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

November 28, 2018 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Woolsey Fire Started at Santa Susana Field Lab — Site of “[fourth] largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power”

Regional map showing Santa Susana Field Lab and the surrounding area.
Aerial map showing the areas affected by the Woolsey Fire. Santa Susana Field Lab is located northeast of Thousand Oaks inside the red line denoting the edge of the fire on November 16.

By John LaForge

In my Nov. 16 column, I reported on potential radiation risks posed by California’s Woolsey wildfire having burned over parts or all of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, south of Simi Valley, Calif., 30 miles outside Los Angeles, site of at least four partial or total nuclear reactor meltdowns.

The field laboratory operated 10 experimental nuclear reactors and conducted rocket engine tests. In his 2014 book Atomic Accidents, researcher James Mahaffey writes, “The cores in four experimental reactors on site … melted.” Reactor core melts always result in the release of large amounts of radioactive gases and particles. Clean up of the deeply contaminated site has not been conducted in spite of a 2010 agreement.

LA’s KABC-7 TV reported Nov. 13 that the Santa Susana lab site “appears to be the origin of the Woolsey Fire” which has now torched over 96,000 acres, and Southern Calif. Public Radio said, “According to Cal Fire, the Woolsey Fire started on the afternoon of Thursday, Nov. 8 at E Street and Alfa Road, on the Santa Susana site.”

In the 11/16 column I noted that Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, estimated that the partial meltdown of the lab’s Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) caused “the third largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power,” according to Gar Smith in his 2012 book Nuclear Roulette.

But Makhijani was speaking in 2006, so now of course the SRE meltdown counts as the fourth largest radio-iodine release—after the triple meltdowns at Fukushima in Japan in 2011, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Windscale in England in 1957.

Santa Susana’s operators caused the destruction of the liquid sodium-cooled SRE on July 12, 1959—“showering the downwind hills and meadows of the 2,850-acre site with a fog of chromium and radioactive isotopes, including iodine-131,” according to Nuclear Roulette. It was these hills and meadows that were burned so completely by the Woolsey wildfire.

Santa Susana Field Lab

“It [the fog of isotopes] likely spread to nearby communities such as Simi Valley, Chatsworth and Canoga Park,” according to Southern Calif. Public Radio’s Elina Shatkin (“What Happened at the Santa Susana Nuclear Site During the Woolsey Fire?” Nov. 13.) Makhijani calculated that fallout from the meltdown contained “80 to 100 times the amount of iodine-131 released at Three Mile Island” [in Harrisburg, Penn., in 1979], Smith reports in Nuclear Roulette. Canoga Park Senior High School is one of four Red Cross evacuation centers for the Woolsey Fire.

During the two weeks after the partial meltdown of the SRE, workers tried to repair it. “When they couldn’t, they were ordered to open the reactor’s large door, releasing radiation into the air,” Shatkin reported for public radio.

Radioactive materials released by the meltdown were never accurately measured in part because monitors inside the SRE went off scale. Yet the melting of fuel didn’t cause the only releases of radiation from SRE—just the single largest. According to Joe Mangano in his 2012 book Mad Science, “Every day, radioactive gases from holding tanks in the reactor building were released into the air—often at night … sometimes twice a day.” In Atomic Accidents, Mahaffey describes the same practice writing, “The fission gases were piped off and compressed into holding tanks for controlled release into the environment…”

After the July meltdown was halted, Atomics International, which ran the SRE, concocted a report for the Atomic Energy Commission on Aug. 29, 1957. The report falsely declared: “No release of radioactive materials to the plant or its environs occurred and operating personnel were not exposed to harmful conditions.”

However, conditions inside the reactor building were extremely dangerous for workers, and radiation levels are estimated to have reached between 10,000 and one million times greater than normal. According to one worker, staff radiation measuring badges were taken away. John Pace, a young trainee at the lab, “Before July 13, we wore film badges, and after then, at some point they [Atomics International] took them away, since they know that the levels would be really high.”

