November 2nd, 2009
Clinton says nuke offer to Iran won’t be changed
MARRAKECH, Morocco — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that the nuclear offer to Iran, intended to restrain its potential for making a nuclear weapon, should be fully accepted by Iran and will not be changed.
“This is a pivotal moment for Iran,” she said at a news conference after consulting with senior government officials from several Persian Gulf nations, plus Egypt, Morocco and Jordan.
“We continue to press the Iranians to accept fully the proposal that has been made, which they accepted in principle,” Clinton said. “Acceptance fully of this proposal … would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated and does wish to cooperate with the international community.” She said Iran should accept it as it stands, “because we are not altering it.”
The head of the U.N. nuclear agency urged Iran on Monday to clarify its response to the proposal that would have Tehran ship most of its nuclear material abroad for processing. The plan is backed by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://blog.taragana.com/n/clinton-says-offer-to-iran-on-exchanging-low-enriched-uranium-will-not-be-altered-215450/
Showing posts with label nuclear cycle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear cycle. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
a hard rain (problems with nuclear power and uranium mining)
Comment: Why is Virginia chasing nuke power, you should have seen the bunch I saw today that is supposed to represent the people of VA. They are willing to blow up our hills for uranium mining for nuke plants! No to Nuke Power and No to Uranium Mining!
View excerpt of A Hard Rain:
A Hard Rain
This is a documentary that had to be made! Twice Academy award nominee and five times AFI winner David Bradbury’s latest contribution, A Hard Rain, explores the ‘other side’ of the nuclear debate.
Governments and most mainstream media are promoting that nuclear is now an attractive alternative to fossil fuels .
Traversing five countries – China, France, UK, Japan and Australia, and using what Bradbury learnt from his previous three nuclear documentaries (Public Enemy Number One, Jabiluka and Blowin' in the Wind), A Hard Rain takes a closer look at the global nuclear industry in its entirety – from the mining of uranium through to the nuclear power plant to the radioactive waste and weapons manufacturing. It exposes the hidden agendas behind this latest push for Australia to go nuclear.
Included are interviews with some of the world's top scientists and environmentalists on the subject such as Dr Rosalie Bertell from Canada, Dr Chris Busby from the UK, and from Australia, Dr Mark Diesendorf (Ex CSIRO) from the Environmental Institute at the University of NSW, Prof. Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Dr Gavin Mudd from the Monash University Engineering Department.
By looking at the experience of countries overseas that have gone nuclear, A Hard Rain debunks some of the myths of the nuclear industry: that nuclear is safe, cheap, health and green with little chance of another Chernobyl happening.
If you want vital and factual information to debate the issue intelligently and overthrow the myths that the nuclear and pro uranium mining lobby has so successfully implanted in the media, in the government and the Labor Party, then this documentary is a must see.
http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/videos/hardrain.htm
View excerpt of A Hard Rain:
A Hard Rain
This is a documentary that had to be made! Twice Academy award nominee and five times AFI winner David Bradbury’s latest contribution, A Hard Rain, explores the ‘other side’ of the nuclear debate.
Governments and most mainstream media are promoting that nuclear is now an attractive alternative to fossil fuels .
Traversing five countries – China, France, UK, Japan and Australia, and using what Bradbury learnt from his previous three nuclear documentaries (Public Enemy Number One, Jabiluka and Blowin' in the Wind), A Hard Rain takes a closer look at the global nuclear industry in its entirety – from the mining of uranium through to the nuclear power plant to the radioactive waste and weapons manufacturing. It exposes the hidden agendas behind this latest push for Australia to go nuclear.
Included are interviews with some of the world's top scientists and environmentalists on the subject such as Dr Rosalie Bertell from Canada, Dr Chris Busby from the UK, and from Australia, Dr Mark Diesendorf (Ex CSIRO) from the Environmental Institute at the University of NSW, Prof. Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Dr Gavin Mudd from the Monash University Engineering Department.
By looking at the experience of countries overseas that have gone nuclear, A Hard Rain debunks some of the myths of the nuclear industry: that nuclear is safe, cheap, health and green with little chance of another Chernobyl happening.
If you want vital and factual information to debate the issue intelligently and overthrow the myths that the nuclear and pro uranium mining lobby has so successfully implanted in the media, in the government and the Labor Party, then this documentary is a must see.
http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/videos/hardrain.htm
Monday, October 5, 2009
Writer: Va. Tech has a major conflict (uranium mine)
Comment: VA Tech is a state school, control by the state of Virginia! The money for the study comes directly from VUI to NAS; the state of Virginia needs to disown the study since a private, for profit corporations is paying for the study!
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: October 5, 2009
To the editor:
I think it’s a bit disingenuous for Dr. Michael Karmis, the director of the Virginia Center for Coal & Energy Research at Virginia Tech and a professor in its Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, to say Tech’s nuclear engineering program has “nothing to do with Coles Hill.” (“Va. Tech: Study not conflict of interest,” Oct. 1, page A1).
Professors and graduate students of Virginia Tech’s Departments of Geosciences and Hydrogeosciences have already been on-site at Coles Hill performing various studies and tests on the unmined uranium ore body. According to Robert J. Bodnar, a professor with Tech’s Geosciences Department: “All of these studies are telling us something about the subsurface — the rocks, when the rock type changes, where the major faults are. All those pieces of information are critical to understanding the ore deposit as it exists today, and that will be very useful information as the company (VUI) starts to develop the deposit in the future.” (“Beneath the Surface, Virginia Tech conducts research at Coles Hill” by Tim Davis, Star-Tribune, Sept. 10, 2008. Online source: http://www.virginiauranium.com/pdf/Beneath_the_Surface.pdf)
Clearly Virginia Tech’s studies at Coles Hill are contributing to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the mining and milling of uranium.
Karmis is also well aware of the ongoing “nuclear renaissance” where the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power production, is being promoted by nuclear power companies like Areva to have more nuclear power plants built. This, according to nuclear power proponents, is to offset the country’s growing energy needs and dependence on fossil fuels. Areva, Dominion Power and Oak Ridge National Laboratories are working with Southeastern universities like Virginia Tech to help meet the goal of training more nuclear engineers to run the planned nuclear power plants.
Let’s not forget a “nuclear renaissance” would also benefit VUI in creating the need for more uranium. Increasing the “need” will raise the price of uranium and make it profitable to mine the ore body at Coles Hill.
Finally, Karmis’ statement that nuclear engineers “don’t care where uranium comes from” may be true, but Tech’s having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its backyard would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure. The waste management aspect (tailings, holding ponds and long-term storage, e.g., Superfund planning), I suspect, would turn up in Virginia Tech’s curriculum.
As much as I admire Virginia Tech, for it is a fine institution of learning, I see a clear conflict of interest in its “implementing” the money VUI will pay to the NAS to perform a “research study.”
ANNE COCKRELL
Danville
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/writer_va._tech_has_a_major_conflict/14372/
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: October 5, 2009
To the editor:
I think it’s a bit disingenuous for Dr. Michael Karmis, the director of the Virginia Center for Coal & Energy Research at Virginia Tech and a professor in its Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, to say Tech’s nuclear engineering program has “nothing to do with Coles Hill.” (“Va. Tech: Study not conflict of interest,” Oct. 1, page A1).
Professors and graduate students of Virginia Tech’s Departments of Geosciences and Hydrogeosciences have already been on-site at Coles Hill performing various studies and tests on the unmined uranium ore body. According to Robert J. Bodnar, a professor with Tech’s Geosciences Department: “All of these studies are telling us something about the subsurface — the rocks, when the rock type changes, where the major faults are. All those pieces of information are critical to understanding the ore deposit as it exists today, and that will be very useful information as the company (VUI) starts to develop the deposit in the future.” (“Beneath the Surface, Virginia Tech conducts research at Coles Hill” by Tim Davis, Star-Tribune, Sept. 10, 2008. Online source: http://www.virginiauranium.com/pdf/Beneath_the_Surface.pdf)
Clearly Virginia Tech’s studies at Coles Hill are contributing to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the mining and milling of uranium.
Karmis is also well aware of the ongoing “nuclear renaissance” where the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power production, is being promoted by nuclear power companies like Areva to have more nuclear power plants built. This, according to nuclear power proponents, is to offset the country’s growing energy needs and dependence on fossil fuels. Areva, Dominion Power and Oak Ridge National Laboratories are working with Southeastern universities like Virginia Tech to help meet the goal of training more nuclear engineers to run the planned nuclear power plants.
Let’s not forget a “nuclear renaissance” would also benefit VUI in creating the need for more uranium. Increasing the “need” will raise the price of uranium and make it profitable to mine the ore body at Coles Hill.
Finally, Karmis’ statement that nuclear engineers “don’t care where uranium comes from” may be true, but Tech’s having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its backyard would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure. The waste management aspect (tailings, holding ponds and long-term storage, e.g., Superfund planning), I suspect, would turn up in Virginia Tech’s curriculum.
As much as I admire Virginia Tech, for it is a fine institution of learning, I see a clear conflict of interest in its “implementing” the money VUI will pay to the NAS to perform a “research study.”
ANNE COCKRELL
Danville
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/writer_va._tech_has_a_major_conflict/14372/
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
AWTW: Nuclear Bhopal’s for India’s people?
Birth defects from uranium mining, Jadugoda, India
Comment: A picture of little hands can tell about the problems of Nuke Cycle! Why is American pushing the Nuke Cycle? On the other hand, America says, it will stop Nuke Bombs! America government is lying to the world or they would not hire a Nuke Bomb maker in the Dept. of Energy!
Kasama received this article from A World To Win News Service.
31 August 2009.
Posted by n3wday on September 8, 2009
A World to Win News Service. In mid-July Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to India with a deadly agenda.
31 August 2009.
Posted by n3wday on September 8, 2009
A World to Win News Service. In mid-July Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to India with a deadly agenda.
India feared a change in its relations with the U.S. under the new Obama government. Further, with Clinton’s visit coming only days after the G-8 meeting of the developed countries of the world including the U.S. had reaffirmed a commitment to not pass along enrichment and nuclear reprocessing technology to non-signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India, a non-signatory of this treaty, may have thought it had cause for concern.
But Clinton unabashedly informed the world, “We have just completed a civil nuclear deal.
But Clinton unabashedly informed the world, “We have just completed a civil nuclear deal.
If it is done through proper channels and safeguarded, then it is appropriate. ” (india-server. com/news/ hillary). India remained a “global partner”, she said, and the two countries would proceed with agreements initiated by Bush on military issues (the sale of billions of dollars worth of U.S. airplanes and military technology) and civilian nuclear deals.
She continued, “I’m so pleased that Prime Minister Singh told me that sites for two nuclear parks for U.S. companies have been approved by the government. These parks will advance the aims of the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, facilitate billions of dollars in U.S. reactor exports, and create jobs in both counties, as well as generate much-needed energy for the Indian people.” The two sites are of “significant acreage” and have forested buffer zones to allow for future expansion. (Frontline, 1 August 2009, tni.org) They are in Andhra Pradesh, where Maoists lead the masses in a people’s war that is often in sharp conflict with the Indian government’s encroachment on tribal lands, and in Gujarat. In both states anti-government feeling runs high among the poor and downtrodden.
Her visit received scant publicity in the Western press.
She continued, “I’m so pleased that Prime Minister Singh told me that sites for two nuclear parks for U.S. companies have been approved by the government. These parks will advance the aims of the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, facilitate billions of dollars in U.S. reactor exports, and create jobs in both counties, as well as generate much-needed energy for the Indian people.” The two sites are of “significant acreage” and have forested buffer zones to allow for future expansion. (Frontline, 1 August 2009, tni.org) They are in Andhra Pradesh, where Maoists lead the masses in a people’s war that is often in sharp conflict with the Indian government’s encroachment on tribal lands, and in Gujarat. In both states anti-government feeling runs high among the poor and downtrodden.
Her visit received scant publicity in the Western press.
In India, news of the Clinton visit was big and controversial.
One the one hand, Indian industrialists (like Ratan Tata) salivate at the possibilities of this new deal.. On the other hand, the anti-nuclear forces promise a tough fight, and have joined ranks with the Indian section of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB) to protest this agreement. They are outraged by the U.S. demand for the enactment of an Indian law to protect American companies against liability for future disasters like the poison gas leak in Bhopal 25 years ago.
In 1984 a pesticide manufacturing plant owned by the U.S. company Union Carbide leaked a cloud of 42 tons of toxic chemicals into the air of the densely populated city of Bhopal. Of the 800,000 people living in the city, 8,000 to 10,000 died within 72 hours. About 300,000 were injured. As many as 25,000 have died from gas-related causes since then.
The worst hit area was the slum next to the factory. Most of the victims were poor people from villages who had moved to the city in search of jobs. “Many– particularly children and the elderly – died in their beds as the gas seeped into their homes. Others, including women clasping babies, fled only to collapse in the street. Many were later found, huddled, sick and dying in the city’s doorways. Herds of oxen lay dead and the bodies of goats littered the roadsides where they used to roam. Leaves on the trees were yellow and shrivelled – crops in the fields were scorched and covered with a fine white film.” (BBC, 28 August 2002).
In Bhopal today there are abnormally high levels of skin cancer, lung cancer, gastro-intestinal cancer, genetic defects, serious menstrual problems and miscarriage rates seven times the national average. Survivors suffer from poor co-ordination, memory loss, partial blindness, paralysis and impaired immune systems. Often their babies are born with deformities. Now, on average one person dies per day, with 100,000 suffering from chronic illness. Every day 4,000 people queue at the city’s gas relief hospitals with ailments ranging from damaged lungs and severe heart problems to wrecked immune systems and diseases such as tuberculosis. (AWTWNS, 14 February 2005)
None of the four safety systems were in operation due to budget cutbacks at the Union Carbide plant. The company refused to listen to the warnings by the doctor at the plant. She wanted a plan of action for evacuating the people living in the neighbourhood in case of a leak and she left her job before the disaster to protest the company’s inaction.
Insisting there was sabotage, to this day Union Carbide (now owned by the Dow chemical company) refuses to accept responsibility for this tragedy. Instead they negotiated a settlement of $470 million paid to the Indian government to distribute. This meant a measly sum of $400 to each of the victims.
The head of Union Carbide at that time, Warren Anderson, was arrested by the local government and charged with homicide when he travelled to India after the 1984 disaster. But due to pressure from the U.S. government he was released on bail immediately. Since then he has not presented himself to the court. India has an extradition treaty with the U.S. but the Indian government has shown no desire to start extradition proceedings against him.
The Bhopal disaster is the backdrop for Clinton’s negotiations with the Indian government over the nuclear plants to be set up by two multinationals, General Electric (U.S.-based and one of the largest corporate polluters in that country) and Westinghouse Electric (majority owned by Toshiba).
In 1984 a pesticide manufacturing plant owned by the U.S. company Union Carbide leaked a cloud of 42 tons of toxic chemicals into the air of the densely populated city of Bhopal. Of the 800,000 people living in the city, 8,000 to 10,000 died within 72 hours. About 300,000 were injured. As many as 25,000 have died from gas-related causes since then.
The worst hit area was the slum next to the factory. Most of the victims were poor people from villages who had moved to the city in search of jobs. “Many– particularly children and the elderly – died in their beds as the gas seeped into their homes. Others, including women clasping babies, fled only to collapse in the street. Many were later found, huddled, sick and dying in the city’s doorways. Herds of oxen lay dead and the bodies of goats littered the roadsides where they used to roam. Leaves on the trees were yellow and shrivelled – crops in the fields were scorched and covered with a fine white film.” (BBC, 28 August 2002).
