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 Leave a Comment

UN Experts ‘Deeply disappointed’ by Decision to Discharge Fukushima Water

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By the United Nations News

Three independent UN human rights experts expressed deep regret on [April 15] over Japan’s decision to discharge potentially still radioactive Fukushima nuclear plant water into the ocean, warning that it could impact millions across the Pacific region. 

“The release of one million tonnes of contaminated water into the marine environment imposes considerable risks to the full enjoyment of human rights of concerned populations in and beyond the borders of Japan,” said Marcos Orellana, Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment in a joint statement.

Given the warnings from environmentalists and some governments that the discharge would affect many people as well as the environment at large, the experts called the Government’s decision “very concerning.”

It comes after years of discussions with communities including the fishing sector (which was already severely hit by the 2011 disaster), environmental NGOs, neighboring countries, and civil society. “The decision is particularly disappointing as experts believe alternative solutions to the problem are available,” the letter said.

Noting that the water may contain quantities of radioactive carbon-14, as well as other radioactive isotopes, independent experts raised their concerns with the Japanese Government that discharging radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean threatens the health of people and planet. 

Meanwhile, in reply to expert concerns, the Japanese Government has suggested that the treated water stored in the tanks was not contaminated.

However, the experts upheld that the ALPS [Advanced Liquid Processing System] water processing technology had failed to completely remove radioactive concentrations in most of the contaminated water stored in tanks at Fukushima-Daiichi.

“A first application ALPS failed to clean the water below regulatory levels and there are no guarantees that a second treatment will succeed,” they said, adding that the technology did not remove radioactive tritium or carbon-14. 

Isotope concerns

While Japan said that the tritium levels are very low and do not pose a threat to human health, scientists warn that in the water, the isotope organically binds to other molecules, moving up the food chain affecting plants and fish and humans.

Moreover, they say the radioactive hazards of tritium have been underestimated and could pose risks to humans and the environment for over 100 years. 

“We remind Japan of its international obligations to prevent exposure to hazardous substances, to conduct environmental impact assessments of the risks that the discharge of water may have, to prevent transboundary environmental harms, and to protect the marine environment,” the experts concluded.

Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts, who serve in their personal capacities, are not paid for their work. 

— UN News, April 15, 2021

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

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

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Robert Hunziker
 “A Japanese official said it’s okay if you drink this water. Then please drink it,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a news briefing.
— Washington Post, April 14, 2021

By now, the world knows all about the decision by Japan to dump radioactive waste water into the Pacific Ocean beginning in two years. According to Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, the treated and diluted water will be “safe to drink.” Mr. Aso claimed further that Japan should have started releasing it into the ocean earlier. (“China to Japan: If Treated Radioactive Water From Fukushima is Safe, ‘Please Drink It,’” Washington Post, April 15, 2021)

In response, Chinese Foreign Minister Lijian Zhao said, “The ocean is not Japan’s trash can.”

Mr. Zhao may have stumbled upon the best solution to international concerns about Tepco’s (Tokyo Electric Power Company) planned dumping of radioactive waste water into the Pacific. Instead, Tepco should remove it from the storage tanks at Fukushima Daiichi and deliver it to Japan’s water reservoirs where, similar to the ocean, it will be further diluted, although not quite as much. After all, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Japanese government are full of praise and confidence about how “harmless” the radioactive water will be. Let Japan drink it and/or use it for crop irrigation.

Japan has approximately 100,000 dams — roughly 3,000 of which are over 50 feet tall — for flood control, water supply, and hydroelectric power. Some are used exclusively for irrigation of crops. These reservoirs are more than adequate to handle Tepco’s “harmless” radioactive waste water. In a straightforward approach, Japan should use water trucks to haul the Fukushima radioactive water to various dam reservoir locations throughout the country. The bigger the reservoir, the better it’ll be for dumping and dilution purposes.

For example, one of the largest drinking water reservoirs in Japan is Ogouchi Reservoir, which holds 189 million tons of drinking water for Tokyo. Tepco is currently storing 1.3 million tons of the waste water at Fukushima Daiichi and nearing full capacity. The Ogouchi alone should be able to handle at least 1/4 and maybe up to 1/2 of the radioactive water without any serious consequences, especially as both the IAEA and the government of Japan have clearly given thumbs-up. No worries, it’s safe.

The citizens of Tokyo should be okay with this plan since their own government and the IAEA and the United States have reassured the world that dumping Fukushima’s radioactive water into a large body of water is safe — in fact, safe enough to drink. Voila! Problem solved!

With the blessing of the IAEA and the United States, via Biden’s Climate Envoy John Kerry, Japan’s government plans to start releasing radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi’s water storage tanks into the sea effective 2022, allegedly removing the toxic deadly isotopes like cesium-137, leaving behind less deadly toxic tritium. Why not dump that “harmless water” (according to Japan’s own statements) into their water systems rather than into the sea? It doesn’t make sense to dump drinkable water (according to Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister) that simply needs a bit of dilution in a larger body of water, like the sea, when reservoirs are nearby to put it to good use and of adequate size to effectively dilute the toxic water, similar to the ocean.

