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

July 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radioactive Ship “Discovered” in National Marine Sanctuary

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2015

A recent expedition by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in conjunction with the US Navy and Boeing, “discovered” the USS Independence laden with radioactive waste 30 miles off the coast of San Francisco. The World War II aircraft carrier, a Bikini Atoll nuclear test survivor, had been loaded with countless barrels of nuclear waste and then sunk in a secret location by the Navy in 1951. The former Farallon Islands Nuclear Waste Dump Site is host to a total of 48,000 barrels that were abandoned from 1946 and 1970. The vessel was found at the dump site, which is now designated the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Damage from two Bikini Atoll atomic bomb tests is visible in this January 1951 photo of the USS Independence at anchor in San Francisco Bay, California. San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Photo.

The 55-gallon barrels on the ship contained hazardous equipment and materials used for cleaning radioactive surfaces. The barrels went down with the ship, which—along with 90 other vessels—the US military itself bombed during Operation Crossroads at Bikini Atoll in 1946. The ship was subjected to two nuclear test strikes, code-named Able and Baker, both 21-kiloton tests. The Navy then returned it to the mainland, converted it into a radiological decontamination school, partially cleaned it, and finally had it scuttled.

While the leader of the NOAA expedition, James Delgado, stated that water near the ship tested at “normal background radiation levels,” UC-Berkeley nuclear physicist Kai Vetter, also part of the expedition, admitted that due to normal corrosion, reactions could occur that would allow radioactive material to leak into the water. In addition to harm to human life, there is a threat to the wildlife in the sanctuary, including elephant seals (which like all mammals are protected by the Marine Mammals Protection Act) and the white shark, a vulnerable species according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Neither the effects of contamination, nor the cost of clean-up around the ship and the dump site have been independently studied. The ship’s discovery after 64 years is one more unfortunate reminder that begs the question: What ugly secrets does the government have that we won’t learn about for another 64 years?

—Live Science, Apr. 17; San Jose Mercury News, Apr. 16, 2015; United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September 1992, US Department of Energy, Dec. 2000; Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 6, 2014; International Union for Conservation of Nature, July 2014 —KL

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

July 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Triple Reactor Disaster—A Crisis Without End

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2015
John LaForge

The Great Northeast Japan Earthquake in March of 2011, which resulted in the deaths of 15,000 people and destroyed the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor complex, caused the evacuation of 160,000 residents who might not return in their lifetimes.

The catastrophic meltdown of three separate nuclear reactors, out of the six at the complex, was unprecedented and—between hydrogen explosions and ongoing flushing of the molten uranium fuel, with tons of seawater—sent plumes of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and into the Pacific Ocean. Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has positively documented radioactive contamination from Fukushima in seawater off the west coasts of the US and Canada, said in a statement last April 7, “Radioactivity can be dangerous, and we should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history.” Woods Hole began its monitoring regime when US agencies declined to initiate routine measurements.

Nick Roney

Buesseler told the (Oregon) Statesman Journal April 6 that radiation concentrations off the east coast of Japan near Fukushima in the first weeks of the catastrophe measured 50 million Becquerels* per cubic meter. Woods Hole has tracked the radiation plume for 5,000 miles as it spread across the Pacific, and its concentration now is both diluted and ubiquitous. Reuters news service reported that Canadian water samples off Vancouver Island, British Columbia contained 1.4 Becquerels per cubic meter of cesium-134 and 5.8 Bq per cubic meter of cesium-137.

Decommissioning lacks plan, method, means

At the reactor site, Naohiro Masuda, President of the Fukushima-Daiichi Decommissioning Company, told Japanese Public Television NHK in a March 31 interview that technical equipment needed to remove the brutally radioactive melted fuel wreckage from three shattered reactor vessels still needs to be invented.

“We have no idea about the debris [the melted fuel]. We don’t know its shape or strength. We have to remove it remotely, from 30 meters above, but we don’t have that kind of technology yet. It simply doesn’t exist.” The current manager of the reactor site, Akira Ono, said likewise. “For removal of the debris, we don’t have accurate information (about the state of the reactors) or any viable methodology…”, he told the Times of London March 30.

