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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Woolsey Fire Started at Toxic Santa Susana Lab

Distrust of Agencies Spur Independent Study of Contamination from Site

By Physicians for Social Responsibility-LA, & Parents vs. SSFL
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

The Woolsey Fire began on November 8 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)—a heavily contaminated experimental reactor and rocket testing facility 30 miles from Los Angeles—and burned much of the site. Government assurances that the fire did not risk increased exposures to SSFL contamination have been met with distrust and skepticism, in part because the very entities claiming there was no toxic risk from the SSFL fire are the ones responsible for contaminating it in the first place and violating commitments to clean it up.

In the face of broad public rejection of official reassurances by the troubled state toxics agency,  community members near the SSFL will participate in an independent study of potential migration of contamination from the site following the Woolsey Fire. Fairewinds Energy Education, a non-profit organization founded by former nuclear industry scientists, will conduct the study of dust and soil samples collected from homes in the area and sent to an East Coast laboratory for analysis.

Government agency reassurances lack credibility in large measure because: Within hours of the fire, with no data whatsoever, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a statement claiming there were no releases of radioactive or toxic materials.

DTSC claimed in a Nov. 9 statement that no contaminated areas of SSFL had burned. Subsequent satellite photos demonstrated that a large portion of the site did burn, much of it contaminated. DTSC then tried to walk back its initial false claims. Similarly, the US Department of Energy (DOE) initially claimed the fire hadn’t touched any of Area IV inside SSFL. When satellite photos also disproved this assertion, DOE retracted it.

Days after the fire at SSFL stopped, DTSC said it and others took measurements. But the primary concern was release of contamination in the smoke during the fire.

DTSC reported that its measurements, taken days after the fire, found no contamination even at SSFL. However, DTSC has for decades acknowledged the site is heavily contaminated, which is why extensive cleanup has been required in formal agreements between DTSC and the polluters. The US Environmental Protection Agency conducted a $40 million, multi-year study which found 500 locations at SSFL with elevated radioactivity.

Claims by DTSC that its post-fire measurements could find no contamination at SSFL even though extensive corporate pollution at the site is undisputed, suggests: (1) agency measurements are so insensitive the agency cannot detect contamination that is there; (2) DTSC is inflating background values to make additional contamination appear not to exist; and (3) it is lying about its actual results. If the measurements were somehow correct, and there is no longer any contamination at SSFL after the fire, it would mean the fire drove off existing contamination from the SSFL site and into the outlying communities. The agency’s claims of being unable to detect any contamination, even at the polluted SSFL sites, raise serious questions about the validity of DTSC’s statements.

The DTSC has failed to explain how a fire can burn hundreds of acres of contaminated vegetation growing in contaminated soil and not release some of those contaminants. It is a scientific impossibility. Community members and elected officials have repeatedly asked DTSC to disclose all data and methodology to back up its implausible assurances, but four weeks after the fire no data whatsoever have been released.

“DTSC says at some point it will release a summary of its conclusions, suggesting it is taking weeks to ‘massage’ the data,” said Denise Duffield, associate director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles. At a Nov. 15 press conference, Governor Brown said he too was “very skeptical” of assurances by his own agencies that there were no toxic releases from the fire at SSFL.

In the absence of credible, trustworthy government assessments of the risk of radioactive releases during the fire, the Fairewinds study will rely on “citizen scientists” and volunteers to carefully collect samples of dust or soil from area homes and property. Samples will be analyzed by the Fairewinds team, which released a detailed sampling protocol for the project. PSR-LA and Parents vs. SSFL have assembled a team of trained staff and volunteers to assist with sample collection. “I’m excited to be a part of this project and serve my community,” said Jeni Knack, a Simi Valley resident with prior training in sampling who will help lead field operations. “We’ve already received over 150 requests for sampling assistance from residents.”

Health advocates are grateful for the study, though they acknowledge its limitations. It occurs after the fire is over, when a primary risk was inhalation of radioactivity carried in the smoke while SSFL burned. The study will focus solely on radioactive materials, not the hundreds of toxic chemicals that have contaminated SSFL’s soil and vegetation. Further, it may not be possible to identify whether radioactive particles migrated before or after the fire. “We understand the study won’t address all concerns,” said Duffield. “Contamination from SSFL has been migrating off site for years, and now the Woolsey Fire may have caused even more migration.”