With 10 experimental reactors, radiation routinely released to the air, years of accidents, and four core meltdowns, the “downwind hills and meadows” can be considered permanently compromised with cancer-causing toxins. Dan Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear policy organization told public radio that Santa Susana’s soil has, “a mix of radioactive materials like plutonium, strontium-90 and cesium-137” and perhaps 100 toxic chemicals “such as PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals like mercury and chromium-6 and volatile organic compounds like PCE.” In 2012, the US EPA reported that its soil tests found radioactive cesium-137 at 9,328 times ordinary background levels.

Citizens living in the vicinity of Santa Susana have become harshly critical of the site’s early operators—Boeing, Atomic International and Rocketdyne—who for years burned toxic and radioactive wastes in open pits, endangering all the downwinders. In 2005, Boeing paid $30 million to compensate nearby residents for early mortalities and a range of rare diseases.

For more info about the Department of Energy’s attempt to avoid cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab see “Dept. of Energy secretly funding front group to sabotage its own Santa Susana Field Lab cleanup.“

Filed Under: Environment, Nuclear Weapons, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

November 16, 2018 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site

“A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident … 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…”   — Jacque Cousteau

Photo: NASA MODIS (TERRA Satellite)

The Woolsey fire in California began Nov. 8 near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), site of a partial reactor meltdown, the consequences of which have never been cleaned up. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control released a statement early Nov. 9 saying its scientists “don’t believe that the fire has caused any releases of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to people exposed to the smoke.”

The SSFL, 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, was burned over by the Woolsey fire which by Nov. 13 had consumed 96,000 acres or about 150 square miles. The fire’s progress through to Oak Park indicates that much of the toxic site burned, according to the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility which has investigated SSFL radiation risks for 30 years.

Use of the phrase “don’t believe” [the fire caused risk] by the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) had to stand in for a clear denial of radiation risk because none of the site’s air monitors had yet been seen by the department. The following words of DTSC’s Nov. 9 announcement were: “There is an air monitoring network around the perimeter of the SSFL site. As soon as access is open we will evaluate the air monitoring stations.” The department seemed to be reading from a script identified by the oceanographer Jacque Cousteau who said, “…before specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’”

The dodgy DTSC language caused outrage and alarm among watchdog groups concerned with cleanup of the SSFL site. University of California-Los Angeles climate scientist and distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Glen MacDonald, told Democracy Now, Nov. 13: “I would want to see … some monitoring of what was kicked up.”

“We can’t trust anything that DTSC says,” said West Hills resident Melissa Bumstead, whose young daughter twice survived leukemia that Bumstead blames on the SSFL and who has mapped 50 other cases of rare pediatric cancers near the site. Bumstead organized a group called “Parents vs. SSFL” and launched a Change.org petition, now signed by over 410,000 people, demanding full cleanup of SSFL. “DTSC repeatedly minimizes risk from Santa Susana and has broken every promise it ever made about the cleanup. The public has no confidence in this troubled agency,” said Bumstead.

Bumstead told Nukewatch Nov. 13, that DTSC has a history of promoting the financial advantage of the polluters — Boeing, NASA and the Energy Department — rather than the protection of public health.”

The Physicians for Social Responsibility press advisory notes that nuclear reactor accidents, including a famous partial meltdown, tens of thousands of rocket engine tests, and sloppy environmental practices have left SSFL polluted with widespread radioactive and chemical contamination. Government-funded studies indicate increased cancers for offsite populations associated with proximity to the site. 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, 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 will leave much, if not all, of SSFL’s contamination on site permanently.

Dr. Robert Dodge, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, shares the community’s concerns. “We know what substances are on the site and how hazardous they are. We’re talking about incredibly dangerous radionuclides and toxic chemicals … These toxic materials are in SSFL’s soil and vegetation, and when it burns and becomes airborne in smoke and ash, there is real possibility of heightened exposure for area residents.”

The July 12, 1959 partial meltdown of the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was especially dangerous, because, as an experimental reactor, it was built without a “containment structure” — the large concrete and steel dome the covers most nuclear reactors. The SRE loss of control was “the third largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power,” according to Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research.

Like today’s uncontrolled dispersal of contaminants by the Woolsey wildfire, the amount of radioactive materials dispersed by the 1959 accident was never thoroughly measured. The lab’s radiation “monitors went clear off the scale,” according to an employee of Rocketdyne which operated the site. That meltdown was kept secret for 20 years until 1979.