In Bhopal today there are abnormally high levels of skin cancer, lung cancer, gastro-intestinal cancer, genetic defects, serious menstrual problems and miscarriage rates seven times the national average. Survivors suffer from poor co-ordination, memory loss, partial blindness, paralysis and impaired immune systems. Often their babies are born with deformities. Now, on average one person dies per day, with 100,000 suffering from chronic illness. Every day 4,000 people queue at the city’s gas relief hospitals with ailments ranging from damaged lungs and severe heart problems to wrecked immune systems and diseases such as tuberculosis. (AWTWNS, 14 February 2005)
None of the four safety systems were in operation due to budget cutbacks at the Union Carbide plant. The company refused to listen to the warnings by the doctor at the plant. She wanted a plan of action for evacuating the people living in the neighbourhood in case of a leak and she left her job before the disaster to protest the company’s inaction.
Insisting there was sabotage, to this day Union Carbide (now owned by the Dow chemical company) refuses to accept responsibility for this tragedy. Instead they negotiated a settlement of $470 million paid to the Indian government to distribute. This meant a measly sum of $400 to each of the victims.
The head of Union Carbide at that time, Warren Anderson, was arrested by the local government and charged with homicide when he travelled to India after the 1984 disaster. But due to pressure from the U.S. government he was released on bail immediately. Since then he has not presented himself to the court. India has an extradition treaty with the U.S. but the Indian government has shown no desire to start extradition proceedings against him.
The Bhopal disaster is the backdrop for Clinton’s negotiations with the Indian government over the nuclear plants to be set up by two multinationals, General Electric (U.S.-based and one of the largest corporate polluters in that country) and Westinghouse Electric (majority owned by Toshiba).
The companies are loath to miss out on lucrative possibilities but worried about having to pay for any tragedies they might create in their drive for profit. They are concerned about being at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to their rivals, the French company Areva and Russian Rusatom. These companies are already immune from liability because they are considered “sovereign”, that is, fully or partially controlled by their governments.
While the details of the India liability law for the U.S. companies are not fully worked out, one anonymous Indian minister told a reporter: “The draft of the Nuclear Liability Bill is ready. What this will do is indemnify American companies so that they don’t have to go through another Union Carbide in Bhopal.” (Frontline)
In an article at tehelka.com, activist and journalist Nityanand Jayaraman writes “Areva and Rusatom are already in the race to supply nuclear plant equipment to India.
But private sector players like GE and Westinghouse say they will not invest until India ratifies the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSCNL) and installs a domestic civilian nuclear liability regime.
They want no part of the liabilities arising out of a Bhopal-like disaster. Rather, they say, the entire liability in the event of a catastrophe should be borne solely by the Indian operator of the facility.
Like his predecessor, President Obama is pushing India to guarantee that the Union Carbides of the nuclear world suffer no losses regardless of the role that may be played by their equipment and technology in causing the disaster.”
Jayaraman concludes, “At a time when neither the U.S. nor the Indian government has done anything to address the lingering liabilities of the Bhopal disaster, it is unacceptable to project U.S. multinationals as the only real victims of the Bhopal disaster, and take steps to immunize them from liabilities in the future.”
What kind of tragedy can one expect from a nuclear disaster for which U.S. companies do not want liability?
The Frontline article describes the hazards associated with nuclear power. “Each stage of the so-called nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to fuel fabrication, and from the operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors to the handling or reprocessing of spent fuel, is fraught with exposure to ionising radiation. Radiation is a unique and long-acting poison that causes chromosomal damage even in small doses – and hence cancer and genetic damage. Radiation cannot be neutralised or destroyed. And there is no threshold below which it is safe.
“Nuclear power generation, as well as the transportation and handling of nuclear materials, inevitably exposes occupational workers to radiation. It is also fraught with routine emissions and effluents that are hazardous to the public in the vicinity. It leaves behind wastes, which remain dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years… The economic lifespan of a nuclear reactor is only 30 or 40 years. But it remains hazardous for thousands of years.”
Twenty-three years ago the Chernobyl nuclear explosion and fire released four hundred times more radioactive fallout than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Fallout drifted as far north as Ireland. Despite heroic efforts on the part of firefighters whose boots melted into the radioactive mess as they battled flames, 4,000 people died in the nearby area. In the Ukraine alone, those designated as permanently disabled by the Chernobyl accident rose from 200 in 1991 to 64,500 in 1997 to 91,219 in 2001. (International Herald Tribune, 25 August 2009)
Clinton’s visit to India took up other, no less significant issues like military agreements of strategic import to the U.S. We have focused here only on one glaring aspect. The deals to export U.S. nuclear technology to India that the Obama administration is pushing through will be worth $20 billion in sales. The dangers and potential damage that may be inflicted on the broad masses of Indians are incalculable.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/awtw-nuclear-bhopals-for-indias-people/#more-13219
While the details of the India liability law for the U.S. companies are not fully worked out, one anonymous Indian minister told a reporter: “The draft of the Nuclear Liability Bill is ready. What this will do is indemnify American companies so that they don’t have to go through another Union Carbide in Bhopal.” (Frontline)
In an article at tehelka.com, activist and journalist Nityanand Jayaraman writes “Areva and Rusatom are already in the race to supply nuclear plant equipment to India.
But private sector players like GE and Westinghouse say they will not invest until India ratifies the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSCNL) and installs a domestic civilian nuclear liability regime.
They want no part of the liabilities arising out of a Bhopal-like disaster. Rather, they say, the entire liability in the event of a catastrophe should be borne solely by the Indian operator of the facility.
Like his predecessor, President Obama is pushing India to guarantee that the Union Carbides of the nuclear world suffer no losses regardless of the role that may be played by their equipment and technology in causing the disaster.”
Jayaraman concludes, “At a time when neither the U.S. nor the Indian government has done anything to address the lingering liabilities of the Bhopal disaster, it is unacceptable to project U.S. multinationals as the only real victims of the Bhopal disaster, and take steps to immunize them from liabilities in the future.”
What kind of tragedy can one expect from a nuclear disaster for which U.S. companies do not want liability?
The Frontline article describes the hazards associated with nuclear power. “Each stage of the so-called nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to fuel fabrication, and from the operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors to the handling or reprocessing of spent fuel, is fraught with exposure to ionising radiation. Radiation is a unique and long-acting poison that causes chromosomal damage even in small doses – and hence cancer and genetic damage. Radiation cannot be neutralised or destroyed. And there is no threshold below which it is safe.
“Nuclear power generation, as well as the transportation and handling of nuclear materials, inevitably exposes occupational workers to radiation. It is also fraught with routine emissions and effluents that are hazardous to the public in the vicinity. It leaves behind wastes, which remain dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years… The economic lifespan of a nuclear reactor is only 30 or 40 years. But it remains hazardous for thousands of years.”
Twenty-three years ago the Chernobyl nuclear explosion and fire released four hundred times more radioactive fallout than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Fallout drifted as far north as Ireland. Despite heroic efforts on the part of firefighters whose boots melted into the radioactive mess as they battled flames, 4,000 people died in the nearby area. In the Ukraine alone, those designated as permanently disabled by the Chernobyl accident rose from 200 in 1991 to 64,500 in 1997 to 91,219 in 2001. (International Herald Tribune, 25 August 2009)
Clinton’s visit to India took up other, no less significant issues like military agreements of strategic import to the U.S. We have focused here only on one glaring aspect. The deals to export U.S. nuclear technology to India that the Obama administration is pushing through will be worth $20 billion in sales. The dangers and potential damage that may be inflicted on the broad masses of Indians are incalculable.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/awtw-nuclear-bhopals-for-indias-people/#more-13219
Sunday, September 6, 2009
U: Father Frank urges caution on new uranium mining, nuclear
Comment: Is this Virginia future? Demand our government to ban uranium mining and milling now!
Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com
Father Frank heard the call of the Church after spending a year working at a chemical plant in coal-rich Silesia, Poland.
It could have been worse. He tells me of another priest he knows who heard it only after staring at a mule’s butt year after year as he plowed his fields. Not exactly a Road to Damascus event in either case, but for Father Frank Kurzaj the industrial background was perfect staging ground for the ordeal ahead that was Panna Maria, Texas.
While others in Kurzaj’s family kept on with coal, Kurzaj, now the head of San Antonio’s St. Paul’s Catholic Church, wound up in the middle of a fight over toxic uranium mining, processing, and dumping in the South Texas Polish community of Panna Maria in Karnes County.
He counseled parishioners stricken with cancer, couples unable to conceive, labored over the faith-challenging questions that can follow birth defects, and worked with two families near the dump whose children were born dually sexed as hermaphrodites.
And he helped organize the Panna Maria Concerned Citizens to help give the community a voice in the public hearings taking place in the late 1980s.
Although the uranium boom that had swept across a wide band of South Texas — from Falls City clear down near Laredo — was already beginning to wane with the collapse of world uranium prices, it was the Chevron dump just west of Panna Maria that remained a huge source of tension thanks to the contaminated water beneath it.
While legal settlements have since sealed many mouths regarding the events of this time (just as a state Department of Health statistical report affectively smothered a more appropriate chromosomal study conducted by a UTMB toxicologist’s study, but that’s for another post), Kurzaj remains candid in his assessment, and cautious in his pronouncements.
Mining can be done, if it is done right, he says. However, the influence of money almost guarantees that public health rides in the back seat.
I spoke with this pragmatic priest last week to hear what advice he may have for San Antonio, preparing to vote on the expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear complex, and for South Texans, likely to see a significant return of uranium mining activity if the much-trumpeted Nuclear Renaissance ever actually flourishes.
[On that note, things seem to be dimming: According to The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 2009:
Even if Finland and France each builds a reactor or two, China goes for an additional 20 plants and Japan, Korea or Eastern Europe add a few units, the overall worldwide trend will most likely be downwards over the next two decades. With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more, it will be practically impossible to maintain, let alone increase the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. The one exception to this outcome would be if operating lifetimes could be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average; there is currently no basis for such an assumption.]
While the priest's actions in the field have earned Kurzaj veneration of many an anti-nuclear activist, the man is not reflexively anti-nuclear or against uranium mining. His utilitarian approach to nature (the Hawaiian islands were lifted from the sea so people would be able to live there, he suggests during our talk) put him in fairly conservative company.
“My personal view on this issue is that you can do this, if we have these natural resources, they are not given to us that they will stay there,” he said. “The earth serves a purpose and we can use the natural resources to benefit people and humanity, but we have to do it with some kind of respect, with some kind of understanding.”
That respect and understanding was deeply lacking in Karnes County, he says. And he is adamant that residents of Panna Maria were regularly lied to by industry and the state concerning the safety of mining, milling, and dumping.
“The dumping was done over there and people were not aware of the consequences of being in this area. They were lied to, simply by telling them everything is under control.”
It is that experience that suggests to Kurzaj that politics and greed make the safe use of nuclear energy highly unlikely.
He’s learned how language is manipulated to seal a deal. A “leak” becomes “seepage,” and “waste” becomes “by-product.”
“If the water is contaminated and the cattle and people cannot drink it, what this land is for? For nothing. Or if you cannot conceive over there, because genes are damaged? You can live there, you can have a nice home, but you cannot have kids. Maybe you do not want to have kids. That’s okay with me. But maybe you want to have kids. Then they’ll put a big beautiful sign: ‘The historical place of Panna Maria. Polish people came here in 1854 and noboby lives here because it’s contaminated.’”
Of course, people still live in Panna Maria. On the back side of the dump — the side the leak is reportedly on — goats and turkeys are being raised, apparently for meat. This is most likely one of the homes Chevron (or was it General Atomics, who later bought the dump and absorbed the liability?) piped potable water to. No one was home when I stopped by.
---
To hear from others who lived through the Panna Maria fight, you can check out the testimonies collected by Sharon Stewart as part of her Toxic Tour of Texas.
Posted by gharman on 9/6/2009 2:22:07 PM
http://www.sacurrent.com/blog/queblog.asp?perm=69921
Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com
Father Frank heard the call of the Church after spending a year working at a chemical plant in coal-rich Silesia, Poland.
It could have been worse. He tells me of another priest he knows who heard it only after staring at a mule’s butt year after year as he plowed his fields. Not exactly a Road to Damascus event in either case, but for Father Frank Kurzaj the industrial background was perfect staging ground for the ordeal ahead that was Panna Maria, Texas.
While others in Kurzaj’s family kept on with coal, Kurzaj, now the head of San Antonio’s St. Paul’s Catholic Church, wound up in the middle of a fight over toxic uranium mining, processing, and dumping in the South Texas Polish community of Panna Maria in Karnes County.
He counseled parishioners stricken with cancer, couples unable to conceive, labored over the faith-challenging questions that can follow birth defects, and worked with two families near the dump whose children were born dually sexed as hermaphrodites.
And he helped organize the Panna Maria Concerned Citizens to help give the community a voice in the public hearings taking place in the late 1980s.
Although the uranium boom that had swept across a wide band of South Texas — from Falls City clear down near Laredo — was already beginning to wane with the collapse of world uranium prices, it was the Chevron dump just west of Panna Maria that remained a huge source of tension thanks to the contaminated water beneath it.
While legal settlements have since sealed many mouths regarding the events of this time (just as a state Department of Health statistical report affectively smothered a more appropriate chromosomal study conducted by a UTMB toxicologist’s study, but that’s for another post), Kurzaj remains candid in his assessment, and cautious in his pronouncements.
Mining can be done, if it is done right, he says. However, the influence of money almost guarantees that public health rides in the back seat.
I spoke with this pragmatic priest last week to hear what advice he may have for San Antonio, preparing to vote on the expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear complex, and for South Texans, likely to see a significant return of uranium mining activity if the much-trumpeted Nuclear Renaissance ever actually flourishes.
[On that note, things seem to be dimming: According to The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 2009:
Even if Finland and France each builds a reactor or two, China goes for an additional 20 plants and Japan, Korea or Eastern Europe add a few units, the overall worldwide trend will most likely be downwards over the next two decades. With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more, it will be practically impossible to maintain, let alone increase the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. The one exception to this outcome would be if operating lifetimes could be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average; there is currently no basis for such an assumption.]
While the priest's actions in the field have earned Kurzaj veneration of many an anti-nuclear activist, the man is not reflexively anti-nuclear or against uranium mining. His utilitarian approach to nature (the Hawaiian islands were lifted from the sea so people would be able to live there, he suggests during our talk) put him in fairly conservative company.
“My personal view on this issue is that you can do this, if we have these natural resources, they are not given to us that they will stay there,” he said. “The earth serves a purpose and we can use the natural resources to benefit people and humanity, but we have to do it with some kind of respect, with some kind of understanding.”
That respect and understanding was deeply lacking in Karnes County, he says. And he is adamant that residents of Panna Maria were regularly lied to by industry and the state concerning the safety of mining, milling, and dumping.
“The dumping was done over there and people were not aware of the consequences of being in this area. They were lied to, simply by telling them everything is under control.”
It is that experience that suggests to Kurzaj that politics and greed make the safe use of nuclear energy highly unlikely.
He’s learned how language is manipulated to seal a deal. A “leak” becomes “seepage,” and “waste” becomes “by-product.”
“If the water is contaminated and the cattle and people cannot drink it, what this land is for? For nothing. Or if you cannot conceive over there, because genes are damaged? You can live there, you can have a nice home, but you cannot have kids. Maybe you do not want to have kids. That’s okay with me. But maybe you want to have kids. Then they’ll put a big beautiful sign: ‘The historical place of Panna Maria. Polish people came here in 1854 and noboby lives here because it’s contaminated.’”