Melissa Bumstead, a West Hills resident whose young daughter has twice survived a rare leukemia she blames on SSFL, agrees. “Given what our family and our community have been through, it’s horrible that we even have to worry about potentially radioactive smoke and ash by the Woolsey Fire,” Bumstead said. Bumstead has mapped over 50 rare pediatric cancers in the area, and launched a Change.org petition for cleanup that at press time had been signed by over 531,000 people. “I don’t trust DTSC at all. They’re responsible for cleaning up the site’s contamination but they continue to benefit SSFL’s site-owner, Boeing, instead of the community.”

Community members and health advocates say that their focus now is ensuring that SSFL is finally and fully cleaned up. “Our greatest frustration is that if DTSC had kept its word, the site would be cleaned up by now and we wouldn’t have new worries related to the fire,” Duffield said. In 2010, DTSC signed agreements with the Department of Energy and NASA that committed them to clean up all detectable contamination in their operational areas by 2017. DTSC also in 2010 committed to require Boeing Corporation, which owns most of the site, to cleanup to comparable standards.

But the cleanup has not yet begun, and DTSC is currently considering proposals that could even leave all of SSFL’s contamination permanently on site. Boeing mounted a formidable greenwashing campaign against a full cleanup, and DTSC issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) last year indicating that much of the contamination would not be removed. Community members worry that if the DEIR is finalized, their hopes for the full, mandated cleanup will be dashed.

“We’re asking governor-elect Newsom to step in now,” Bumstead said, “We need him to direct DTSC to honor its cleanup commitments and radically reform that agency. They’ve failed us and other communities across California. We’re thankful to Fairewinds for getting involved and helping us make decisions based on trustworthy data.”

Residents interested in participating in the study can go to http://bit.ly/SSFLstudy to sign up. To sign the petition to get Santa Susana cleaned up click here.

—Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles has worked for the cleanup of SSFL for over 30 years, and Parents vs. SSFL is a grassroots group demanding full compliance with SSFL cleanup agreements as required by law.

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

White House Says Radiation Good for You

By John LaForge
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

“Bowing to the nuclear industry, the Trump administration appears to be relying on fringe researchers who reject mainstream science to roll back radiation safety laws,” the Natural Resources Defense Council Reports. “Despite substantial evidence that any level of ionizing radiation poses a cancer risk, the US Environmental Protection Agency is currently pursuing a little-noticed change that could lead to weaker protections for workers at nuclear plants, medical technicians conducting X-rays, and those living near Superfund sites contaminated by radioactive material,” the NRDC said Oct. 2, 2018.

The EPA’s “new proposal pulls from scientific outliers friendly to the nuclear industry who claim low-level exposure to this and other toxins could actually benefit the body. One problem: The National Academies of Science (NAS) and the EPA’s own scientists have studied this idea [known as ”hormesis”] and summarily dismissed it as bunk,” the group noted.

The NRDC was referring to NAS’s 7th edition of “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation” (BEIR-VII), where it emphatically rejected “hormesis” as it has done many times. The NAS concluded that any radiation exposure, no matter how slight, carries a risk of causing cancer or other illnesses. The EPA itself has said for years on its website, “Based on current scientific evidence, any exposure to radiation can be harmful (or can increase the risk of cancer) … In other words, it is assumed that no radiation exposure is completely risk free.”

Dr. Peter Crane, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission attorney told the New York Times in September 29, 2015, “[The NAS], along with the rest of mainstream scientific authority, regard hormesis as wholly without merit.”

The Associated Press noted last Oct. 2, “Critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure … any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.”

The motive behind the EPA’s proposal was made clear by Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the Univ. of Massachusetts, who said in 2016, “This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save [industry] billions and billions and billions of dollars.” Ed Lyman, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Courthouse News “the vast majority of scientific work” finds there is no acceptable level for radiation exposure. And if the administration uses the work of Calabrese it would be an example of choosing the outlier instead of what’s generally accepted.

There is no specific date for adoption of the new rule.

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Filter Failure: A Million Tons of Toxic Water Far Too Radioactive for Release to the Pacific

By Dr. Gordon Edwards
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

Irradiated nuclear fuel is millions of times more radioactive than fresh nuclear fuel, due to the hundreds of varieties of human-made radioactive elements that are created during nuclear fission, many of which remain trapped in the irradiated fuel. See www.ccnr.org/hlw_chart.html

Irradiated fuel is so fiercely radioactive that it generates more than enough heat to melt the core of a nuclear reactor, just by the ongoing disintegration of radioactive atoms, even after the fission process has been completely stopped. Continual cooling of the core is essential after shutdown.

