Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Weekly Column
    • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
    • Depleted Uranium
    • Direct Action
    • Lake Superior Barrels
    • 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
    • Workshops
  • Donate

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Congress: Compensate Radiation Exposed

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

The 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) is set to expire in July of 2022. Public pressure has seen the introduction of HR 5338 and S 2798, which would retain and expand current programs that provide compensation to some nuclear bomb testing downwinders, uranium workers, and atomic veterans. Since many impacted communities were excluded from the current RECA, the expansion includes medical benefits for additional uranium workers and downwinders from a larger geographical area. “We bury our loved ones on a regular basis. Somebody dies and somebody else is diagnosed,” Tina Cordova told Kyodo news. Cordova is a cancer survivor and co-founder of Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, which formed to seek health care coverage for survivors of the 1945 Trinity test and other downwinders. “The health care coverage component will mean the difference between life and death for people,” Cordova added. In the meantime, a downwinder clinic in St. George, Utah is holding public meetings to teach people affected by fallout how to apply for benefits under the current version of RECA before it expires. Don’t let that happen: Tell your representatives to support HR 5338 and S 2798.

— Kyodo News, Oct. 31, 2021; St. George News online, Oct. 10, 2021

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

October 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Regulators Approve Private Radioactive Waste Dump Critics, Texas State Law, and Court Challenge May Derail Plan

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021
By Beyond Nuclear

On September 13 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted a license for a controversial centralized storage site for high-level radioactive waste in west Texas, on the New Mexico border. If it’s ever opened, the site would concentrate up to 40,000 tons of the waste uranium fuel from nuclear power reactors across the United States in one place.

The firm Interim Storage Partners (ISP), a joint venture of Waste Control Specialists and Orano (formerly the French conglomerate Areva), intends to store the irradiated reactor fuel — euphemistically known as “spent” nuclear fuel or SNF, despite the fact that it is highly radioactive and lethal — in heavy dry storage canisters on surface concrete pads. If completed, it would be the first private high-level radioactive waste site in the United States. As Ari Natter reported for Bloomberg, “The waste can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.” [See: How Long Does Reactor Waste Stay Deadly? p.4]

A second centralized waste dump in New Mexico, 35 miles from the ISP site, and proposed by Holtec International, is also expected to be approved by the NRC. Holtec wants a license to store another 173,600 metric tons of waste fuel in partly buried canisters. Since the total volume of this waste fuel at US reactors is about 90,000 metric tons, experts have asked why the two sites would seek a combined capacity of 213,600 metric tons. One possibility is that waste from other countries could be imported by the for-profit dump projects. The government has previously done so, storing foreign waste at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, and, in 2018, testing the transport of a “mock SNF cask” shipped from Europe to Colorado.

Lucky this time. No radioactive waste was involved on Dec. 18, 2017 when an Amtrak passenger train jumped the tracks near Tacoma, Washington and slammed into Interstate 5. The recent approval of centralized nuclear waste storage in Texas could launch thousands of risky, cross-country rail, truck and barge shipments. Photo: Washington State Patrol/Twitter

Opening either of the Desert Southwest dumps would set in motion thousands of transport shipments of the high-level waste which would cross at least 44 states. The loaded canisters and transport casks are subject to radiation leakage and other failures that pose threats to thousands of communities along the transport routes.

“Transporting highly radioactive waste is inherently high-risk,” said Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist with Beyond Nuclear. “Fully loaded irradiated nuclear fuel containers would be among the very heaviest loads on the roads, rails, and waterways. They would test the structural integrity of degraded rails and bridges, risking derailments,” he said.

Kamps continued, “Even if the nation’s infrastructure is ever renovated, the shipping containers themselves will remain vulnerable to severe accidents and terrorist attacks, which could release catastrophic amounts of lethal radioactivity, possibly in a densely populated urban area. Even so-called ‘routine’ or ‘incident-free’ shipments are like mobile X-ray machines that can’t be turned off, in terms of the hazardous emissions of gamma and neutron radiation, dosing innocent passersby as well as transport workers.”

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board recommends spending a minimum of a decade to develop better SNF cask and canister designs before attempting to transport irradiated nuclear fuel. Yet ISP expects its “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility” to open and start accepting shipments in the next few years. However, a lawsuit in federal court and near-unanimous opposition in the Texas legislature to importing spent nuclear fuel could upend ISP’s expectations.

Siting nuclear facilities is supposed to require the consent of the host communities, but Texas has made it clear on every level it does not consent. In September, prior to the NRC licensing of the ISP facility, the Texas legislature approved a bill banning storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste in the state, and directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to deny state permits that the ISP project needs. The measure passed the Texas Senate unanimously, and passed the Texas House 119-3.