Identical to all radioactive substances, tritium is a carcinogen (causes cancer), a mutagen (causes genetic mutation), and a teratogen (causes malformation of an embryo). The good news: tritium emits relatively weak beta radiation and does not have enough energy to penetrate human skin. The main health risks are ingesting or breathing the tritium-laced water in large quantities.

Cancer is the main risk for humans ingesting tritium. When tritium decays it emits a low-energy electron that escapes and slams into DNA, a ribosome, or some other biologically important molecule. Unlike other radionuclides, tritium is usually part of water, so it ends up in all parts of the body and therefore, it can promote any kind of cancer. (“Is Radioactive Hydrogen in Drinking Water a Cancer Threat?” Scientific American, Feb. 7, 2014)

Some evidence suggests beta particles emitted by tritium are more effective at causing cancer than high-energy radiation such as gamma rays. Low-energy electrons produce a greater impact because at the end of their atomic-scale trip, they deliver most of their ionizing energy in one relatively confined track, rather than shedding energy all along their path like a higher-energy particle. Of course, scientists say any amount of radiation exposure poses a health risk. (How Radiation Threatens Health, Scientific American, March 15, 2011)

“Tritium is very mobile and can enter biological systems and has the potential to damage living cells.”(Kevin Bundy, et al, “Tritium, Health Effects and Dosimetry,” Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, 2012 edition)

“Tritium can potentially be hazardous to human health because it emits ionizing radiation, exposure to which may increase the probability that a person will develop cancer during his or her lifetime. For this reason, it is very important that human exposure to any radioactive material, such as tritium, is minimized within reason.” (Health Physics Society, “Tritium,” Fact Sheet, rev. January 2020)

Perhaps Tepco, the government of Japan, the United States, and the IAEA are counting on the hedged statement in the previous paragraph as their primary rationale for dumping radioactive waste into a larger body of water: It’ll be “minimized within reason.” Hmm.

In fact, as The Hill reports: “The storage tanks now hold seawater that has been used to continue cooling the reactor cores, and this water is contaminated with such radionuclides as cesium-137, carbon-14, tritium (including the more dangerous ‘organically bound tritium’), strontium-90, cobalt-60, iodine-129, plutonium-239 — and over 50 other radionuclides. Some of this has reportedly been removed, but some has not (e.g. radioactive tritium and carbon-14). Tepco, which owns Fukushima and is now responsible for the cleanup (that is likely to last the remainder of this century), didn’t admit until 2018 that the wastewater contains significant amounts of radioactive carbon-14. As carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, is known to bio-accumulate in marine ecosystems, and to cause cellular and genetic impairment, this is a very serious concern.” (Rick Steiner, “The Danger of Japan Dumping Fukushima Wastewater into the Ocean,” The Hill, April 17, 2021)

According to The Hill, Tepco’s treatment system is subpar and likely not up to the task of thorough filtering.

Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, asks, “Would this open the door for any country to release radioactive waste to the ocean that is not part of normal operations?” (“Japan Plans to Release Fukushima’s Wastewater into the Ocean,” Science, April 12, 2021)

Reportedly, Japan’s government did not consult its neighbors about the plan. China issued a warning, “The international community is watching,” calling on Tokyo to “fulfill its international responsibilities to the environment.” A harsh South Korean Foreign Ministry complaint said Japan will “directly and indirectly affect the safety of the people and the neighboring environment … difficult to accept … without sufficient consultation of neighbors.” Meanwhile, local Japanese fishermen are fit to be tied because dumping radioactive water into the ocean is essentially a death sentence for their industry.

On the other hand, the IAEA is just fine with the scheme since it meets “global standards.” The agency says it’s normal for nuclear reactors around the world to release some amount of tritium into the seas. There is nothing positive about that, nothing whatsoever.

Tepco has invented a filtering program it named Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) that purportedly “removes 62 isotopes from the water,” all except tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen and cannot easily be filtered out of water. 

Marine scientists and Greenpeace-Japan have repeatedly criticized the adequacy of the ALPS filter/removal process, noting that many highly toxic, deadly radioactive isotopes remained in the waste water. (“Treated water at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive,” Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 2018)* Tepco has pledged to re-filter over 70% or 875,000 tonnes of its radioactive waste water.

It is highly unlikely that the international community, other than the United States, will ever be comfortable with Japan’s decision to dump toxic radioactive water into the sea. Therefore, the country should take it upon itself to dispose of all radioactive water in their extensive network of water reservoirs.

Of course, nuclear power advocates argue that it’s insane to dump the radioactive water into any body of water other than the ocean because its massive circulation capabilities will disperse the radioactive water throughout the world. But, that’s precisely what other countries do not want!

Deliberately, Japan has made the problem a simple one to deal with by publicly admitting that the treated water will be harmless, good enough to drink. As follows, they can keep it. Enough said!

