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

October 7, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radiation Exposure

radioactive wasteRadiation is a daily fact of life. It is all around us. Since radiation is naturally occurring, there should be no need to be concerned about radiation. Right? Wrong.

While radiation is indeed a fact of life, there is no such thing as a “safe” dose of radiation exposure other than that which is in fact naturally occurring. Uranium exposed though the process of mining is not naturally occurring once it is removed from the ground.

Radiation is emitted when elements break down into simpler and more stable elements. It is also created as a byproduct when certain isotopes — especially uranium and plutonium — are split apart artificially in nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors.

There are three primary forms of radiation. Alpha radiation is the least dangerous and damaging — so long as material that’s emitting alpha radiation isn’t ingested. Alpha radiation travels slowly and is easily blocked by skin or clothing. Humans are harmed by alpha radiation only if they ingest the material — for example, by eating an apple or other radioactively contaminated material or by having the contamination enter our blood stream via an open wound.

Beta radiation is a more serious threat to humans and other life forms. It has one hundred times the penetrating power of alpha radiation and is also far more ionizing (i.e., it changes the substance with which it comes into contact). It is still possible to stop beta radiation with simple measures such as aluminum foil, but still quite dangerous to the health and wellbeing of humans, especially if ingested.

Gamma radiation is by the far the most dangerous radiation. It penetrates deeply into surfaces and causes great damage very quickly, changing the structure (or killing) the cells with which it comes into contact. One need not worry about having to ingest a contaminated substance in order to be gravely harmed by gamma radiation.

So, when you hear someone say that radiation is all around us and therefore it is not necessary to worry about radiation — ask them exactly what form of radiation they are talking about.

In addition to the type of radiation that is emitted, each radioactive substance has a half-life, the length of time it takes to decay into another element. All elements strive for stability and are constantly working towards becoming stable. Elements do this by shedding off neutrons or protons (or sometimes adding them), trying to find a balance in their existence. This process creates radiation — energy-that radiates outward. Ultimately, even if it takes millions of years, the element becomes stable and stops decaying.

You can think of it as being a rubber ball bouncing on a floor. You throw the ball up into the air. Its highest level is its life. It then falls to the floor (decaying), hits the floor and bounces back up. Gravity being what it is, it bounces to exactly half the height it originally achieved — that’s the ball’s half-life. It keeps doing this until it finally reaches the point where its bounce is either so minimal that it is unobservable or the ball comes to rest on the floor.

Through this whole process, the ball is sending out waves of air — that’s the radiation. Imagine that some waves of air are simply air molecules. They arrive at you and bounce off, with no damage done — that’s the alpha radiation. Some air waves though, carry small specks of sand with them. These specks hit you and you feel discomfort. Perhaps a few enter your eye and you feel pain and discomfort. Some might enter your mouth and, as they accumulate, begin to affect your ability to breath. This is the beta radiation reaching you. And then there are the pebbles that are carried in the air waves. These strike your face and you begin to bleed. A few enter your mouth and block your air passage immediately, keeping you from breathing. This is the gamma radiation that is causing immediate damage when it touches you.

No matter how you cut it, radiation causes damage. Even when used for medical purposes, radiation causes damage (e.g., the use of radiation to treat cancer by destroying the cancerous cells). The mining of uranium and its use in the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries (as well as in the manufacture of depleted uranium weapons) brings the radioactive substances to the surface, creates fissile materials, and exposes us, animals and other living things to radiation that otherwise would rightfully be buried and contained deep underground where it can do no harm.

