The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

For the first time, Pentagon comes clean on Israel’s nuclear weapons

flag-IsraelIt’s Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too The Nation, William Greider on March 20, 2015 “……  After five decades of pretending otherwise, the Pentagon has reluctantly confirmed that Israel does indeed possess nuclear bombs, as well as awesome weapons technology similar to America’s.

Early last month the Department of Defense released a secret report done in 1987 by the Pentagon-funded Institute for Defense Analysis that essentially confirms the existence of Israel’s nukes. DOD was responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by Grant Smith, an investigative reporter and author who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy. Smith said he thinks this is the first time the US government has ever provided official recognition of the long-standing reality.

It’s not exactly news. Policy elites and every president from LBJ to Obama have known that Israel has the bomb. But American authorities have cooperated in the secrecy and prohibited federal employees from sharing the truth with the people. When the White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the question of Barack Obama back in 2009, the president ducked. “With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate,” Obama said. That was an awkward fib. Obama certainly knows better, and so do nearly two-thirds of the American people, according to opinion polls.

In my previous blog, “What about Israel’s Nuclear Bomb?” I observed that the news media focused solely on Iran’s nuclear ambitions but generally failed to note that Israel already had nukes. That produced a tip about the Pentagon release in early February.

Yet the confirmation of this poorly kept secret opens a troublesome can of worms for both the US government and our closest ally in the Middle East.  Official acknowledgement poses questions and contradictions that cry out for closer inspection. For many years, the United States collaborated with Israel’s development of critical technology needed for advanced armaments. Yet Washington pushed other nations to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires international inspections to discourage the spread of nuclear arms. Israel has never signed the NPT and therefore does not have to submit to inspections.

Washington knew all along what the inspectors would find in Israel. Furthermore, as far back as the 1960s, the US Foreign Assistance Act was amended by concerned senators to prohibit any foreign aid for countries developing their own nukes. Smith asserts that the exception made for Israel was a violation of the US law but it was shrouded by the official secrecy. Since Israel is a major recipient of US aid, American presidents had good reason not to reveal the truth.

The newly released report—“Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations”—describes Israel’s nuclear infrastructure in broad terms, but the dimensions are awesome. Israel’s nuclear research labs, the IDA researchers reported, “are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.” Indeed, the investigators observed that Israel’s facilities are “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories.”……..

March 21, 2015 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | 2 Comments

Austria’s case against the EU approving Britain’s subsidies for Hinkley nuclear plant

UK subsidyFighting EU’s nuclear ambitions ANDREAS MOLIN 21 March 2015    In October, the EU approved a controversial subsidy deal to allow billions of pounds of state aid for Hinkley Point C, a new nuclear reactor planned for the UK. Austria’s intention to launch a legal challenge against this decision has provoked controversial comments in international media. So, why does Austria care about a nuclear power plant being built in the UK, and what are the real issues at stake?

Austria has been deeply skeptical about nuclear power for decades. Recall that in a 1978 referendum, the Austrian electorate decided not to start the operation of the nuclear power plant Zwentendorf. After the catastrophic events in Chernobyl in 1986, the opposition to and concerns about nuclear power became deeply rooted in the Austrian population, at all levels of society.
Information regarding the safety of nuclear power plants of Russian design, which became public after 1989, reinforced these apprehensions, leading to explicit government policy in 1990. A joint publication by the heads of the European Radiological protection Competent Authorities and the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association released in October 2014 clearly states, “That the possibility of severe accidents … cannot be completely ruled out. Such accidents could be as severe as the Fukushima one, affect more than one European country and require rapid protective actions in several of them.”
As a matter of principle, Austria does not consider nuclear power to be compatible with the concept of sustainable development. Therefore, it does not consider reliance on nuclear power to be a viable option to combat the greenhouse effect. Sustainable development, if fully applied to the energy sector, would require substantial increases in energy efficiency and energy saving as well as a switch to renewable sources of energy. Austria fully respects every country’s sovereign right to decide on its national energy mix.
Our objection stems from concern about the provision of UK state aid for the project, and the extent to which it would comply with common European state aid and competition rules. The current European Environmental and Energy State Aid Guidelines allow, under strictly defined circumstances, for state aid to renewable energy projects — but there are no such rules for nuclear power projects. Therefore, an assessment has to be made on the basis of general EU competition law. As a general rule, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU prohibits state aid, while it leaves some room for certain policy objectives for which state aid can be considered compatible with the internal market.
European Commission guidelines and decision practice, as well as the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction, have developed a set of principles that put these exemptions to the general rule into concrete terms. As the planned state aid for Hinkley Point C differs tremendously from all of these principles, it seems inevitable that the European Commission’s decision will be challenged. In essence, the arguments raised in order to justify this state aid could apply to any other large-scale power project as well.
State aid for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could therefore not only serve as a model for further nuclear new build projects, but also lead to a run on state aid throughout the entire EU energy sector.
Against this background, Austria feels it has no option but to challenge this state aid decision at the courts of the EU. This action is not aimed at any particular EU member state, but rather seeks to defend a common competition regime, which this decision could render meaningless.      In partnership with The Mark News