As soon as the 2011 Japan earthquake happened, all three operating reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi were shut off immediately. But nobody knows how to shut off radioactivity. The heat generated by the radioactive waste inside was what melted the cores of those three shut-down reactors at a temperature more than twice the melting point of steel. Lack of backup electricity resulted in lack of cooling. Overheating occurred, and meltdowns soon followed.

Those melted cores are still there, lodged somewhere in the sub-basements of the reactors. The melted fuel still has to be cooled, even seven and a half years after the accident.

Normally, when irradiated fuel is removed from an operating reactor, it is placed in a large pool of circulating water for about ten years. Cooling in such a pool is necessary to allow time for radioactivity levels to drop to the point where irradiated fuel no longer needs forced cooling to prevent spontaneous overheating.

Every day, for the first several years following the triple meltdown, hundreds of tons of water were pumped down into the melted cores and back up again, in order to cool the melted fuel—to prevent it from overheating again, releasing even more radioactivity into the atmosphere and groundwater.

By the time the water was pumped back to the surface it had become heavily contaminated with radioactive poisons that were flushed out of the melted reactor cores. Every day, new steel tanks had to be built at the surface to hold the highly contaminated water—much too radioactive to disperse into the ocean or the local environment. A small forest had to be cut down to make room for even more tanks to hold the radioactive waste water.

Today, there are more than a thousand such tanks covering large areas of land adjacent to the reactor site. These tanks hold about 900,000 tons of radioactive water. More contaminated water is being added to this dismal inventory every week, as cooling of the melted cores continues.

For years now, filtering equipment has been used to “decontaminate” this huge volume of water by removing over 60 varieties of radioactive contaminants. However, tritium (radioactive hydrogen) cannot be removed from contaminated water by any readily available filtration process, because radioactive water molecules incorporating tritium are chemically identical to ordinary water molecules. You cannot filter water from water. The tritium remains.

So, even if all other radioactive contaminants were totally removed, the 900,000 tons of water in storage would still remain heavily contaminated with tritium. For the last couple of years, experts from the nuclear industry have wanted to dump this contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean, claiming that tritium is not one of the most dangerous of radioactive materials.

Tritium gives off no penetrating gamma radiation, but if ingested through contaminated food or water, or inhaled as radioactive humid air, or absorbed directly through the skin, tritium damages living cells. It has been well-documented that tritium is a cancer-causing agent as well as a mutagen and teratogen, altering chromosomes and genes in a random fashion and causing abnormalities in developing embryos. See www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html .

Moreover, since tritium is biologically and chemically indistinguishable from ordinary hydrogen, it gets built right into the body’s organic molecules, including DNA molecules. Tritium also readily crosses the placenta, entering into the body of a developing child in the womb, resulting in the embryo having a higher concentration of tritium than the mother has.

Tritium is so difficult to control, and so easily dispersed into the air and the water around nuclear facilities, industry experts frequently advocate lax standards and permissive [dispersal] practices regarding tritium. See www.ccnr.org/GE_ODWAC_2009_e.pdf .

Japanese citizens, especially fishermen, do not trust the industry. TEPCO has lied to them repeatedly both before and after the 2011 disaster. These people have fought hard to prevent TEPCO from dumping the contaminated water into the ocean, despite TEPCO’s persistent efforts to browbeat them into submission by repeatedly insisting that tritium is nothing much to worry about.

Water Filtration Has Failed
[In September 2018 it was] revealed that there are dozens of other radioactive contaminants besides tritium in the contaminated water, and that these poisons are present at unacceptably high concentrations. [See report below.] TEPCO has claimed for years that all the radioactive materials had been removed, except for tritium.

It turns out that the previous “removal”… was far from perfect, in part because workers neglected to take the time or make the effort to frequently change filters. When filters get clogged they don’t work very well.

So the “tritium water” that TEPCO was prepared to dump is actually a stew of many other radioactive contaminants such as cesium-137, strontium-90, plutonium-239, iodine-129, and many more.

Beware of industry assurances. Their experts are predisposed to protect the nuclear establishment.

—Gordon Edwards is president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

See: “Water stored at Fukushima nuclear plant still radioactive,” Mari Yamaguchi, AP, via The Toronto Star, Sept. 28, 2018 

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Plutonium Factory Workers’ Comp Law Brings US Justice Dept. Threat

By John LaForge

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

The Trump justice department is threatening to sue the state of Washington to block enforcement of a new state law that helps employees who were sickened by their work at the Hanford Reservation, a former nuclear weapons production site. The Justice Dept. told Gov. Jay Inslee that the new law which allows compensation for illnesses, violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution because it “purports to directly regulate” the federal government. The letter to Inslee reportedly warns of legal action if a settlement isn’t reached by Nov. 30, 2018.