Filed Under: Radioactive Waste Tagged With: radiation, radioactive waste

October 7, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Radioactive Waste

Radioactive Waste

Radioactive waste originates with nuclear power, weapons, industry and nuclear medicine. It comes from uranium mining, reactor fuel fabrication and fuel reprocessing. Nuclear waste is radioactive and by nature, dangerous. It can be called “low-level, transuranic, intermediate-level or high-level depending on the country and agency categorizing the isotopes, or a label may depend on the radioactivity per mass or volume, or for what the element can be used. It can be long-lived or short-lived depending on the half-life, or the amount of time half of the isotope’s energy disintegrates. A half-life can be seconds or millions of years and the faster it decays, the more radioactive it will be. Radioisotopes are unstable configurations of elements in decay and through the decay process, radiation is emitted. Many radionuclides decay into other radioactive elements. Isotopes may be a gas, solid or liquid. Hundreds of human-made isotopes are created in nuclear reactors. Some waste can be handled by humans and some solely by robots.

Nuclear waste has been chucked into ravines, buried in shallow graves, stored in underground caverns, left to blow with the wind, thrown overboard into the sea, smelted in scrap yards and has been making its way, in increasing amounts, into our environment since its use for weapons and power became a focus for nations around the world.

Exposure to certain levels of radioactive waste may cause serious harm or death. The effect of exposure depends on the isotope and decay mode of an element. Cesium-137 is water soluble and can pass through the body and exit in urine causing less damage than iodine-131 which tends to lodge in the thyroid gland and continuously emits harmful beta and gamma radiation into surrounding tissue.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 108 sites nationwide are contaminated with enough radioactive waste as to be unusable for the foreseeable future. The Oak Ridge nuclear weapons production site contained 167 poisoned areas. While “clean up” is taking place, clean up means packaging and re-dumping in another location.

Radioactive waste has been filtered into industry and used for such things as the irradiation of food to kill pathogens, those harmful and useful to humans and industry has created radioisotope thermoelectric generators or RTH batteries for space craft.

Radioactive waste is a lethal by-product and the wisest path to take is to stop producing it.

Contact us for related articles and information.

Filed Under: Radioactive Waste Tagged With: radioactive waste

October 3, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Ominous-Looking Unidentified Object Found on Lake Superior Beach

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016
By John LaForge

A local beach comber came across a startling object August 17 while walking on the Southshore of Lake Superior near Poplar, 18 miles east of Superior, Wisconsin. The deck-of-cards-sized steel object was stamped with the warning: “CAUTION – RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL” as well as the string of letters—C2O-O8-O. The metal was also stamped with a version of the standard radiation symbol which looks like a ceiling fan with wide blades. The alarmed hiker called the Douglas County Sheriff, and a deluge of official emergency responders soon descended on the small village.

When the story became public, long-time residents of the area called or emailed the Nukewatch office wondering about the Army Corps of Engineers and its dumping of corporate military wastes in the big lake in the 1960s and ‘70s.

The 9th District US Coast Guard office issued a press release from Cleveland, Ohio that noted “federal, state and local agencies worked jointly to determine the contents and source of a mysterious container found on the beach near the mouth of the Poplar River.” However, none of the eight agencies involved were able to determine either contents or the source of the strange object.

The Coast Guard’s press release said, “Initial responders from the US Coast Guard and Superior, Wisconsin, Fire Department determined the metal was not emitting any radioactivity. A follow-on investigation by the Wisconsin National Guard Civil Support Team and Wisconsin Department of Health Services ensured there was no radiation source from the surrounding area and that the object was not a hazard to the public.”

First responders swooped into the little town (pop. 603) from Green Bay and Madison, both five hours away, to examine, take custody, and ultimately dispose of the mysterious item. According to the US Coast Guard, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Wisc. Department of Health Services, the Wisc. Department of Natural Resources, the Wisc. National Guard Civil Support Team, the Superior Fire Department, the Douglas County Sheriff, and the Douglas County Emergency Management office were all involved.

The Coast Guard also said, “The object has been removed by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for proper disposal.” The reference to “proper disposal” of harmless, nonradioactive metal was not explained.

