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 1, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Help Keep Radioactive Waste Out of Regular Landfills

By Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2020

Right now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is planning a very dangerous change to the way radioactive waste from nuclear power is handled, creating a fictitious and deceptive name for nuclear reactor waste. Despite being extremely dangerous to human health and the environment, the NRC is trying to downplay Very Long-Lasting Waste by telling the Very Large Lie it is supposedly only “very low level”—or VLLW.

It is not. Disregarding the danger, the NRC proposes to allow regular landfill operators to dispose of this radioactive waste. The proposal would almost certainly result in more widespread radioactive waste leaks into our water, air, crops, and communities.

So-called VLLW is not clearly defined in law but includes extremely dangerous, long-lasting radioactive waste. The NRC claims only very “low levels” of radioactive waste would be disposed of with regular trash, but there is no safe level. Under the NRC’s proposed radiation exposure allowances, one in every 500 people will get cancer if exposed over their lifetimes.

Powerful players in the nuclear industry are pushing for this change because deregulating this waste would save them millions of dollars. Tell the NRC and your members of Congress: Protect public health, not the industry’s shareholders.

The NRC is taking this action behind the backs of the public, under the cover of the COVID-19 crisis, deregulating tons of radioactive waste without nearby communities knowing about it or having a say in it. Stand up to the nuclear industry and its friends at the NRC by telling them and your members of Congress not to dump radioactive waste in our landfills.

NIRS has updates about this issue at NIRS.org, or call (301) 270-6477.

—Diane D’Arrigo, May 28, 2020

Filed Under: Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

August 1, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radioactive Fracking Waste Under a Weakened EPA

Radioactive waste from fracking is being dumped into landfills and used to remove ice from roads. Source: Oil Change International
By Elena Hight
Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2020

In early 2020, Justin Nobel published an exposé in Rolling Stone on what he called “America’s Radioactive Secret.”⁠ This secret is the trillions of gallons of fracking wastewater that pour from oil and gas wells each year and make their way along national highways to injection wells and landfills throughout the country.

While some of this waste comes from the mixture of water, sand, and chemical that is injected thousands of feet into the Earth’s surface to release fossil fuels trapped in hard shale formations,⁠ some of it is radioactive brine. Brine is salt water that is trapped, along with oil and gas, in deep aquifers. Depending on the geological formation, this brine often contains heavy metals and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials, including lead, uranium, and radium among others.⁠ While government organizations and industry leaders claim that the radioactivity levels of the brine are insignificant, Nobel says the amount of radium from the Marcellus Shale—a major source of natural gas extracted through fracking which runs beneath Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia—“averages around 9,300 picocuries per liter, but has been recorded as high as 28,500.” These amounts are hundreds to thousands of times above the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s safety standards.

This waste, which contaminates everything and everyone it touches, is either injected back into the ground or dumped in the landfills or waterways of unsuspecting communities. Sometimes, the brine is even sprayed on local roads to prevent icing. Oil and gas workers, already exposed to a number of dangerous chemicals, are often untrained and unprepared to deal with the radioactive waste that they carry, and the scale that builds up on the trucks, pipes, and equipment can expose them to hundreds of thousands of picocuries per liter(pCi/L) of radiation. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Maximum Contaminant Level is 5pCi/L.

Because of exemptions from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, there are not many federal regulations on either the wastewater or the wastewater injection wells, leaving a patchwork of state-by-state regulations (some stringent, some alarmingly lenient). In Pennsylvania, this wastewater has even been dumped into local creeks and rivers with minimal treatment⁠, exposing thousands to contaminated drinking water.

Even before the coronavirus, President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency tried to lift what few policies⁠ were in place to protect local waterways from insufficiently treated wastewater,⁠ but the latest move to completely suspend enforcement of all environmental laws tops all that. As thousands of people die from the government’s inept response to coronavirus, Trump is putting other lives at risk by allowing big polluters free license to do damage to land, water, and people.

—Rolling Stone, Jan. 21, 2020; American Chemical Society, July 12, 2017; Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research Report, 2013

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

August 1, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Chernobyl-area Fires Spread Radiation Spewed by 1986 Disaster…Again

“Minor increases in radiation” — IAEA

Editor’s note: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the UN’s nuclear reactor agency, and was established to promote the nuclear power industry. IAEA’s purpose, announced in its charter, says it “shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy… throughout the world” and to “encourage…atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world.”  Often identified as a “watchdog agency,” IAEA is a fully captured arm of the nuclear power lobby. IAEA’s announcements routinely understate, or minimize the extent and the dangerousness of radiation releases, as well as the risks of radiation exposures.