Postscript: “Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso repeated his claim April 16 that it is safe to drink treated radioactive water accumulating at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after China asked him to personally prove it.” (“Taro Aso Repeats Claim That Treated Fukushima Water is Good to Drink,” Jakarta Post, April 16, 2021)

— Robert Hunziker of Los Angeles wrote this comment for CounterPunch, April 23, 2021

*Editor’s note. Please see also: “Opening the floodgates at Fukushima,” Science, Aug. 7, 2020 • “Mix of contaminants in Fukushima wastewater, risks of ocean dumping,” Science Daily, Aug. 6, 2020 • “Fukushima nuclear plant owner apologizes for still-radioactive water,” Reuters, Oct. 11, 2018 • “Treated water at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive: Tepco,” Japan Times, Sept. 29, 2018 • “All options need to be weighed for Fukushima plant tainted water,” Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 6, 2018 • “Residents blast water-discharge method at Fukushima plant,” The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 31, 2018

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

August 2, 2021 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Reassessing Tritium’s Threats to Humans and the Environment

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Ian Fairlie

Tritium decays via beta particle emissions and can be more dangerous than most X-rays. It has a radioactive half-life of 12.3 years. While most of its atoms will have decayed in ten half-lives (123 years), many scientists believe it might take 20 half-lives (246 years) or more to reach safe levels. The safety of tritium after centuries depends partly on how much was emitted, since a small fraction of a large amount can still be very hazardous.

Tritium’s gaseous form, tritium oxide (i.e., radioactive water or radioactive water vapor), enters the body by inhalation, ingestion, or absorption through the skin. Tritium in the body immediately mixes with body fluids and is dispersed widely because water is found everywhere in our bodies. Once inside the body, it becomes organically bound and can concentrate in cells and certain organs.

Because of its long half-life, it resides in tissues and organs for extended periods. This can increase cancers and congenital malformations for those living near nuclear facilities. 

For most of the 20th century, tritium was often dismissed as a “weak” radionuclide which led many to underestimate its hazards. All this changed in the 21st century when scientists began to realize that tritium is much more dangerous than previously suspected. Although tritium is a low-range beta [particle] emitter, it can be very harmful as an internal emitter (when it gets inside the body). … It is also quite dangerous because it remains in the body for long periods.

Studies reveal that tritium is one of the most common internal emitters found in humans. As an internal emitter, tritium can alter cellular DNA and cause a variety of damaging health effects. One of the most significant effects is cancer which sometimes takes years to develop. Many epidemiological studies have reported increases in cancers and congenital malformations among people living near nuclear facilities.

The new concern about tritium is partly because all nuclear facilities emit very large amounts of tritium. In its elemental form, tritium diffuses through most containers, including those made of steel and concrete. Tritium is difficult to contain, and in its oxide form it is generally not detected by commonly used survey instruments. … large amounts are produced in nuclear reactors. It contaminates the concrete structures at nuclear power reactors so that the older the station, the more the contamination. Large amounts of tritium continue to be released for decades after a reactor is closed.

We now know that tritium has an exceptionally high molecular exchange rate with stable hydrogen atoms thus making it extremely mobile in the environment. Emissions from nuclear facilities can rapidly contaminate all biota in adjacent areas. Tritium binds with organic matter to form organically bound tritium.

Tritium is the only one of the three hydrogen isotopes that is radioactive. It is an essential component of every nuclear weapon.

— Dr. Ian Fairlie is a radiation biologist and author of “The Other Chernobyl Report,” updated as “TORCH-2016: An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,” of March 2016

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

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

Workers Evacuated after “Alarming” Leak from Maryland Research Reactor

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2021
By Christine Manwiller

On February 3, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland had a radiation leak during the restart of its research reactor. Temperatures inside a single fuel element reached over 850⁰ F leaving it damaged. An alarm sounded, and the reactor was shut down. Although the amount of radiation released has not been revealed, it was high enough to warrant decontamination of ten employees who were then sent home. Federal regulators revealed later that the leak was “three times higher than originally thought.” This fact was followed with the assurance that the leak posed no danger to thousands of residents living in homes or visiting several large shopping centers close to the reactor. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported a month later that it was “satisfied that people around and near NIST remain safe.” However, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in its book-length Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation-VII that any amount of radiation exposure is dangerous, especially for women and girls.

Residents around the NIST complex were “alarmed” that they were not notified about the incident. No official announcement was made. The fact that workers were exposed to radiation and evacuated is unusual. David Lochbaum, a nuclear researcher with the Union of Concerned Scientists, says, “It’s alarming and uncommon to hear of an incident that requires the evacuation of workers inside a reactor.” The level of caution prompting decontamination and evacuation of workers would also warrant notification of local communities. Four months later the reactor remains shut down.

— NIST, May 6; NBC News, Mar. 31; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mar. 4, 2021

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • …
  • 62
  • 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