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 10, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

South Australia Citizens Reject International Rad Waste Dump 

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017

A Citizen’s Jury in South Australia delivered a blow to a plan to construct a radioactive waste dump in their state. Importing 138,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 390,000 cubic meters of intermediate level nuclear waste had been among government recommendations in a report by the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Premier Jay Weatherill convened a citizen-led jury to gain public input into the proposal. A majority of the jury members voted that “under no circumstances” would they support importing the waste. “This is a strong decision from a randomly selected and very diverse group of South Australians who have had the benefit of studying the Royal Commission Report … It was positive to hear the jurors acknowledging the need for [Aboriginal] Traditional Owner’s voices to be heard,” said the chairperson of Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation, Karina Lester (above left in photo).

Two primary concerns emerged as reasons for opposition to the dump: mistrust of the government, and lack of aboriginal consent. Some of the jury felt as if they were part of a process that was created to manufacture consent for the Royal Commission recommendations. Conflicts of interest were apparent when the government appointed nuclear advocates to head the Royal Commission who, in turn relied solely on a report co-authored by a pro-nuclear lobbying group ARUIS (Association for Regional and International Underground Storage).

Premier Weatherill is expected to decide on whether to respect the Jury’s verdict by the end of this year. “There’s no doubt that there’s a massive issue of trust in government, I could sense that,” he said. “That’s why we started the whole citizen’s jury process, because there is no way forward unless we overcome those issues.” His decision will have an impact on whether the mistrust of the government is affirmed.

—Nuclear Monitor, Nov. 9; No Dump Alliance, Nov. 7; Adelaide Now, Nov. 6, 2016

Filed Under: Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

December 10, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

 NRC Told to Dismiss Application for “Interim”  High-Level Radioactive Waste Dump in Texas

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017
Plan threatens “permanent parking lot dump” and would shift costs from industry to taxpayers

Four leading national and Texas groups—Beyond Nuclear, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Public Citizen, and the Texas-based Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition—opposed to an industry scheme that risks a so-called short-term nuclear waste storage site becoming a permanent one, while sticking taxpayers with the bill, are calling on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to follow the law and terminate its review of the license application by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) to construct an “interim” high-level nuclear waste dump in Andrews County, Texas.

Containers placed in a trench at the Nevada National Security Site near Las Vegas. Federal managers announced in May 2013 that the dump would accept waste five times more radioactive than previously allowed. Department of Energy photo.

WCS seeks a permit to build a so-called short-term storage facility for up to 40,000 metric tons of highly dangerous nuclear waste in Andrews County, but only if the US government first assumes responsibility for the waste and further agrees to ship it to the Texas site by rail. The license application is for the first 5,000 metric tons but the company’s promotional materials show they are planning on expanding the site to accommodate more than half of the estimated 75,000 metric tons of commercial nuclear waste currently in the US.

The groups are concerned that the “interim” storage facility may become the de facto permanent home for the highly toxic waste. Given the long battle over Yucca Mountain, the groups have zero confidence that Congress or federal regulators would have the stomach for fighting to move the nuclear waste a second time from WCS or any other “interim” site. And, with utilities totally off the hook and taxpayers footing the entire bill, those that generated the waste would have no incentive to ensure its safe disposal in a permanent geologic repository.

The letter from the four groups to the NRC’s top executive argues that the WCS proposal would require the NRC to break federal law, which bars the US government from assuming responsibility for interim waste storage in the absence of a federal repository for permanent disposal. They contend that, until a long-term geological repository is ready, federal law forces utilities to solve their own interim storage problems, including bearing the economic burden for facility construction and operation, and liability for accidents.

The groups’ letter demands that the NRC immediately drop its review of the WCS application, including its plans to embark on an environmental study.

High-level radioactive wastes are irradiated nuclear fuel rods, and short-term exposure at close range, with no shielding, can cause immediate death. It is so dangerous that Congress required that it be buried deep underground in geologically isolated repository for thousands of years. This danger also prompted federal lawmakers to prohibit putting taxpayers on the hook for short-term or “interim” solutions that could become de facto permanent surface storage sites.

According to the groups, there is no safety imperative for moving the waste to a consolidated storage facility. The safety and security of our toxic radioactive waste stockpile, not financial gain for this private entity, should drive NRC waste storage activity. Rather than reviewing this premature and illegitimate proposal the NRC should focus its efforts on safeguarding the onsite storage of waste at nuclear facilities across the country.