For decades, Hanford made plutonium for nuclear weapons and thousands of workers are now engaged in the perilous work of cleaning up the resulting radioactive waste, near Richland, Washington. Under the new workers’ comp statute, some cancers and other illnesses are assumed to be from chemical or radiological exposures at Hanford. State Attorney General Bob Ferguson told the press he would look forward to defending the law if the federal government filed a suit. “Hanford workers deserve to be compensated for the health issues caused by their dangerous work,” Ferguson said. Hanford Challenge, a nuclear watchdog group, and the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local Union 598, both backed passage of the law.

—AP, Lewiston Tribune, Nov. 29; and The Columbian, Nov. 28, 2018

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

West Lake & Bridgeton Superfund Site Cleanup Approved

By Bonnie Urfer and Kelly Lundeen
Nukewatch Winter Quarterly 2018-19
Dawn Chapman and Karen Nickel, co-recipients of the 2018 Whistle Blowers Award and co-founders of Just Moms STL

As it turns out, combining radioactive waste with fire is not unique to California.

Just outside St. Louis in Bridgeton, Missouri sits the radioactive West Lake Landfill, an illegal dumping ground for nuclear weapons production waste. The Bridgeton Landfill, 600 feet away, has since 2010 been threatening the radioactive waste with an underground fire smoldering at 300 degrees. Both of the problematic sites lie within a Superfund site 1.2 miles from the Missouri River. As recently as Nov. 2 the fire reached the surface for two hours before being extinguished and could be seen from several hundred feet away.

To the relief of many, on Sept. 27, 2018, US EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the Record of Decision Amendment to clean up the Superfund site. It’s taken 45 years for the EPA to come up with a plan for partial cleanup of the 143,000 cubic yards or 43,000 tons of radioactive waste. Unfortunately it comes too late for the more than 2,725 residents already living with cancers, tumors and related illnesses stemming from the dumping of radioactive waste in the north St. Louis area. (See “Authorities Dismiss Coldwater Creek Cancer Cluster” in Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2013.)

The story is another tragedy of the Manhattan Project that continues to kill today through exposure to the radioactive waste all along the nuclear fuel cycle. The spread of St. Louis’s radiation began with uranium mining in the Congo, and later by processing the uranium by Mallinckrodt Chemical Works. The West Lake Landfill is only one of several sites around St. Louis where radioactive waste was scattered. In 1973 the Cotter Corporation started secretly transporting what the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health considered the most highly radioactive of the wastes to the West Lake site. Even the truckers were unaware of the contents of the black contaminated soil they carried, taking some home for their gardens. It had previously been left near Coldwater Creek, a popular place for swimming, and along the highways, where it was found by children who played in the thick, dangerous mud.

While cleanup is pending residents continue to be exposed to gamma radiation, benzene and hydrogen sulfide fumes. Aerial readings of gamma rays show the contamination plume has not spread, but the existence of gamma rays prove that the whole area is being continuously saturated with radiation.

The cost estimate of cleanup comes in at $205 million over three years and will be covered by the Department of Energy, Exelon (current owners of the Cotter Corporation), and Republic Services (owners of the West Lake and Bridgeton Landfills); however some estimates put the project on a 5-year track. The to-do list for clean-up includes excavating the hottest spots at a depth of 8 to 12 feet, and in some instances as deep as 20 feet, then leaving the rest capped and in the ground. About 61,000 cubic yards of non-radioactive waste will remain buried, 70% of the radioactive dirt will be removed, but radioactivity in the water has not been addressed.

The cleanup plan is the result of a hard-fought struggle by local grassroots organizations like Just Moms STL and Coldwater Creek-Just the Facts Please, which are made up of community members directly impacted by health issues related to the radioactive waste. Karen Nickel, co-founder of Just Moms STL and co-recipient of the 2018 Whistle Blowers Award told reporters, “Some of us can go to sleep a little easier tonight knowing that we were successful.” The fight is not over for the local community, but regarding the decision, Nickels applauded the strength of their fight. “Every single voice matters, every single letter that was written, every single call that was made: those all matter.”

—Just Moms STL, Nov. 2, 2018; St. Louis Post-Dispatch and KDSK News, Sept. 27, 2018; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Feb. 11, 2016; Coldwater Creek – Just the Facts Please, 2015; and see the 2018 documentary Atomic Homefront.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • …
  • 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