Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by Leave a Comment

Visit “Postapocalyptic” Chernoyl for “$5,495 and Up”

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017

A hair-raising ad in the Travel section of the Nov. 20 New York Times features the claim that “nature has managed an impressive comeback” in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. This debunked story might fool vacationers eyeing the so-called Science & Nature tour—with prices starting at $5,495—called “Chernobyl, 30 Year Later.”

Pripyat Hotel (above), in the radioactive exclusion zone around the devastated Chernobyl reactor site in Ukraine, is a tourist destination.

For 8 days beginning May 27, 2017, up to 25 people are invited to “explore the postapocalyptic Chernobyl zone … with a New York Times expert and a range of specialists.” No large-print in the ad uses the word “radiation,” which explains only that, “In 1986, the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, USSR, experienced a cataclysmic disaster, a cautionary tale of science gone awry.” A list of tour spots designed to excite the adventurous traveller notes these high points:

“• Explore the restricted Chernobyl exclusion zone, staying overnight in the Pripyat Hotel, the only one in the town of Chernobyl. • See the sarcophagus surrounding the reactor, and the new safe confinement structure currently under construction. • Learn what became of the many plants and animals in the Chernobyl area following the disaster, and how nature has managed an impressive comeback. • Visit Slavutych, home of the Center for Radioecology, which coordinates environmental research in the exclusion zone to study the long-term biological and ecological effects.”

A packing list was not included, but make sure to bring along disposable booties, water filter and replacement lungs.

by Leave a Comment

Plans for Increased Drinking Water Contamination Raise Alarm

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016

In the summer 2016 Quarterly we reported on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed weakening of drinking water contamination standards—known as Protective Action Guides—and urged readers to send comments. Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information & Resource Service, wrote this update on the status of the proposal.

Well over 60,000 comments were submitted to the EPA by the July 2016 deadline, nearly all of them critical and calling on the agency to:

  • Reject the water PAGs—the not-so protective Protective Action Guides—which would dramatically increase allowable radioactivity in drinking water for up to years after nuclear incidents. “Incidents” could be as routine as a radioactive release or a spill, or as devastating as a nuclear bomb or reactor meltdown;
  • Require drinking water to meet existing Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Concentration Levels for the weeks, months or years (the intermediate phase) after radioactive contamination “incidents.”

Over 66,000 comments were submitted to EPA in total on both the 2016 proposed EPA Water Protective Action Guides (Water PAGs) and the more inclusive proposed 2013 PAGs, to which they are being added. The 2013 PAGs on all “pathways of exposure” include a 1998 PAG for food. EPA had said there was no PAG for drinking water, but a review of the agency’s Food PAG revealed that in fact, drinking water was included. So the newly proposed Water PAG would actually add even more allowable radiation exposure from water, essentially doubling the exposure from food and water!

EPA is determined to make official both the 2013 “Protective Action Guides” and their proposed 2016 Water PAGs before the next Presidential Administration is installed—possibly before the election. The agency tried back when President Bush was leaving office but missed getting them finalized then, so is trying again.

The EPA is disingenuous in its promotion of this dangerous “guidance” in several ways. Two are described here:

First, EPA strongly implies the PAGs would apply to the immediate aftermath of a huge disaster, when in fact they apply to the “intermediate” phase of any radioactive “incident” …that “warrant[s] consideration of protective action.” (Ch.1 para 1.1 of the EPA 2013 PAG; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/pag-manual-interim-public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf).

So the “Guides” would be preferentially used by reactor operators and others to avoid meeting the stricter Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The new weaker PAGs would allow enormous levels of invisible but deadly radioactive contamination in drinking water for weeks, months or even years after a nuclear “incident.”

This is a deceptive way to get around meeting the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contamination Levels, Superfund cleanup levels, and the EPA’s long-standing allowable risk range—giving cancer to 1-in-a-million or at worst 1-in-10,000 exposed. The PAGs protect the polluters from liability more than the public from radiation.

Second, these unconscionably high radiation doses from the Water PAGS will be added to very high internal doses from contaminated food we would be allowed to eat under the 1998 Food PAGs (www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM094513.pdf) which are incorporated into the 2013 PAG.