“This kind of bipartisan vote is very rare,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The message should be loud and clear: Texas doesn’t want the nation’s deadliest nuclear waste and does not consent to being a dumping ground.”

Texas Governor Abbott signed the bill into law a week before the NRC’s license approval. After it, Gov. Abbot said on Twitter, “Texas will not become America’s nuclear waste dumping ground.” Before the Texas Legislature passed the law, opposition to the ISP project in Texas was widespread and vocal.

Abbott and a group of Texas Congressional Representatives wrote to the NRC opposing the project. Resolutions against importing the waste to Texas were passed by Andrews County and five others, as well as three cities, representing a total of 5.4 million Texans. School districts, the Midland Chamber of Commerce, and oil and gas companies joined environmental and faith-based groups in opposing the ISP project.

“I am thankful that the Texas Legislature voted to stop this dangerous nuclear waste from coming to their state,” said Rose Gardner of the watchdog group Alliance for Environmental Strategies. Gardner is a party in a federal court challenge to the dumps. Two lawsuits that could block both the ISP project in Texas and the Holtec project in New Mexico — on the grounds that they violate federal law — are currently pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Temporary dumps prohibited by federal law

Both dump proposals are based on the presumption that the Energy Department will “take title” to the deadly material as it leaves the privately owned reactor sites, and free its current owners of liability for it. However, the transfer of ownership from private hands to the federal government is specifically prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as Amended, unless and until a permanent, deep dump site is open and operating — a prospect that remains decades away. The liability provision in the NWPA legally prevents “interim” storage sites from becoming permanent by default.

The Texas and New Mexico sites’ licensing processes have been approved in violation of the NWPA on the presumption that the law will be amended again.

“The NRC should never have even considered these applications, because they blatantly violate the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act by assuming that the federal government will take responsibility [ownership] of the waste before a permanent repository is licensed and operating,” said Diane Curran, an attorney for Beyond Nuclear, one of the groups that brought the suits. “Licensing the ISP and Holtec facilities would defeat Congress’s purpose of ensuring that high-level waste generated by US reactors will go to a deep geologic repository, rather than to vulnerable surface facilities that may become permanent nuclear waste dumps.”

Now that the NRC has approved the ISP facility, the briefing phase of the federal Court of Appeals lawsuit is expected to begin. Participants in the legal challenge to the ISP and Holtec facilities are a national coalition of watchdog groups that includes Beyond Nuclear, the Sierra Club, the Austin-based SEED Coalition, and Don’t Waste Michigan.

Both lawsuits were also joined by Fasken Land & Minerals, Ltd., an oil and gas company, and the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Association which promotes ranching and mineral rights.

“The grand illusion of nuclear power is now revealed,” said Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan.

“There is nowhere to put the waste. No community consents to accept nuclear waste — not Texas, not Michigan, or anywhere on the planet. We have to stop making it,” Keegan said.

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

October 20, 2021 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

What Caused My Cancer? Radioactive Fallout in Baby Teeth May Provide Clues

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021
By Joseph Mangano

Carolyn Schulte remembers the events of early 1972. She was 12 and finishing the sixth grade in a St. Louis suburb. Her dad was a dentist, as were her grandfather and great-uncle. Her mom stayed home to manage the house and raise her and her brother John, then age 10.

John began to develop headaches that spring. At first, nobody was especially concerned. John was a healthy, friendly boy who liked a good laugh, enjoyed drawing and watching wrestling on TV, and loved chocolate milk, cheeseburgers, and French fries.

As the year progressed, the pleasures and outward normality of childhood were taken from John in a dizzying, downward spiral of symptoms, hospital stays, missed diagnoses, overwhelming health bills … and finally death from brain cancer, just days after his eleventh birthday.

“Everyone was devastated,” Carolyn said. “But right away, we all thought, ‘What caused this?’ Nobody had the first idea of what brought the cancer on.”

For Carolyn and many others living in the St. Louis area whose family members had cancer in the 1970s and in subsequent decades, it wasn’t until recently that they learned of a possible cause of those deadly illnesses. An article published last March in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on the revival of a famous study that measured radioactive fallout from above ground atom bomb tests and its absorption in humans.

Undertaken jointly in the 1950s and ’60s by the Committee for Nuclear Information (CNI) and Washington University in St. Louis, the study used donated baby teeth to gauge the presence of radioactive isotopes — specifically the cancer-causing isotope strontium 90, or Sr-90 — in children.

