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

Fukushima, Japan

Fukushima Japan

Earthquake & Tsunami Stagger six Japanese Reactors Radiation Released, Fuel Melting, Broad Evacuations Ordered

Spring 2011 Nukewatch Quarterly

By John LaForge and Bonnie Urfer

News from northwest Japan is changing minute by minute after the record-breaking March 11 earthquake and tsunami-caused radiation disaster involving at least six nuclear reactors. For the first time since the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe in Ukraine, scrolls at the bottom of TV screens are warning, “Fuel melting at nuclear reactors,” and chances of multiple core meltdowns and massive radiation releases were being warned of by the government and by independent observers alike.

The enormous radiation risks posed by the out-of-control reactor operations forced the government in Tokyo, 140 miles away, to declare its first ever “nuclear emergency” at three complexes, Fukushima Daiichi I, Fukushima Daini II, and Onagawa, with a combined total of 13 reactors. By Tues. Mar. 15, the International Atomic Energy Agency had declared the radiation crisis a level 6 disaster on its 1-to-7 scale.

As we go to press, at least seven workers were missing after explosions rocked three reactors at the Diiachi site. The hydrogen blasts, plus two fires that broke out in the site’s irradiated waste fuel pool, caused radiation levels to spike outside the facility. Consequently, authorities ordered the evacuation of at least 500,000 people from a 13-mile radius around the complex, warned people not to drink from public water sources for fear of contamination, told others to stay indoors in spite of severe earthquake aftershocks, and began the voluntary testing of people for contamination — all while struggling to cool down three failed reactors.

The 8.9 magnitude Miyagiken-Oki earthquake of March 11 — the worst in Japanese history — struck on a busy Friday afternoon. The epicenter was 80 miles off the Northeast coast of Japan’s biggest island, Honshu, but the quake’s enormous power, and the impact of the resulting tsunami, crashed the electrical grid, cut power to over 4 million buildings, and forced the shutdown of 11 of Japan’s 55 power reactors.

The tsunami — which reached the terrifying height of 30 feet in some places — smashed with full force directly into the coastal face of the sprawling Daiichi complex, with six reactors, and to a lesser degree into the Daini site, seven miles to the south, with four.

The earthquake, the staggering tsunami and electrical blackout that resulted meant that emergency reactor cooling systems needed to kick in. But six reactors (three at Fukushima I and three at Fukushima II) completely lost cooling ability after the tsunami knocked out all 13 emergency backup generators. These back-up generators are essential during emergencies to circulate cooling water through the extremely hot reactor cores (3,400 degrees) and around the ferociously radioactive waste fuel which is kept in pools of cooling water.

Without cooling water and with back-up battery power having failed as well, the overheated fuel rods inside three Diiachi reactors boiled off their coolant and their exposed fuel rods rapidly began melting. The extreme danger is this situation is the breaching of a reactor vessel and a massive release of radiation. Having no power to operate cooling systems, the government (using military helicopters and soldiers trained for chemical, biological and nuclear warfare) rushed to deliver heavy replacement batteries to the site in order to pump or inject coolant into the cores.

All six of the failed reactors, owned by the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), were in some danger of melting down. The government, in an eerie parallel to the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania, issued ever-widening evacuation orders over the course of the emergency. On Friday, it set a 3 kilometer radius, then 10, and then — after a massive explosion in Daiichi reactor 1 at 4:30 p.m. local time, March 12 — increased the evacuation to 20 kilometers, or 12.5 miles. That explosion tore apart the containment building that houses the reactor, leaving only skeletal wreckage around the core.

Reuters reported March 11 that pressure inside the failed Unit 1 reactor core had increased to 2.5 times its designed capacity, according to the Japanese Nuclear Safety Agency. At the same time, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told the press that Unit 2 “remains at a high temperature,” because it “cannot cool down.” The venting of gas to relieve this pressure filled Unit 1’s containment structure with volatile hydrogen, according to the Safety Agency, and led to the explosion.

A second hydrogen explosion occurred Monday and destroyed the containment structure housing Daiichi Unit 3. In a sign of the operator’s utter loss of control, the Associated Press reported that fuel rods at Daiichi Unit 2 were completely uncovered. The blast injured 11 workers and released as much radiation in an hour as would normally be expected in six months. It exposed at least 160 people to high doses and 22 received treatment for radiation poisoning.

The government, obviously fearing a large radiation release, on Saturday began preparing the distributing potassium iodide pills which can inhibit the uptake of radioactive iodine-131 by the thyroid. Reactor accidents can disperse huge volumes of radio-iodine which, in the body, seeks the thyroid and causes thyroid cancer.