March 21, 2015 Posted by | EUROPE, Legal | Leave a comment

Nuclear Regulatory Commission trickery on radiation rules favours the nuclear industry, not the public interest

The NRC needs to recall that its name is the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and so its job is to regulate the industry, rather than to work for the nuclear industry. Its job is to help the EPA keep a high safety standard for water, air, soil. They both appear to have forgotten or be oblivious to their purpose, which is to protect the people and environment from radionuclides from the nuclear industry.

Nuclear Facilities also are allowed to emit so many radionuclides, that it takes 50 pages to list them, including plutonium 239 to the air, along with the water. But, like the water, to talk about concentrations in the air – as opposed to amounts – is really meaningless for anything but the shortest-lived radionuclides.


US NRC Radioactive Dilute and Deceive Scam – Comment Deadline June 22nd (Extended) Mining Awareness Plus, 18 Mar 15 US NRC Comment Deadline extended to 22 June 2015:!documentDetail;D=NRC-2009-0279-0098   “………..The disgusting truth is that research on ionizing radiation has been ongoing since 1895. At the beginning of the nuclear age, focus was on how dangerous radiation was. Many animal and even human experiments have been done. The human experiments were both official experiments and unofficial making the population at large act as guinea pigs. They have known from the beginning the dangers. Somewhere along the way they seem to have switched from doing experiments to see how dangerous it was to doing endless experiments in an attempt at proving that it is safe. Despite their efforts to prove the contrary, they have only succeeded in proving that ionizing radiation is even more dangerous than their early results showed. As the National Academy of Science has stated endlessly in their BEIR reports, there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Increased dose is increased risk. This is even more true for high-LET internal alpha radiation and high LET neutrons.

The US EPA has a “clean water” water “standard” for drinking water, though it has none for water emissions from nuclear facilities – which makes no sense. Who, if anyone, pays to clean up the difference between radionuclides emitted by nuclear facilities and that allowed in drinking water?

Furthermore, the “Clean Water” drinking water standard appears to be inadequately protective, as well. It allows 740 Bq/liter of tritium in drinking water. The Canadian nuclear lobby was reportedly satisfied with a 20 Bq/liter standard for tritium in drinking water, recommended by the Ontario Water Advisory Commission (OWAC), even though Canadian CANDU reactors produce more tritium than other reactors. OWAC started with the idea that “the target derived risk level should be 1 in a million or 10-6 (meaning 1 new excess cancer occurrence over existing background cancer rates in 1,000,000 people); the target derived risk level should be over a lifetime of exposure of 70 years, and based on cancer incidences above background (occurrences) rather than mortality (deaths);” This led to models ranging from 7 Bq/L to 109 Bq/L.
Notice the number was chosen based on cancer morbidity (illness), not just mortality (death). (Unfortunately, if there are cooling towers they could send the balance of tritium out into the air.) Contrary to what TEPCO, AREVA, and EnergySolutions want everyone to believe, there are several ways to filter tritium………

Yes, they need water standards but they need real standards and strict standards, which account for all radionuclides emitted in air and water and per facility. The actual quantities of the radionuclides must be measured and not the concentration! Continue reading

March 21, 2015 Posted by | radiation, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

USA alarmed at South Africa’s nuclear burglary – unsolved after 8 years

safety-symbol1flag-S.AfricaA break-in at a South African nuclear complex alarms Washington and strains relations years later  Two teams of raiders penetrated a site holding enough explosives to fuel six nuclear bombs, but no one was ever caught, Center for Public Integrity , 21 Mar 15  By Douglas BirchemailR. Jeffrey Smith 

Key findings:

Washington remains spooked by a break-in at Pelindaba, the South African storage site for nuclear explosives, eight years ago.