Of course, people still live in Panna Maria. On the back side of the dump — the side the leak is reportedly on — goats and turkeys are being raised, apparently for meat. This is most likely one of the homes Chevron (or was it General Atomics, who later bought the dump and absorbed the liability?) piped potable water to. No one was home when I stopped by.
---
To hear from others who lived through the Panna Maria fight, you can check out the testimonies collected by Sharon Stewart as part of her Toxic Tour of Texas.
Posted by gharman on 9/6/2009 2:22:07 PM
http://www.sacurrent.com/blog/queblog.asp?perm=69921
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Nuclear Power is NOT OK!
Comment: Some unbias science about Nuke Power!
February 28, 2006
Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Rm 281 Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A4
Re: IICPH Response to the Ontario Power Authority Proposal
Dear Mr. McGuinty,
I am writing to express the concern of the Institute for the lack of due consideration of the health effects of the continued reliance on nuclear power electricity generation as delineated in the Ontario Power Authority’s Integrated Power Supply Plan.
We have a very deep concern with the process whereby the government is making its decisions so far. Without a full exploration of the health effects from nuclear waste and, particularly, particulate radiation from nuclear reactors, I fear that the true hazards to health will not be disclosed. I attended the consultation held in Toronto on the evening of February 15th, which amply demonstrated to me and to others who attended that the process was flawed.
Having now received the brochure, “Our Energy, Our Future “ in the mail, there is no doubt that only an inquiry by an independent impartial person such as a judge, where expert witnesses would be called to give evidence concerning the health safety of nuclear power plants, will suffice.
Otherwise, the interests of Ontarians and others downwind and downstream will not be served.
The bias toward the messages espoused by the proponents of nuclear generation of electricity is simply too evident. From accounts I received, very little was discussed about the health effects of particulate radiation from nuclear power plants. Indeed, there was no opportunity to refute the statements put forth by a proponent for nuclear as those of us who could have done so were cut off without a chance to speak by the moderator.
Setting aside the immense cost of nuclear power plants, their vulnerability to nuclear accidents, earthquake damage, (Pickering sits on the side of Frenchman’s Bay near two fault lines), terrorist attacks, their need for shutdowns for expensive repairs, the fact that they leak radioactivity into our environment and as they age, this leakage increases, setting that all that aside, what is the big problem?
Pickering and Darlington power plants are very close to huge populations, the Greater Toronto Area, the Golden Horseshoe and some of the most precious farmlands in the province. What devastation there would be if we had a nuclear accident in this most important area, not only to the people themselves, but to the whole economy of the country! Although our nuclear power plants have a good reputation for safety, there are acts of nature that can cause problems, which if not responded to properly can lead to a nuclear accident. These include such things as earthquakes, thunderstorms, floods and unusual wind conditions Human error can play an important role in meltdowns. There is also the danger of terrorist attacks. Setting all that aside, the most serious threat is that of nuclear waste. From the mining, smelting, refining and manufacture of fuel rods to the actual production of electricity, nuclear waste is produced.
Nuclear Power Plants produce dangerous nuclear waste. They emit radioactive substances into the air and water, in small amounts, but frequently.
The solid waste, used fuel rods, contaminated equipment, protective clothing, etc., the plant itself, when finally decommissioned, provide a problem for which there is no suitable secure long-term means of disposal. An organization set up to find a solution, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), wrestled with this problem. Their recommendations did not, in our opinion, produce a safe solution. There is none! Nuclear waste has long been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry.
Radioactive emissions into air and water at low levels are frequent from nuclear power plants**.** These are most troubling because they add to the nuclear radiation that is already present in our soil, air and water1. This comes from radiation that occurs naturally to all the so-called “background radiation”, residuals from the atomic bomb, testing of bombs, nuclear accidents, the mining, refining and transportation of uranium, the use of radioactive weapons such as depleted uranium, and from the myriads of nuclear power plants around the world. In the U.S. and I believe, in Canada too, the radiation emitted from a nuclear power plant in one year is considered “background radiation” the following year. This is a shell game. It sounds so benign that those lacking knowledge of the nature of ionizing radiation might think it is gone. Of course, it is not really gone, just minutely degraded depending on the half-life of the particular radioisotopes involved. Particulate radiation will remain radioactive depending on the radioisotope from which it is derived. Some half-lives are exceedingly long.
CANDU (heavy water reactors) used in Ontario’s nuclear power plants emit tritium into the air in puffs of steam from their stacks and into surface water on a regular basis. CANDUs emit more than 100 times the tritium released from other reactor designs and also 40 times more Cesium-141. See the report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Forestry, Energy and Environment called “The Eleventh Hour” released in January 1988.
Tritium (H-3) is a radioisotope of hydrogen with two neutrons. The rest of the atomic weight comes from one proton. It has a half-life of 12.5 years. It is emitted from a nuclear power plant in the white puffs of steam from its stacks and in water discharged into surface water. Tritium, as a chemical, combines with oxygen just like ordinary non-radioactive hydrogen, forming tritiated water, HTO. It is of concern because it goes wherever water goes whether gaseous, surface or ground water. Tritiated water will go a long way from its source. It is rapidly transported and can travel for long distances. It easily binds with organic molecules and can concentrate in the DNA2.
Since most of the human body is made up of water, this is a very great concern. Of the tritium you inhale or ingest, 90 % leaves the body quickly, whereas 10% can become joined to organic molecules including proteins and to DNA itself. So here and there these atoms of tritium are radiating in the human body. Every living thing in our biosphere is dependent on water. People who live near nuclear power plants are receiving tritium in the air they breathe and from drinking water on a regular basis. Since children breathe in proportionally more, they are generally more seriously affected. They also play in the dirt. Anyone who eats produce or drinks milk from areas where soil is contaminated by tritium will receive tritium into their bodies. Guess who drinks a lot of milk? Children, babies and nursing mothers do.
Measuring comparative levels of tritium in water is becoming more difficult as more areas are contaminated. For instance, in the Screening Report of 2002, the tritium levels taken from 15 water supply plants in communities across Ontario were used as background controls for the water specimens used to measure tritium levels from the effluent from nuclear power plants. Since tritium can travel a long way from its source, some of the control areas could very well have been within the groundwater/surface water areas affected by the nuclear power plants. Therefore, their estimates of “background” would not be accurate.
Regulations and Standards
For the most part, the nuclear industry takes direction for allowable emissions from nuclear power plants from the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). These standards are not health based, but rather, a risk/benefit trade-off. The regulations for the industry are based on cancer deaths and not on the other myriad health effects of low-level radiation, which include teratogenic and genetic effects and autoimmune diseases. Dr. Bertell believes that it is clear from study of the atomic bomb research that focusing on fatal cancers was a research simplification, chosen for simplicity of calculation, and it was not meant to claim that the only health effects from exposure to radiation were cancers3.
There is also serious discussion among radiobiologists about the inadequacy of the ICRP model for dose and dose-response, based on the physics model. There is growing agreement that it is inappropriate for application to internal alpha emitters4. Both NATO and the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sureté Nucléaire (IRSN)5, the French Official Radiation Protection Association, have found the ICRP methodology to be faulty. The Report of the European Committee for Radiation Risk (ECRR) presents a more up-to-date model for calculating health risks. Unlike the ICRP, the ECRR uses evidence from the more recent research and new discoveries in radiation biology and human epidemiology, to create a system of calculation which gives results that are in agreement both with the mechanism of radiation action at the level of the living cell and observation of disease in exposed populations.
The ECRR considers the present risk model of the ICRP essentially flawed. “The Committee concludes that the ICRP justifications are based on outmoded philosophical reasoning, specifically the averaging cost-benefit calculation of utilitarianism.” Dr. Rosalie Bertell in her article “Can the ICRP be Trusted to Set Radiation Standards?” states, “The regulations are not a demarcation between safe and unsafe. They are just an arbitrary decision as to how much the public should be willing to tolerate for the benefit of the activity”6.
As early as the 1950s and 60s, some physicists and other scientists were looking at the possible connections to radiation of mutations and autoimmune diseases. The following quote is taken from Chapter 11 of Principles of Radiation Protection, a textbook written for Health Physicists edited by Karl Z. Morgan7, and J.E. Turner published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1961. It is taken from Chapter 11 Section 11-7 written by P.R.J. Burch, formerly of the Dept. of Medical Physics, University of Leeds, U. K. The quote in turn references himself and R.G. Burwell in the Quality Review of Biology, Vol.40, p. 252, 1965.
“If radiation is capable of inducing the same type of mutation as that which occurs spontaneously, then the problem of assessing the effects of radiation on initiation of autoimmune diseases is entirely analogous to the problem of radiation carcinogenesis described in Section 11-6. … Nevertheless, it seems quite likely that rather similar spontaneous and radiation mutational mechanisms (spontaneous and induced DNA strand switching) are implicated in the pathogenesis of both autoimmune and malignant conditions”7.
The official NATO report was dated August 1992, and was submitted to the Defence Ministry in Paris on June 29, 2005.
The Hormesis Theory
Consideration of the health effects of nuclear power generation in the industry appears to be influenced by the Hormesis Theory, which advances the opinion that low dose exposure to ionizing radiation induces “beneficial” effects. Dr. Bertell, in the above noted document, (Ref. 3) page 16, states, “Claims of low dose hormesis have frequently been based on high dose observations, and the only mechanisms offered for these effects has been speculation on repair overshoot at the cellular and genome level. Cell growth as hormetic is the most troubling claim, since illicit growth stimulation signifies catastrophe to biological organisms … In order to produce one “good” effect, one must endure many other unwanted “bad” effects which will in the long run claim a physiological price perhaps significant, although they evolve to a clinically observable level more slowly.”
Some scientific discoveries that support the presence of health effects at low-dose levels.
In the 1960s, women were sometimes given abdominal x-rays in the first trimester of pregnancy. There was anecdotal evidence of an increase in leukemia in the children of these mothers. Dr. Alice Stewart of the UK conducted a pioneering study that showed that a single x-ray in the first trimester increased the chance of childhood leukemia by 50%. Alice Stewart published her first paper in 1955, before there was a nuclear industry. These findings were attacked by medical doctors and radiologist and also by the nuclear physicists who were “managing” the nuclear weapons. Her results have been amply confirmed by the medical data since then8.
In 1972, Dr. Abram Petkau, a Canadian physician and biophysicist at the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, completely overturned all conventional ideas on the biological damage produced by extremely low doses of radiation. This was first published in the March 1972 edition of HEALTH PHYSICS in an article called, Effect of Na-22 on a Phospholipid Membrane. He reported that cell membranes which could withstand radiation doses as large as tens of thousands of rads when exposed to a short burst of X-rays without breaking, ruptured at less than one rad when subjected to low intensity protracted radiation such as that produced by radioactive chemicals. This finding was completely contrary to all previous observations. This is termed the Petkau Effect. Subsequent investigations by Petkau and their co-workers showed that the cell membrane damage was due to a completely different biological mechanism than the direct hit on the DNA in the nucleus of the cells that had been observed at the high dose.
In his book, The Petkau Effect9, Ralph Graeub states,
“Over a period of time, such as chronic exposures from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials can be hundreds of thousands of times more effective in destroying cell membranes than the same doses given in a short time as in the case of diagnostic x-rays.”
This important discovery sparked subsequent activities by a good number of other researchers but was ignored by regulatory agencies.
In his foreword to the second edition of The Petkau Effect, Ralph Graeub of Germany writes,
“Almost twenty years ago when I published the book The Gentle Killers: Nuclear Power Stations Unmasked“, the nuclear establishment contemptuously branded me as a lone wolf in the wilderness. Since then, the wilderness has fortunately become much more populated, thanks to the many concerned scientists that have joined the battle against the threat of nuclear power all over the world, mobilized first by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and then the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Today, one survey after another indicates that there has been a complete turnaround in public opinion, so that both in the United States and other countries, those opposed to nuclear power have become a significant majority”.
Physicist, Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass10 wrote an article on his research on low-level radiation about the increased incidence of leukemia from fallout that was published in SCIENCE in 1963. The Atomic Energy Commission dismissed his findings stating that his statistics weren’t good enough. The statistics he used came from the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics. At the time he was director of the Department of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. Hardly what you would call a “kook” but some did call him just that according to Leslie Freeman’s book, Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out.
Karl Z. Morgan, known as the father of health physics, wrote for and edited a textbook, Principles of Radiation Protection, published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1967. He looked at such questions as the ratio of alpha to gamma radiation dose in terms of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) as the dose moves toward zero (low dose range). It states the damage to the cells (RBE) tends to a maximum as the dose becomes smaller in the low ranges. Thus there is more damage to cells at the lower doses of radiation than expected. There is more survivable damage to cells from alpha particles at the lower doses of alpha radiation. That is, the cells are not destroyed, but are damaged. Uranium, radium and thorium are alpha particle emitters
In Chapter 11 of Morgan’s text, he discusses not only carcinogenesis and leukogenesis but also the large number of other forms of disease (morbidity) and life-shortening effects based on American radiologists and Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. He notes increases in certain non-malignant diseases, the most important group being the degenerative diseases of the cardiovascular and renal systems. “The actual surplus of deaths among the United States radiologists is higher in the cardiovascular-renal group than in the cancer group”11 and12.
Other effects, premature aging13, alpha particles affecting the immune system14, heredity (genetic effects)15 are shown in the references below. There are many more studies, a selection of which you can find in the accompanying references.
Most Recent Corroborative Evidence: the Extended Techa River Cohort (ETRC)
From 1949 to 1956, the rural villagers who lived along the Techa River in Russia were subjected to both internal and external low-level radiation from a spill into the river from a plutonium production complex upstream from their villages. Their exposure mainly came from consuming water, milk and local food products.
Although some work was done earlier to look at the health effects of those involved, the most comprehensive work has been done in the past ten years. The results of the study of almost 30,000 people born before 1950 who lived near the river some time between 1950 and 1960 provide strong evidence of the correlation between low-level exposure and cancer16.
Chernobyl Disaster Revisited
In September 2005, the WHO, IAEA and UNDP made a joint press release called “The Heritage of Chernobyl: medical, ecological, social and economic consequences” which tried to demonstrate that the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident had been exaggerated. This prompted a stern response from the governments of Russia, Ukraine and Belorus. In their press release in repudiation of the WHO/IAEA/UNDP report, they stated,
“This cynical profanation of the consequences of the biggest technogenic disaster in the history is a sacrilege towards numerous Chernobyl victims; it pushes a new round of pro-nuclear propaganda aimed by the restoration of NPP (nuclear power plant) construction programs. This is the main reason why nuclear industry wishes the whole world to forget Chernobyl.”
It states that the report “openly ignores, tendentiously interprets, and even sometimes falsifies the results of the research of thousands of specialists from the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia … it dissembles the data on the impact of Chernobyl to the countries beyond former USSR borders.”
Dr. Bertell has written a critique of the WHO/IAEA/UNDP press release where she disputes the “science of the findings”17.
There are a plethora of other important studies. I am mentioning only a few:
1.Radiation Risk to low fluences of Alpha particles may be greater than we thought,18, Centre for Radiological Research, College of Physicians and Surgeons and Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health of Columbia University;
2.Confirmation that Ionizing Radiation can Induce Genomic Instability: What is Genomic Instability, and Why Is It So Important,19, John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. and Egan O’Connor, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility;
3.How Many Bystander Effects Are There?20, by Eric J. Hall and Stephen A. Mitchell, Columbia University
CONCLUSIONS
The genetic inheritance from the present use of nuclear power plants already exists and will soon become manifest as it increases with each generation.
I think it is abundantly clear that low levels of ionizing radiation are not benign or beneficial**.** It is clear from the huge amount of scientifically based peer-reviewed information already available. More and more proof of the deleterious effects of low level ionizing radiation will come to light in the months and years ahead as those who have been affected become ill or pass on their damaged genes onto the next generation.