Individuals would be allowed doses of 500 millirem/year from water plus 500 millirems/year from food and water in the intermediate phase; plus internal and external doses (2000 millirem the first year, and 500 millirem the year after) from the air we breathe and from external direct gamma rays emitted from the radioactive sources, as permitted by the 2013 PAG. (www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/pag-manual-interim-public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf; p. 7, Table 1-1)

by Leave a Comment

 Fukushima Update: Consequences Seen From Japan to California 

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016
Sailors’ $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Tokyo
Electric, General Electric Moves Ahead

The Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) urged the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals in Pasadena on Sept. 1 to dismiss a $1 billion class action on behalf of hundreds of US service members exposed to radiation while responding to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011, arguing the claims belong in Japan.

The lawsuit is by hundreds of US Marines, sailors, airmen and their dependents who say they were sickened by the radioactive fallout that drifted across their ships when they served in a relief force of 25 Navy vessels sent to aid Japan while three Tepco reactors were simultaneously undergoing catastrophic explosions and uranium fuel meltdowns. Prevailing winds at first blew radioactive fallout from the exploding reactors out to sea where it doused the ships, but later shifted sending radiation plumes inland.

The three-judge panel heard arguments against Tepco and several other corporate co-defendants for allegedly lying to US forces about the risks of radiation and luring US forces into danger.

According to the sailors’ complaint, filed in 2012 and amended in 2014, Tepco knew that Navy personnel were in danger of suffering from radiation exposure, leaving them at risk of cancer and other health problems, but neglected to warn them. The company should have informed the soldiers of the meltdowns before they arrived, the complaint says.

Illnesses named in the lawsuit include immune system diseases, headaches, difficulty concentrating, thyroid problems, bloody noses, rectal and gynecological bleeding, shrinking of muscle mass, memory loss, leukemia, testicular cancer, problems with vision, ringing in the ears, and anxiety, Stars and Stripes reported.

In October 2014, US District Judge Janis L. Sammartino denied Tepco’s motion to dismiss the suit, ruling that the sailors’ complaint sufficiently alleged that Tepco’s negligence—not the Navy’s decision to send them to the area to provide humanitarian relief—caused their injuries. At the Sept. 1 hearing, Tepco urged the court to reverse Judge Sammartino’s refusal to dismiss the suit, Law360 reported. A decision isn’t expected before November.

The lawsuit also targets the corporate giants General Electric, Toshiba, Hitachi and EBASCO, arguing that the companies disregarded safety measures and produced faulty parts for the reactors.

For its part, Tepco denied that the sailors’ “asserted physical ailments were caused by radiation from the FNPP (Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant).” The company relies on a US Defense Department report commissioned by Congress that concluded that “the radiation exposures to the sailors serving aboard the [carrier USS] Ronald Reagan were very low” and that “it is implausible that these low-level doses are the cause of the health effects reported.”

Vice Adm. William Hilarides, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, wrote to Stars and Stripes, “The radioactive contamination found on the ships involved in Operation Tomodachi is at such low levels that it does not pose a health concern to the crews, their families, or maintenance personnel.”

—Daniel Siegal, Law360, Sept. 1 & 2; Pasadena Now, Sept. 1; Aaron Kidd, Stars and Stripes, July 7; Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Law360, Apr. 5; Matthew Burke, Stars and Stripes, Mar. 13, 2016

16 US aid ships still contaminated with radiation

Five years since the Fukushima disaster began, 16 of 25 US Navy ships that participated in relief efforts for Japan remain contaminated with low levels of radiation, Navy officials told Stars and Stripes, mostly in “ventilation systems, main engines and generators.” The largest of the 16 is the carrier USS Ronald Reagan which carries 5,000 personnel and most of the 400 plaintiffs in the class action were aboard the Reagan.

—Justin McCurry, the Guardian, Sept. 7; and Matthew Burke, Stars and Stripes, Mar. 13, 2016

Ex-political leaders side with vets in lawsuit,
former Japanese PM: Abe “lying” about safety

Former US Sen. John Edwards and former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi have publicly promised to support the sailors, Marines and other personnel in their class action against Tepco and other major corporations.

Senator Edwards, the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004, is now a partner in a Raleigh law firm specializing in personal injury, economic justice and property rights. Edwards offered his “legal and personal assistance” after hearing about the lawsuit.

Prime Minister Koizumi has called on the Japanese public to donate to a fund that he established to support the US veterans’ lawsuit.