Nukewatch asked several participants about the unusual event and the out-sized response. It was the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Unit (MSU) in Duluth that first sent a team to the Poplar River site, along with the Superior Fire Dept. Lt. Commander Jerry Butwid of the MSU, told me his office sent a team to the site because, “We were 30 minutes away” while the EPA had to travel from Green Bay. Asked if the team identified the origin of the object, Butwid said, “No. We were just the ‘eyes-on-the-scene’ and did some basic generic testing.” Butwid said the Wisconsin Department of Health Services “had jurisdiction and they took it away.”

Lt. John Mack at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit in Duluth said he knew of no additional photographs of the box that might aid in identifying its owner or manufacturer. “I don’t believe we took that photo,” Mack said, “maybe the fire department.”

Steven Panger, Chief of Superior Wisconsin Fire Department (SFD), told Nukewatch, “We had a few other pictures, but they’re the same,” adding, “Actually those were from the resident [who found the object]. She sent them to us.” The Coast Guard press release included one photograph of the item with the credit, “US Coast Guard photo,” perhaps done to protect the privacy of the beach walker.

The SFD produced a routine incident report of the finding that included remarks by two members of the department’s four-person Regional Chemical Assessment Team. Captain Andrew Knutson reported that while no additional markings were found on the metal, “It was however discovered that at some time the device appeared to be affixed to something and had been ripped off. The back side appeared to have been torn open revealing that the device was empty.” Sgt. Ed Bunayon of Wisconsin National Guard’s 54th Civil Support Team in Madison was also sent to Poplar. Bunayon, who said his unit “specializes in WMDs,” thought the item “looked like a cover of something like a smoke detector. But it was old, nothing like equipment we see today.”

Paul Schmidt of the Radiological Emergency Response section of the Wisc. Dept. of Health Services said his report of the event was not yet available. “We did an extensive area survey, to determine there was no radiation,” Schmidt said. Jason Hunt who led the department’s response team said Sept. 7 that the report was complete but being reviewed prior to publication. Both men said their investigations failed to determine the container’s origin.

Without access to the various departmental incident reports, no connection to the Army Corps of Engineers’ decades-long history of Lake Superior dumping could be established.

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

October 3, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Federal Nuclear Waste Site Search Team Lampooned at Minnesota Hearing

Energy Department’s “Consent-Based” Plan Slammed
Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016
 By Kelly Lundeen

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota—On July 21, the Department of Energy (DOE) held the last of eight hearings it dubbed “Consent-Based Siting” sessions regarding its plans for disposing of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste from commercial reactors. For over 60 years, the roughly 60,000 tons of this waste has been accumulating at reactor sites, and the DOE is again publicly collecting input on how to choose a disposal site. Using its so-called “consent-based” initiative, the DOE is compiling comments regarding a framework for the process of finding a community that would accept decades of dangerous shipments and bury or store the waste. The DOE received less than a warm welcome at the Minneapolis Hilton.

Nukewatch staff member Kelly Lundeen plays the role of Potential Waste Host Community during the “Radioactive Green Eggs and Ham” action at the July DOE hearing in Minneapolis.

Nukewatch attended, along with supporters and allies that politely lambasted the DOE staff and its paid participants. Anti-nuclear activists traveled from as far away as Texas (Sustainable Economic and Energy Development Coalition), Illinois (Nuclear Energy Info. Service), Delaware (Green Delaware), and Nevada (NV Nuclear Waste Task Force), as well as Minnesota (North American Water Office, Women Against Military Madness, Legalectric, Friends of Coldwater).

Nuclear waste specialist Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear called the initiative “an elaborate fishing expedition conducted to test the strength of public opposition.”

Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information & Resource Service was critical of the DOE’s process too, and wrote Nukewatch in an email: “Individuals in the Department of Energy, who were part of the short-lived Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, believe that during the commission’s term there were ‘volunteer’ sites for waste storage that came forward (Waste Control Specialists in Texas is one), and they decided to engage in what they believe is a consent-based waste storage siting process now, even though a change in federal law will be required to actually move the waste. The meetings were held to provide a public-participation component to this law-less act.”