No one was ever prosecuted for the Pelindaba break-in, even though a nonpublic South African report concluded in 2009 it posed a serious security threat.

South Africa’s government claims the break-in was a petty burglary, but U.S. officials and independent experts worry that the attackers were after nuclear explosives.

The nonpublic South African report described how at every step, the attackers displayed a detailed knowledge of Pelindaba’s layout and security systems, as well as the expertise needed to overcome the site’s defenses.

The incident led to unpublicized collaboration between a U.S. nuclear weapons laboratory and the nuclear site on stronger security measures, but White House officials are convinced more needs to be done at Pelindaba……….

March 21, 2015 Posted by | safety, South Africa | Leave a comment

International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning found no nuclear fuel nor water in Fukushima reactor 1

IRID SAW no fuel or water remaining in reactor core of Reactor 1   Author-Fukushima-diary Following up this article.  Tepco to start “scanning” inside of Reactor 1 in early February by using muon [URLIRID (International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning) and High Energy Accelerator Research Organization announced they could not find a potential part of nuclear fuel in Reactor core of Reactor 1.

On 3/19/2015, they released the prompt report of their “scanning” test implemented until 3/10/2015.

The report tells they could not find anything longer than 1m in reactor core, where originally fuel assemblies were set.

The muon equipment was installed in North of Reactor 1 and also in North-West of Reactor 1. However, neither of them detected a potential fuel assembly.

Also, no water is retained in the reactor core of RPV (Reactor Pressure Vessel). These facts found strongly supports the possibility that the molten fuel has already dropped onto the bottom of Primary Containment Vessel. They did not mention the further possibility that the molten fuel has already gone through the outer wall of the vessel.

About the state of Spent Fuel Pool 1, they did not conclude more than “assuming the fuel remains inside the pool, but the size is not identified”.

March 21, 2015 Posted by | Fukushima 2015 | Leave a comment

Germany’s nuclear power companies have not set aside sufficient funds for nuclear decommissioning

flag_germanyNuclear plant closure money insufficient – German gov’t report

BERLIN, March 20 Fri Mar 20, 2015 (Reuters) – A report commissioned by the German government believes nuclear power firms have not set aside enough money to cover the long-term costs of decommissioning plants, according to a copy of the report seen by Reuters on Friday.

The report from the law firm Becker Buettner Held said the 36 billion euros already set aside by Germany’s four nuclear operators E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Sweden’s Vattenfall was insufficient and meant the costs could fall on the public purse.

The report added the government should consider legal measures which would force the parent companies of nuclear power plant operators to assume liability in the case ofbankruptcy. (Reporting by Markus Wacket; Writing by Caroline Copley; Editing by Stephen Brown)

March 21, 2015 Posted by | decommission reactor, Germany | Leave a comment

Michael Marriotte exposes Senator Lamar Alexander’s nuclear fantasies

Actually, 100 new reactors not only seems high, it’s pure fantasy. With the experience of Vogtle, and the similar experience at two reactors under construction at the Summer site in South Carolina, no one is lining up to build new reactors. At this point, it’s unlikely even the four under construction will be online by 2020, much less 96 more new ones.

nuke-bubbleLamar Alexander’s nuclear fantasyland Green World, Michael Mariotte March 9, 2015 Back in 2008, when presidential candidate John McCain was calling for construction of 45 new reactors in the U.S. (and presidential candidate Barack Obama was calling for “safe” nuclear power), Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander outdid his colleague: he issued a call for construction of 100 new nuclear reactors.

In 2008, the nuclear “renaissance” was in full swing. McCain’s call didn’t seem–at least to nuclear backers–far-fetched in the least. After all, the NRC at the time already had some 30 applications for licenses for new reactors.

Nearly seven years later, McCain doesn’t talk much about nuclear power. President Obama’s Department of Energy approved a taxpayer loan for two new reactors at Vogtle, a move DOE may be beginning to regret asconstruction costs spiral out of control and the schedule delays keep pushing the project further back.  Otherwise, the president these days talks about promoting renewables.

Most people are able to adjust to reality–in this case the reality that the short-lived nuclear “renaissance” is long over.