Robots sent inside the vessels have repeatedly broken down under the harsh radioactive environment and have failed to transmit sufficient information to even pinpoint the location of the mass of fuel much less design a decommissioning process.

Theoretically, during the fuel removal process—not expected to begin for another five years—workers must keep all the melted uranium submerged under water, which shields workers by absorbing much of the radiation. This theory may not be sound.

“We still don’t know whether it’s possible to fill the reactor containers with water,” Masuda told NHK. There are so many cracks and holes in the containers, Masuda says, “We may have to look for some other way to remove the debris.”

Can the removal begin in 2020 as the government insists? Masuda said he doesn’t know if that is possible either, and “There is no text book to teach us what to do.”

Taiwan imposes new limits on Japanese food imports

Taiwan imposed new bans on food imported from Japan, the French news agency AFP reported May 15. The cause was the recall of hundreds of products in March whose labels were faked in order to disguise the fact they came from areas contaminated by Fukushima’s radioactive fallout.

Taiwan’s government banned food sent from five prefectures near Fukushima soon after the March 11, 2011 disaster when it was found to be contaminated. Now, all food imports from Japan will have to carry proof that they come from outside the banned areas. Some particular foods will also require “radiation inspection certificates,” according to Taiwan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. 

Japan complained about the new restrictions through its de facto embassy in Taipei, saying, “Falsified labels of product origins and food safety are different issues.” Three weeks earlier, on April 22, Japanese officials brought a complaint against South Korea in the World Trade Organization, over similar food import restrictions saying they violate trade rules. In place since March 2011, South Korean precautions include an outright ban on seafood from the Fukushima region and require radiation testing and certification for other foods.

Separate courts reject, approve reactor restarts

A three-judge panel set back Japanese government and industry hopes to restart the idled nuclear reactor industry, ruling April 14 that restart of two Takahama reactors appear too unsafe. The ruling affects reactors 3 and 4 which went on-line in the 1980s but have been shut down since the catastrophic March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and triple meltdowns at Fukushima.

Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) had approved the restart at Takahama, in west-central Japan, but a group of citizens filed suit to stop it. They convinced the court that the NRA had underestimated the reactors’ vulnerability to earthquakes and that evacuation plans in the event of another disaster, prepared by the Kansai Electric Power Co., were inadequate. Presiding judge Hideaki Higuchi, who issued a similar ruling against separate reactor restarts last May, said the restart proposal was “lacking in rationality.”

A similar lawsuit—against restart of the Sendai reactors No. 1 and 2 in Japan’s far southwest—was dismissed April 22, although citizens had argued that a recent increase in volcanic activity threatens potential disaster. The citizens vowed to appeal.

Then on May 27, the NRA announced that only operational tests were still needed to fire-up the Sendai reactors, opening the door to the possible restart of Unit 1 in July and Unit 2 in September.

Owned and operated by the Kyūshū Electric Power Company, Sendai is located on Japan’s main southern island of Kyushu, home to Japan’s most active volcano, Mount Aso, as well as the great Sakurajima volcano.

The NRA’s announcement came two days before the May 29 volcanic eruption on the southern island of Kuchinoerabujima, 70 miles away. The eruption may lend weight to the citizen’s appeal of the court’s restart approval. Restart may also be reconsidered in view of recent earthquakes: the severe 8.5 magnitude earthquake that struck deep undersea, 620 miles south of Tokyo, and dramatically shook buildings there May 30, and the 5.5 level quake on May 25 that hit northwest of Tokyo.

Hong Kong finds radioactivity in Japanese tea

Powdered tea imported by Hong Kong from the Japanese prefecture of Chiba in March, was found to have traces of radioactive cesium-137, although at levels below what the government allows in food, the New York Times reported March 12. Chiba is over 135 miles from Fukushima-Daiichi in northeast Japan—site four years ago of the world’s worst or second worst radiation disaster.

Soon after Fukushima’s triple reactor meltdowns and massive radiation releases began in March 2011, Hong Kong’s state Center for Food Safety found three samples of vegetables imported from Japan to have “unsatisfactory” levels of radioactive contaminants. Since then, Hong Kong has repeatedly found samples of food imports contaminated with low levels of Fukushima’s radioactive fallout. 