The scientist on the team with the highest profile was Barry Commoner, a cellular biologist at Washington University and a member of the CNI board. Commoner was instrumental in developing the project and raising the funds to sustain it. He became familiar to national audiences in the 1970s via his prescient articles in The New Yorker on the fragility of the environment, and in 1980 he ran for president as the candidate of the Citizens Party.

Baby teeth are well regarded as research tools for their ease of collection and documentation. They fall out, people keep them, they are easy to collect from the general population, and they are easily dated. It’s relatively simple for researchers to establish the location of the birth mother during pregnancy and during the first year of the child’s life, two important data points. Baby teeth also make it easier for scientists working on controversial public health matters to conduct their research out in the open and to be less vulnerable to government censorship.

Carolyn inquired if John’s or her teeth were in the study. Sure enough, long before John was sick, his parents had donated one of his teeth to be included in the project.

During the late 1950s, the most alarming feature of growing Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union was a fierce competition to test and build as many atomic bombs as possible. The threat of nuclear war was very real, and leaders on both sides pushed hard to develop the largest stockpile of the most advanced nuclear weapons.

The United States would eventually conduct 206 above-ground bomb tests in the South Pacific and Nevada, generating fallout in the form of over 100 cancer-causing isotopes, most of which are not found otherwise in nature. Fallout drifted in the atmosphere across the continental United States, returned to earth through precipitation, and entered [the bodies of targeted Pacific Islanders, Southwest US Indigenous peoples and millions of others]through the food chain.

Some of the bombs that were tested had a power equivalent to more than 1,000 times the force of the Hiroshima bomb. Along with fears of possible nuclear war, many were concerned with the actual buildup of fallout in the population — especially in children who are most vulnerable to its toxic effects. Government officials secretly collected bones and tissues from deceased Americans and found large increases in Sr-90 that corresponded with the timing of the tests. These findings were never publicly released, and the testing continued.

Virtually all military leaders and many political leaders of the day had no intention of stopping bomb tests. Grassroots opposition represented the only chance to force a shift in government policy to protect public health. Scientists and citizens worked together in the St. Louis study, in which at least 320,000 baby teeth were collected and measured for Sr-90. The dramatic results showed children born in 1963 had 50 times more Sr-90 than those born in 1951, when large-scale testing began.

These conclusions were published in peer-reviewed medical journals and landed eventually on President John F. Kennedy’s desk. Kennedy referenced fallout buildup in children in a July 1963 speech (“with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, with poison in their lungs”). After hearing expert testimony on the buildup of carcinogens from fallout detected in the population, the Senate ratified a ban on all above ground tests. Kennedy signed the treaty — as did leaders from the Soviet Union and United Kingdom — in October 1963. Although the test ban was billed as an anti-nuclear war treaty, in truth it was as much an environmental health measure, which had been influenced, at least in part, by the baby teeth research project. (Underground testing continued in the United States through 1992.)

But it was not until 1999, following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet Union, that the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a federal agency, estimated that between 11,000 and 212,000 Americans developed thyroid cancer from fallout from [just the radioactive iodine-131 in] the tests. This disclosure was accompanied by a second NCI study, released three years later, which estimated 11,000 had died of cancer caused by exposure to the [iodine-131 in] fallout. [Scores of other radioactive isotopes in the fallout were not studied by the NCI.]

Although both estimates are considered conservative, in light of the approximately 200 million Americans who were exposed to bomb fallout, these disclosures represented the first time the US government had officially acknowledged the probable health impacts of the test program on US citizens.

The studies had actually been completed five years previously and had remained under seal. Robert Alvarez, a regular contributor to The Washington Spectator on nuclear and environmental matters, was working in the Department of Energy during the Clinton years and persuaded Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary to release the findings.

The St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey, which also showed a 50 percent decline in measurable Sr-90 in the four years after the test ban, ended in late 1970. In 2001, Washington University staff made a surprise discovery of tens of thousands of baby teeth held over from the study and stored in a remote ammunition bunker outside St. Louis.

The University donated the teeth to the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a New Jersey-based research and education group. RPHP was engaged in its own tooth study, the measurement of Sr-90 levels in children living both close to and far from domestic nuclear reactors. With the trove of baby teeth from the St. Louis study, RPHP was determined to examine the critical question the original study hadn’t pursued: What was the impact of bomb fallout on public health and cancer risk?

In 2011, RPHP published its first article on a study of in-body health hazards using baby teeth in the International Journal of Health Services. The study showed that a sample of teeth from St. Louis residents who died of cancer by age 50 had more than double the Sr-90 concentration of persons who were healthy at age 50.