Prof. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City University of New York, told ABC News on Monday, “Thank god the vessel itself, which contains the super-hot uranium, was intact. If it had ruptured you’re talking about an accident that is beyond comprehension,” to which the ABC replied: “That could still happen.”

This indeed may be what happened next. At 6 p.m. local time the 14th, a third explosion shook Daiichi Unit 2 where all the coolant had been lost and where fuel was reported to have been completely exposed. This third explosion was significantly different from the first two, since it caused a burst of radiation to be reported by the government. Observers speculated that the blast could have broken open the reactor core which may now be venting high levels of radiation to the environment.

In a last-ditch effort to cool the fuel inside the cores at Daiichi’s units 1, 2 and 3, the government and Tepco began injecting them with sea water, but the effort appeared too slow to keep the coolant from boiling away from the hot fuel. This “Hail Mary” use of seawater was only grudgingly allowed by Tepco, since salt water’s corrosive and clogging character means the reactors will be ruined and permanently closed.

According to news reports, fuel in Unit 1 has been uncovered to as much as 6 feet. Confirmation of melted fuel came Sunday March 13 when radioactive cesium-137 was detected outside the reactor, according to Yuji Kakizaki, a spokesman for Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

As Dr. Kaku told ABC News: “Japan’s reactors are the safest in the world, but they were never designed to handle this big a quake. The seawater dump is a last-ditch effort. The alternative is to expose the core, let it melt and create a steam explosion that will blow the reactor apart.”

Radiation inside buildings including the control room at the failed Daiichi Unit 1 reached 1,000 times normal operational levels at one point Saturday, according to Tepco. This radioactivity doubtlessly was dispersed to the environment by the Unit 1’s explosion. Indeed, the Onogawa complex to the north (with three reactors) declared its own “nuclear emergency” that day — because radiation there had risen to “higher-than-permitted” levels. The government later claimed that radiation blown from the explosion at Daiichi 1 had caused the increased contamination.

Japanese industry watchdogs who translated a government report on the unfolding events Saturday found a dire prediction from the safety agency. It warned that if new cooling water couldn’t be pumped into Daiichi Units 1 and 2 by 10 p.m. local time Saturday the 12th, the fuel would be uncovered. This is what happened in Units 1, 2 and 3 where the superheated fuel began melting. Because of failed cooling systems at four other reactors, melting of fuel was highly likely at all of them.

The watchdog group, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo, reported that Tepco’s official website assures the public that radiation monitoring outside its reactors “goes on around the clock year round.” However, CNIC reported March 11 that the company said at the bottom of the same webpage, “This system is currently shutdown.”

The group’s independent monitoring of radiation levels was not possible because of government evacuation orders. This has left the Japanese public and the world with only the government and company officials to rely on regarding radiation levels. The CNIC activists were skeptical about the shutdown of the monitors and suggested that it was an attempt to downplay the severity of radioactive releases.

Throughout the emergency, Japanese Prime Minister Kan repeatedly declared on television that none of the reactors were in any danger, even after Tepco announced it had begun venting contaminated steam and gas from the failed reactors’ containment structures. With the venting underway at up to five reactors, safety agency spokesman Ryohei Shiomi had the nerve to declare, “Radiation spread by the venting won’t be at a level dangerous to health.” Regulatory agencies all acknowledge that even the slightest radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer.

Although the quake’s epicenter was eight miles below sea level and 231 miles northeast of Tokyo, its power shook and destroyed buildings there.

After a September 30, 1999 radiation accident killed two workers and contaminated over 400 residents in Tokaimura, the Japanese were jolted. The New York Times reported, “many here are wondering if a wariness over nuclear hazards borne of this accident will not, indeed should not, lead to an eventual phasing out of the industry altogether.” Yet even after a 2007 quake flooded and shuddered four reactors on the other side of the island, and after five workers in the Mihama reactor were burned to death by high-pressure steam exploding from a burst duct in 2004, the country still ignores the radiation industry’s incalculable risks.

— John LaForge & Bonnie Urfer are on the staff of Nukewatch, the nuclear watchdog group in Wisconsin, and report on nuclear power and weapons in the Nukewatch Quarterly.

plume

Tens of thousands of news articles can be read online to keep you updated on the nuclear crisis in Japan. Below are resources we have found helpful.

Japan’s Earthquake and subsequent nuclear disaster

The Low Level Radiation Campaign is updating their information daily. Follow the link below.
http://www.llrc.org/

Watch coverage from Japan at:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv

Karl Grossman
http://envirovideo.blip.tv

Contact us for related articles and information from Nukewatch.


