treated water released. By December 2025, a total of 133,321 cubic meters (639 barrels) of wastewater had been dumped, containing an estimated total of about 31.2 trillion becquerels of tritium.

What does “MBq” mean? “MBq” stands for mega-becquerel or one-million becquerels. A measure of ionizing radiation, one becquerel is one atomic disintegration per second.

Tepco has estimated that it has dumped 2,633 million (2.6 trillion) becquerels of radioactive carbon-14 into the Pacific Ocean, along with all the tritium and other radioactive elements.
Carbon-14 has a radioactive half-life of 5,730 years. After one half-life (5,730 years), 50% of the carbon-14 remains. Scientists say it takes ten half-lives for radioactive material to decay. So, all the carbon-14 being poured into the Pacific from Fukushima will remain there, contaminating sea life and the food web, for about 57,000 years.

Japan’s Radioactive Waste Discharge Makes Others Bear the Cost

By Chen Xiang

Japan has now completed 20 rounds of discharge, releasing roughly 157,000 tonnes of nuclear-contaminated water in total.

A simulation study by a research team at Tsinghua University [in Beijing] previously showed that after entering the ocean, contaminated water could spread across most of the North Pacific and reach the coast of North America in about 1,200 days, or roughly 3.3 years.

By the start of this latest discharge, nearly three years have passed since Japan began releasing the water, and trace amounts of radionuclides such as tritium and carbon-14 have been detected in many areas of the North Pacific.

The discharge poses long-term, latent, and cumulative risks, with potential ecological and health impacts that warrant close attention. It is not an acute health hazard with immediate effects; its negative impacts may continue to accumulate and spread imperceptibly over an extended period.

The Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of the ALPS-Treated Water … released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on July 4, 2023, noted that the ALPS “does not remove all radioactive material. Small amounts of different radionuclides remain in the water (although they are well below regulatory limits) even after treatment, and tritium is not removed by the ALPS system at all.”

These residual radioactive substances could potentially accumulate through marine food chains, or food web, and eventually enter the human food supply, posing continuing risks to the health of people living along the North Pacific coast, or who consume seafood products from there, over the coming decades.

It is therefore clear that short-term monitoring results meeting safety standards do not guarantee absolute safety, nor can they justify Japan’s reckless discharge of nuclear-contaminated water…. People in Pacific coastal countries should not be forced to bear the health and ecological consequences of Japan’s nuclear accident.

Japan’s unilateral decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean constitutes a serious violation of international law…. Japan has seriously violated its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to protect and preserve the marine environment.

International rules lack binding corrective mechanisms and are unable to effectively halt Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated water. As a result, Japan has been able to shift the costs of managing its nuclear accident and its ecological consequences onto the rest of the world.

— The author, an Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote this for People’s Daily.

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected