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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

C H E R N O B Y L

How much radiation was released? A Nukewatch Fact Sheet
Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

The Chernobyl disaster’s explosions and 40-day-long fire that began in Ukraine in the former USSR April 26, 1986, spread radioactive materials to every country in the northern hemisphere—but how much? Vastly different estimates of total dispersed radiation have come from a variety of institutions, commissions, agencies and committees and are based on limited information about the amount of melted fuel and graphite left in the reactor’s wreckage in Ukraine.

• The disaster “[R]eleased a globe-girdling cloud of radiation that the US Lawrence Livermore National laboratory estimates to have exceeded 4.5 billion curies. Other estimates range as high as 9 billion curies.”

• “A staggering amount of radioactivity was released during the meltdown,” according to Joe Mangano in his book Mad Science. “Never before in history had this amount of radiation entered into the environment at one time.”

• In 2006, “The Other Chernobyl Report” (TORCH) concluded that the sum total of radioactivity released was 12 x 1018 Becquerels, or about 324.3 million curies.* TORCH estimates that about 30 percent of the reactor’s 190 tons of fuel was distributed over the reactor building and surrounding areas, about 1-2 percent was ejected into the atmosphere, and the reactor’s total inventory of radioactive noble gases (xenon and krypton) was released.

• In 2006, the Institute for Environmental and Energy Research in Maryland reported that, excluding noble gases, this largest single nonmilitary radiation release was estimated at 100 to 200 million curies.

• In 2005, the Chernobyl Forum, comprising more than 100 scientists, eight UN agencies and the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, found the total amount of radioactivity released over 10 days reached 14 “exabecquerels” (14 x 1018 Becquerels)—or 378.3 million curies.

• In 1996, Vladimir Chernousenko, a fellow of the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and chief scientific supervisor of the “clean up” team inside the 10-kilometer zone around the Chernobyl reactor, wrote that independent experts have estimated that 80 percent of the reactor’s radioactivity escaped—about 6.4 billion curies.

• Time magazine reported in 1989 that perhaps “one billion or more” curies were released rather than the 50 to 80 million curies estimated by Russian authorities.

• The Russian government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claimed in a 1986 report that 50 million curies of radioactive debris, plus another 50 million curies of rare and inert gasses were discharged. MIT nuclear engineer Alexander Sich concluded, in his 500-page doctoral dissertation, that between 200 million and 250 million curies of radioactive material were released “in the first 10 days.” Sich said the complete core meltdown spewed “far worse contamination than previously reported.”

• In May 1986, Joseph Hendrie, a former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said, “They have dumped the full inventory of volatile fission products from a large power reactor into the environment. You can’t do any worse than that.” Likewise, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Kennedy Maize concluded in 1987 that “the core vaporized”—a reference to all 190 tons of fuel and its 9 billion curies of radioactive material.

• Geneticist Valery Soyfer, a molecular biologist in the former Soviet Union, analyzed the USSR’s 1986 report to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has since been condemned as a cover-up. Soyfer says that if only 100 million curies were vented, then world “back-ground radiation doubled at once.” In November 1987, nineteen months after Chernobyl, the US National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) doubled its estimate of the average “background” radiation to which people in the US are exposed—from 170 millirem (mR) to 360 mR per-year. In 2009, the NCRP again nearly doubled its estimated average annual dose, from 360 mR per-year to 620 mR. 

The NCRP said the additional doses were “coming from exposure to medical tests such as body scans.” These medicinal scans are not safe. Some CT scans deliver the radiation equivalent of 400 chest X-rays. According to Professor David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University, “Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone.” 

The article “Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT,” published in 2001 in American Journal of Roentgenology, concluded: “In the US, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually preformed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation.”

• The US Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago estimated in June 1986 that 30 percent of Chernobyl’s total radioactivity—three billion of an estimated nine billion curies—was released. 

* One curie is a very large amount of ionizing radiation: 37 billion atomic disintegrations, or Becquerels, per- second. There are 37 billion Becquerels in every curie. 