Filed Under: Environment, Nuclear Weapons, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

October 17, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

The White House Vs. Radiation Science & Health: Expanding Exposures Would Save Industry Billions

Radiation Can Smash Apart DNA

Experts at the US National Academies of Science settled a big question in 2005, and the president’s business friends don’t like the answer. Is there a dose of radiation so low that it is harmless? (Ionizing radiation is the alpha and beta particles, and the neutron, gamma and X-rays given off by radioactive materials in medicine, the military, industry, and reactor operations.) The NAS published its answer in its seventh edition of “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation” (BEIR-VII), where it emphatically said: “No.” As they had done many times before, the NAS concluded that any radiation exposure, no matter how slight, carries a risk of causing cancer or other illnesses.

The NAS panel that produced BEIR-VII “could not ignore the current body of scientific studies that are now recognizing harmful and hitherto unpredicted effects at very low doses of radiation,” said Cindy Folkers at Nuclear Information & Resource Service in Takoma Park, MD.

But like the handful of scientists who stand against the 98% and say climate change is not caused by industrialism, there are a couple of nuclear-happy quacks who say radiation exposure is good for us. The President wants us to believe them. (Time: “Trump Administration Moving to Weaken EPA Radiation Regulations”)

Like scientists in the tobacco industry who conned millions and even got company CEOs to lie to Congress about their knowledge of cigarette hazards, some nuclear industry-sponsored researchers claim that low doses of radiation are harmless and could even act like inoculations. This “hormesis” theory was explicitly rejected in BEIR-VII. Dr. Peter Crane, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission attorney told the New York Times in Sept. 2015, “[T]he National Academies of Science, along with the rest of mainstream scientific authority, regard hormesis as wholly without merit.” A separate study published in Radiation Research in 2005 and reported in the journal Science was said to be “the latest blow to the [hormesis] notion that there is a threshold of exposure to radiation below which there is no health threat (and there might even be a benefit).”

Trying to Save the Industry Billions

In 2002, Roger Clark, President of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), warned in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that “Some people think that too much money is being spent to achieve low levels of residual contamination.” They want, “a threshold in the dose-response relationship in order to reduce expenditure,” Clark said.

As Science reported in 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.” In June 2015, a landmark international study reported in The Lancet Haematology presented “strong evidence of positive associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposure and leukemia.” The journal Nature said of the study: “The finding … scuppers the popular idea that there might be a threshold dose below which radiation is harmless — and provides scientists with some hard numbers to quantify the risks of everyday exposures.”

Now, as with climate change deniers and tobacco hucksters, fringe scientists are singing the de-regulation song that Trump’s industrialists wants to hear. If weakened radiation exposure limits are approved by Congress, the nuclear industry will save billions and its profit margins could grow as fast as lung tumors.

The public and the scientific community must fight back. There is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation. Even the smallest radiation exposures have cellular-level effects. The EPA website has said for years: “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.” Every US government agency that regulates radiation releases or its medical use makes the same warning — based on BEIR-VII (BEIR-VI, BEIR-V, etc.) In 1989, the National Academy’s BEIR-V quadrupled the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation exposures, and warned explicitly about “a much greater danger” of mental retardation among babies exposed in the womb to radiation.

An under-reported concern about radiation is the fact that internal contamination is far more dangerous than the same exposure outside the body.

In Oct. 2004, the British government’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters reported that low-level radiation from nuclear reactors may be up to 10 times more hazardous when ingested or inhaled than previously estimated. Dr. Chris Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, compares the two harms this way: “Externally, think of exposure like being warmed before a glowing fireplace. Internally, think of taking a hot coal from that fire and popping it into your mouth.”

When radioactive materials are vented, dumped or leaked, they contaminate soil, water, rainfall and food, and they can then be inhaled or ingested. Some persist in the environment for centuries. Tritium (radioactive hydrogen) is released to the air and to bodies of water by reactors and nuclear wastes. It persists for 120 years. Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility wrote Sept. 30 that, “Tritium gets built right into the body’s organic molecules, including DNA molecules. Precisely because tritium is so difficult to control, and so easily dispersed into the air and the water around nuclear facilities, industry experts advocate for lax standards and permissive practices regarding release.”