“By requiring a permanent deep geological repository to be operating before centralized interim storage could be opened, Congress wanted to prevent the very real danger of a de facto permanent parking lot dump—a radioactive waste storage site that would be designed for the short-term but be there forever,” said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist with Beyond Nuclear. He added: “WCS is a cynical shell game and taxpayers are sure to lose. Congress was right that liability for the costs of storing commercial irradiated nuclear fuel belongs with the generators and should not be shifted onto the backs of the American public.”

Diane D’Arrigo, radioactive waste project director with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said, “Moving nuclear power waste over roads, rails and waterways to a supposedly temporary site puts us all at risk and creates only an illusion of a solution.”

Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition, added, “Due to risks of radioactive contamination from leaks or accidents or potential terrorist actions, radioactive waste should only be moved once, and only when a deep underground permanent repository is in place that could safely isolate the dangerous waste for the million years that it will remain hazardous.”

Tom Smith, director of the Public Citizen, Texas office, said, “Texans do not consent to the risky plan to store high-level radioactive waste at private sites on an open pad above ground in Texas. Another company near Hobbs, New Mexico—less than 50 miles away—is expected to file an application to open a storage site that would accept the rest of the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. These twin ‘storage sites’ likely would create a de facto high-level national waste sacrifice zone. This proposal invites disaster because the private owners will be cutting costs at every turn to maximize profits. If there was radioactive contamination our land, air, water, and human health could be harmed for millennia.”

—NIRS

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

December 10, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima: Crisis Without End 

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017

 

November 2016 Earthquake Was
Continuation of 2011 Catastrophe
By John LaForge

A powerful offshore earthquake at 6 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 22 shook Fukushima-Daiichi in northeast Japan, site of the March 2011 “catastrophe cubed”—the combined 8.9 mega-quake, deadly tsunami, and three reactor meltdowns which resulted in 19,000 fatalities—sending shudders of fear across the prefecture, and bringing new meaning to the word “aftershock.” As sirens screamed, the national public television service NHK ran a continuous banner in the tsunami zone all morning demanding: “Flee Immediately.”

The magnitude 7.4 quake generated a three-foot tsunami near the three destroyed Fukushima reactors and the site’s sprawling collection of over 1,307 large makeshift tanks of radioactive water. A least 3,000 people in Fukushima Prefecture ran to evacuation centers, and schools were closed, but only 17 people were reported injured across Fukushima, Chiba, Tokyo and Miyagi Prefectures.

Terrible memories of the 2011 disaster—the strongest quake ever recorded in Japan—were brought to mind as the cooling water system for one pool of highly radioactive and hot waste fuel rods was knocked out of commission, risking overheating of the uranium waste. Waste reactor fuel stays thermally and radioactively hot for eons and can cause enormous radiation releases if cooling water circulation is lost leading to the fuel catching fire. Cooling water was later restored.

Members of the press wearing suits and masks near tanks of highly-contaminated water after receiving a briefing from Tokyo Electric Power Co. employees during a tour of the earthquake-&-tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor site on February 10, 2016. (Photo: Toru Hanai/AFP/Getty Images)

The Washington Post put it this way: “At first, it was 2011 all over again. ‘It really came back. And it was so awful. The sways to the side were huge,’ Kazuhiro Onuki said after northeastern Japan was jolted Tuesday by a magnitude-7.4 earthquake, the strongest since a devastating quake and tsunami five years ago.”

Critics of Japan’s governmental push to restart the country’s closed-down fleet of over 42 reactors urged legislators to heed the quake’s warning. Centered 30 miles off the coast of Fukushima, and about 6 miles under the surface, the quake was felt in Tokyo, 150 miles away.

Even five years after the 2011 catastrophe, the Nov. 22 quake was identified as an aftershock stemming from the massive tectonic plate “snap” that caused the Fukushima quake, tsunamis and meltdowns. The devastating tsunami killed at least 16,000 people outright, and 2,500 others were reported missing and never found. Decontamination work, soil collection and incineration, water management, repair of leaking storage tanks, and the robotic search for the melted uranium fuel under the three melted reactors is expected to continue for over 40 years and cost over $350 billion.

Aftershocks have repeatedly rocked Fukushima’s radioactive exclusion zone, the site’s large waste fuel cooling pools, the 1,300-plus giant tanks of contaminated water, and the reactor complex’s 7,000 clean-up workers.