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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima’s Cesium-137 Release Trumps Chernobyl’s

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

Most news reports about Fukushima’s triple reactor meltdowns call it the second worst radiation disaster after Chernobyl. But the Korea Atomic Energy Research (KAER) Institute, south of Seoul, reports that the Fukushima meltdowns may have emitted two to four times as much cesium-137 as the single reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl.

To determine its estimate of the total cesium-137 that was released into the environment from Fukushima, the cesium-137 release fraction (4% to the atmosphere, 16% to the ocean) was multiplied by the cesium-137 inventory for the three melted reactor cores (760 to 820 quadrillion Becquerel, or Bq), with these results:

  • Ocean release of cesium-137 from Fukushima: 121.6 to 131.2 quadrillion Bq (16% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq)
  • Atmospheric release of cesium-137 from Fukushima: 30.4 to 32.8 quadrillion Bq (4% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq)
  • Total release of cesium-137 into the Environment from Fukushima: 152 to 164 quadrillion Bq
  • Total release of cesium-137 into the environment from Chernobyl: 70 to 85 quadrillion Bq

The cesium-137 reactor inventory of 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq used by the KAER Institute is significantly lower than the US Department of Energy’s estimate of 1,300 quadrillion Bq, so it is possible the Korean estimates are low.

—Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 74, July 2014, pp. 61–70; ENENews, Oct. 20, 2014

 

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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Marshall Islands Vs. United States Dismissed, Appeal Pending

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

Last April, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) boldly sued nine nuclear weapons states in the International Court of Justice for refusing to negotiate nuclear disarmament, in violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. (See Summer 2014 Quarterly.) The RMI also filed a separate suit against the United States in Federal District Court in California, alleging the US is violating legal obligations under the treaty, which was ratified by the US Senate in 1972. 

The case is raising awareness of the NPT just as arms control organizations, disarmament groups and international law activists prepare for the UN’s 2015 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May. Thousands of nuclear weapons opponents will descend on New York City April 24, 25 and 26 for meetings, rallies and marches.*

“The Marshall Islands are desperately trying to rescue the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” wrote James Carroll January 5 in the Boston Globe—and the NPT clearly needs saving. As John Burroughs, Director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy told the New York Times, “There have never even been any multilateral negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.”

In the opening legal battle, lawyers for the RMI asked California’s Northern District federal court to reject the US government’s July 2014 claim that it cannot be compelled to comply with its NPT obligations. Then on Feb. 3, Federal District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the RMI suit, ruling that the tiny state lacked standing to bring the suit, that the case was “nonjusticiable” because it involved a political question, and that the injuries claimed “could not be redressed by compelling the specific performance by only one Party to the Treaty.”

Attorneys for the RMI will appeal California’s lower court ruling while they pursue the cases at The Hague.

—JL

* See International Peace & Planet Conference, April 24-25, & register at <www.peaceandplanet.org>

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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fracking’s Radioactive Waste: North Dakota Considers Weakened Landfill Rules, Less Oversight

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015
By John LaForge

Radioactive waste produced by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is making headlines all over gas land. The cover story of Nukewatch’s summer 2014 Quarterly reported some of the illegal dumping by fracking companies—on Indian Reservations no less—in North Dakota where a gigantic gas fracking boom is underway in the Bakken oil field.

National news coverage of the scandal led North Dakota’s legislature to consider changes to radioactive waste control law so that fracking’s contaminated wastes can be dumped in ordinary landfills.

One bill under consideration would permit fracking radioactive waste in state landfills to be contaminated with ten times the radioactivity that state law currently allows—as long as it’s covered with 10 feet of soil. The rad’ waste that’s not being haphazardly and illegally discard—no Victoria, nefarious dumping probably hasn’t ended—is now being trucked out of state at some expense.

House Bills 1113 and 1114—reportedly requested by the ND State Health Department—are being contested by some law makers and journalists who have questioned the right of the department to set its own rules.

The ND Newspaper Association and the ND Broadcasters Association complained that the bill eliminates requirements for public hearings and instead permits them “when appropriate” and even cancels public notification of the permitting process for disposition of radioactive materials.