Hong Kong’s limits for radioactive materials in food are “low and stringent,” the New York Times indicated. But allowable limits of radioactive contamination in foods are set arbitrarily and enforcement is poorly regulated. Ingestion of even the smallest trances of radioactive materials can cause cancer and other illnesses, although illnesses may not appear for years or decades following ingestion or inhalation. 

Surge in workers exposed to high radiation

Radiation containment workers at the devastated Fukushima site have increasingly been exposed to high levels of radiation, the Japan Times reported May 10.

A total of 992 workers were exposed to more than 20 milliSieverts* in 2014, according to data made public by Tokyo Electric Power, Co. (Tepco), which runs the operation. The number of highly contaminated workers was 50 percent higher than the 660 who were so exposed in 2013. Tepco said that the increases were because of increased debris removal and decontamination work in areas of high-radiation.

The most dangerous work in the worst of high-radiation areas—the three destroyed reactor vessels, where hundreds of tons of melted fuel rods make them inaccessible—has not been started, and “poses a huge long-term challenge,” the IAEA said.

Failed pumps cause additional ocean spills

On April 22, all eight water transfer pumps at the Fukushima-Daiichi complex were shut down by an electric outage, and the shutdown led to another spill of highly radioactive water into the Pacific, the Japan Times reported.

The April accident followed a series of ocean-contaminating leaks of highly radioactive water that came from faulty holding tanks. Thousands of such tanks were hastily built to hold waste water poisoned with cesium, strontium, tritium and dozens of radio-toxic chemicals. The contaminated water results from constantly flushing seawater through the three wrecked reactor vessels and over the 150–300 tons of melted uranium fuel. Thousands of tons of contaminated waste water is also produced by the movement of groundwater that enters the wreckage through cracks and smashed duct work before finding its way to the Pacific.

According to Tepco admissions over the last few months, the period between May 2011 and August 2013, saw leaks that put at least 20 trillion Becquerels of cesium-137, 10 trillion Becquerels of strontium-90, and 40 trillion Becquerels of tritium into the sea.

New leaks douse attempts to limit water pollution

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors hurried to Japan in April to investigate a spike in radiation levels caused by highly contaminated water leaking into the Pacific Ocean. Tepco had known about the leaks for months, but kept the information secret during the IAEA monitors’ February 2015 visit. Bloomberg News reported May 5, that Tepco has since claimed to be disclosing more of its radiation data, although, as IAEA spokesperson Serge Gas wrote in an e-mail from the agency’s offices in Vienna, “Tepco has no obligation to report to the IAEA.”

Tepco behind in payments for decontamination work 

The Japan Times reported March 30 that Tepco has only covered 2 percent of the $638.8 million that municipalities have spent on decontamination work since 2011.

According to the federal Environment Ministry, the company has refused to cover the costs of removing and bagging up contaminated soil and debris in radioactive fallout-hit areas, saying it is studying whether the law requires it. A law enacted in August 2011 stipulates that Tepco bears financial responsibility for the decontamination work.

The central government has paid for the cleanup and expects to be reimbursed by Tepco. So far the company has paid only for decontamination work done by the central government near its reactors. Japan allocated $11.3 billion in this regard, including around $5.08 billion for work done by local municipality offices by the end of fiscal 2014. The Environment Ministry asked that Tepco reimburse $638.8 million by the end of February, but Tepco has only covered $12 million.

Accidents still happening

On March 1, the Japan Times reported that waste water pouring into the Pacific from the reactor wreckage showed a huge spike in radioactivity. Tepco acknowledged that levels of strontium-90 in the waste water were up to 70 times, or 7,000 percent higher than what is allowed to be dumped into the ocean. Strontium was measured at up to 7,230 Becquerels per liter of water, while the contamination limit is supposed to be 5 Bq/L.

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

July 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Republic of the Marshall Islands Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2015

UNITED NATIONS, New York—The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), a Pacific Islands nation of 70,000, took first-of-its-kind action for disarmament April 24, 2014, when it brought lawsuits at the International Court of Justice or World Court, against the nine nuclear-armed states (the US, Russia, China, India, England, France, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea), accusing them of violating the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Because the US has rejected compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, the RMI brought a separate lawsuit against the US government in federal district court in northern California.