The DOE’s meetings have been condemned for many reasons, among them:

  • Bailing out the nuclear industry—Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the DOE took responsibility for finding a storage site, and it committed to taking ownership of the waste as soon as it left the site of the utilities producing it. The act gave nuclear utilities free reign to produce radioactive waste for decades without having to worry about the cost of disposal or accidents. The nuclear industry wants this waste removed from its premises before more accidents happen. Since the DOE has yet to find a permanent disposal site, the utilities have successfully sued the DOE for missing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act deadline and forcing their continued onsite storage! This corporate welfare is one more way the government props up the industry. The industry’s desire to get rid of the waste is what is driving the process for choosing a disposal site before there is sufficient thought given to a permanent geologic repository or a long term solution.
  • Involving pro-nuclear lobby at all levels—While the nuclear industry is behind the push for moving waste reactor fuel out of the hands of the companies that produced it, the nuclear industry is also in front of this push! The pro-nuclear lobby group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) was on the panel of speakers for the DOE meeting. Nukewatch recently exposed this group’s leverage over the government when pro-nuclear industry legislation to eliminate pre-conditions on new reactor construction passed in Wisconsin (See Summer 2016 Quarterly).
  • DOE’s growing credibility gap—When an institution as trustworthy as the DOE is asking for “consent” about something, there is cause for suspicion. The violation of the Treaty of Ruby Valley in attempting to build the high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain despite strong objections from the Western Shoshone First Nation, the pressure put on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute in Utah to house a high-level waste storage site, and the failure to meet cleanup requirements of the Tri-Party Agreement at the Hanford Reservation in Washington are only a few reasons for the great credibility gap the DOE has created for itself.
  • Ignoring previous public input—The collection of another volume of public comments gives the impression that the authorities have not heard from the public. On the contrary, the DOE has mountains of expert and public opinion on the question of waste disposal from hundreds of individuals and groups, collected for decades, much of it shelved and ill-considered if not ignored. For example, over 200 safe energy organizations representing all 50 states have signed onto and urged implementation of Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) principles—developed by Dr. Arjun Makhajani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research—for improving reactor-site waste storage facilities.
  • Leaving “Consent-based” undefined—It is necessary to have an agreed-upon definition of “consent” for the DOE process to be consensual, but according to Dave Kraft of Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago, reports that DOE officials have said that consensus may mean different things at different times and at different places. Carol Overland of Legalectric in Red Wing, Minnesota spoke at the meeting about “affirmative consent” in the context of violent assault, replacing the word “sexual” with “nuclear.” She said: “Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated … Incapacitation may be caused … if monetary consideration is received and not publicly disclosed. Consent cannot be given when it is the result of any coercion, intimidation, force or threat of harm. When consent is withdrawn, or can no longer be given, nuclear activity must stop.” Also, when speaking of consent, we must ask from whom it is being sought. The DOE is not seeking consent from communities along waste transport routes; and it is impossible to obtain consent from the thousands of future generations that will be affected.
  • Ignoring the WCS application—Of the eight consent-based siting public meetings held around the US, none were anywhere near the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) site in west Texas, the only place that has submitted an application to accept the waste. Nor was it acknowledged by the DOE that entertaining such applications from private companies completely bypasses DOE’s own process of consent-based siting.
Radioactive Eggs and Ham

With DOE’s dog and pony show set for stage, Nukewatch decided that an appropriate role would be to add our own circus act; “Radioactive Eggs and Ham,” a parody of Dr. Seuss’s 1960 children’s book Green Eggs and Ham, riddled with radioactive references was written by me for Nukewatch specially for this meeting. The Q & A dialogue was read by two characters, the DOE and the Potential Waste Host Community. The DOE was played by Nukewatch member Roger Cuthbertson and Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) Board Member Carol Walker. The Potential Waste Host Community was played by Nukewatch members Elena Hight, Austin Sims and me.