Dave Glatt of the State Health Department told the Bismarck Tribune that the SHD commissioned Argon National Laboratory in Chicago to study the question and make recommendations. The department wanted to know “radiation limits that would be safe for workers and the public.” Glatt forgets that there are only legally permitted doses, no safe ones.

Radioactive isotopes that contaminate fracking industry waste and its machinery include radon, uranium-238, and thorium-232. According to the Health Department’s website, these long-lived pollutants come in six forms:

1) “Produced water,” which is injected underground but later brought to the surface as waste; 

2) “Sulfate scales,” which are hard, insoluble deposits that accumulate on frack sand and inside drilling and processing equipment;

3) Sludge and “filter cake” solids of mud, sand, scale and rust that precipitate or are filtered out of contaminated “produced water.” They build up in waste water storage tanks and in “filter socks”;

4) Filter socks, contaminated by “produced water”;

5) Synthetic “proppants” or sand; and 

6) Contaminated soil and machinery.

Locals are Worried

“We don’t want to have when this oil and coal is gone, to be nothing left here, a wasteland, and I’m afraid that’s what might happen” said Underwood farmer Gene Wirtz to KXNET News Reporter Ben Smith in January. Wirtz is worried about the increased radioactivity in local landfills. “Any amount of radiation beyond what you’re already getting is not a good thing,” he said to Smith.

A case in point came Jan. 6, 2015, when three-million gallons of waste water sprang from a North Dakota pipeline rupture, in Williams County north of Williston, the biggest ever in the current Bakken oil rush. Attempted containment of the leak was underway January 23 as berms were set up across Blacktail Creek to prevent the waste water from flowing into the Missouri River. The New York Times reported that the leaked waste water “may contain residue from hydraulic fracturing.” 

“Potential for harm” called “no problem” by Forbes

Writing Jan. 26 in Forbes online, James Conca turned upside-down the results of a recent Pennsylvania study of the risks of radiation exposure from gas fracking wastes.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection studied so-called “Technologically-Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material,” or TENORM, and analyzed the levels of radioactivity associated with oil and gas extraction in the state.

Mr. Conca’s column was headed, “Radiation from Fracking? No Problemo.” And Conca wrote that the PDEP study found there is “no concern of radiation exposure from fracking wells for oil or gas.”

On the contrary, the PDEP study explicitly warns of increased radiation risk from various aspects of fracking. In particular, the PDEP report warned of:

• Limited potential for radiation exposure to the public and workers from the development, completion, production, transmission, processing, storage, and end use of natural gas;

• Potential radiological environmental impacts from fluids if spilled; and

• Little potential for radiation exposure to the public and workers from landfills receiving waste from the oil and gas industry.

The PDEP report recommended additional study of radiological impacts from the use of “brine” or “saltwater” waste, called “produced water” by the ND Health Dept., from the oil and gas industry currently used for dust suppression and road stabilization.

Although the Forbes article trivializes and distorts Pennsylvania’s findings, it did say this: “With 15 million Americans living within a mile from a fracking well, this is an important result.”

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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Updates

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015
Officials Push Additional Mass Dumping of Tainted Water

The head of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority said contaminated water stored at the Fukushima complex should be released into the ocean to ensure safe decommissioning of the reactors. Shunichi Tanaka, Chair of the NRA, made the comment Dec. 12. “I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of tanks (holding water tainted with radioactive substances),” Tanaka told reporters, indicating they pose a danger to decommissioning work. “We have to dispose of the water.”

Likewise, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency said Feb. 17 that the roughly 160 million gallons of contaminated water stored on-site pose massive logistical challenges and strongly urged Japan to discharge it to the Pacific Ocean once it is treated. The conditions per liter of water reportedly are: that radioactive cesium is less than 1 Becquerel; radioactive substances that emit beta rays are less than 3 Becquerels; and the level of tritium is less than 1,500 Becquerels. —Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 13, 2014, & Jan. 22, 2015; & Los Angeles Times, Feb. 17. 2015