Dozens of studies indicate that low doses of radiation given over long periods of time are far more dangerous than the industry and the government claim. Infant mortality rates and childhood leukemia rates both increase in areas downwind from operating reactors. By 1999, the government finally admitted that radiation exposures endured for years by nuclear weapons workers had made them sick, contrary to decades of repeated assurances that the doses were harmless.

We all have a responsibility to reject Trump’s nuclear bailout which would expose everyone to more radiation, and instead to demand a robust strengthening of radiation protection regulations particularly with respect to infants and children.     — John LaForge

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

October 15, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Tepco Admits Fukushima Water Treatment System Not Working

Fall Quarterly 2018
Huge waste water tanks crowding the compound of the destroyed Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station have been found to contain dangerous, long-lived radioactive substances, defying Tepco’s special treatment system, Kyodo News said.

Kyodo News reported Aug. 19 that the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (Tepco’s) water decontamination system is not removing all of the radioactive contaminants as the company previously claimed. Huge waste water tanks crowding the compound of the destroyed Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station have been found to contain dangerous, long-lived radioactive substances, defying Tepco’s special treatment system, Kyodo News said.

Tepco admitted that previously undisclosed radioactive isotopes in the treated water include iodine-129, ruthenium-106, and technetium-99. According to Tepco, a maximum of 62.2 becquerels-per-liter of iodine-129—seven times the 9 becquerels/L legal limit—was found in the water filtered by Tepco’s Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). The ruthenium and technetium have radioactive half-lives of 373 days, and 213,000 years respectively.

Water samples taken from some of the large tanks showed exceedingly high levels of iodine-129 which has a radioactive half-life of 16 million years. Tepco has been trying to get permission to dump the contaminated waste water—920,000 tons—into the Pacific Ocean, claiming falsely it is contaminated only with tritium and trace amounts of other isotopes. Tepco’s property has 880 of the large, hastily built tanks and is running out of room for more.

The company’s admission of faulty water filtration has raised questions about what more is in the waste water that Tepco is so eager to dump. A government panel debating how to deal with the waste water has focused on the tritium. The ethics of dumping radioactive materials into an international body of water are often completely ignored.

A complete list of the radioactive isotopes in the treated waste water has not been disclosed by Tepco, and the company said it hasn’t checked the concentration of radioactive materials in each tank. ALPS has regularly been described by the company and media as being capable of removing everything but tritium.

Regional fishing groups have fought the dumping plan claiming it will ruin seafood sales and wreck their livelihoods.

The Fukushima-Daiichi reactor complex was devastated when the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami caused a station blackout, shattered reactor foundations, wrecked backup generators used for cooling, and caused three reactors to suffer explosions and complete fuel meltdowns. Since then, tons of water are constantly poured into the reactor buildings to cover and cool three large masses of melted fuel, and it becomes extremely toxic and radioactive in the process. The water is filtered by the novel ALPS system, but removing the radioactive contaminants has so far proven to be unworkable.

—The Mainichi, Aug. 30; Kyodo, and Japan Times, Aug. 19, 2018

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

October 11, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Hiroshima/ Nagasaki Day Call-to-Action

The following was adapted from a speech by Kelly Lundeen of Nukewatch at Peace Action Wisconsin’s Hiroshima/Nagasaki Commemoration event in Milwaukee, August 10, 2018

Nukewatch co-director Kelly Lundeen presented the keynote at the Hiroshima-Nagasaki commemoration in Milwaukee August 10.

Nukewatch has been around since the last anti- nuclear movement and survived the chill after the Cold War. Right now the world is in a renewed anti-nuclear movement. I’m sure you’ve heard about International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) who received the Nobel Peace Prize for their work to ban nuclear weapons through the United Nations last year. Nukewatch is working to bring this movement back to the United States. Trump is helping us.

A movement against nukes is necessary because we cannot stand for another Hiroshima and too many people have forgotten what that means. We are just lucky that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the atomic bomb tests were the only times bombs were dropped on humans. It is really something I can’t even fathom. I don’t know how someone could have ever conceived of doing this in the first place. To lose 140,000 lives in Hiroshima in one instant? And 90,000 more in Nagasaki? How could anyone ever have done this? And how can we continue to develop and research new nuclear weapons? It’s total insanity.

