Forgotten NUCLEAR HISTORY – theme for August 2012
If you go to Wikipedia, you will find bewildering lists of the many nuclear accidents. Not so many uranium-related accidents – probably because these most often affect people in remote and rural areas, – especially indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have always been exploited by the nuclear industry.
Here we have space to consider just a few of the forgotten nuclear disasters. The most prominent of these is the ongoing tragedy of Chelyabinsk province of Russia
Everybody knows of the nuclear catastrophes of Chernobyl and Fukushima But how many know of the Mayak nuclear nightmare?
The Mayak nuclear plant in the Southern Urals was one of the dark secrets of the cold war. It was the Soviet Union’s primary nuclear complex, a massive set of plutonium production reactors, fuel production facilities, and reprocessing and waste storage buildings.
In 1957 a storage tank with highly radioactive liquid waste exploded. More than half the amount of radioactive waste released by the accident in Chernobyl was blasted into the atmosphere. A few villagers were evacuated, but most were not. 217 towns and at least 272,000 people were exposed to chronic levels of radiation. The plume was 50 kilometers wide and 1,000 kilometers long.
But the explosion wasn’t the only incident of contamination. Between 1948 and 1956 radioactive waste was poured straight into the Techa River, the source of drinking water for many villages. It exposed 124,000 people to medium and high levels of radiation. Nuclear waste was also dumped into the lakes of West Siberia, where storms blew nuclear dust across a vast area around the lake. - more on this story on the sidebar, lower right
5 Comments »
Leave a Reply
SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
- AUDIO About San Onofre Nuclear plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – NRC: Lapdog or Watchdog? http://www.fairewinds.org/content/nrc-lapdog-or-watchdog
- and this Japan’s nuclear safety record criticised by regulator http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/japans-nuclear-safety-record-criticised-by-regulator/1132464
VIDEO: Japan to open nuclear plant http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3761126.ht
From Fukushima to New York: Continuing Dangers of Nuclear Power
Women and nuclear radiation – Mary Olson speaks
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
-
Archives
- May 2013 (292)
- April 2013 (383)
- March 2013 (392)
- February 2013 (424)
- January 2013 (502)
- December 2012 (460)
- November 2012 (520)
- October 2012 (522)
- September 2012 (492)
- August 2012 (546)
- July 2012 (362)
- June 2012 (312)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- rare earths
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Since I’ve only recently been reading up on the Marshall Islanders experiences as “study subjects” for US nuclear industry in the cold war, I was surprised to learn it wasn’t the subject of your headline. This is my first time at your site … I’ve bookmarked it. Nuclear damage and risk is so wide-spread – I had no idea how far ranging the industry’s tentacles reached!
Marshall Island link info link: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/01/nuclear-savages/
I agree, the Marshall Islands story probably should have been the “headline” story for History. It’s getting hard to choose – so many nuclear scandals in the past, and still going on in the present. The Mayak story is important too – how easily they can roll off “Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima – and just conveniently forget these other catastrophes.
Thank you for this. We need truth to rise up from all lands – on nuclear and so many other issues and responsibilities. I’ve been learning about the horrors experienced by the people of the Marshall Islands delivered to them by US Pacific weapons testing during the Cold War. In fact I expected your headline to refer to their story, only to discover – no, a different story, also very troubling. Should you or readers want to pursue details of the Marshall Islands story, here’s an article that summarized and via key words will lead to a larger more detailed understanding: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/01/nuclear-savages/
Thanks again … I’m new to you site but have bookmarked it along with a few others on “nuke” issues.
Thank YOU. Maggie Pate, for bringing this story to my attention. In fact, we did cover a Marshall Islands news item – http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/15/secrecy-and-injustice-regarding-nuclear-tests-in-marshall-islands/#more-26994
But I was unaware of this full history story until I went to the link that you supplied.
Thank you Christina (I’ve not been at my blog for some time so am late getting back.) I so very much appreciate knowing a small contribution can help – it’s good to learn!