Greenpeace
Lessons from Fukushima

February 2012

Full Report
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/nuclear/2012/Fukushima/Lessons-from-Fukushima.pdf

Executive summary
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/nuclear/2012/Fukushima/Lessons-from-Fukushima.pdf

Filed Under: Fukushima Tagged With: fukushima, japan, nuclear power

October 7, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Chernobyl

[ezcol_1half]

chernobyl Chernobyl after the number 4 reactor exploded.
[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]

chernobyl cover

The Chernobyl barrier constructed immediately after the explosion.

[/ezcol_1half_end]

Nukewatch Fact Sheet (PDF Download) – Chernobyl: How much radiation was released?

Nukewatch Quarterly articles

April 23, 2011

WALK FOR A NUCLEAR-FREE FUTURE
Coverage on Fox 11 News from the Wisconsin Fox Valley
Marchers Remember Chernobyl

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/marchers-remember-chernobyl

Marchers remember Chernobyl

25 years since Chernobyl

Saturday, 23 Apr 2011, 9:24 PM CDT
Published : Saturday, 23 Apr 2011, 6:33 PM CDT

FOX 11, WLUK-TB Green Bay, Wisconsin reporter: Beth Jones

KEWAUNEE – Protesters hit the streets in Kewaunee County opposed to the area’s two nuclear power plants.

Saturday’s action follows ongoing troubles with damaged nuclear plants in Japan.

It also marks the approach of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine.

It’s been almost exactly two and a half decades since the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.

Those who lived near the plant in the Ukraine back then say it was a tough time for everyone.

“I just remember the emotional impact it had on people and even to this day, 25 years ago, I’m keenly aware of the radiation being in the fallen leaves in the fall, in the tap water,” explained former Ukraine resident, Natasha Akulenko.

Natasha Akulenko lived through that disaster and now is marching in protest of nuclear power plants to prevent another.

More than two dozen people from all over the state protested peacefully around the Kewanee Power station and Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant.

Members of the non-profit group, “Nukewatch,” say they want to promote a nuclear-free future, in remembrance of what happened at Chernobyl, and what is ongoing at damaged plants in Japan.

“We just think the risks are too high to justify operation of nuclear reactors,” said Nukewatch Co-Director John LaForge.

The two nuclear power plants combined produce enough electricity to power more than one million homes in Wisconsin.

But marchers feel there are better alternatives to nuclear power.

“We’re asking for the phase out of nuclear, and its replacement with renewables like wind, and solar and energy efficiency,” said “Beyond Nuclear” group member, Kevin Kamps.

Marchers say they don’t want what happened in Chernobyl or Fukushima to happen here, and they believe it could.

The Associated Press reported earlier this month that both plants drew extra attention several years ago from regulators because of spotty safety records.

However officials say operating under new ownership the plants have improved those safety grades.

Point Beach officials say safety remains their number one priority.

“It’s about having redundant systems in place,” said Point Beach Communications Manager, Sara Cassidy. “It’s about having back up diesel generators that are ready in case we need them. It’s all about doing what we can to make sure we’re promoting public health and safety.”

The Kewaunee Power Station is licensed to 2033.

Point Beach is licensed to 2030 and 2033.

And in addition to federal regulators, these protesters say they too will continue to keep a watchful eye on the plants.

FOX 11 did contact the Kewaunee Power Station, however no one was available for comment.

Contact us for related articles and information.

 

Filed Under: Chernobyl Tagged With: chernobyl, nuclear power

October 7, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

On The Bright Side

sundaysmallNuclear disarmament and safe, cheap alternatives to nuclear power are in the news. Japan is getting along without 54 of 54 reactors using simple conservation and efficiency mandates. Nuclear is not necessary.

This page is dedicated to the happy news.


 

Contact us for related articles and information.

Filed Under: On The Bright Side Tagged With: nuclear, nuclear power

October 7, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic, unsustainable, contributes to rather than prevents climate change, produces persistent, highly radioactive toxic waste, creates terrorist targets, promulgates nuclear weapons and is unnecessary. New investment in it robs resources from clean, renewable and safe energy production.

Nuclear Power Dead in the Water it Poisoned

By John LaForge, Nukewatch Staff

Cover story, CounterPunch magazine, March 2014, Vol. 21. No. 2, pp. 10-14

On Feb. 11, 1985, the cover page of Forbes thundered, “The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.…”

Fourteen months later, reactor No. 4 at Chernobyl exploded and burned for 40 days, spreading radioactive fallout across the entire Northern Hemisphere, depositing cesium-137 in Minnesota’s milk and Japan’s topsoil.