Waste Fuel Removed from Vulnerable Cooling Pool

After almost four years of anxiety, Tepco announced it had removed all the highly radioactive waste “spent” fuel from the damaged cooling pool above reactor 4. The building was wrecked by a powerful hydrogen explosion March 15, 2011, and since then experts have warned that another major quake could cause massive radiation releases. Each of the 1,533 fuel assemblies holds 60 to 74 fuel rods, so all 91,980 to 113,442 rods have been transferred to a less vulnerable area of the compound, the company said. Tepco faces the prospect of removing melted fuel wreckage from the cores of units 1, 2 and 3; fuel so badly mangled and emitting so much radiation that removal will take over 40 years. Some experts say removal is not even possible, only entombment. —New York Times, Dec. 20, 2014

Fukushima Radiation Plume Reaches US West Coast

A radiation plume from the March, 2011 accident in Fukushima, Japan took about 2.1 years to cross the waters of the Pacific Ocean and reach the shores of North America, according to a study published December 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study said that peak concentrations of Fukushima fallout in the Pacific could come this year and in 2016. The report claimed that levels of cesium-137 in the Pacific “are still well below natural levels of radioactivity in the ocean,” but cesium does not occur in nature and is found in the oceans only as a result of nuclear bomb testing. The bomb tests dispersed roughly 36 million curies of cesium-137. Emergency radiation monitoring by the US lasted only from March until May 2011, and no federal agencies monitor offshore waters for radiation. —Santa Cruz Sentinel, Dec. 26; Christian Science Monitor, & Washington Post, Dec. 29, 2014

A crane removes debris at the No. 3 reactor building at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Februray 23, 2012. Yomiuri Shimbun Photo
Towns to Store Cesium-Tainted Soil “Temporarily”

The mayors of Futaba and Okuma and the Governor of Fukushima Prefecture have agreed to conditional, “temporary” storage of radioactively contaminated soil and waste collected during clean-up work in the exclusion zone.

The mayors agreed to the construction of “interim” storage sites in exchange for large sums of cash and a legal commitment to again move the material somewhere outside the prefecture for final disposal within 30 years. The two towns will share about $645 million for research and construction of the sites. About 29 million cubic meters of surface soil tainted with cesium, an area the size of Luxemburg, may need permanent storage space. —World Nuclear News, March 3, 2015

Spike in Ocean-Dumped Waste Water

Cleanup crews at Fukushima monitoring a drainage gutter Feb. 22 detected a huge spike in radiation levels in wastewater pouring into the Pacific Ocean. Tepco later said the water was 70 times, or 7,000 percent more radioactive than what is allowably dumped into the sea. The company said it stopped up the drainage because of the extremely high radiation levels, and four days later admitted it first learned of the leak in April, 10 months ago. Bone-seeking strontium-90 in the water measured up to 7,230 Becquerels per liter, when 5 Bq/L is the legal limit. —Global Research, Mar. 1; Japan Times, Feb. 22; & NHK Public TV, Feb. 24, 2015

Sailors’ Lawsuit Vs. Tepco & GE

Several hundred US sailors are suing Fukushima operator Tepco and reactor builder General Electric for $1 billion in damages, alleging the illnesses they suffer come from exposure to radiation that contaminated the USS Ronald Reagan during relief operations. In a report to Congress last summer the Pentagon confirmed that, “the Ronald Reagan encountered the radioactive plume from Fukushima … on March 13,” but added, “We believe it is implausible that these low-level doses are the cause of the health effects reported by the … sailors.”

Attorney Charles Bonner, who represents more than 200 sailors and Marines, says the Navy is just wrong. “The fallacy of that is that low levels of radiation are just as dangerous as high levels…. And even at 100 nautical miles they were taking on 30 times more radiation than is normal,” he said. The 2014 Pentagon report admitted it is still finding and removing radiation from the USS Reagan.

On Feb. 12, GE asked the judge to dismiss the suit, arguing the sailors are asking for “something extraordinary and unprecedented”—compensation under domestic law for exposure to radiation emitted by a foreign nuclear power. Lawyers for the sailors lashed out at GE’s motion March 3, saying the GE reactors’ “design defects contributed to the meltdowns and, by extension, to plaintiffs’ harms.” Judge Janis Sammartino’s decision is pending. —KOMO TV News, Feb. 12; Law360, Mar. 3, & Feb. 12, 2015

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • …
  • 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