When it came time for John Kotek, the DOE’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, to speak, Roger, portraying the DOE, stole the stage proclaiming:

“I am the DOE. The DOE am I.”

One of the representatives from the DOE stood up to try to quiet Roger, but then from the other side of the room the Potential Waste Host Community responded: “That DOE. That DOE. / I don’t like nuclear energy.”

The DOE representative flailed his arms, discouraged, and sat down.

Roger, portraying the DOE character, continued, “Do you like radioactive waste?”

The Potential Waste Host Community answered, “I do not like radioactive waste.”

Mr. Kotek was still trying to speak and follow the prepared agenda, but even with the microphone he did not drown out the parody.

Roger’s DOE character insisted, “Would you like it here or there?”

The Potential Waste Host Community answered, “I would not like it here or there. / I would not like it anywhere. / Stop making radioactive waste. / I do not like it anyplace.”

Several people tried to prevent the disruption and one even said, “Is there anybody here who has the authority to remove these people?”

No one did. Eventually the Acting Assistant Secretary backed away and surrendered the microphone as we took over the meeting for another three minutes.

After hearing several suggested waste sites made by the DOE character in the skit, the Potential Waste Host Community countered, “I could not, would not, in a borehole. / It is not safe, or under control. / I will not take it on a train. / You should not drive it through the rain. / Not on a truck! Not next to me! / Not through my yard! You let me be! / I do not like it in Arizona. / I do not like it in Minnesota. / I will not take it in Massachusetts. / I will not take it to Yucca Mountain. / I do not like it here or there. / I do not like it anywhere! / Stop making radioactive waste! / I do not like it anyplace.”

Finally the DOE character asked, “You do not like it, so you say. / What shall we do to save the day?”

The Potential Waste Host Community concluded, “Stop making radioactive waste! / Don’t transport it all over the place. / Keep it on site / and save the human race!”

The tone for the remainder of the meeting had been set. Ridiculous claims made by the DOE were met with booing from the audience. During the Q & A period, 11 of 13 questions were critical of the DOE. When it came time for public comment, the denunciations were even more scathing thanks to a well-prepared, well-informed group of speakers that has been working against nukes for decades.

The federal process of seeking waste disposal sites is driven by the nuclear industry whose legal and financial liability will be lifted when its wastes are transferred to federal agencies. The DOE also needs to appear responsive to concerned citizens and has learned this lesson the hard way after facing opposition to the Yucca Mountain site and to earlier waste dump proposals. Now it feels it is necessary to build the image that it is seeking public input at an early stage in the process, and to use benign-sounding terms like “consent.” These moves mean that control of the country’s nuclear future has shifted slightly in the right direction. We will need to maintain public pressure to make sure that nuclear power becomes our nuclear past.

See the entire 57-page Public Meeting transcript including Nukewatch’s disruptive parody (pp. 7-9) and Carol Overland’s comments (p. 49) and read all of “Radioactive Eggs and Ham” to use in your community at www.nukewatchinfo.org.

 

 

 

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

October 3, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

 South Carolina Advisory Group Votes “No” on Rad Waste Imports

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2016

On July 26 the Savannah River Site (SRS) Citizens Advisory Board in South Carolina voted ‘no’ on two “position statements;” first, against any acceptance of German nuclear reactor waste at SRS, and second, against any US commercial waste fuel storage at SRS. Though resolutions by this state advisory board aren’t binding, they reflect public sentiment and will likely impact DOE decisions on the two issues. Dozens of groups including the SC League of Women Voters, Don’t Waste Aiken, Carolina Peace Resource Center, the Aiken Peace & Conservation Voters, and members of the Sierra Club worked to educate the board. The positions will be reviewed in one year, so the campaign will continue.

—Tom Clements, Savannah River Site Watch, July 27; and Aiken Standard, July 26, 2016

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • …
  • 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