Dangerously increased levels of radiation in breathable radioactive particles lofted and windblown by April wildfires in and around the Chernobyl reactor disaster exclusion zone were reported April 13 by Kiev officials.
Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2020

Dangerously increased levels of radiation in breathable radioactive particles lofted and windblown by April wildfires in and around the Chernobyl reactor disaster exclusion zone—which was permanently contaminated in April 1986 by one of the world’s worst radiation catastrophes—–were reported April 13 by Kiev officials.

The BBC and Reuters reported April 13 that acting head of Ukraine’s state ecological inspection service, Yegor Firsov, said in an April 5 Facebook post that radiation levels in the area had risen substantially above normal.

“There is bad news. In the center of the fire, radiation is above normal,” Firsov said, posting a video of a Geiger counter. “As you can see in the video, the readings of the device are 2.3, when the norm is 0.14. But this is only within the area of the fire outbreak,” the UPI reported April 6. The reading was more than 16 times normal.

However, “Government officials later rejected this finding, and said the levels in the area were ‘within normal limits,’” and “Mr Firsov also withdrew his remarks,” the BBC said.

In short order Ukrainian government agencies and the IAEA went to work assuring the public that the radiation-tainted forest fire smoke was not a danger to people in Ukraine.

In an April 24 press release the IAEA said, “The burning of meadows, pastures and stubble has resulted in some minor increases in radiation due to the release of radionuclides transferred from soil contaminated in the 1986 accident. But the concentration of radioactive materials in the air remained below Ukraine’s radiation safety norms and posed no public health concern, the SNRIU said,” referring to the Ukraine’s State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine.

“These fires happen almost every year”

Radio Free Europe reported April 26 that “Ukrainian officials have attributed smoky air in Kiev in recent days to fires in the nearby Zhytomyr region, assuring residents that radiation levels in the Ukrainian capital are within an acceptable range.”

“Background radiation in [Kiev] is ‘stable’ and does ‘not exceed the permissible values,’ [Ukraine’s] State Emergency Service said on April 26,” the 34th anniversary of the catastrophic explosions and fires caused by Chernobyl’s reactor 4, Radio Free Europe said.

Greenpeace Russia reported April 23 that “plumes of smoke caused smog in [Kiev], 250 kilometers away and although they did not exceed norms, higher levels of radioactivity than usual were detected.”

NBC News reported April 18 that Volodymyr Demchuk, director of the Emergency Response Department, said in a video statement, “The radioactive background in Kiev and the Kiev region is within normal limits.”

Official assurances of “normal limits”, and “permissible” or “acceptable” levels of radiation exposure studiously avoid saying that exposure to or inhaling radiation is “safe.” Further, the IAEA and the Ukrainian authorities neglect any mention of particular isotopes in the air, what sorts of radiation was being emitted, where the radioactive particles might settle, the length of time the particles persist in the environment, and the risks posed by radioactive “daughter” elements left for decades by the radioactive decay process.

“Forest fires in contaminated areas are a big problem for Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia where five million people still live in contaminated areas according to official data. These fires happen almost every year,” reported Greenpeace Russia’s nuclear campaigner Rashid Alimov.

—JL

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

August 1, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Contamination & Radioactive “Hot Spots” in Fukushima Endanger Returnees, Olympic Games

One of the 70,000 workers involved in cleanup efforts after the Fukushima disaster indicates bag placement of radioactive waste from Fukushima.
Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2020

A March report by Greenpeace Japan, “Radioactivity on the Move 2020,” is a stark reminder of the daunting and endless radiation hazards caused by the triple reactor meltdown of 2011 at the Fukushima-Daiichi complex.

In Fukushima Prefecture, spring snow melt and heavy rains remobilize stocks of radio-cesium in forests, hill slopes, and floodplains that were heavily contaminated by the radiation disaster, and that then contaminate areas downstream—frustratingly, even areas that were already decontaminated. “… as a result of the contamination in 2011, these uphill forests serve as a long-term source of radioactivity for the areas below. The principle radioactive source, cesium-137, has a half-life of 30 years, and therefore will remain a hazard for around ten half-lives, or 300 years.

Conducted soon after the October 2019 Typhoon Hagibis, which was one of the most powerful typhoons in 100 years, the group’s survey “observed concentrated radiation levels throughout Fukushima Prefecture, including significant radiation hotspots….” Building on its 2016 report “Radiation Reloaded,” Greenpeace’s extensive radiation survey raises alarms about the re-contamination caused by Hagibis, “which released radioactive cesium [downhill] from the forested mountains of Fukushima prefecture which make up 70% of the region, and which cannot feasibly be decontaminated.”

The report paints an accusatory picture of Japan’s government, “Which continues to push its propaganda of normalization in Fukushima,” in order to convince the public in general and evacuees in particular that it is safe to return to their houses. The report notes that “the Japanese government remains committed to policies which aim to pressure tens of thousands of Japanese Internally Displaced Persons  to return to their former homes.”