If it would have been here

I want to give you an idea of what a Hiroshima-size bomb would look like here in Milwaukee. That’s highly unlikely, but this helps us understand what happened. Milwaukee is a city with a population of 600,000. In the immediate 1.7 square miles there would be an estimated 50,000 fatalities.

Unfortunately, the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was very small compared to today’s weapons. Bombs of Hiroshima size no longer exist in the US arsenal. The smallest warheads are the W80-4s and they are 16 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. The ironic thing is that the W80s are considered “low yield,” which has some legislators concerned that they might actually get used, as opposed to the big ones which are considered off-limits by most.

The nuclear weapons budget

These W80s are part of what we thought was going to be a $1 trillion budget to upgrade the nuclear weapons arsenal. It is actually going to be $1.7 trillion. This isn’t coming from Trump. This is nothing new. Every single president since these weapons were created has threatened to use them. At the height of the Cold war we had around 61,000 nuclear warheads and now we’re down to about 7,000. We need to acknowledge that this is a success.

Our nuclear arsenal has three parts. There are land-based missiles, launched out of silos buried underground, sea-based missiles launched off submarines, and air-based bombs and missiles fired from planes. During the Cold War, the US had 1,000 Minuteman land-based missiles or inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and now we are down to 450. Nukewatch has a book on the ICBMs originally published in 1988. Our volunteers went out and visited every single missile silo, made maps of them and published it so people could protest. In 2015, since the drawdown of weapons, we revised the book.

With the current state of the US arsenal, nobody can take us seriously when we say it is for deterrence. If it were truly for deterrence we would have 100 or 200 warheads and they wouldn’t be designed as first strike weapons to be used in surprise, unprovoked attacks on other countries’ air bases and nuclear weapons — the opposite of deterrence. Unfortunately ex-president Obama authorized the $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons rebuild. The full $1.7 trillion proposal may not receive Congressional approval. A mistake of around a half-a-trillion dollars was brought to light by former Department of Energy advisor Robert Alvarez, who pointed out the cost of environmental restoration and waste management inside the nuclear weapons complex. When you break it down, that is $7 million per hour for every hour from 2017 to 2046. What does that mean for Milwaukee?

In 2017, the taxpayers of the city spent about $80,000 on nuclear weapons. That’s $132 per person. I’m sure those who live here could think of better ways to spend that money. Spending $7 million per hour on nuclear weapons means stealing from every homeless person that does not have a bed. It means $7 million that does not help schools struggling to meet Adequate Yearly Progress. It means $7 million that is being taken from every one of us who need real health care.

We Can Resist!

The CEOs at the top of the military industrial complex are part of the “1 percent.” We cannot afford to subsidize them anymore. The military budget is part of a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The three wealthiest people in the United States have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50 per cent. There are way more of us than them. If we are the 99 percent, then there are 99 of us for every one of them. So what can we do? We can resist!

We need to do the things that we are good at to make the world better in our homes, in our communities, in our cities, or whatever scale we choose to work on. We can follow the example of the Kings Bay Plowshares. They snuck into the Kings Bay Naval Base in St. Mary’s, Georgia on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, April 4. The Kings Bay Naval Base is the largest nuclear submarine base in the world.  It is home to six ballistic missile subs and two guided missile subs based there. For breaking into the base, pouring their own blood in order to raise awareness about the horrors of nuclear weapons, each one of these activists could be facing many years in prison. Currently Nukewatch is involved in similar direct action in Germany. In the past month my colleague John LaForge,and dozens of others in solidarity with a German campaign to have the bombs removed, has cut through fences to enter the German air base which is home to 20 US nuclear bombs. They hope to fight the issue in court.

Do we need more actions like this? Yes! But we also need more people to make independent media, raise food in a way that will nourish our bodies and our world, teach our children the truth. We should value the part we are playing.

Then we need to break out of our comfort zones and do more of the things in solidarity with other struggles. If we are people with privilege we need to support struggles of people of color and the poor and recognize the impacts that they have lived with. In the case of the nuclear industry it is easy to see that the people on the frontlines are the people of North and South Korea, Japan, Russia or anyone who has ever been the target of a nuclear weapon.