The health hazards produced from the use of nuclear power to boil water to produce electricity, if fully understood by the general public from the outset, would have led to the rejection of the use of nuclear electricity power plants. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
The mounting evidence of the health effects of low-level ionizing radiation calls out for a change in direction away from the use of nuclear power generation.
The Institute strongly urges the government to call a properly constituted independent inquiry of the type suggested above before making any decision about continuing to use nuclear power for generation of electricity or for any other use.
As a people, it is time for us to look at the evidence with a dispassionate eye not blinded by the mantle of authority of the entrenched interests. The present format consists of day-long open houses followed by evening public input sessions. There is no way such a format can result in meaningful discussion of the concerns with the OPA report. The Canadian public are tired of these “public inquiries” that mean nothing. Only an open, public inquiry with a specific mandate with specific terms of reference to hear and take into account the views of a broad spectrum of experts and concerned citizens, presided over by a judge such as in the case of the Walkerton Inquiry, can satisfy the imperatives of our democratic right to full disclosure.
There is an alternative, and it is feasible. There is no need to build nuclear power plants or lengthy transmission lines! Alternative renewable environmentally benign sources along with conservation can result in less ionizing radiation being added to what has already been produced. Developing renewable energy resources throughout Ontario would lead to a cleaner environment for all. The leadership provided by Germany, Spain and Denmark should be an example. They have demonstrated the important role that government can play to bring about a strong renewable energy system. More and more of the public are becoming aware of the health effects of not only coal-fired plants, but also of nuclear power plants. In spite of the advertisements of the Canadian Nuclear Association to promote “NUCLEAR” as “CLEAN”, more and more people are coming to understand the dangers of low-level ionizing radiation.
The IICPH recommends that the present Ontario government move to phase out the use of nuclear power to generate electricity and move to renewable energy sources as soon as possible The current policies intended to support renewable energy should be greatly magnified. It takes political will at the provincial and federal level to achieve the rates of adoption of renewable energy that are possible and necessary in Ontario. The Province of Ontario could be the vehicle for bringing about the necessary change in direction. It would not be long until the benefits would accrue towards a cleaner environment. You would have the satisfaction of setting a trend that other jurisdictions could follow.
If we love our children and grandchildren, if we recognize that we are stewards of our biosphere, we must not turn a blind eye to the hazards from nuclear radiation. The health risks from even very low levels of radiation need to be recognized. No one is protected from the effects of ionizing radiation. In this 21st century, we are all at risk.
Marion Odell
Vice-President
International Institute for Public Health
cc Hon. Donna Cansfield, Minister of Energy
Hon. George Smitherman, Minister of Health
References:
1 BEIR 19900 Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: ISBN 0-309-03995-9 National Academy of Sciences; No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth by Rosalie Bertell. Available through IICPH http://www.iicph.org
“fn2. Tritium, Properties, Metabolism, Dosimetry, www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/Paper_9-01.doc Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic and Transmutational Effects of Tritium_ http://www.nukebusters.org/
3 http://www.iicph.org/can_icrp_be_trusted. No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., G.N.S.H., biometrist and epidemiologist. Still available through IICPH http://www.iicph.org/.
4 ECRR Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Chris Busby, ed., Regulator’s Edition.
5 The official NATO report dated August 1992, which was submitted to the Defense Ministry in Paris on June 29, 2005 and made public by France on July 1, 2005.
6 ECRR2003 (ISBN 1 897761 24 4) can be obtained from the publisher at a Green Audit price of EU 75.00. Email to admin@euradcom.org for information. The quote can be found at http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm. Dr. Bertell’s article is at http://www.iicph.org/can_icrp_be_trusted.
7 Karl Z. Morgan See other documents in “Human Radiation Studies: Remembering the Early Years” http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/histories/0475/0475toc.html
8 Alice Stewart, Low-level Radiation: The Effects, Human and Non-Human, http://www.ratical.org/radiation/AliceStewart0800.html One Hundred Years After Roentgen, Proceeds of the International Congress, Berlin, 1995, Low Level Radiation Exposure Effects in the Tri-State Leukemia Study, Rosalie Bertell, pages 48 – 59, published 1997.
9 The Petkau Effect http://www.answers.com/topic/petkau-effect
10 Ernest J. Sternglass http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwEJS.html
11 Radiosensitivity Mechanisms at Low Doses: Inflammatory Responses to microGray Radiation Levels in Human Blood, G.Vickers, Dept. of Biology, University of Bremen, Journal, International Perspectives in Public Health, Vol. 9, pp. 4-20 1993.
12 X-Ray Exposure and Premature Aging, Rosalie Bertell, Roswell Park Memorial Cancer Institute, Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 9, 379 – 391 1977.
13 http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/GenomicInst.html
14 Alpha Particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle
15 Heredity http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/GenomicInst.html
16 SCIENCE Vol. 310, 11 November 2005, http://www.sciencemag.org
17 Statement of the Russian Political Parties http://www.iicph.org/russian_parties_response_pressrelease_chernobyl_2005 Rosalie Bertell responds to the 2005 WHO/IAEA/UNDP Press Release on Chernobyl http://www.iicph.org/bertell_response_pressrelease_chernobyl_2005
“On Internal Irradiation and Health Consequences of Chernobyl Accident” Chris Busby www.llrc.org/belarus.htm
18 Radiation Risk to low fluences of Alpha Particles http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/25/14410
19 100 Years after Roentgen, Proceeds of the International Congress, Berlin, 1995; “Low Level Radiation Exposure Effects in the Tri-State Leukemia Study”, Rosalie Bertell, pp. 48-59, published 1997.
20 “How Many Bystander Effects Are There?” http://www.crr-cu.org/reports2003/b.pdf
— Marion OdellInternational Institute of Concern for Public Health. Some rights reserved.
IICPH, P.O. Box 80523 RPO White Shields, 2300 Lawrence Ave. East, Toronto ON Canada M1P 4Z5
Email info@iicph.org
http://iicph.org/response-to-opa
February 28, 2006
Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Rm 281 Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A4
Re: IICPH Response to the Ontario Power Authority Proposal
Dear Mr. McGuinty,
I am writing to express the concern of the Institute for the lack of due consideration of the health effects of the continued reliance on nuclear power electricity generation as delineated in the Ontario Power Authority’s Integrated Power Supply Plan.
We have a very deep concern with the process whereby the government is making its decisions so far. Without a full exploration of the health effects from nuclear waste and, particularly, particulate radiation from nuclear reactors, I fear that the true hazards to health will not be disclosed. I attended the consultation held in Toronto on the evening of February 15th, which amply demonstrated to me and to others who attended that the process was flawed.
Having now received the brochure, “Our Energy, Our Future “ in the mail, there is no doubt that only an inquiry by an independent impartial person such as a judge, where expert witnesses would be called to give evidence concerning the health safety of nuclear power plants, will suffice.
Otherwise, the interests of Ontarians and others downwind and downstream will not be served.
The bias toward the messages espoused by the proponents of nuclear generation of electricity is simply too evident. From accounts I received, very little was discussed about the health effects of particulate radiation from nuclear power plants. Indeed, there was no opportunity to refute the statements put forth by a proponent for nuclear as those of us who could have done so were cut off without a chance to speak by the moderator.
Setting aside the immense cost of nuclear power plants, their vulnerability to nuclear accidents, earthquake damage, (Pickering sits on the side of Frenchman’s Bay near two fault lines), terrorist attacks, their need for shutdowns for expensive repairs, the fact that they leak radioactivity into our environment and as they age, this leakage increases, setting that all that aside, what is the big problem?
Pickering and Darlington power plants are very close to huge populations, the Greater Toronto Area, the Golden Horseshoe and some of the most precious farmlands in the province. What devastation there would be if we had a nuclear accident in this most important area, not only to the people themselves, but to the whole economy of the country! Although our nuclear power plants have a good reputation for safety, there are acts of nature that can cause problems, which if not responded to properly can lead to a nuclear accident. These include such things as earthquakes, thunderstorms, floods and unusual wind conditions Human error can play an important role in meltdowns. There is also the danger of terrorist attacks. Setting all that aside, the most serious threat is that of nuclear waste. From the mining, smelting, refining and manufacture of fuel rods to the actual production of electricity, nuclear waste is produced.
Nuclear Power Plants produce dangerous nuclear waste. They emit radioactive substances into the air and water, in small amounts, but frequently.
The solid waste, used fuel rods, contaminated equipment, protective clothing, etc., the plant itself, when finally decommissioned, provide a problem for which there is no suitable secure long-term means of disposal. An organization set up to find a solution, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), wrestled with this problem. Their recommendations did not, in our opinion, produce a safe solution. There is none! Nuclear waste has long been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry.
Radioactive emissions into air and water at low levels are frequent from nuclear power plants**.** These are most troubling because they add to the nuclear radiation that is already present in our soil, air and water1. This comes from radiation that occurs naturally to all the so-called “background radiation”, residuals from the atomic bomb, testing of bombs, nuclear accidents, the mining, refining and transportation of uranium, the use of radioactive weapons such as depleted uranium, and from the myriads of nuclear power plants around the world. In the U.S. and I believe, in Canada too, the radiation emitted from a nuclear power plant in one year is considered “background radiation” the following year. This is a shell game. It sounds so benign that those lacking knowledge of the nature of ionizing radiation might think it is gone. Of course, it is not really gone, just minutely degraded depending on the half-life of the particular radioisotopes involved. Particulate radiation will remain radioactive depending on the radioisotope from which it is derived. Some half-lives are exceedingly long.
CANDU (heavy water reactors) used in Ontario’s nuclear power plants emit tritium into the air in puffs of steam from their stacks and into surface water on a regular basis. CANDUs emit more than 100 times the tritium released from other reactor designs and also 40 times more Cesium-141. See the report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Forestry, Energy and Environment called “The Eleventh Hour” released in January 1988.
Tritium (H-3) is a radioisotope of hydrogen with two neutrons. The rest of the atomic weight comes from one proton. It has a half-life of 12.5 years. It is emitted from a nuclear power plant in the white puffs of steam from its stacks and in water discharged into surface water. Tritium, as a chemical, combines with oxygen just like ordinary non-radioactive hydrogen, forming tritiated water, HTO. It is of concern because it goes wherever water goes whether gaseous, surface or ground water. Tritiated water will go a long way from its source. It is rapidly transported and can travel for long distances. It easily binds with organic molecules and can concentrate in the DNA2.
Since most of the human body is made up of water, this is a very great concern. Of the tritium you inhale or ingest, 90 % leaves the body quickly, whereas 10% can become joined to organic molecules including proteins and to DNA itself. So here and there these atoms of tritium are radiating in the human body. Every living thing in our biosphere is dependent on water. People who live near nuclear power plants are receiving tritium in the air they breathe and from drinking water on a regular basis. Since children breathe in proportionally more, they are generally more seriously affected. They also play in the dirt. Anyone who eats produce or drinks milk from areas where soil is contaminated by tritium will receive tritium into their bodies. Guess who drinks a lot of milk? Children, babies and nursing mothers do.
Measuring comparative levels of tritium in water is becoming more difficult as more areas are contaminated. For instance, in the Screening Report of 2002, the tritium levels taken from 15 water supply plants in communities across Ontario were used as background controls for the water specimens used to measure tritium levels from the effluent from nuclear power plants. Since tritium can travel a long way from its source, some of the control areas could very well have been within the groundwater/surface water areas affected by the nuclear power plants. Therefore, their estimates of “background” would not be accurate.
Regulations and Standards
For the most part, the nuclear industry takes direction for allowable emissions from nuclear power plants from the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). These standards are not health based, but rather, a risk/benefit trade-off. The regulations for the industry are based on cancer deaths and not on the other myriad health effects of low-level radiation, which include teratogenic and genetic effects and autoimmune diseases. Dr. Bertell believes that it is clear from study of the atomic bomb research that focusing on fatal cancers was a research simplification, chosen for simplicity of calculation, and it was not meant to claim that the only health effects from exposure to radiation were cancers3.
There is also serious discussion among radiobiologists about the inadequacy of the ICRP model for dose and dose-response, based on the physics model. There is growing agreement that it is inappropriate for application to internal alpha emitters4. Both NATO and the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sureté Nucléaire (IRSN)5, the French Official Radiation Protection Association, have found the ICRP methodology to be faulty. The Report of the European Committee for Radiation Risk (ECRR) presents a more up-to-date model for calculating health risks. Unlike the ICRP, the ECRR uses evidence from the more recent research and new discoveries in radiation biology and human epidemiology, to create a system of calculation which gives results that are in agreement both with the mechanism of radiation action at the level of the living cell and observation of disease in exposed populations.
The ECRR considers the present risk model of the ICRP essentially flawed. “The Committee concludes that the ICRP justifications are based on outmoded philosophical reasoning, specifically the averaging cost-benefit calculation of utilitarianism.” Dr. Rosalie Bertell in her article “Can the ICRP be Trusted to Set Radiation Standards?” states, “The regulations are not a demarcation between safe and unsafe. They are just an arbitrary decision as to how much the public should be willing to tolerate for the benefit of the activity”6.
As early as the 1950s and 60s, some physicists and other scientists were looking at the possible connections to radiation of mutations and autoimmune diseases. The following quote is taken from Chapter 11 of Principles of Radiation Protection, a textbook written for Health Physicists edited by Karl Z. Morgan7, and J.E. Turner published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1961. It is taken from Chapter 11 Section 11-7 written by P.R.J. Burch, formerly of the Dept. of Medical Physics, University of Leeds, U. K. The quote in turn references himself and R.G. Burwell in the Quality Review of Biology, Vol.40, p. 252, 1965.
“If radiation is capable of inducing the same type of mutation as that which occurs spontaneously, then the problem of assessing the effects of radiation on initiation of autoimmune diseases is entirely analogous to the problem of radiation carcinogenesis described in Section 11-6. … Nevertheless, it seems quite likely that rather similar spontaneous and radiation mutational mechanisms (spontaneous and induced DNA strand switching) are implicated in the pathogenesis of both autoimmune and malignant conditions”7.
The official NATO report was dated August 1992, and was submitted to the Defence Ministry in Paris on June 29, 2005.
The Hormesis Theory
Consideration of the health effects of nuclear power generation in the industry appears to be influenced by the Hormesis Theory, which advances the opinion that low dose exposure to ionizing radiation induces “beneficial” effects. Dr. Bertell, in the above noted document, (Ref. 3) page 16, states, “Claims of low dose hormesis have frequently been based on high dose observations, and the only mechanisms offered for these effects has been speculation on repair overshoot at the cellular and genome level. Cell growth as hormetic is the most troubling claim, since illicit growth stimulation signifies catastrophe to biological organisms … In order to produce one “good” effect, one must endure many other unwanted “bad” effects which will in the long run claim a physiological price perhaps significant, although they evolve to a clinically observable level more slowly.”
Some scientific discoveries that support the presence of health effects at low-dose levels.
In the 1960s, women were sometimes given abdominal x-rays in the first trimester of pregnancy. There was anecdotal evidence of an increase in leukemia in the children of these mothers. Dr. Alice Stewart of the UK conducted a pioneering study that showed that a single x-ray in the first trimester increased the chance of childhood leukemia by 50%. Alice Stewart published her first paper in 1955, before there was a nuclear industry. These findings were attacked by medical doctors and radiologist and also by the nuclear physicists who were “managing” the nuclear weapons. Her results have been amply confirmed by the medical data since then8.