On February 3, 2015, US District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the separate suit in California on the grounds that the RMI lacks standing to bring the case and that the lawsuit is barred by the political question doctrine.

Attorneys for the Marshall Islands have appealed the US district court’s dismissal of the case. An appeals court will consider legal briefs in support of reinstating the suit after the July 20 filing deadline.

Attorney Laurie Ashton, representing the RMI, outlined the status of the suit at an NPT Review Conference workshop in New York on April 28. Ashton reported that the Marshall Islanders are not seeking financial compensation for the 67 US nuclear bomb tests that devastated their homelands. The suit seeks only a judicial declaration that the NPT is binding, and a formal injunction against the nuclear-armed states for violations of the NPT involving: 1) failure to pursue a treaty outlawing the Bomb; 2) failure to eliminate nuclear arsenals; and 3) production of new nuclear weapons. Only Pakistan, India and England have agreed to contest the issue before the World Court.

India and Pakistan have filed objections to the suit, and England is expected to do the same, claiming the case is frivolous and that the World Court is not qualified to interpret the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, attorney Ashton said, the court’s 1996 Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons stated that the NPT’s explicit pledge to negotiate nuclear disarmament is an “unqualified, inescapable, unequivocal and binding obligation.”

RMI Foreign Minister Tony deBrum also addressed the UN workshop, explaining that the lawsuits ask grave, momentous questions: “Do treaties matter? Do nuclear-armed states have to obey the same legal obligations as non-nuclear states? Who decides that a treaty is currently being violated?” Mr. deBrum said, “We are accused of being frivolous and juvenile, but we could not be more serious.” —JL

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

July 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Double Standards Seen in NRC Evacuation Rules

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2015

Towns located within 50 miles of US nuclear reactors are not required to develop emergency evacuation plans in the case of reactor disasters. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) requires that communities within only a 10-mile radius of operating reactors plan for evacuations in the case of radiation disasters.

The discrepancy was highlighted in April by the nonprofit organization Disaster Accountability Project, which called on communities inside the larger area to prepare for a reactor accident, citing the NRC’s 2011 recommendation to US citizens in Japan. When the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster began March of that year, the NRC advised people within 50 miles to evacuate, the Wall Street Journal reported April 15.

The Disaster Accountability Project study notes that a 50-mile radius around the Indian Point reactors in Westchester, New York includes the New York City metropolitan area and parts of New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

In May last year, the NRC told the owner of the Indian Point reactors to re-evaluate how prepared the facility is to withstand an earthquake. The NRC listed Indian Point reactors 2 and 3 among 10 reactors in the eastern US that have the highest need to renew its emergency preparedness plans. In 2011, after evaluating all 100 operating US reactors, the NRC named Indian Point’s Unit 3 the reactor most vulnerable to severe earthquake damage.

—The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 14, 2015; (Lohud) Journal News, May 9, 2014; NBC News, March 17, 2011

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

July 15, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Chernobyl and the Fire Next Time

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2015
By John LaForge 

The April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster was remembered unhappily the world over. In Germany, 29 years after the fact, the ancient custom of wild boar hunting is still prohibited because the animals remain too contaminated with Chernobyl’s long-lived radioactive fallout.

Government warnings of Chernobyl’s dispersed cancer agents are nearly forgotten today, but a May 14, 1986 bulletin from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)said, “[A]irborne radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so widespread that it is likely to fall to the ground wherever it rains in the United States.”

A week later, Minnesotans read, “For the second time since the [Chernobyl disaster] last month, a slightly elevated level of radioactive iodine has been found in a Minnesota milk sample, state health officials said. … The amount of iodine-131 in the air also increased slightly [May 19] after several days of decline, health officials said.” (“Slight rise in radioactivity found again in state milk,” Duluth News-Tribune & Herald, May 22, 1986)

The AP reported May 15, 1986, “State authorities in Oregon have warned residents dependent solely on rainwater for drinking that they should arrange other supplies for the time being.” Likewise, regarding the triple reactor meltdowns at Fukushima, Forbes reported on April 11, 2011: “Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the EPA late [April 8].”