While the nuclear bomb is the most horrific thing humankind has ever created, it is part of the nuclear industry that comes as a package deal. The entire nuclear industry needs to be stopped, because we will always be facing all the same dangers that come with the entire nuclear fuel and weapons cycle, which is riddled with radiation and death from uranium mining, to nuclear power and weapons testing, to transport and storage of radioactive waste.

You may be surprised to hear that way more people died from nuclear weapons testing (as many as 695,000 deaths from 1951-1973) than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. McClatchy Newspapers reported in 2015 that at least 33,000 workers in the nuclear weapons industry died of cancers caused by workplace radiation.

Native people all over the world have been disproportionately affected by uranium mining — in Niger, Australia, Canada and the US. Indigenous people in the southwest US are the survivors of uranium mining radiation, nuclear weapons tests, milling, and radioactive transportation.

I want to highlight the work of one of the groups doing great work in New Mexico to oppose a centralized radioactive waste storage dump proposal that would involve 10,000 train cars of high-level radioactive waste travelling from nuclear reactors to the site. The group “Halt Holtec” has worked in coalition with many groups to encourage the public to comment on the proposed dump. This work produced 25,000 letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission! Here is what Micheáilín Butler of Gallup, New Mexico said in an interview with Halt Holtec:

I’m out here at the NRC public scoping meeting to stand and speak out against the proposed nuclear waste site. I’ve been involved in a lot of issues around uranium mining, nuclear colonialism and the legacy of New Mexico as a nuclear sacrifice for the United States. I oppose this very strongly. It is a really terrible and awful idea. It will have a lasting impact that we should not have to face in addition to all the other issues we face in nuclear New Mexico.

I’m also here representing the Red Nation. The Red Nation is an organization that is very strongly opposed to anything to do with nuclear from the mining, the milling, and the processing, to the creation of the bombs, and to using land for nuclear waste storage. The United States and the people on this continent should be thinking about how to shut down and deactivate all the nuclear facilities so that we don’t create the need for anymore storage.

Obviously we are going to have to think about a way in which all of the waste gets stored properly. We are already dealing with that legacy: the legacy of contamination from the mines, the legacy of the contamination from Los Alamos and other areas. What a lot of us don’t understand is why we have to create new issues to have to deal with new waste. We shouldn’t have to be dealing with this.

The only reason why they’re dumping it on New Mexico is that we are a poor state. They know that we are desperate for cleanup jobs, waste jobs. They know that no one cares, that it’s a politically safe move to dump it on the poor people of New Mexico. So just say no to nuclear waste.

The work that is being done to oppose the centralized radioactive waste dump in New Mexico is also helping us. If one of these dumps opens and radioactive waste begins to be transported, waste from two closed nuclear reactors in Wisconsin will be transported through Milwaukee by train. A single train car of this radioactive waste would carry as much plutonium as the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. This is why Milwaukee is more likely to be hit with a radioactive waste transportation accident than by any enemy attack.

Call-to-Action

Right now there are some specific actions we can take related to the nuclear industry to take part in the growing anti-nuclear movement to make sure Hiroshima never happens again. Legislatively, there are a few proposals that you can urge representatives to support.

Yes!—H.R.669 is the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction to prevent the US from dropping a first strike nuclear weapon without a Declaration of War by Congress.

No!—H.R. 3053 is a bill that would authorize the New Mexico dump Micheáilín opposes and revive the option for Yucca Mountain, which is not an option. Yes we need a safe place to store this dangerous waste, but Yucca Mountain is not it. It is not even on our land. It was never ceded by the Western Shoshone people. No! – All the separate parts of the $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons rebuild need to be opposed.

Outside of lobbying work, we need to be in the streets opposing war and the bomb. Campaigns like Don’t Bank on the Bomb and Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Compliance are moving forward. If radioactive waste begins to be transported we might need people out to stop the trains or out watching for radioactive transport vehicles. So I hope to see you in the streets!

Filed Under: Direct Action, Environmental Justice, Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste, US Bombs Out of Germany

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • …
  • 69
  • 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