In 2017, RPHP began a partnership with Marc Weisskopf, a Harvard University School of Public Health professor who had a long history of using teeth in research. Harvard secured a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to use a sample of teeth to study early-life exposure to neurotoxic metals (hazardous substances such as industrial solvents and heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury) and disease risk later in life.

The NIH grant supported the entry of information on the baby teeth and their donors into a digitized, searchable database. The file contains just fewer than 100,000 teeth from 37,000 donors. All are born between 1946 and 1965, and they include people born in all 50 states and 45 foreign countries.

Following the Post-Dispatch article in March, hundreds of people from the St. Louis area contacted RPHP to inquire if their teeth were included in the collection. About 40 percent of the requests showed at least one donated tooth, and some as many as 14.

RPHP’s next step will be to expand on its 2011 study. About 6,000 of the 37,000 tooth donors are now deceased, and about 1,800 of these are estimated to have been cancer deaths. The identity and cause of death of each of the deceased will be cross-referenced with the National Death Index, a death records compiled from state vital statistics offices. RPHP will then be able to test for Sr-90 levels in the teeth of a cohort of known cancer victims who were children at the time of the above ground atomic bomb test program.

On a related front, RPHP held a press conference in March 2021 to announce a new report showing a widening gap between cancer death rates in Monroe County, Michigan, and the rest of the United States — especially in children. Monroe County is located just south of Detroit and is the site of the Fermi 2 nuclear reactor, which began operating in the mid-1980s.

RPHP contends Fermi 2 may have played a role in these unusual trends. Government has essentially ignored the issue of the documented prevalence of cancer among populations living near nuclear reactors. Only one federal study has been performed in the 64 years since the first reactor became operational.

RPHP also announced it was asking for donations of baby teeth from Monroe County children in order to test for Sr-90. The group will compare results with Sr-90 levels from a sample of teeth in the Detroit area from the earlier Baby Tooth Survey study — the first-ever comparison of early-life exposures to atomic bomb fallout and nuclear reactor emissions.

Newport Beach, Michigan, is less than five miles from the Fermi reactor. The people who live there know about Fermi 1, which operated briefly in the 1960s and had a near-meltdown in 1966. They also know that for the last 36 years, Fermi 2 has been operating around the clock. There has been no meltdown, but there have been daily “permitted” releases of radioactive waste products [in gases and liquids] — including Sr-90 — which enter the air and water and the local food supply.

There were childhood cancers in Newport Beach in the 1970s, but at the time no one saw Fermi reactors as a potential explanation for the tragedies. They were simply unusual events, with no known cause.

But things changed drastically in recent years, as unusual numbers of people in the Newport Beach community, frequently in their forties and fifties, have been diagnosed with cancer. Experts have offered no explanation of why so many people living near the Fermi plants have been diagnosed with cancer so early in life. This year, after hearing about the RPHP report and the program to collect baby teeth, many Newport Beach residents recognized that the Sr-90 released from reactors like Fermi is the same Sr-90 found in those ominous mushroom clouds generated by bomb tests so many years ago.

For now, like Carolyn Schulte in St. Louis, the folks in Newport Beach await results — hoping for at least one conclusive factor in the search for a cause of the cancer that has ravaged their families.

— Joseph Mangano is executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and wrote this article for the Washington Spectator.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

October 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

A Little Radiation Is Not Good For You — NRC

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021
By John LaForge
Feds Reject Weakening of Exposure Limits

In a rare pushback against radioactive polluters, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — well known as a rubber stamp for the nuclear industry — has flatly rejected an attempt to further weaken the agency’s radiation exposure regulations.

After six years of deliberation, the NRC’s three commissioners, two Democrats and one Republican, voted unanimously to reject formal petitions submitted in February 2015 urging the agency to adopt a cost-cutting scheme known as “hormesis,” which claims that “a little radiation is good for you.” The September 16 decision by the NRC says this threshold theory posits that “there is some threshold dose below which there is either no radiation-related health detriment or a radiation-related health benefit that outweighs any detriment.” The order then rebukes this concept, finding the petitioners “fail to present an adequate basis supporting the request,” and “Convincing evidence has not yet demonstrated the existence of a threshold below which there would be no … effects from exposure to low radiation doses.”