The government’s resettlement push is also motivated by the huge economic investment in hosting the postponed summer Olympics. The games have been put off until July 23, 2012, not because of the radioactive dangers documented and presented to the government by Greenpeace Japan, but because of the coronavirus pandemic.

One example of the government’s recklessness, is its arbitrary setting of radiation exposure allowances. Global standards for radiation exposure are set by the International Commission on Radiation Protection, and the maximum exposure for the general public in Japan was one (1) milliSievert per year (mSv/y) until 2012.

But in April 2012, the government increased the maximum annual exposure twenty-fold, to 20 milliSieverts per year (20 mSv/y). This eye-popping increase of allowable exposure applies across-the-board to infants and children, while girls and women are all known to be more vulnerable to the harmful effects of radiation than adult men. Greenpeace says this was done “as part of its strategy to lift evacuations orders.”

The typhoon’s recontamination and resulting levels of potential radiation exposure have caused a “… radiological situation in Fukushima prefecture, specifically in both the open and exclusion zones of Namie, Iitate, and Okuma, [that] leads Greenpeace Japan to conclude that levels remain too high for the safe return of thousands of evacuees to these areas,” the report says. “Namie, Iitate, Okuma and Futaba remain highly contaminated.”

In its consideration of areas where evacuation orders have already been lifted, the report is highly critical. “Japanese government maintains that exposure to 20 mSv/y is acceptable in these lifted evacuation order areas. This is despite clear scientific evidence of the cancer risks from low dose radiation exposure in the 1-5 mSv/y range, which the Japanese government continues to disregard.”

Decontamination efforts have been a large part of the government’s strategy of returning people to areas hit with radioactive fallout. Yet decontamination has been less effective around houses located close to hillside forests, “where decontamination is not possible.”  Unfortunately, the report notes, “radioactivity from the non-decontaminated forest might re-contaminate the already decontaminated area below and closer to houses.”

In addition, radioactive particles and organic matter carried down from forests and fields with heavy rains and typhoons “will create continuing, subsequent influxes of radio-cesium in lakes and coastal ecosystems for years and decades to come,” the report notes. “In particular, typhoons cause significant increases in cesium discharges into the Pacific Ocean.”

The survey also discovered high levels of radiation and multiple radiation “hotspots” in Fukushima City, the J-Village sports complex and along the route of the Olympic Torch run. These findings directly challenge the government’s “propaganda narrative” leading up to the Olympic Games, and endanger athletes and everyone else involved with the games.

—JL

 

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

August 1, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Some Lessons Learned about Radiation in Medicine

  • Radiation after lung surgery may be harmful (Associated Press, Milwaukee Journal, July 24, 1998)
  • A full-body CT scan equals about 500-to-700 ordinary chest X-rays (“Are Body Scans a Scam?” Newsweek, May 19, 2002 https://www.newsweek.com/are-body-scans-scam-145379; & “Death Rays,” Newsweek, April 2, 2014 https://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/11/death-rays-248079 )
  • Medical X-rays May Join Carcinogen List–Early CT Scans Linked to Latent Cancers (USA Today, Dec. 31, 2002)
  • Report Links Increased Cancer Risk to CT Scans (Associated Press, New York Times, Nov. 29. 2007 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/us/29scan.html)
  • A single chest CT scan is about 100 times the dose of a standard chest X-ray (“CT Scans: Too Much of a Good Thing?” Newsweek, Dec. 5, 2008; https://www.newsweek.com/ct-scans-too-much-good-thing-83391)
  • FDA scientist Julian Nicholas testified he was fired after he opposed the approval of CT scans for colon cancer screening on safety grounds (AP, Mpls StarTribune, March 31, 2010 https://www.seattletimes.com/business/scientist-fda-suppressed-imaging-safety-concerns/)
  • “Overused CT scans expose patients to deadly levels of radiation” (Cardiologist Rita Redberg & radiologist Rebecca Smith-Bindman, “We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer,” New York Times, Jan. 31, 2014 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/we-are-giving-ourselves-cancer.html)
  • 70 million CT scans done in the US in 2007 could lead to 29,000 future cancers (National Institutes of Health, “Cancer Risks Associated with External Radiation From Diagnostic Imaging Procedures,” fn. 128, “Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Dec. 14, 2009, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548988/; and Janet Epping, “Link Between X-Rays And Increased Childhood Leukemia Risk,” Medical News Today, Oct. 6, 2010 www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/203521.php?sr&trendmd-shared=1)
  • In 2012 the Institute of Medicine found that medical imaging is one of the leading causes of breast cancer (“Death Rays,” Newsweek, April 11, 2014, newsweek.com/2014/04/11/death-rays-248079.html)

-JL

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • …
  • 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