So how is it that Congressional representatives, TV network pundits, FOX ditto heads and even CNN program directors still promote nuclear power?

Part of the answer comes from American University researcher Judy Pasternak and her students. According to Pasternak’s 2010 study, the nuclear industry spent $645 million over 10 years lobbying Capitol Hill, and another $63 million in campaign contributions over the same period. Between 1999 and 2008, these millions manufactured the canard that nuclear power is “carbon free,” “clean” and can “help fend off climate change.” Prior to this spending blitz, the US nuclear power program was, because of the shock of accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, “pretty well dead in the water” — in the words of economist and author Jeremy Rifkin. …

Download the full, footnoted article here.

Nuclear Power Too Expensive, Too Dangerous

Commentary by John LaForge

Duluth News Tribune, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010

Lofty claims about the benefits of nuclear power have been coming from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s lobbyists and others. Yet news journals, financial journals and energy journals all make clear that boiling water with uranium is the costliest and dirtiest energy choice.

Even Time magazine reported, on Dec. 31, 2008, that, “New [reactors] would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive.”

Florida Power and Light’s recent estimate for a two-reactor system was a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported on nuclear’s prospects on May 12, 2008, finding that, “The projected cost is causing some sticker shock [and is] double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.”

No less than Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the world’s richest nuclear engineering firms, discouraged new reactor construction because of financial liabilities. In the Nov. 18, 2007, LondonFinancial Times, Immelt said, “If you were a utility CEO and looked at your world today, you would just do gas and wind. You would say [they are] easier to site, digestible [and] I don’t have to bet my company on any of this stuff. You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming.”

The estimates never even include the cost of managing radioactive waste, a bill that keeps coming for centuries. The New York Times reported five years ago that the owners of nearly half the reactors in the U.S. “are not reserving enough money to decommission them on retirement.” The newspaper’s sources were Congressional auditors, who also said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not tracking the money carefully.

Radioactive tritium has poisoned groundwater near at least 14 reactors in the U.S., including in Kewaunee, Wis. Groundwater is contaminated with tritium above Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowances under the communities of Braidwood, Ill., Dresden, Ill., Brookhaven, N.Y., Palo Verde, Ariz., Indian Point, N.Y., Diablo Canyon, Calif., San Onofre, Calif., and Kewaunee.

Nuclear is so dirty Germany legislated a national phase-out of its 17 reactors by 2025. That 1998 decision was based partly on government studies that found high rates of childhood leukemia in areas near German reactors. In July 2007 the European Journal of Cancer Care published a similar report by Dr. Peter Baker of the Medical University of South Carolina that found elevated leukemia incidence in children near U.S. reactors.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., complained to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2005: “The nuclear industry and the NRC have automatically dismissed all studies that link increased cancer risk to exposure to low levels of radiation. The NRC needs to study — not summarily dismiss — the connection between serious health risks and radiation released from nuclear reactors.”

The Oxford Research Group’s 2007 study, “Too Hot to Handle,” called the hope of quickly building new reactors a “pipe dream.” In his 2008 book, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said, “Even the leaders of the nuclear industry have said that they will not build new plants without 100 percent federal loan guarantees.”

Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, wrote “The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power” in 2008, noting, “While little private capital is going into nuclear power, investors are pouring tens of billions of dollars into wind farms each year. And while the world’s nuclear-generating capacity is estimated to expand by only 1,000 megawatts this year, wind-generating capacity will likely grow by 30,000 megawatts.”

The Washington Post reported less than two months ago that “leading environmental figures, including former Vice President Al Gore, remain skeptical of nuclear’s promise.” That’s due to the high cost of construction and the threat of nuclear-weapons proliferation. Leading security and big-business figures are skeptical for similar reasons.

The U.S. Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has called for ending subsidies that would expand nuclear power. In its Oct. 21 report, “The Clock Is Ticking,” the commission recommended that the “U.S. … work internationally toward strengthening the non-proliferation regime … discouraging, to the extent possible, the use of financial incentives in the promotion of civil nuclear power.”

Nuclear power’s pollution burden already is carried by the public. This is bailout enough. The industry should not also be allowed to unload on us its overwhelming financial risks.

— John LaForge of Luck, Wis., is a staff member for the independent action group Nukewatch and edits its quarterly newsletter.


President Barack Obama on radiation exposure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAqiGSp29c


Contact us for related articles and information.

Filed Under: Nuclear Power Tagged With: nuclear power

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

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