“I felt I had to do something to help those who worked so hard for Japan,” Koizumi told the Guardian. Promising to raise $1 million, he said, “That won’t be enough money, but at least it will show that Japan is grateful for what they did for us.”

Koizumi went beyond making nice with US first responders. While working hard to prevent the restart of Japans 50 shuttered power reactors, he accused the current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of lying about the current state of the destroyed reactor complex.

“It’s a lie,” Koizumi, 74, said to a group of reporters in Tokyo September 7. “When [Abe] said the situation was under control, he was lying. It is not under control,” the Guardian reported.

Koizumi added that after the Fukushima crisis he had “studied the process, reality and history of the introduction of nuclear power, and became ashamed of myself for believing such lies.

—Stars and Stripes, Aug. 31 & July 7; the Guardian, Sept. 7; Andy Sharp, Bloomberg, Sept. 7, 2016

Fukushima disaster site continues to spill

… “Today the disaster site remains in crisis mode. … (Tepco) currently circulates water through the three melted units to keep them cool—generating a relentless supply of radioactive water. To make matters worse, groundwater flowing from a hill behind the crippled plant now mingles with radioactive materials before heading into the sea. …

“Health reports, too, are worrisome. Scientists have seen an increase in thyroid cancers among the children who had lived in Fukushima at the time, although it is too early to tell if those cases can be attributed to the accident.”

—Scientific American, Mar. 1, 2016

Radiation along rivers up to 200 times
higher than Pacific Ocean seabed

Radioactive contamination in the seabed off the Fukushima coast is hundreds of times above pre-2011 levels, while contamination in local rivers is up to 200 times higher than ocean sediment, according to results from Greenpeace Japan survey work.

“The extremely high levels of radioactivity we found along the river systems highlights the enormity and longevity of both the environmental contamination and the public health risks resulting from the Fukushima disaster,” said Ai Kashiwagi, Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace Japan.

“These river samples were taken in areas where the Abe government is stating it is safe for people to live. But the results show there is no return to normal after this nuclear catastrophe,” said Kashiwagi.

Riverbank sediment samples taken along the Niida River in Minami Soma, measured as high as 29,800 Becquerels-per-kilo (Bq/kg) for radiocaesium (Cs-134 and 137). The Niida samples were taken where there are no restrictions on people living, as were other river samples. [The government says soil contaminated with over 8,000 Bq/kg must be isolated and disposed of as highly radioactive waste.]

The lifting of evacuation orders in March 2017 for areas that remain highly contaminated is a looming human rights crisis and cannot be permitted to stand, Greenpeace said. The vast expanses of contaminated forests and freshwater systems will remain a perennial source of radioactivity for the foreseeable future, as these ecosystems cannot simply be decontaminated.

Caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, and will continue to pose a risk to the environment and human health for hundreds of years.

—Greenpeace Japan, July 21, 2016

Recovery Could Cost $240 Billion

Former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, said “So far the government is paying $70 billion to support Tepco. But that is not enough. It will probably cost more than $240 billion. It’s become clear that nuclear power is more dangerous than other energy sources. In the past, they said it was cheap. But it was only cheap if the cost of accidents or the cost of spent fuel and nuclear waste was not included.” —Al Jazeera, Aug. 25, 2016

“The Scary Thing…”

“This is the scary thing for me … the people who are most anti-nuclear, the people who are most afraid about this, are the ones who know most about it.”

—Eric Schlosser, Command and Control author, the Guardian, Sept. 21, 2013

by Leave a Comment

 Sick Weapons Lab Worker Coverage Expanded

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016

On June 3rd, the US Department of Health & Human Services approved an expansion of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) for Livermore National Lab workers. While all Livermore, California nuclear weapons design lab workers can apply for benefits and compensation from the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, they must go through a cumbersome “dose reconstruction” process to determine if their radiation exposures were 50%-or-more likely to have caused the worker’s claimed illness(es). Workers can avoid having to meet this requirement if they fit into a SEC, a class of workers for whom it is determined that the involved agencies cannot accurately “reconstruct” their radiation exposures, who also have one or more acknowledged radiogenic cancers (the government currently lists 22 such cancers). Livermore Lab’s SEC was extended to cover all employees who worked at least one year (250 working days) between 1952 and December 31, 1989; the previous cut-off was Dec. 31, 1973. If you or a loved one would like more information about the worker compensation program, contact Tri-Valley CAREs’ staff attorney Scott Yundtt, in Livermore, Calif. at (925) 433-7148.