In 1972, Dr. Abram Petkau, a Canadian physician and biophysicist at the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, completely overturned all conventional ideas on the biological damage produced by extremely low doses of radiation. This was first published in the March 1972 edition of HEALTH PHYSICS in an article called, Effect of Na-22 on a Phospholipid Membrane. He reported that cell membranes which could withstand radiation doses as large as tens of thousands of rads when exposed to a short burst of X-rays without breaking, ruptured at less than one rad when subjected to low intensity protracted radiation such as that produced by radioactive chemicals. This finding was completely contrary to all previous observations. This is termed the Petkau Effect. Subsequent investigations by Petkau and their co-workers showed that the cell membrane damage was due to a completely different biological mechanism than the direct hit on the DNA in the nucleus of the cells that had been observed at the high dose.
In his book, The Petkau Effect9, Ralph Graeub states,
“Over a period of time, such as chronic exposures from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials can be hundreds of thousands of times more effective in destroying cell membranes than the same doses given in a short time as in the case of diagnostic x-rays.”
This important discovery sparked subsequent activities by a good number of other researchers but was ignored by regulatory agencies.
In his foreword to the second edition of The Petkau Effect, Ralph Graeub of Germany writes,
“Almost twenty years ago when I published the book The Gentle Killers: Nuclear Power Stations Unmasked“, the nuclear establishment contemptuously branded me as a lone wolf in the wilderness. Since then, the wilderness has fortunately become much more populated, thanks to the many concerned scientists that have joined the battle against the threat of nuclear power all over the world, mobilized first by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and then the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Today, one survey after another indicates that there has been a complete turnaround in public opinion, so that both in the United States and other countries, those opposed to nuclear power have become a significant majority”.
Physicist, Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass10 wrote an article on his research on low-level radiation about the increased incidence of leukemia from fallout that was published in SCIENCE in 1963. The Atomic Energy Commission dismissed his findings stating that his statistics weren’t good enough. The statistics he used came from the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics. At the time he was director of the Department of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. Hardly what you would call a “kook” but some did call him just that according to Leslie Freeman’s book, Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out.
Karl Z. Morgan, known as the father of health physics, wrote for and edited a textbook, Principles of Radiation Protection, published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1967. He looked at such questions as the ratio of alpha to gamma radiation dose in terms of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) as the dose moves toward zero (low dose range). It states the damage to the cells (RBE) tends to a maximum as the dose becomes smaller in the low ranges. Thus there is more damage to cells at the lower doses of radiation than expected. There is more survivable damage to cells from alpha particles at the lower doses of alpha radiation. That is, the cells are not destroyed, but are damaged. Uranium, radium and thorium are alpha particle emitters
In Chapter 11 of Morgan’s text, he discusses not only carcinogenesis and leukogenesis but also the large number of other forms of disease (morbidity) and life-shortening effects based on American radiologists and Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. He notes increases in certain non-malignant diseases, the most important group being the degenerative diseases of the cardiovascular and renal systems. “The actual surplus of deaths among the United States radiologists is higher in the cardiovascular-renal group than in the cancer group”11 and12.
Other effects, premature aging13, alpha particles affecting the immune system14, heredity (genetic effects)15 are shown in the references below. There are many more studies, a selection of which you can find in the accompanying references.
Most Recent Corroborative Evidence: the Extended Techa River Cohort (ETRC)
From 1949 to 1956, the rural villagers who lived along the Techa River in Russia were subjected to both internal and external low-level radiation from a spill into the river from a plutonium production complex upstream from their villages. Their exposure mainly came from consuming water, milk and local food products.
Although some work was done earlier to look at the health effects of those involved, the most comprehensive work has been done in the past ten years. The results of the study of almost 30,000 people born before 1950 who lived near the river some time between 1950 and 1960 provide strong evidence of the correlation between low-level exposure and cancer16.
Chernobyl Disaster Revisited
In September 2005, the WHO, IAEA and UNDP made a joint press release called “The Heritage of Chernobyl: medical, ecological, social and economic consequences” which tried to demonstrate that the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident had been exaggerated. This prompted a stern response from the governments of Russia, Ukraine and Belorus. In their press release in repudiation of the WHO/IAEA/UNDP report, they stated,
“This cynical profanation of the consequences of the biggest technogenic disaster in the history is a sacrilege towards numerous Chernobyl victims; it pushes a new round of pro-nuclear propaganda aimed by the restoration of NPP (nuclear power plant) construction programs. This is the main reason why nuclear industry wishes the whole world to forget Chernobyl.”
It states that the report “openly ignores, tendentiously interprets, and even sometimes falsifies the results of the research of thousands of specialists from the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia … it dissembles the data on the impact of Chernobyl to the countries beyond former USSR borders.”
Dr. Bertell has written a critique of the WHO/IAEA/UNDP press release where she disputes the “science of the findings”17.
There are a plethora of other important studies. I am mentioning only a few:
1.Radiation Risk to low fluences of Alpha particles may be greater than we thought,18, Centre for Radiological Research, College of Physicians and Surgeons and Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health of Columbia University;
2.Confirmation that Ionizing Radiation can Induce Genomic Instability: What is Genomic Instability, and Why Is It So Important,19, John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. and Egan O’Connor, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility;
3.How Many Bystander Effects Are There?20, by Eric J. Hall and Stephen A. Mitchell, Columbia University
CONCLUSIONS
The genetic inheritance from the present use of nuclear power plants already exists and will soon become manifest as it increases with each generation.
I think it is abundantly clear that low levels of ionizing radiation are not benign or beneficial**.** It is clear from the huge amount of scientifically based peer-reviewed information already available. More and more proof of the deleterious effects of low level ionizing radiation will come to light in the months and years ahead as those who have been affected become ill or pass on their damaged genes onto the next generation.
The health hazards produced from the use of nuclear power to boil water to produce electricity, if fully understood by the general public from the outset, would have led to the rejection of the use of nuclear electricity power plants. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
The mounting evidence of the health effects of low-level ionizing radiation calls out for a change in direction away from the use of nuclear power generation.
The Institute strongly urges the government to call a properly constituted independent inquiry of the type suggested above before making any decision about continuing to use nuclear power for generation of electricity or for any other use.
As a people, it is time for us to look at the evidence with a dispassionate eye not blinded by the mantle of authority of the entrenched interests. The present format consists of day-long open houses followed by evening public input sessions. There is no way such a format can result in meaningful discussion of the concerns with the OPA report. The Canadian public are tired of these “public inquiries” that mean nothing. Only an open, public inquiry with a specific mandate with specific terms of reference to hear and take into account the views of a broad spectrum of experts and concerned citizens, presided over by a judge such as in the case of the Walkerton Inquiry, can satisfy the imperatives of our democratic right to full disclosure.
There is an alternative, and it is feasible. There is no need to build nuclear power plants or lengthy transmission lines! Alternative renewable environmentally benign sources along with conservation can result in less ionizing radiation being added to what has already been produced. Developing renewable energy resources throughout Ontario would lead to a cleaner environment for all. The leadership provided by Germany, Spain and Denmark should be an example. They have demonstrated the important role that government can play to bring about a strong renewable energy system. More and more of the public are becoming aware of the health effects of not only coal-fired plants, but also of nuclear power plants. In spite of the advertisements of the Canadian Nuclear Association to promote “NUCLEAR” as “CLEAN”, more and more people are coming to understand the dangers of low-level ionizing radiation.
The IICPH recommends that the present Ontario government move to phase out the use of nuclear power to generate electricity and move to renewable energy sources as soon as possible The current policies intended to support renewable energy should be greatly magnified. It takes political will at the provincial and federal level to achieve the rates of adoption of renewable energy that are possible and necessary in Ontario. The Province of Ontario could be the vehicle for bringing about the necessary change in direction. It would not be long until the benefits would accrue towards a cleaner environment. You would have the satisfaction of setting a trend that other jurisdictions could follow.
If we love our children and grandchildren, if we recognize that we are stewards of our biosphere, we must not turn a blind eye to the hazards from nuclear radiation. The health risks from even very low levels of radiation need to be recognized. No one is protected from the effects of ionizing radiation. In this 21st century, we are all at risk.
Marion Odell
Vice-President
International Institute for Public Health
cc Hon. Donna Cansfield, Minister of Energy
Hon. George Smitherman, Minister of Health
References:
1 BEIR 19900 Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: ISBN 0-309-03995-9 National Academy of Sciences; No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth by Rosalie Bertell. Available through IICPH http://www.iicph.org
“fn2. Tritium, Properties, Metabolism, Dosimetry, www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/Paper_9-01.doc Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic and Transmutational Effects of Tritium_ http://www.nukebusters.org/
3 http://www.iicph.org/can_icrp_be_trusted. No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., G.N.S.H., biometrist and epidemiologist. Still available through IICPH http://www.iicph.org/.
4 ECRR Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Chris Busby, ed., Regulator’s Edition.
5 The official NATO report dated August 1992, which was submitted to the Defense Ministry in Paris on June 29, 2005 and made public by France on July 1, 2005.
6 ECRR2003 (ISBN 1 897761 24 4) can be obtained from the publisher at a Green Audit price of EU 75.00. Email to admin@euradcom.org for information. The quote can be found at http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm. Dr. Bertell’s article is at http://www.iicph.org/can_icrp_be_trusted.
7 Karl Z. Morgan See other documents in “Human Radiation Studies: Remembering the Early Years” http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/histories/0475/0475toc.html
8 Alice Stewart, Low-level Radiation: The Effects, Human and Non-Human, http://www.ratical.org/radiation/AliceStewart0800.html One Hundred Years After Roentgen, Proceeds of the International Congress, Berlin, 1995, Low Level Radiation Exposure Effects in the Tri-State Leukemia Study, Rosalie Bertell, pages 48 – 59, published 1997.
9 The Petkau Effect http://www.answers.com/topic/petkau-effect
10 Ernest J. Sternglass http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwEJS.html
11 Radiosensitivity Mechanisms at Low Doses: Inflammatory Responses to microGray Radiation Levels in Human Blood, G.Vickers, Dept. of Biology, University of Bremen, Journal, International Perspectives in Public Health, Vol. 9, pp. 4-20 1993.
12 X-Ray Exposure and Premature Aging, Rosalie Bertell, Roswell Park Memorial Cancer Institute, Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 9, 379 – 391 1977.
13 http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/GenomicInst.html
14 Alpha Particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle
15 Heredity http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/GenomicInst.html
16 SCIENCE Vol. 310, 11 November 2005, http://www.sciencemag.org
17 Statement of the Russian Political Parties http://www.iicph.org/russian_parties_response_pressrelease_chernobyl_2005 Rosalie Bertell responds to the 2005 WHO/IAEA/UNDP Press Release on Chernobyl http://www.iicph.org/bertell_response_pressrelease_chernobyl_2005
“On Internal Irradiation and Health Consequences of Chernobyl Accident” Chris Busby www.llrc.org/belarus.htm
18 Radiation Risk to low fluences of Alpha Particles http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/25/14410
19 100 Years after Roentgen, Proceeds of the International Congress, Berlin, 1995; “Low Level Radiation Exposure Effects in the Tri-State Leukemia Study”, Rosalie Bertell, pp. 48-59, published 1997.
20 “How Many Bystander Effects Are There?” http://www.crr-cu.org/reports2003/b.pdf
— Marion OdellInternational Institute of Concern for Public Health. Some rights reserved.
IICPH, P.O. Box 80523 RPO White Shields, 2300 Lawrence Ave. East, Toronto ON Canada M1P 4Z5
Email info@iicph.org
http://iicph.org/response-to-opa
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
This Y-12 project is (more or less) on hold
Posted by Frank Munger on August 30, 2009 at 8:35 PM
While Oak Ridge officials and their advocates in Washington push the multi-billion-dollar UPF for all it's worth, another proposed production facility at Y-12 has been put on the back burner for the foreseeable future.
The would-be Y-12 project is called the Consolidated Manufacturing Complex, and apparently it's been shunted aside because of the huge budget considerations associated with the top-priority Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project at Los Alamos in New Mexico.
The CMC would house Y-12's lithium operations, general machining operations, depleted uranium operations and deuterium production. I haven't seen a price tag yet, but it obviously won't be cheap.
According to Y-12 spokeswoman Ellen Boatner, the Oak Ridge contractor doesn't anticipate major progress on the CMC for the next couple of years.
"While we are still doing some planning work for the Consolidated Manufacturing Complex, the budget for the next couple of years is not favorable to new project starts (in addition to UPF and CMRR). We will continue with preliminary planning until NNSA-HQ can support Critical Decision 0, Justification of Mission Need."
Currently, the general machining at Y-12 is done on the plant's east end, the lithium and depleted uranium work is done on the (high-security) west end, Boatner said. The new facility, if it is approved and built, would consolidate activities that currently occupy about 450,000 square feet of space into a space of about 150,000 square feet, she said.
The proposed manufacturing facility would not go inside the plant's highest security PIDAS system, she said.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2009/08/this_y-12_project_is_more_or_l.html
While Oak Ridge officials and their advocates in Washington push the multi-billion-dollar UPF for all it's worth, another proposed production facility at Y-12 has been put on the back burner for the foreseeable future.
The would-be Y-12 project is called the Consolidated Manufacturing Complex, and apparently it's been shunted aside because of the huge budget considerations associated with the top-priority Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project at Los Alamos in New Mexico.
The CMC would house Y-12's lithium operations, general machining operations, depleted uranium operations and deuterium production. I haven't seen a price tag yet, but it obviously won't be cheap.
According to Y-12 spokeswoman Ellen Boatner, the Oak Ridge contractor doesn't anticipate major progress on the CMC for the next couple of years.
"While we are still doing some planning work for the Consolidated Manufacturing Complex, the budget for the next couple of years is not favorable to new project starts (in addition to UPF and CMRR). We will continue with preliminary planning until NNSA-HQ can support Critical Decision 0, Justification of Mission Need."
Currently, the general machining at Y-12 is done on the plant's east end, the lithium and depleted uranium work is done on the (high-security) west end, Boatner said. The new facility, if it is approved and built, would consolidate activities that currently occupy about 450,000 square feet of space into a space of about 150,000 square feet, she said.
The proposed manufacturing facility would not go inside the plant's highest security PIDAS system, she said.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2009/08/this_y-12_project_is_more_or_l.html
Saturday, August 29, 2009
U.S. Nuclear Accidents
Comment: No to nuclear resurgence! Nuclear cycle has left a string of deaths, health problems, and environment disasters for all of us. How many of the accidents were reported, not all of them!
Last updated 29 May 2009
Introduction:
The following is a compilation of some known events involving nuclear devices and facilities under U.S. jurisdiction, many involving fatalities.
Research Facilities
29 November 1955:
Experimental breeder reactor EBR-1 experienced a core meltdown due to operator error.
26 July 1959:
A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (now known as the Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility) in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California. Later discovery of the incident prompted a class-action suit by local residents, who successfully sued for $30 million over cancer and thyroid abnormalities contracted due to their proximity to the facility.
2 September 1944
Peter Bragg and Douglas Paul Meigs, two Manhattan Project chemists, were killed when their attempt to unclog a tube in a uranium enrichment device led to an explosion of radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas exploded at the Naval Research Laboratory in Philadelphia, PA. The explosion ruptured nearby steam pipes, leading to a gas and steam combination that bathed the men in a scalding, radioactive, acidic cloud of gas which killed them a short while later.
21 August 1945
Harry K. Daghlian Jr. was killed during the final stages of the Manhattan Project (undertaken at Los Alamos, New Mexico to develop the first atomic bomb) from a radiation burst released when a critical assembly of fissile material was accidentally brought together by hand. This incident pre-dated remote-control assembly of such components, but the hazards of manual assembly were known at the time (the accident occurred during a procedure known as "tickling the dragon's tail"). A similar incident, involving another fatality, occurred the following year (see next entry), after which hand-maniuplations of critical assemblies was abandoned.