In 2013, National Geographic reported that, “The company [Tokyo Elec. Power Co. or Tepco] continues to add to a massive tank farm on the site, with capacity to store about 400,000 tons (95 million gallons/360 million liters) of contaminated water, and is planning to add an additional 300,000 tons of capacity [by 2016]. [And] Tepco must deal with an ever-increasing amount of contaminated water—nearly 150,000 tons (35.9 million gallons) a year…”

Kiyoshi Kurokawa, an adjunct professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, told the New York Times that clean-up attempts don’t address the real dangers of an earthquake-prone country relying on nuclear power. Kurokawa said Japan’s government and utilities should invest in solar or wind technology. “I think we expect more of such readjusting plate movements … and earthquakes have been rampant over the last five years, so why are we continuing to restart nuclear plants?” (Only two have been restarted, and one of them was soon shutdown.)

In April this year, two large earthquakes and a series of aftershocks on the Japanese island of Kyushu killed at least 41 people. While tremors shake Japan every day, since 2011, serious earthquakes have occurred across Japan April 7 and 11, 2011, July 10, 2011, Jan. 11, 2012, Dec. 12, 2012, May 30, 2015, and April 14 and 16, 2016.

Housing Aid for Some Evacuees to End in Winter; Government Pushes Return

Since the March 2011 disaster began, Federal and provincial governments, and reactor owner Tepco have provided some housing assistance for tens of thousands of Fukushima evacuees. But last June, with 89,000 people still living away from their abandoned homes, Fukushima’s Prefectural government announced that its support would end in March 2017 for families that fled contaminated areas outside the officially designated evacuation zones—the so-called “voluntary evacuees.”

The federal government had been paying for evacuees’ housing assistance regardless of whether people fled on their own or were ordered to leave. In addition, Tepco, which helped cause the disaster (by placing backup emergency generators in basements instead of outside the tsunami zone), has been providing monthly damages of about $879 for “mental suffering”—but only to people who were ordered to leave evacuation zones.

According to the Times, 89,000 Fukushima evacuees still live away from their homes — 48,000 inside Fukushima prefecture and 41,000 elsewhere in Japan — after they fled from the radiation exposures emanating from fallout from the three reactor meltdowns. Many fled their homes well outside the designated evacuation areas suspecting that radiation exposure, particularly for their children, was more dangerous than officials were indicating. The government was well known to have increased its allowable limit of radiation exposure for the public after large airborne releases started spewing from the meltdowns.

As the Japan Times noted in a Dec. 3 editorial, the government in Tokyo claims it is safe for evacuees to return to contaminated areas if a person’s yearly radiation dose is 20 millisieverts (mSv) or less. However, this dose of radiation “is much higher than the legal limit of 1 mSv allowed for people in ordinary circumstances,” the Times reported. By way of comparison, the paper noted that in Ukraine, site of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, mandatory evacuation is imposed if one’s annual radiation dose is 5 mSv or more and have “the right to evacuate” if the rate is between 1 mSv and 5 mSv.

The cut-off of housing aid is aimed at forcing evacuees to return to the fallout zones. According to the prefectural governor Masao Uchibori and Tokyo authorities, clean up of radiation-contaminated soil has improved living conditions.

The announcement caused a public outcry among evacuees and their supporters. One group helped circulate a petition, delivered to the federal government in December 2015, with over 200,000 signatures urging it to reverse the prefecture’s plans. The cut-off would halt assistance to some 12,436 households. — Japan Times, Dec. 3, 2016

Car Wash Tanks Called Radiation Threat

New radioactive twists seem endless in the aftermath of the triple meltdown’s airborne radiation releases. In Fukushima Prefecture, where cesium-137 and other “hot particles” were dispersed by explosions, fires, and fuel meltdowns, automobile owners drove their vehicles through car washes to clear off dangerous radiation.

Now, five years since radioactive fallout wafted across Japan’s largest island of Honshu, sludge in septic tanks at car washes is being found to be highly radioactive. Several thousand tons of accumulated sludge at some of the prefecture’s 1,700 auto repair operations is giving off 57,400 Becquerels of radiation per-kilogram (a Becquerel is one atomic disintegration per-second), according to information obtained by the Kyodo News service. A government-set maximum of 8,000 Becquerels-per-kilogram (Bq/Kg) is used to separate “ordinary” trash that can be disposed of in regular unregulated landfills, from more severely contaminated debris that must be treated as radioactive waste. At 57,400 Bq/Kg the car wash sludge is seven times more radioactive than the limit for ordinary waste.