—Citizen’s Watch, Tri-Valley CAREs, Summer 2016

by Leave a Comment

Accident at Deep Underground Test Project Dispersed Plutonium, Exposed Workers

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016
Cleanup to Cost Over $2 Billion

In 1989, the renowned undersea explorer Jacque Cousteau said, “A common denominator in every single nuclear accident—a nuclear plant or on a nuclear submarine—is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’ They do this before they themselves know what has happened because they are terrified that the public might react violently, either by panic or by revolt.”

On Feb. 14, 2014 a barrel of plutonium-contaminated waste blew apart deep underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The WIPP experiment was an attempt to discard some plutonium wastes left from 60 years of nuclear weapons production. The uncontrolled explosion spewed plutonium particles throughout the deep underground chambers and dispersed them up and down the 2,150-foot elevator and ventilation shafts, closing the dump site indefinitely. The Los Angeles Times reports that it will cost at least $2 billion to repair the damage and to attempt decontamination.

Plutonium-contaminated smoke and dust was blown throughout the entire Waste Isolation Pilot Project Feb. 14, 2014 when a barrel exploded, reaching the outside and contaminating at least 22 workers.

Ventilation shaft filtration systems failed to keep the contamination underground, and plutonium-laden dusts were pulled up the deep shafts by the huge ventilation fans on the surface contaminating at least 13 workers on site that day. A federal investigation found two dozen violations of safety procedures. Yet even 2.5 years later the government doesn’t know why the barrel exploded. “And [$2 billion] does not include the complete replacement of the contaminated ventilation system or any future costs of operating the mine longer than originally planned,” the Times reported.

At WIPP, Cousteau’s ‘common denominator’ kicked in as usual. As the LA Times said: “When a drum containing radioactive waste blew up in an underground nuclear dump in New Mexico two years ago, the Energy Department [DOE] rushed to quell concerns in the Carlsbad desert community and quickly reported progress on resuming operations. The early federal statements gave no hint that the blast had caused massive long-term damage to the dump, a facility crucial to the nuclear weapons cleanup program that spans the nation…”

The DOE says the 13 workers doused with radioactive smoke and dust “were tested for internal radioactive contamination” (emphasis added) and that “initial fecal samples measured some radioactivity above normal background levels.” A serious admission for the victims, because internal decontamination is not possible.

The DOE also says 140 workers were exposed to radiation the following day, and that “… 22 were notified that their exposure was below the 10 millirem level, which is about the same exposure a person would get from a chest X-ray.”

This standard comparison of internal radiation exposure to X-rays (which deliver only an external dose) is deliberate and sophisticated disinformation. The nuclear industry and many government agencies often use this disinformative comparison, prompting readers to treat the exposure as trivial. Because X-rays only dose the target with external radiation, the difference is significant. Dr. Chris Busby of the Low Level Radiation Campaign (llrc.org) in Wales says it’s the difference between sitting in front of a warm fire and popping a hot coal from the fire into your mouth.

WIPP’s worker doses were breathed-in exposures, after which hot particles can lodge in tissue or bone and then for long periods of time bombard surrounding cells with deadly radiation.

All radiation exposures shorten our lives and even low doses have been shown to cause dozens of debilitating diseases and disorders short of death including nose bleeds, bleeding gums, joint pain, hair loss, liver disorders, elevated blood pressure, gastrointestinal problems, muscle pain, headaches, fatigue, skin rashes, respiratory problems, heart problems, miscarriages, stillbirths, infant mortality, birth abnormalities, and cancers.

The so-called Pilot Project at Carlsbad has been promoted as the answer for disposing of plutonium-tainted nuclear weapons waste, and it was “designed to last 10,000 years.” But as Santa Monica, California activist Myla Reson reported, “The dump failed 9,985 years ahead of schedule.”

And we’re safer for it, Reson says, “because justification for approval of the dump relied on a fabricated site characterization and analysis” which made continued use of the dump potentially catastrophic—either through onsite explosions, long-term ground water contamination, or transportation disasters involving crashes en route to the dump.

—John LaForge

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