21 May 1946
A nuclear criticality accident occured at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. Eight people were exposed to radiation, and one, Louis Slotin, died nine days later later of acute radiation sickness.
2 July 1956
Nine persons were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of Sylvania Electric Products' Metallurgy Atomic Research Center in Bayside, Queens, New York.
1957
A radiation release at the the Keleket company resulted in a five-month decontamination at a cost of $250,000. A capsule of radium salt (used for calibrating the radiation-measuring devices produced there) burst, contaminating the building for a full five months.
30 December 1958
A chemical operator was exposed to a lethal dose of radiation following an incident involving the mixing of plutonium solutions, dying 35 hours later of severe radiation exposure.
1959
A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California.
2 April 1962
An "unplanned nuclear excursion" occurred in a plutonium processing facility in Richland, Washington. Several employees were hospitalized for observation following exposure to the resultant radiation, and radiation was detected in the surrounding atmosphere for sevearl days following the incident.
26 March 1963
A mechanical failure led to a nuclear leak and subsequent fire at an experimental facility in Livermore, California, resulting in serious damage to the shielded vault where the experiment was conducted.
5 October 1966
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown at Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. Radioactive gases leaked into the containment structures, but radiation was reportedly contained.
1974
Whistleblowers at the Isomedix company in New Jersey reported that radioactive water was flushed down toilets and had contaminated pipes leading to sewers. The same year a worker received a dose of radiation considered lethal, but was saved by prompt hospital treatment.
1982
International Nutronics in Dover, New Jersey, which used radiation baths to purify gems, chemicals, food, and medical supplies, experienced an accident that completely contaminated the plant, forcing its closure. A pump malfunctioned, siphoning water from the baths onto the floor; the water eventually was drained into the sewer system of the heavily populated town of Dover. The NRC wasn't informed of the accident until ten months later -- and then by a whistleblower, not the company. In 1986, the company and one of its top executives were convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy and fraud. Radiation has been detected in the vicinity of the plant, but the NRC claims the levels "aren't hazardous."
1986
The NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology, Inc. (RTI) plant in New Jersey for repeated worker safety violations. RTI was cited 32 times for various violations, including throwing radioactive garbage out with the regular trash. The most serious violation was bypassing a safety device to prevent people from entering the irradiation chamber during operation, resulting in a worker receiving a near-lethal dose of radiation.
ca. December 1991
One of four cold fusion cells in a Menlo Park, CA, laboratory exploded while being moved; electrochemist Andrew Riley was killed and three others were injured. The other three cells were buried on site, leading to rumors that a nuclear reaction had taken place. A report concluded that it was a chemical explosion; a mixture of oxygen and deuterium produced by electrolysis ignited when a catalyst was exposed. The Electric Power Research Institute, which spent $2 million on the SRI cold fusion research, suspended support for the work pending the outcome of an investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Plants
3 January 1961
The world's first nuclear-related fatalities occurred following a reactor explosion at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Three technicians, were killed, with radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. Another incident three weeks later (on 25 January) resulted in a release of radiation into the atmosphere.
24 July 1964
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.
19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.
March 1972
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.
27 July 1972
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line. [See also 9 December 1986]
28 May 1974
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."
22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.
28 March 1979
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.
1981
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.
11 February 1981
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.
July 1981
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.
1982
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.
25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.
25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.
9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].
1988
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.
28 May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.
15 February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.
6 March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombs and Bombers
13 February 1950
A B-36 en route from Alaska to Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, developed serious mechanical difficulties, complicated by severe icing conditions. The crew headed out over the Pacific Ocean and dropped the nuclear weapons from 8,000 feet off the coast of British Columbia. The weapons' high-explosive material detonated on impact, but the crew parachuted to safety.
11 April 1950
A B-29 carrying a nuclear weapon crashed into a mountain near Manzano Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, killing all 13 crewmembers aboard.
10 November 1950
A B-50 en route to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, was forced to jettison a nuclear weapon over the St. Lawrence River near St. Alexandre-de-Kamouraska, Canada.
10 March 1956
A B-47 with two nuclear weapons aboard disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea after flying out of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. An exhaustive search failed to locate the aircraft, its weapons, nor its crew.
27 July 1956
A U.S. B-47 practicing a touch-and-go landing at Lakenheath Royal Air Force Station near Cambridge, England went out of control and smashed into a storage igloo housing three Mark 6 nuclear bombs, each of which had about 8,000 pounds of TNT in its trigger mechanism. No crewmen were killed, and fire fighters were able to extinguish the blazing jet fuel before it ignited the TNT.
22 May 1957
A 10 megaton hydrogen bomb was accidentally dropped from a bomber in an uninhabited area near Albuquerque, New Mexico owned by the University of New Mexico. The conventional explosives detonated, creating a 12 foot deep crater 25 feet across in which some radiation was detected.
28 July 1957
A C-124 Globemaster transporting three nuclear weapons and a nuclear capsule from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to Europe experienced loss of power in two engines. The crew jettisoned two of the weapons somewhere east of Rehobeth, Del., and Cape May/Wildwood, New Jersey. A search for the weapons was unsuccessful and it is a fair assumption that they still lie at the bottom of the ocean.
11 October 1957
A B-47 carrying a single nuclear weapon crashed shortly after takeoff. The weapon was partially destroyed in the ensuing fire, but the nuclear core was recovered intact.
31 January 1958
Unbeknownst to Moroccan officials, a B-47 loaded with a fully-armed nuclear weapon collapsed and caught fire on the runway at a U.S. Strategic Air Command base 90 miles northeast of Rabat. The Air Force considered evacuating the base, but instead allowed the bomber to continue to burn for seven hours. During cleanup operations a large number of vehicles and aircraft were contaminated with radiation.
5 February 1958
A B-47 carrying a Mark 15, Mod 0, nuclear bomb on a simulated combat mission from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida collided with an F-86. After three unsuccessful attempts to land at Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia, the B-47 crew jettisoned the nuclear bomb into the Atlantic Ocean off Savannah. The Air Force conducted a nine-week search of a 3-square-mile area in Wassaw Sound where the bomb was dropped, but declared on April 16 that the bomb was irretrievably lost. The bomb was rediscovered in September 2004.
11 March 1958
A B-47 on its way from Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia to an overseas base accidentally dropped an unarmed nuclear weapon into the garden of Walter Gregg and his family in Mars Bluff, South Carolina. The conventional explosives detonated, destroying Gregg's house and injuring six family members. The blast resulted in the formation of a crater 50-70 feet wide and 25-30 feet deep. Five other houses and a church were also damaged; five months later the Air Force paid the Greggs $54,000 in compensation.
4 November 1958
A B-47 carrying a nuclear weapon caught fire and crashed during takeoff from Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, killing one crew member.
26 November 1958
A B-47 caught fire on the ground at Chennault Air Force Base in Lake Charles, Louisiana, destroying a nuclear weapon onboard, resulting in minor radioactive contamination of the immediate vicinity.
15 October 1959
A B-52 with two nuclear bombs collided in mid-air with a KC-135 jet tanker and crashed near Hardinsberg, Kentucky. Both bombs were recovered intact, but eight crewmembers lost their lives.
7 June 1960
A BOMARC-A nuclear missile burst into flames after its fuel tank was ruptured by the explosion of a high pressure helium tank at McGuire Air Force Base in New Egypt, New Jersey. The missile melted, causing plutonium contamination at the facility and in the ground water below.
21 January 1961
A B-52 bomber carrying one or more nuclear weapons disintegrated in midair following an engine fier and explosion approximately 10 miles north of Monticello, Utah, killing all five crewmembers.
24 January 1961
A B-52 bomber suffered structural failure and disintegrated in mid-air 12 miles north of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, NC, releasing two hydrogen bombs. Five crewmen parachuted to safety, while three others died when the aircraft exploded in mid-air. The bombs jettisoned as the plane descended, one parachuting to earth intact, the other plunging deep into waterlogged farmland. To this day, parts of the nuclear bomb remain embedded deep in the muck. The area is off-limits, and is tested regularly for radiation releases. More information can be found at the Broken Arrow: Goldsboro, NC site at www.ibiblio.org/bomb/.
14 March 1961
A B-52 with nuclear bombs crashed in California while on a training mission.
13 January 1964
A B-52 with two nuclear weapons crashed near Cumberland, Maryland.
8 December 1964
A B-58 slid off a runway at Bunker Hill (now Grissom) Air Force Base in Peru, Indiana. The resulting fire consumed portions of five onboard nuclear weapons, leading to radioactive contamination of the surrounding area.
5 December 1965
An A-4E aircraft accidentally fell overboard off the USS Toconderoga, with the loss of pilot LTJG D.M. Webster and a nuclear weapon. The incident, which occurred in the Pacific Ocean approximately 200 miles east of Okinawa, was not reported by the Department of Defense until 1981.
17 January 1966
A B-52 collided with an Air Force KC-135 jet tanker while refueling over the coast of Spain, killing eight of the eleven crew members and igniting the KC-135's 40,000 gallons of jet fuel. Two hydrogen bombs ruptured, scattering radioactive particles over the fields of Palomares; a third landed intact near the village of Palomares; the fourth was lost at sea 12 miles off the coast of Palomares and required a search by thousands of men working for three months to recover it. Approximately 1,500 tons of radioactive soil and tomato plants were removed to the U.S. for burial at a nuclear waste dump in Aiken, S.C. The U.S. eventually settled claims by 522 Palomares residents at a cost of $600,000, and gave the town the gift of a $200,000 desalinizing plant.
22 January 1968
A B-52 crashed 7 miles south of Thule Air Force Base in Greenland, scattering the radioactive fragments of three hydrogen bombs over the terrain and dropping one bomb into the sea after a fire broke out in the navigator's compartment. Contaminated ice and airplane debris were sent back to the U.S., with the bomb fragments going back to the manufacturer in Amarillo, Texas. The incident outraged the people of Denmark (which owned Greenland at the time, and which prohibits nuclear weapons over its territory) and led to massive anti-U.S. demonstrations. One of the warheads was reportedly recovered by Navy Seals and Seabees in 1979, but an August 2000 report suggests that in fact it may still be lying at the bottom of Baffin Bay. Additional details, including footage of the recovery efforts, can be viewed at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7720049.stm courtesy of the BBC.
2 November 1981
A fully-armed Poseidon missile was accidentally dropped 17 feet from a crane in Scotland during a transfer operation between a U.S. submarine and its mother ship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarines and Ships
Some of the following incidents involve the discharge of radioactive coolant water by ships and submarines. While water from the primary coolant system stays radioactive for only a few seconds, it picks up bits of cobalt, chromium and other elements (from rusting pipes and the reactor) which remain radioactive for years. In realization of this fact, the U.S. Navy has curtailed its previously frequent practice of dumping coolant at sea.
18 April 1959
An experimental sodium-cooled reactor utilized aboard the USS Seawolf, the U.S.'s second nuclear submarine, was scuttled in 9,000 feet of water off the Delaware/Maryland coast in a stainless steel containment vessel. The reactor was plagued by persistent leaks in its steam system (caused by the corrosive nature of the sodium) and was later replaced with a more conventional model. The reactor is estimated to have contained 33,000 curies of radioactivity and is likely the largest single radioactive object ever dumped deliberately into the ocean. Subsequent attempts to locate the reactor proved to be futile.
October 1959
One man was killed and another three were seriously burned in the explosion and fire of a prototype reactor for the USS Triton at the Navy's training center in West Milton, New York. The Navy stated, "The explosion...was completely unrelated to the reactor or any of its principal auxiliary systems," but sources familiar with the operation claim that the high-pressure air flask which exploded was utilized to operate a critical back-up system in the event of a reactor emergency.
1961
The USS Theodore Roosvelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system, blew back onton the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea. This happened on other occasions as well with other ships (for example, the USS Guardfish in 1975).
10 April 1963
The nuclear submarine Thresher imploded during a test dive east of Boston, killing all 129 men aboard.
5 December 1965
This write-up is drawn from the US Nuclear Weapons Accidents page at www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm.
An A-4E Skyhawk strike aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon rolled off an elevator on the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga and fell into the sea. Because the bomb was lost at a depth of approximately 16,000 feet, Pentagon officials feared that intense water pressure could have caused the B-43 hydrogen bomb to explode. It is still unknown whether an explosion did occur. The pilot, aircraft, and weapon were lost.
The Pentagon claimed that the bomb was lost "500 miles away from land." However, it was later revealed that the aircraft and nuclear weapon sank only miles from the Japanese island chain of Ryukyu. Several factors contributed to the Pentagon's secretiveness. The USS Ticonderoga was returning from a mission off North Vietnam; confirming that the carrier had nuclear weapons aboard would document their introduction into the Vietnam War. Furthermore, Japan's anti-nuclear law prohibited the introduction of atomic weapons into its territory, and U.S. military bases in Japan are not exempt from this law. Thus, confirming that the USS Ticonderoga carried nuclear weapons would signify U.S. violation of its military agreements with Japan. The carrier was headed to Yokosuka, Japan, and disclosure of the accident in the mid-1980s caused a strain in U.S.-Japanese relations.
1968
Radioactive coolant water may have been released by the USS Swordfish, which was moored at the time in Sasebo Harbor in Japan. According to one source, the incident was alleged by activists but a nearby Japanese government vessel failed to detect any such radiation leak. The purported incident was protested bitterly by the Japanese, with Premier Eisaku Sate warning that U.S. nuclear ships would no longer be allowed to call at Japanese ports unless their safety could be guaranteed.
22 May 1968
The U.S.S. Scorpion, a nuclear-powered attack submarine carrying two Mark 45 ASTOR torpedoes with nuclear warheads, sank mysteriously on this day. It was eventually photographed lying on the bottom of the ocean, where all ninety-nine of its crew were lost. Details of the accident remained classified until November 1993, when a Navy report detailing the incident was made public. The report suggested that a malfunction in one of Scorpion's torpedoes could have caused the sinking, but evidence from subsequent dives to the location suggest that this was not the culprit.
14 January 1969
A series of explosions aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise left 17 dead and 85 injured.
16 May 1969
The U.S.S. Guitarro, a $50 million nuclear submarine undergoing final fitting in San Francisco Bay, sank to the bottom as water poured into a forward compartment. A House Armed Services subcommittee later found the Navy guilty of "inexcusable carelessness" in connection with the event.
12 December 1971
Five hundred gallons of radioactive coolant water spilled into the Thames River near New London, Connecticut as it was being transferred from the submarine Dace to the sub tender Fulton.
October-November 1975
The USS Proteus, a disabled submarine tender, discharged significant amounts of radioactive coolant water into Guam's Apra Harbor. A geiger counter check of the harbor water near two public beaches measured 100 millirems/hour, fifty times the allowable dose.
22 May 1978
Up to 500 gallons of radioactive water was released when a valve was mistakenly opened aboard the USS Puffer near Puget Sound in Washington.
November 1992
Due to a valve failure, the nuclear-powered USS Long Beach leaked 109 gallons of radioactive cooling water over a 44-day period while docked at San Diego Naval Station. An additional 50 gallons had leaked out there the previous April and May. The San Diego Union reported that coolant had also been released at Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and Indian Island (Washington). U.S. Navy officials insist that the level of radiation posed no threat, and that a "very small amount of valve leakage that is unavoidable and occurs on all ships is well understood, controlled and accounted for."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Bomb Tests and Testing Facilities
26 April 1953
Radioactive rain, the result of above-ground nuclear tests, fell on Troy, New York.