Kyodo reported, “To prevent the septic tanks from overflowing, some of the maintenance facilities are manually scooping up the mud which has prompted industry groups to warn authorities about the health hazards workers face, the [auto industry] officials said.” The Japan Automobile Dealers Association, Japan Automobile Service Promotion Association and Japan Light Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle Association have complained that the Environment Ministry and Tepco have ignored their concern over what to do with the radioactive wastes.

Kunikazu Noguchi, associate professor of radiation protection studies at Nihon University in Tokyo, told Kyodo “The fact that the government failed to act on this problem for 5½ years shows its negligence. To remove sludge that contains nearly 60,000 becquerels of radioactive material per-kilogram, you need to do so with extra caution, in line with guidelines set by the Environment Ministry.”

—Kyodo, Japan Times, Nov. 6, 2016

Cesium Hits US Coast, Canadian Salmon

Radioactive cesium and other dangerous elements pouring from Fukushima have spread throughout the Pacific Ocean and accumulated at sufficient concentrations to have reached the Oregon coast. The Oregon Statesman Journal reported December 8 that researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution had found cesium-134, the so-called fingerprint of Fukushima, in seawater samples taken from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach in Oregon.

The same article reported that cesium-134 had been detected in Canadian salmon. The salmon study was led by Jay Cullen, a University of Victoria chemical oceanographer who heads a study group called the Fukushima InFORM project.

Strangely, the Statesman Journal reported that “For the first time, sea borne radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster has been detected on the West Coast of the United States.” (emphasis added) This was an odd way of highlighting the pollution since it was hardly the first time:

  • On April 10, 2012, ABC News reported that kelp along the California coast was found to be contaminated with radioactive material from Fukushima. Researchers at California State University, Long Beach found that the kelp contained radioactive iodine, cesium, xenon and other particles at levels much higher than the amounts measured before the disaster.
  • In 2012 and again in 2013, researchers reported that the levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134 measured in Bluefin tuna captured off the California coast near San Diego in August 2011, five months after the disaster began, were 10 times higher than what had been found in previous years. Bluefin tuna picked up the cesium by feeding on contaminated prey such as krill and squid, according to scientists Nicholas Fisher, Zofia Baumann and Daniel Madigan of Stony Brook University in New York who conducted the study. —Los Angeles Times, May 8; & Stanford Report, May 30, 2012, & March 4, 2013
  • On Oct. 27, 2013 the Seattle Times reported that albacore tuna, one of the West Coast’s most popular fish, caught off the coasts of Washington and Oregon were contaminated with cesium-134 that could only have come from the Fukushima releases.
  • On April 30, 2014 researchers found that 26 albacore tuna caught off the Oregon coast between 2008 and 2012 contained three times as much cesium as was found in fish before the disaster. Devlan Neville, a graduate research assistant in the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State University and lead author of a study, told the Statesman Journal that finding any amount of radiation is significant. “You can’t say there is absolutely zero risk because any radiation is assumed to carry at least some small risk.” The research also found that cesium concentrations were higher in 4-year-old fish than 3-year-old fish, confirming that some of the cesium poisoning accumulates rather than being excreted. No Oregon agency does any radiation testing on seafood, whether caught locally or imported. —Oregon Statesman Journal, April 28; & Reuters, April 29, 2014
  • A May 19, 2014 report by the California Coastal Commission said, “The leading edge of the plume appears to have reached North America off of Vancouver Island, and could possibly reach California within the next year.”

Prof. Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says the seafloor is a major reservoir for Fukushima’s cesium. Buesseler told Science in October 2012: “It looks to me like the bottom fish, the fish that are eating, you know, crabs and shellfish…, they seem to be increasing their accumulation of the cesium isotopes because of their habitat on the seafloor.” Beyond the well-known contamination of Bluefin and albacore tuna, the BBC reported on Oct. 25, 2012 that flounder, conger, Pollock, rockfish, skate and the popular US imports cod, sole and halibut—all bottom feeders—“consistently showed the highest cesium counts.”

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

December 10, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Liquid Radioactive Waste Convoys Threaten Great Lakes

“One liter of [this material] would be sufficient to ruin an entire city’s water supply.” — Dr. Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
By the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Over two dozen non-governmental organizations from Canada and the United States have asked Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Barack Obama to postpone or cancel an unprecedented series of shipments of highly radioactive liquid wste from Ontario to South Carolina, shipment that are set to pass along public roads and over bridges crossing the waters of the Great Lakes.