The basis for hormesis had been explicitly rejected ten years earlier, the NRC pointed out, by the National Academy of Sciences in its 2005 report “Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation, 7th Ed” or BEIR-VII. The National Research Council summed up its book-length BEIR-VII report saying, “the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”

Industrial producers of radioactive pollution have pushed for weaker radiation exposure limits and for deregulation of radioactive emissions from nuclear reactors, uranium processing plants, fuel fabrication operations, medical isotope manufacturing systems, and weapons production sites. In 2002, Roger Clarke, then president of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, warned in the May 1992 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Some people think that too much money is being spent to achieve low[er] levels of residual contamination.”

Clarke’s “some people” are nuclear industrialists who build and operate nuclear weapons and reactors, produce uranium fuel rods and medicinal isotopes, create radioactive waste, and waste storage systems, and who are permitted by the NRC to disperse radioactively contaminated water and gases. The industry and the 2015 petitioners want, in Roger Clarke’s words, “a threshold in the dose-response relationship in order to reduce the expenditure.” And as the journal Science reported in July 1999, “Billions of dollars are at stake. Stricter standards could increase the amount that agencies and industries must spend to clean up radioactive waste and protect workers.”

The same year that the petitioners appealed to the NRC, a landmark international study reported in the British journal Lancet Haematology for July 2015 concluded, “In summary, this study provides strong evidence of an association between protracted low dose radiation exposure and leukaemia mortality.”

As reported in the journal Nature in June 2015, “The finding scuppers the popular idea that there might be a threshold dose below which radiation is harmless [i.e. hormesis] — and provides scientists with some hard numbers to quantify the risks of everyday exposures.”

In addition, between 1977 and 1990, scientists tripled their estimate of the damage inflicted by a given dose of radiation. A study published in the March 1992 American Journal of Industrial Medicine found that nuclear weapons production workers exposed to small doses were four to eight times more likely to contract cancer than previously estimated. And a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies, published in February 2013 in Biological Reviews, found that even the very lowest background levels of radiation exposure are harmful to health and have statistically significant negative effects on DNA.

In public comments made to the NRC about the original petitions, Nukewatch suggested that, “Contrary to the petitioners’ recommendation, the NRC should adopt the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and drastically reduce the maximum allowable radiation dose for nuclear industry workers, medical personnel, and others exposed to radiation on the job. The ICRP’s 1990 recommendations were to cut annual exposure limits by over half, from 50 to 20 millisieverts per-year for nuclear workers, and from five millisievert-per-year to one for the general public. These 1990 recommendations have never been adopted by the United States, although most other countries have done so.”

At long last, at least in the hormesis case, the NRC has decided not to make radiation matters worse.

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

October 19, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Cancer & Infant Mortality Near Operating Reactors

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021

Dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies show a relationship between cancer incidence and the nearby operation of nuclear reactors. The 2008 KiKK study in Germany, which was followed three years later by the Fukushima catastrophe, led its government to announce the phase-out, now nearly complete, of all its 17 reactors by the end of 2022.

According to a 2002 study reported in the Archives of Environmental Health from 1985 to 1996, average infant death rates dropped 6.4 percent every two years. But in areas surrounding five reactors shut down between 1987 and 1995[*], infant mortality rates dropped an average of 18 percent in the first two years. Additional research at Maine Yankee and Big Rock Point in Michigan, both shuttered in 1997, showed that infant death rates fell 33.4 percent and 54.1 percent, respectively.

Four major studies include:

  • “Childhood Leukemia in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Germany,” Peter Kaatsch, Claudia Spix, Irene Jung, and Maria Blettner [the “KiKK Study”], German Medical Journal International, Oct. 17, 2008.
  • “Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants, the Geocap study, 2002-2007,” Claire Sermage-Faurel, Dominique Laurier, Stéphanie Goujon-Bellec, Michel Chartier, Aurélie Guyot-Goubinl, Jérémie Rudant, Denis Hémon, and Jacqueline Clave, International Journal of Cancer, Feb. 28, 2012.
  • “Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities,” Peter J. Baker, European Journal of Cancer Care, Vol. 16, Issue 4, July 2007.
  • “Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions after Nuclear Plant Closings in the United States,” Joseph J. Mangano, Jay M. Gould, Ernest J. Sternglass, Janette D. Sherman, Jerry Brown, William McDonnell, Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 57, No.1; Jan.-Feb. 2002.
[*] The Genoa reactor near La Crosse, Wisc. closed in 1987; Rancho Seco outside Sacramento, and Fort St. Vrain in Colorado both closed in 1989; Trojan near Portland, Oregon shut in 1992; Millstone in Connecticut closed in 1995. — JL

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 44
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

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
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • 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

© 2022 · Nukewatch