5 September 1961
President Kennedy ordered the resumption of nuclear testing, "underground, with no fallout."
10 December 1961
Clouds of radioactive steam escaped from an underground nuclear test, closing several New Mexico highways.
4 June 1962 The Bluegill nuclear test, designed to detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere, was aborted 10 minutes after launch when the missile tracking system failed prior to nuclear detonation. The nuclear device was lost at sea.
20 June 1962 A failure of the Starfish nuclear test, designed to detonate a nuclear device in space, caused radioactive debris to be scattered across Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean.
9 December 1968
Clouds of radioactive steam from a nuclear test in Nevada broke through the ground, releasing fallout and violating the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed 5 years earlier.
18 December 1970
An underground nuclear test in Nevada resulted in a cloud of radioactive steam to be thrust 8,000 feet in the air over Wyoming.
15 July 1999
A spokesperson for President Clinton announced that thousands of contract workers at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, exposed to toxic and radioactive substances during the previous 50 years, could seek federal compensation for related illnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing, Storage, Shipping and Disposal
From 1946 to 1970 approximately 90,000 cannisters of radioactive waste were jettisoned in 50 ocean dumps up and down the East and West coasts of the U.S., including prime fishing areas, as part of the early nuclear waste disposal program from the military's atomic weapons program. The waste also included contaminated tools, chemicals, and laboratory glassware from weapons laboratories, and commercial/medical facilities
December 1962
A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious."
11 May 1969
A plutonium fire broke out in Building 776 at the Atomic Energy Commission's Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Plutonium was released into the atmosphere and tracked out of the building on the boots of firefighters, and several buildings at the factory were so badly contaminated that they had to be dismantled.
1971
After experimenting with disposal of radioactive waste in salt, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "Project Salt Vault" would solve the waste problem. But when 180,000 gallons of contaminated water was pumped into a borehole; it promptly and unexpectedly disappeared. The project was abandoned two years later.
1972
The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.
December 1972
A major fire and two explosions occurred at a Pauling, New York plutonium fabrication plant. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, resulting in its permanent shutdown.
1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.
16 July 1979
A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, New Mexico.
August 1979
Highly enriched uranium was released from a top-secret nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.
January 1980
A 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where large amounts of nuclear material are kept, caused a tritium leak.
19 September 1980
An Air Force repairman doing routine maintenance in a Titan II ICBM silo in Damascus, Arkansas dropped a wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell to the bottom of the silo. The socket struck the missile, causing a leak from a pressurized fuel tank. The missile complex and surrounding areas were evacuated. Eight and a half hours later, the fuel vapors ignited, causing an explosion which killed an Air Force specialist and injured 21 others. The explosion also blew off the 740-ton reinforced concrete-and-steel silo door and catapulted the warhead 600 feet into the air. The silo has since been filled in with gravel, and operations have been transferred to a similar installation at Rock, Kansas.
21 September 1980
Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.
1983
The Department of Energy confirmed that 1,200 tons of mercury had been released over the years from the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Components Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the U.S.'s earliest nuclear weapons production plant. In 1987, the DOE also reported that PCBs, heavy metals, and radioactive substances were all present in the groundwater beneath Y-12. Y-12 and the nearby K-25 and X-10 plants were found to have contaminated the atmosphere, soil and streams in the area.
December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.
1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.
6 January 1986
A container of highly toxic gas exploded at The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment. In response, the Government kept the plant closed for more than a year and fined owners Kerr-McGee $310,000, citing poorly trained workers, poorly maintained equipment and a disregard for safety and the environment. [See also 24 November 1992.]
1986
After almost 40 years of cover-ups, the U.S. Government released 19,000 pages of previously classified documents which revealed that the Hanford Engineer Works was responsible for the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and the adjacent Columbia River. Between 1944 and 1966, the eight reactors, a source of plutonium production for atomic weapons, discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, and the soil and air of the Columbia Basin. Although detrimental effects were noticed as early as 1948, all reports critical of the facilities remained classified. By the summer of 1987, the cost of cleaning up Hanford was estimated to be $48.5 billion. The Technical Steering Panel of the government-sponsored Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released the following statistics in July 1990: Of the 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from Iodine, but about 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe for civilians by the Department of Energy. Approximately 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number, and many more received additional doses from contaminants other than Iodine. [See also May 1997 and July 2000.]
1988
The National Research Council panel released a report listing 30 "significant unreported incidents" at the Savannah River production plants over the previous 30 years. As at Hanford (see 1986), ground water contamination resulted from pushing production of radioactive materials past safe limits at this weapons complex. In January 1989, scientists discovered a fault running under the entire site through which contaminants reached the underground aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the southeast. Turtles in nearby ponds were found to contain radioactive strontium of up to 1,000 times the normal background level.
6 June 1988
Radiation Sterilizers, Incorporated reported that a leak of Cesium-137 had occurred at their Decatur, Georgia facility. Seventy thousand medical supply containers and milk cartons were recalled as they had been exposed to radiation. Ten employees were also exposed, three of whom "had enough on them that they contaminated other surfaces" including materials in their homes and cars, according to Jim Setser at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
October 1988
The Rocky Flats, Colorado plutonium bomb manufacturing site was partially closed after two employees and a Department of Energy inspector inhaled radioactive particles. Subsequent investigations revealed safety violations (including uncalibrated monitors and insufficient fire-response equipment) and leaching of radioactive contaminants into the local groundwater.
24 November 1992
The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods and armor-piercing bullet shells, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. [Also see 6 January 1986 for details of an additional incident.] A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows; Carol Couch, the plant's environmental manager, was cited by the Government for obstructing the investigation and knowingly giving Federal agents false information.
31 March 1994
Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.
May 1997
A 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals, stored illegally at the U.S. Government's Hanford Engineer works exploded, causing the release of 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water. A cover-up ensued, involving the contractors doing clean-up and the Department of Energy, who denied the release of radioactive materials. They also told eight plant workers that tests indicated that they hadn't been exposed to plutonium even though no such tests actually were conducted (later testing revealed that in fact they had not been exposed). Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., operator of the Hanford Site, was cited for violations of the Department of Energy's nuclear safety rules and fined $140,625. Violations associated with the explosion included the contractor's failure to assure that breathing devices operated effectively, failure to make timely notifications of the emergency, and failure to conduct proper radiological surveys of workers. Other violations cited by the DOE included a number of events between November 1996 and June 1997 involving Fluor Daniel Hanford's failure to assure adherence to PFP "criticality" safety procedures. ("Criticality" features are defined as those features used "to assure safe handling of fissile materials and prevention of...an unplanned and uncontrolled chain reaction that can release large amounts of radiation.") [See also 1986 and July 2000.]
8 August 1999
The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950's) at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel.
June 2000
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation's atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, "We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection." Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers' radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker's compensation claims.
July 2000
Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers. [See also 1986 and May 1997.]
Notes:
Compiled by allen lutins (allen@lutins.org)
Criticality Accidents (Trinity Atomic Web Site): www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/critical.html
Government Accountability Project's Nuclear Oversight page: www.whistleblower.org/template/page.cfm?page_id=10
Radioactive America: www.cdi.org/adm/1341/
Nuclear Information and Resource Service: www.nirs.org
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents: www.cdi.org/issues/nukeaccidents/accidents.htm
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Last updated 29 May 2009
Introduction:
The following is a compilation of some known events involving nuclear devices and facilities under U.S. jurisdiction, many involving fatalities.
Research Facilities
29 November 1955:
Experimental breeder reactor EBR-1 experienced a core meltdown due to operator error.
26 July 1959:
A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (now known as the Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility) in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California. Later discovery of the incident prompted a class-action suit by local residents, who successfully sued for $30 million over cancer and thyroid abnormalities contracted due to their proximity to the facility.
2 September 1944
Peter Bragg and Douglas Paul Meigs, two Manhattan Project chemists, were killed when their attempt to unclog a tube in a uranium enrichment device led to an explosion of radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas exploded at the Naval Research Laboratory in Philadelphia, PA. The explosion ruptured nearby steam pipes, leading to a gas and steam combination that bathed the men in a scalding, radioactive, acidic cloud of gas which killed them a short while later.
21 August 1945
Harry K. Daghlian Jr. was killed during the final stages of the Manhattan Project (undertaken at Los Alamos, New Mexico to develop the first atomic bomb) from a radiation burst released when a critical assembly of fissile material was accidentally brought together by hand. This incident pre-dated remote-control assembly of such components, but the hazards of manual assembly were known at the time (the accident occurred during a procedure known as "tickling the dragon's tail"). A similar incident, involving another fatality, occurred the following year (see next entry), after which hand-maniuplations of critical assemblies was abandoned.
21 May 1946
A nuclear criticality accident occured at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. Eight people were exposed to radiation, and one, Louis Slotin, died nine days later later of acute radiation sickness.
2 July 1956
Nine persons were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of Sylvania Electric Products' Metallurgy Atomic Research Center in Bayside, Queens, New York.
1957
A radiation release at the the Keleket company resulted in a five-month decontamination at a cost of $250,000. A capsule of radium salt (used for calibrating the radiation-measuring devices produced there) burst, contaminating the building for a full five months.
30 December 1958
A chemical operator was exposed to a lethal dose of radiation following an incident involving the mixing of plutonium solutions, dying 35 hours later of severe radiation exposure.
1959
A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California.
2 April 1962
An "unplanned nuclear excursion" occurred in a plutonium processing facility in Richland, Washington. Several employees were hospitalized for observation following exposure to the resultant radiation, and radiation was detected in the surrounding atmosphere for sevearl days following the incident.
26 March 1963
A mechanical failure led to a nuclear leak and subsequent fire at an experimental facility in Livermore, California, resulting in serious damage to the shielded vault where the experiment was conducted.
5 October 1966
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown at Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. Radioactive gases leaked into the containment structures, but radiation was reportedly contained.
1974
Whistleblowers at the Isomedix company in New Jersey reported that radioactive water was flushed down toilets and had contaminated pipes leading to sewers. The same year a worker received a dose of radiation considered lethal, but was saved by prompt hospital treatment.
1982
International Nutronics in Dover, New Jersey, which used radiation baths to purify gems, chemicals, food, and medical supplies, experienced an accident that completely contaminated the plant, forcing its closure. A pump malfunctioned, siphoning water from the baths onto the floor; the water eventually was drained into the sewer system of the heavily populated town of Dover. The NRC wasn't informed of the accident until ten months later -- and then by a whistleblower, not the company. In 1986, the company and one of its top executives were convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy and fraud. Radiation has been detected in the vicinity of the plant, but the NRC claims the levels "aren't hazardous."
1986
The NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology, Inc. (RTI) plant in New Jersey for repeated worker safety violations. RTI was cited 32 times for various violations, including throwing radioactive garbage out with the regular trash. The most serious violation was bypassing a safety device to prevent people from entering the irradiation chamber during operation, resulting in a worker receiving a near-lethal dose of radiation.
ca. December 1991
One of four cold fusion cells in a Menlo Park, CA, laboratory exploded while being moved; electrochemist Andrew Riley was killed and three others were injured. The other three cells were buried on site, leading to rumors that a nuclear reaction had taken place. A report concluded that it was a chemical explosion; a mixture of oxygen and deuterium produced by electrolysis ignited when a catalyst was exposed. The Electric Power Research Institute, which spent $2 million on the SRI cold fusion research, suspended support for the work pending the outcome of an investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Plants
3 January 1961
The world's first nuclear-related fatalities occurred following a reactor explosion at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Three technicians, were killed, with radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. Another incident three weeks later (on 25 January) resulted in a release of radiation into the atmosphere.
24 July 1964
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.
19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.
March 1972
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.
27 July 1972
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line. [See also 9 December 1986]
28 May 1974
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."
22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.
28 March 1979
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.
1981
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.
11 February 1981
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.
July 1981
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.
1982
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.
25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.
25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.
9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].
1988
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.
28 May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.
15 February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.
6 March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombs and Bombers
13 February 1950
A B-36 en route from Alaska to Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, developed serious mechanical difficulties, complicated by severe icing conditions. The crew headed out over the Pacific Ocean and dropped the nuclear weapons from 8,000 feet off the coast of British Columbia. The weapons' high-explosive material detonated on impact, but the crew parachuted to safety.
11 April 1950
A B-29 carrying a nuclear weapon crashed into a mountain near Manzano Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, killing all 13 crewmembers aboard.
10 November 1950
A B-50 en route to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona, was forced to jettison a nuclear weapon over the St. Lawrence River near St. Alexandre-de-Kamouraska, Canada.
10 March 1956
A B-47 with two nuclear weapons aboard disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea after flying out of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. An exhaustive search failed to locate the aircraft, its weapons, nor its crew.
27 July 1956
A U.S. B-47 practicing a touch-and-go landing at Lakenheath Royal Air Force Station near Cambridge, England went out of control and smashed into a storage igloo housing three Mark 6 nuclear bombs, each of which had about 8,000 pounds of TNT in its trigger mechanism. No crewmen were killed, and fire fighters were able to extinguish the blazing jet fuel before it ignited the TNT.
22 May 1957
A 10 megaton hydrogen bomb was accidentally dropped from a bomber in an uninhabited area near Albuquerque, New Mexico owned by the University of New Mexico. The conventional explosives detonated, creating a 12 foot deep crater 25 feet across in which some radiation was detected.
28 July 1957
A C-124 Globemaster transporting three nuclear weapons and a nuclear capsule from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to Europe experienced loss of power in two engines. The crew jettisoned two of the weapons somewhere east of Rehobeth, Del., and Cape May/Wildwood, New Jersey. A search for the weapons was unsuccessful and it is a fair assumption that they still lie at the bottom of the ocean.
11 October 1957
A B-47 carrying a single nuclear weapon crashed shortly after takeoff. The weapon was partially destroyed in the ensuing fire, but the nuclear core was recovered intact.
31 January 1958
Unbeknownst to Moroccan officials, a B-47 loaded with a fully-armed nuclear weapon collapsed and caught fire on the runway at a U.S. Strategic Air Command base 90 miles northeast of Rabat. The Air Force considered evacuating the base, but instead allowed the bomber to continue to burn for seven hours. During cleanup operations a large number of vehicles and aircraft were contaminated with radiation.
5 February 1958
A B-47 carrying a Mark 15, Mod 0, nuclear bomb on a simulated combat mission from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida collided with an F-86. After three unsuccessful attempts to land at Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia, the B-47 crew jettisoned the nuclear bomb into the Atlantic Ocean off Savannah. The Air Force conducted a nine-week search of a 3-square-mile area in Wassaw Sound where the bomb was dropped, but declared on April 16 that the bomb was irretrievably lost. The bomb was rediscovered in September 2004.
11 March 1958
A B-47 on its way from Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia to an overseas base accidentally dropped an unarmed nuclear weapon into the garden of Walter Gregg and his family in Mars Bluff, South Carolina. The conventional explosives detonated, destroying Gregg's house and injuring six family members. The blast resulted in the formation of a crater 50-70 feet wide and 25-30 feet deep. Five other houses and a church were also damaged; five months later the Air Force paid the Greggs $54,000 in compensation.
4 November 1958
A B-47 carrying a nuclear weapon caught fire and crashed during takeoff from Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, killing one crew member.
26 November 1958
A B-47 caught fire on the ground at Chennault Air Force Base in Lake Charles, Louisiana, destroying a nuclear weapon onboard, resulting in minor radioactive contamination of the immediate vicinity.
15 October 1959
A B-52 with two nuclear bombs collided in mid-air with a KC-135 jet tanker and crashed near Hardinsberg, Kentucky. Both bombs were recovered intact, but eight crewmembers lost their lives.