Plans call for 100 to 150 truckloads of liquid waste over a period of several years, from Chalk River, Ontario, to the US Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, along secret routes with heavily armed guards. The ostensible purpose is to “repatriate” the US-origin weapons-grade uranium to prevent its use in nuclear weapons, according to a program launched by President Obama in 2009. However, the waste was never intended to be moved in liquid form.

The groups are demanding that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be developed to allow for accident impact analyses by oversight agencies and the public in both countries. The groups also insist that proper notification be disseminated through the Great Lakes Executive Committee to federal agencies, state and provincial governments, tribal and municipal governments, watershed management agencies, and local public agencies, as required under the terms of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

“There is enough time for the governments to fulfill their duties under the Great Lakes 2012 Agreement and to respond to the demands of Sierra Club and dozens of other environmental groups to prepare and circulate an independent and meaningful Environmental Impact Statement that considers alternatives to this risky proposal,” said Christine Elwell, Green Energy Campaign, Sierra Club Canada Foundation.

A lawsuit was launched in US federal court calling for an injunction against the proposed shipments. On September 20, 2016, the US Department of Energy stated on the record of the suit that it was withholding shipments until after February 17, 2017, “in order to ensure compliance with all legal and contractual obligations”—in other words, until the federal judge has had the opportunity to rule on the merits of the lawsuit.

The liquid in question is now stored in a large doublewalled tank called FSST (Fissile Solutions Storage Tank) at Chalk River, Ontario, containing 23,000 liters (6,000 gallons) of an intensely radioactive and highly dangerous acidic solution.

FISST holds a bewildering variety of radionuclides that are created when uranium is irradiated in a reactor. The liquid also contains a quantity of weapons-grade Highly Enriched Uranium—essentially the same material as the nuclear explosive that was used in the Hiroshima bomb.

“Nuclear authorities in both countries have disguised the true nature of this liquid waste by calling it Highly Enriched Uranyl Nitrate Liquid” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. “In fact uranyl nitrate is only one of dozens of radioactive compounds in the liquid, and that liquid is more than 17,000 times more radioactive than the uranyl nitrate alone. Such high-level radioactive liquid has never before been transported over public roads anywhere in North America.”

There are safer, faster and cheaper ways of dealing with the waste that have already been used in Canada and elsewhere…. “There are 20 other tanks of liquid radioactive waste at Chalk River, whose contents are being solidified and stored on-site as solid waste,” said Dr. Ole Hendrickson of the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County. “Moreover, since 2003, the liquid waste that would have previously gone into the FSST tank has been routinely solidified, and up until 2011, Chalk River Laboratories was committed to solidifying the liquid contents of the FSST tank as well.”

Tom Clements, Director of Savannah River Site Watch in South Carolina, observed that “The safest and cheapest way to address proliferation concerns is to eliminate the weapons-grade uranium at Chalk River by down-blending it, leaving only low enriched uranium, which is not nuclear-weapons-usable material. In February 2016, Indonesia was given permission to down-blend its stock of US-made liquid weapons-grade uranium, thereby eliminating any need to transport the material back to the US.

The same can be done with the Chalk River liquid waste, as was explicitly delineated by Canadian authorities in 2011. The Indonesian down-blending operation is already completed, just a few months after US Department of Energy permission was given.

The Niagara councilors are unanimously opposed to the liquid waste shipments coming through the Niagara region. Gracia Janes, from Niagara-on-the-Lake, is the Environment Coordinator of the National Council of Women of Canada. She pointed out “Our regional councilors represent close to 500,000 people. Being on the edge of Lake Ontario and the Niagara River, with the unique tender fruit lands growing the best peaches in Canada, if not North America, we are very conscious of what an accident and liquid spill would mean.”

Janet McNeill of Durham Nuclear Awareness added, “Our governments must do as the Regional Municipality of Niagara Region has done: take the time to examine all the facts very carefully, put this plan under a microscope that involves investigating alternatives, and do all that in an open process, involving the public, and not under the sole jurisdiction of the nuclear industry and its all-too-compliant regulator, so that we can trust that the risks involved and the alternatives available are being fully examined and properly investigated.” —October 3, 2016

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

October 31, 2016 by Arianne Peterson Leave a Comment

US Uranium Weapons Have Been Used in Syria

This month, the Pentagon admitted it has used uranium weapons in attacks inside Syria — violating its public promise last year that it would not use DU there, and contradicting the claim that US bombing is done in defense of the Syrian people, according to the Int’l Campaign to Ban Uranium Weapons.