Wildfires put contamination back in the air 

Chernobyl exploded and burned out of control for weeks. The French Nuclear Energy Agency’s “2002 Update of Chernobyl,” noted that “[C]ontinuing low-level releases occurred … for up to 40 days after the accident, particularly on 15 and 16 May, attributable to continuing outbreaks of fires or to hot areas in the reactor.…”

Demonstrating nuclear power’s capacity for whole-earth poisoning, the catastrophic consequences are still spreading three decades later.

The dispersion of large amounts of radioactive cesium-137—which persists in the environment for at least 300 years—was especially concentrated in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, where half the spewed radiation fell. The other half spread to every country in the Northern Hemisphere. The American Geophysical Union reported in 2009 that radioactive cesium-137 dispersed by Chernobyl wouldn’t “disappear” from the environment through decay for up to 320 years.

Cesium has heavily contaminated forested areas of Chernobyl’s Exclusion Zone, an area of some 1,000 square miles surrounding the reactor where access and habitation are severely limited. When the forests catch fire, radioactive materials including cesium are again dispersed to the winds.

For two months in the summer of 2010, wildfires in Russia burned over 2 million acres and caused at least 50 deaths. The August 10, 2010 the New York Times noted that “dozens of fires have been burning in contaminated zones.” Two days later, the AP and the Agency France Presse cited government reports that at least six wildfires had been extinguished “this week” in the heavily-contaminated Bryansk region.

About the 2010 wildfires, Time magazine reported that Russian leaders had removed maps of likely radiation-contaminated fires from web sites maintained by the national forestry agency. (Taking a lesson from the Russians, the US government halted its emergency radiation monitoring of water and milk on the West Coast a mere two months after the start of Fukushima’s three explosions and meltdowns.)

In 2002, dozens of peat fires and wildfires again spread across heavily-contaminated Belarus. The AP reported July 22, 2002 that “Belarusian Emergency Minister Valery Astapov said radiation levels in the fire zone are elevated…”

The Washington Post and AP reported in April 1996 that a wildfire had “spread quickly through five villages in the exclusion zone, carried by strong winds blowing toward Kiev and its 2.6 million residents. It burned pines and buildings in one of the areas most heavily contaminated with radioactive cesium.”

“Eight percent” of radioactive fallout re-suspended—but eight percent of what? 

The latest news of cesium spreading from Chernobyl comes from a team of researchers led by Timothy Mousseau, a biologist at the University of South Carolina. According to Dr. Mousseau’s report, published in Ecological Monographs, wildfires that burned in the exclusion zone in 2002, 2008 and 2010 have together redistributed approximately eight percent of the original amount of cesium-137 released by the 1986 disaster—the world’s worst accidental airborne release. The researchers warned that large blazes in the future could spread significant amounts of radioactive soot across Europe, leading to contamination of food crops, the New York Times reported April 6, 2015.

In 2006, The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH, by Ian Fairlie and David Sumner) concluded that about 30 percent of the reactor’s radioactivity was distributed over the reactor building and surrounding areas and about 1–2 percent was ejected into the atmosphere. The sum total of radioactivity released was about 324.3 million curies. All of the reactor’s radioactive gases (xenon and krypton) were released.

In 2005, the Chernobyl Forum—comprised of more than 100 scientists, eight UN agencies and the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine—estimated that the total release over the first 10 days reached 378.3 million curies. (Bob Edwards, “Major UN report counts human cost of Chernobyl,” New Scientist, Sept. 5, 2005.)

The Lawrence Livermore National Lab suggested in 1986 that 50 percent of the core’s radioactivity was spewed—4.5 billion curies, according to Science, June 13, 1986. In 1991, Vladimir Chernousenko, a fellow of the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and chief scientific supervisor of “clean up” in the 10-kilometer zone around the demolished reactor, noted that independent experts estimated that 80 percent of the reactor’s radioactivity escaped—over 6.4 billion curies.

According to Mousseau, forests covered 50 percent the Chernobyl exclusion zone before 1986, but trees and brush now cover 70 percent of the no-go area. Mousseau’s team reports that as climate change increasingly heats and dries the region, wildfires are expected to rage more often and more fiercely.

Asked by the Times what the consequences of this dispersion of radioactive materials might be, Mousseau was circumspect and grim. “There is never a positive consequence of having increased amounts of mutagenic materials in our environment,” he said. “It’s always negative.”

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • …
  • 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