7 June 1960
A BOMARC-A nuclear missile burst into flames after its fuel tank was ruptured by the explosion of a high pressure helium tank at McGuire Air Force Base in New Egypt, New Jersey. The missile melted, causing plutonium contamination at the facility and in the ground water below.
21 January 1961
A B-52 bomber carrying one or more nuclear weapons disintegrated in midair following an engine fier and explosion approximately 10 miles north of Monticello, Utah, killing all five crewmembers.
24 January 1961
A B-52 bomber suffered structural failure and disintegrated in mid-air 12 miles north of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, NC, releasing two hydrogen bombs. Five crewmen parachuted to safety, while three others died when the aircraft exploded in mid-air. The bombs jettisoned as the plane descended, one parachuting to earth intact, the other plunging deep into waterlogged farmland. To this day, parts of the nuclear bomb remain embedded deep in the muck. The area is off-limits, and is tested regularly for radiation releases. More information can be found at the Broken Arrow: Goldsboro, NC site at www.ibiblio.org/bomb/.
14 March 1961
A B-52 with nuclear bombs crashed in California while on a training mission.
13 January 1964
A B-52 with two nuclear weapons crashed near Cumberland, Maryland.
8 December 1964
A B-58 slid off a runway at Bunker Hill (now Grissom) Air Force Base in Peru, Indiana. The resulting fire consumed portions of five onboard nuclear weapons, leading to radioactive contamination of the surrounding area.
5 December 1965
An A-4E aircraft accidentally fell overboard off the USS Toconderoga, with the loss of pilot LTJG D.M. Webster and a nuclear weapon. The incident, which occurred in the Pacific Ocean approximately 200 miles east of Okinawa, was not reported by the Department of Defense until 1981.
17 January 1966
A B-52 collided with an Air Force KC-135 jet tanker while refueling over the coast of Spain, killing eight of the eleven crew members and igniting the KC-135's 40,000 gallons of jet fuel. Two hydrogen bombs ruptured, scattering radioactive particles over the fields of Palomares; a third landed intact near the village of Palomares; the fourth was lost at sea 12 miles off the coast of Palomares and required a search by thousands of men working for three months to recover it. Approximately 1,500 tons of radioactive soil and tomato plants were removed to the U.S. for burial at a nuclear waste dump in Aiken, S.C. The U.S. eventually settled claims by 522 Palomares residents at a cost of $600,000, and gave the town the gift of a $200,000 desalinizing plant.
22 January 1968
A B-52 crashed 7 miles south of Thule Air Force Base in Greenland, scattering the radioactive fragments of three hydrogen bombs over the terrain and dropping one bomb into the sea after a fire broke out in the navigator's compartment. Contaminated ice and airplane debris were sent back to the U.S., with the bomb fragments going back to the manufacturer in Amarillo, Texas. The incident outraged the people of Denmark (which owned Greenland at the time, and which prohibits nuclear weapons over its territory) and led to massive anti-U.S. demonstrations. One of the warheads was reportedly recovered by Navy Seals and Seabees in 1979, but an August 2000 report suggests that in fact it may still be lying at the bottom of Baffin Bay. Additional details, including footage of the recovery efforts, can be viewed at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7720049.stm courtesy of the BBC.
2 November 1981
A fully-armed Poseidon missile was accidentally dropped 17 feet from a crane in Scotland during a transfer operation between a U.S. submarine and its mother ship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarines and Ships
Some of the following incidents involve the discharge of radioactive coolant water by ships and submarines. While water from the primary coolant system stays radioactive for only a few seconds, it picks up bits of cobalt, chromium and other elements (from rusting pipes and the reactor) which remain radioactive for years. In realization of this fact, the U.S. Navy has curtailed its previously frequent practice of dumping coolant at sea.
18 April 1959
An experimental sodium-cooled reactor utilized aboard the USS Seawolf, the U.S.'s second nuclear submarine, was scuttled in 9,000 feet of water off the Delaware/Maryland coast in a stainless steel containment vessel. The reactor was plagued by persistent leaks in its steam system (caused by the corrosive nature of the sodium) and was later replaced with a more conventional model. The reactor is estimated to have contained 33,000 curies of radioactivity and is likely the largest single radioactive object ever dumped deliberately into the ocean. Subsequent attempts to locate the reactor proved to be futile.
October 1959
One man was killed and another three were seriously burned in the explosion and fire of a prototype reactor for the USS Triton at the Navy's training center in West Milton, New York. The Navy stated, "The explosion...was completely unrelated to the reactor or any of its principal auxiliary systems," but sources familiar with the operation claim that the high-pressure air flask which exploded was utilized to operate a critical back-up system in the event of a reactor emergency.
1961
The USS Theodore Roosvelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system, blew back onton the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea. This happened on other occasions as well with other ships (for example, the USS Guardfish in 1975).
10 April 1963
The nuclear submarine Thresher imploded during a test dive east of Boston, killing all 129 men aboard.
5 December 1965
This write-up is drawn from the US Nuclear Weapons Accidents page at www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm.
An A-4E Skyhawk strike aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon rolled off an elevator on the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga and fell into the sea. Because the bomb was lost at a depth of approximately 16,000 feet, Pentagon officials feared that intense water pressure could have caused the B-43 hydrogen bomb to explode. It is still unknown whether an explosion did occur. The pilot, aircraft, and weapon were lost.
The Pentagon claimed that the bomb was lost "500 miles away from land." However, it was later revealed that the aircraft and nuclear weapon sank only miles from the Japanese island chain of Ryukyu. Several factors contributed to the Pentagon's secretiveness. The USS Ticonderoga was returning from a mission off North Vietnam; confirming that the carrier had nuclear weapons aboard would document their introduction into the Vietnam War. Furthermore, Japan's anti-nuclear law prohibited the introduction of atomic weapons into its territory, and U.S. military bases in Japan are not exempt from this law. Thus, confirming that the USS Ticonderoga carried nuclear weapons would signify U.S. violation of its military agreements with Japan. The carrier was headed to Yokosuka, Japan, and disclosure of the accident in the mid-1980s caused a strain in U.S.-Japanese relations.
1968
Radioactive coolant water may have been released by the USS Swordfish, which was moored at the time in Sasebo Harbor in Japan. According to one source, the incident was alleged by activists but a nearby Japanese government vessel failed to detect any such radiation leak. The purported incident was protested bitterly by the Japanese, with Premier Eisaku Sate warning that U.S. nuclear ships would no longer be allowed to call at Japanese ports unless their safety could be guaranteed.
22 May 1968
The U.S.S. Scorpion, a nuclear-powered attack submarine carrying two Mark 45 ASTOR torpedoes with nuclear warheads, sank mysteriously on this day. It was eventually photographed lying on the bottom of the ocean, where all ninety-nine of its crew were lost. Details of the accident remained classified until November 1993, when a Navy report detailing the incident was made public. The report suggested that a malfunction in one of Scorpion's torpedoes could have caused the sinking, but evidence from subsequent dives to the location suggest that this was not the culprit.
14 January 1969
A series of explosions aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise left 17 dead and 85 injured.
16 May 1969
The U.S.S. Guitarro, a $50 million nuclear submarine undergoing final fitting in San Francisco Bay, sank to the bottom as water poured into a forward compartment. A House Armed Services subcommittee later found the Navy guilty of "inexcusable carelessness" in connection with the event.
12 December 1971
Five hundred gallons of radioactive coolant water spilled into the Thames River near New London, Connecticut as it was being transferred from the submarine Dace to the sub tender Fulton.
October-November 1975
The USS Proteus, a disabled submarine tender, discharged significant amounts of radioactive coolant water into Guam's Apra Harbor. A geiger counter check of the harbor water near two public beaches measured 100 millirems/hour, fifty times the allowable dose.
22 May 1978
Up to 500 gallons of radioactive water was released when a valve was mistakenly opened aboard the USS Puffer near Puget Sound in Washington.
November 1992
Due to a valve failure, the nuclear-powered USS Long Beach leaked 109 gallons of radioactive cooling water over a 44-day period while docked at San Diego Naval Station. An additional 50 gallons had leaked out there the previous April and May. The San Diego Union reported that coolant had also been released at Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and Indian Island (Washington). U.S. Navy officials insist that the level of radiation posed no threat, and that a "very small amount of valve leakage that is unavoidable and occurs on all ships is well understood, controlled and accounted for."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Bomb Tests and Testing Facilities
26 April 1953
Radioactive rain, the result of above-ground nuclear tests, fell on Troy, New York.
5 September 1961
President Kennedy ordered the resumption of nuclear testing, "underground, with no fallout."
10 December 1961
Clouds of radioactive steam escaped from an underground nuclear test, closing several New Mexico highways.
4 June 1962 The Bluegill nuclear test, designed to detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere, was aborted 10 minutes after launch when the missile tracking system failed prior to nuclear detonation. The nuclear device was lost at sea.
20 June 1962 A failure of the Starfish nuclear test, designed to detonate a nuclear device in space, caused radioactive debris to be scattered across Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean.
9 December 1968
Clouds of radioactive steam from a nuclear test in Nevada broke through the ground, releasing fallout and violating the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed 5 years earlier.
18 December 1970
An underground nuclear test in Nevada resulted in a cloud of radioactive steam to be thrust 8,000 feet in the air over Wyoming.
15 July 1999
A spokesperson for President Clinton announced that thousands of contract workers at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, exposed to toxic and radioactive substances during the previous 50 years, could seek federal compensation for related illnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing, Storage, Shipping and Disposal
From 1946 to 1970 approximately 90,000 cannisters of radioactive waste were jettisoned in 50 ocean dumps up and down the East and West coasts of the U.S., including prime fishing areas, as part of the early nuclear waste disposal program from the military's atomic weapons program. The waste also included contaminated tools, chemicals, and laboratory glassware from weapons laboratories, and commercial/medical facilities
December 1962
A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious."
11 May 1969
A plutonium fire broke out in Building 776 at the Atomic Energy Commission's Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Plutonium was released into the atmosphere and tracked out of the building on the boots of firefighters, and several buildings at the factory were so badly contaminated that they had to be dismantled.
1971
After experimenting with disposal of radioactive waste in salt, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "Project Salt Vault" would solve the waste problem. But when 180,000 gallons of contaminated water was pumped into a borehole; it promptly and unexpectedly disappeared. The project was abandoned two years later.
1972
The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.
December 1972
A major fire and two explosions occurred at a Pauling, New York plutonium fabrication plant. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, resulting in its permanent shutdown.
1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.
16 July 1979
A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, New Mexico.
August 1979
Highly enriched uranium was released from a top-secret nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.
January 1980
A 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where large amounts of nuclear material are kept, caused a tritium leak.
19 September 1980
An Air Force repairman doing routine maintenance in a Titan II ICBM silo in Damascus, Arkansas dropped a wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell to the bottom of the silo. The socket struck the missile, causing a leak from a pressurized fuel tank. The missile complex and surrounding areas were evacuated. Eight and a half hours later, the fuel vapors ignited, causing an explosion which killed an Air Force specialist and injured 21 others. The explosion also blew off the 740-ton reinforced concrete-and-steel silo door and catapulted the warhead 600 feet into the air. The silo has since been filled in with gravel, and operations have been transferred to a similar installation at Rock, Kansas.
21 September 1980
Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.
1983
The Department of Energy confirmed that 1,200 tons of mercury had been released over the years from the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Components Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the U.S.'s earliest nuclear weapons production plant. In 1987, the DOE also reported that PCBs, heavy metals, and radioactive substances were all present in the groundwater beneath Y-12. Y-12 and the nearby K-25 and X-10 plants were found to have contaminated the atmosphere, soil and streams in the area.
December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.
1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.
6 January 1986
A container of highly toxic gas exploded at The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment. In response, the Government kept the plant closed for more than a year and fined owners Kerr-McGee $310,000, citing poorly trained workers, poorly maintained equipment and a disregard for safety and the environment. [See also 24 November 1992.]
1986
After almost 40 years of cover-ups, the U.S. Government released 19,000 pages of previously classified documents which revealed that the Hanford Engineer Works was responsible for the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and the adjacent Columbia River. Between 1944 and 1966, the eight reactors, a source of plutonium production for atomic weapons, discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, and the soil and air of the Columbia Basin. Although detrimental effects were noticed as early as 1948, all reports critical of the facilities remained classified. By the summer of 1987, the cost of cleaning up Hanford was estimated to be $48.5 billion. The Technical Steering Panel of the government-sponsored Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released the following statistics in July 1990: Of the 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from Iodine, but about 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe for civilians by the Department of Energy. Approximately 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number, and many more received additional doses from contaminants other than Iodine. [See also May 1997 and July 2000.]
1988
The National Research Council panel released a report listing 30 "significant unreported incidents" at the Savannah River production plants over the previous 30 years. As at Hanford (see 1986), ground water contamination resulted from pushing production of radioactive materials past safe limits at this weapons complex. In January 1989, scientists discovered a fault running under the entire site through which contaminants reached the underground aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the southeast. Turtles in nearby ponds were found to contain radioactive strontium of up to 1,000 times the normal background level.
6 June 1988
Radiation Sterilizers, Incorporated reported that a leak of Cesium-137 had occurred at their Decatur, Georgia facility. Seventy thousand medical supply containers and milk cartons were recalled as they had been exposed to radiation. Ten employees were also exposed, three of whom "had enough on them that they contaminated other surfaces" including materials in their homes and cars, according to Jim Setser at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
October 1988
The Rocky Flats, Colorado plutonium bomb manufacturing site was partially closed after two employees and a Department of Energy inspector inhaled radioactive particles. Subsequent investigations revealed safety violations (including uncalibrated monitors and insufficient fire-response equipment) and leaching of radioactive contaminants into the local groundwater.
24 November 1992
The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods and armor-piercing bullet shells, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. [Also see 6 January 1986 for details of an additional incident.] A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows; Carol Couch, the plant's environmental manager, was cited by the Government for obstructing the investigation and knowingly giving Federal agents false information.
31 March 1994
Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.
May 1997
A 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals, stored illegally at the U.S. Government's Hanford Engineer works exploded, causing the release of 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water. A cover-up ensued, involving the contractors doing clean-up and the Department of Energy, who denied the release of radioactive materials. They also told eight plant workers that tests indicated that they hadn't been exposed to plutonium even though no such tests actually were conducted (later testing revealed that in fact they had not been exposed). Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., operator of the Hanford Site, was cited for violations of the Department of Energy's nuclear safety rules and fined $140,625. Violations associated with the explosion included the contractor's failure to assure that breathing devices operated effectively, failure to make timely notifications of the emergency, and failure to conduct proper radiological surveys of workers. Other violations cited by the DOE included a number of events between November 1996 and June 1997 involving Fluor Daniel Hanford's failure to assure adherence to PFP "criticality" safety procedures. ("Criticality" features are defined as those features used "to assure safe handling of fissile materials and prevention of...an unplanned and uncontrolled chain reaction that can release large amounts of radiation.") [See also 1986 and July 2000.]
8 August 1999
The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950's) at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel.
June 2000
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation's atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, "We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection." Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers' radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker's compensation claims.
July 2000
Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers. [See also 1986 and May 1997.]
Notes:
Compiled by allen lutins (allen@lutins.org)
Criticality Accidents (Trinity Atomic Web Site): www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/critical.html
Government Accountability Project's Nuclear Oversight page: www.whistleblower.org/template/page.cfm?page_id=10
Radioactive America: www.cdi.org/adm/1341/
Nuclear Information and Resource Service: www.nirs.org
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents: www.cdi.org/issues/nukeaccidents/accidents.htm
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