Like the Pentagon’s past denials of the dangers of the chemical weapon Agent Orange, US military officials still claim publicly that its uranium weapons are not known to cause health problems. Made from waste uranium-238 — left from H-bomb and reactor fuel production — it is called “depleted” uranium (DU) but is only “depleted” of U-235. Ironically, the best evidence that it is dangerously toxic and radioactive — contrary to press pronouncements — comes from the Pentagon itself. A June 1995 report to Congress by the Army’s Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) concluded: “Depleted uranium is a radioactive waste and, as such, should be deposited in a licensed repository.”

Military studies done in 1979, ‘90, ‘93, ‘95 and ‘97, make clear that uranium weapons are chemically toxic, alpha-radiation-emitting poisons that are a danger to target populations and to invading/occupying US forces alike. In spite of this cautionary written record, the military has been shooting its radioactive waste all over the world: into population centers in Iraq in 1991 (380 tons), in Afghanistan in 2001 (amounts unknown); in Bosnia in 1994-‘95 (five tons); in Kosovo in 1999 (10 tons), in Iraq again in 2003 (170 tons); and now in Syria.

The AEPI report above also says that DU has the potential to generate “significant medical consequences” if it enters the body. The Army’s Office of the Surgeon General, in its Aug. 16, 1993 “Depleted Uranium Safety Training Manual,” says that the expected effects of DU exposure include a possible increase of cancer, and kidney damage. The manual also warns, “When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk … (lung or bone) and kidney damage.”

The Army’s Mobility Equipment, Research & Development Command reported way back in 1979 that, “Not only the people in the immediate vicinity but also people at distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over exposure to air-borne uranium dust.” This uranium “dust” is generated when DU shells hit and burn through hard targets like tanks or armored vehicles. The uranium is spread for miles by the wind, contaminating everything is its path including food, water, soil, schools, hospitals, etc., and DU is radioactive forever, or ten times 4.5 billion years, whichever comes first.

In 1990, the Army’s Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command radiological task group said that DU is a “low level alpha radiation emitter … linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage.” It added that “there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero.”

With evidence of its radio-toxicity so clear and redundant, any use of uranium weapons today appears to flaunt the military’s own Field Manual prohibition — absolute and universal — against the use of poison or poisoned weapons.

Historical Disregard Revisited

The military has a long history of deliberately exposing US citizens and others to deadly risks without their knowledge or consent, beginning with the open-air nuclear bomb tests it knew would contaminate vast areas. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chose not to evacuate or even warn downwind populations it knew would be hard-hit by radioactive fallout. (“Fallout risk near atom tests was known, documents show,” New York Times, March 15, 1995) These bomb tests exposed Nevada Test Site workers to levels of radiation that the AEC knew could cause harm, but the agency chose not to reduce workers’ exposures or to even inform them of the risks because doing so would have scandalized and halted the bombing tests. (“Records say workers faced high radiation: Suit contends US used no safeguards,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 14, 1989)

Likewise, the government refused to inform some 600,000 H-bomb factory workers that workplace radiation exposures posed serious health risks, although enough was known about radiation to warn them in 1948. (“N-plant workers not told of risks: Report says US arms program exposed many to radiation,” Associated Press, Dec. 19, 1989) Between 1944 and 1974, “medicalized” human radiation experiments were even conducted on unwitting US citizens, 16,000 of them (The Plutonium Files, by Eileen Welsome).

Today, the Pentagon extends this ghastly history into Syria where it is deliberately exposing human beings to weaponized radiation that it knows can cause cancer and other diseases. As if the undeclared, unconstitutional war in Syria weren’t unlawful enough, now add the crime of using poison in violation of military law and the Hague Regulations of War on Land.

It is so easy to prove that DU is poison, that a group of four non-lawyers, myself included, convinced a Minneapolis jury in 2004 that AlliantTechsystems’ manufacture of the shells is unlawful enough to excuse an otherwise illegal trespass; our minor offense was justified in order to prevent the greater harm of DU weapons production. Like torture, the use of such poison in war is always criminal, akin to gas war. This latest US government war crime must be condemned in the harshest terms.

For more information on DU weapons and the global effort to have them banned, see ICBUW.org.

This article was published by Counterpunch on October 28, 2016 and the Duluth Reader Weekly on October 27, 2016.

Filed Under: Depleted Uranium, Radioactive Waste, War, Weekly Column

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • …
  • 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