But not Senator Alexander, who is now chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development. Continue reading

March 21, 2015 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Radiation Free Lakeland urges lobbying UK’s MP’s before March 25 on nuclear waste dumping


– ASK why the wall of silence?-

MANY THANKS to everyone who emailed, tweeted and rang their MPs at such short notice.  The Order was about to be passed through as “delegated legislation” this means that there is a presumption to pass the Order uncontested in a back room by Parliamentary Committee.   The lobbying action by Radiation Free Lakeland and No Nuke Dumping has helped ensure that “a select group of independently minded Lib Dem and Labour MPs have objected” to the Order to class a Geological Disposal Facility  as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.   As some MPs said “nay” (remember this is almost unprecedented) a VOTE HAS BEEN TRIGGERED IN THE COMMONS NEXT WEDNESDAY 25th MARCH 2015.


Now we have just a week to warn our locally elected Councillors that their Democratic Planning Authority regarding the dumping of radioactive waste is about to be stolen away with no fanfare or fuss.   Please lobby MPs, NGOs, Conservation Groups, The Press and anyone else you can think of. Write letters to the press – do something!

This is deliberately shifting sand that even the lawyers are unsure of.  But what we do know is that government is trying  to quietly push law that will ensure the hard won local planning protections (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Conservation Areas etc) and  our democratic mandate cannot be used to reject geological dumping of nuclear wastes.  At the same time the government is claiming that the “implementation of geological disposal” will be participatory with a “test of public support.”  We have already had some experience of how government has manipulated data to pretend support for geological dumpingand expect this “test” will be more of the same.

We know that all the “Radioactive Waste Management” roads lead to new-build justification and the production of more wastes.

This is what the local government lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell say about the plan:

“Of course this isn’t a random extension to the regime, the government has in mind the creation of one such facility, likely to be in Cumbria. It tried before but in January 2013 the project was vetoed by Cumbria County Council. It’s trying again and for obvious reasons has removed the ability for a county council to veto the process, and the process is also much more measured and supported with technical information.

Even if there is only one site that gets to the stage of a borehole, there should be at least two NSIPs – one for the borehole (and possibly more) and then one for the facility itself.

March 21, 2015 Posted by | ACTION | Leave a comment

What to do with ever accumulating radioactive waste? – Belgium doesn’t know

And then there’s the more hope-inducing prospect of transmuting the most-highly-radioactive long-living radioactive wastes into shorter-lived less radioactive isotopes.  This is one of the possibilities for the particle-accelerator-driven liquid-metal-cooled MYRRHA(Multi-purpose hYbrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications), currently under construction in Mol as well…..

similar to certain Thorium reactors, there is a possibility that innovative reactor designs like MYRRHA could assist in the transition from the extremely irresponsible era of currently used nuclear technologies towards a post-nuclear era.  (Problem is that fans of such new technologies seem just Gung ho about continuing the nuclear era, period, usually Book-PandoraReportCoverwhile downplaying cleaner alternatives, ánd accompanied with spewing nuclear propaganda, including belittling the effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as current nuclear waste disposal issues, and thus end up ultimately undermining their own credibility… The shameful propaganda-shit-movie, Pandora’s Promise, was such a horrid feat of deception, for example.)  ……

Regardless of scientific feats and research fame, the center’s history includes plenty of darker chapters too, including dumping some of its nuclear waste into the Atlantic Ocean[=> Source in Dutch] in the 1970s and 1980s. Belgium’s total waste dumped that way amounts to 55,324  containers with a total of 23,000 tons of (mainly low-level) wastes, dumped at 6 sites in the NE Atlantic.  Much of came from Doel NPP, but a part of it also came from this research site in Mol.
text-wise-owlA Visit to Belgium’s Nuclear Waste Depository Lab, HADES, 750 feet Underground. Not All Alleged is Apparent, March 20, 2015 “……..Part of my concerns stem not from what is going on at the lab per se, but more so from the Belgian government’s irresponsible delays to tackle key decisions, such as giving the green light and allocate the needed funds to start the search for an actual waste deposit site. Unbelievable:  Although scheduled, thát actually hasn’t even started yet.

The radioactive waste are simply accumulating in spent fuel pools and bunkers.  No long-term disposal site is even under construction yet.  They have NO IDEA YET where they’ll put it!   HADES, as it is now, is only an undergound laboratory.  Belgium has been researching the waste disposal issue longer than most other countries, but is currently (2015) near the end of the line for implementation (2035?).

Yet, also true, since disposal can’t even start until a couple more decades anyhow (during which the spent fuel and other wastes need to cool down more), ongoing research should help with making better decisions when that time has come.  Anyhow… “We’ll see.” is the very attitude of kicking the can onto the next generation… Continue reading

March 21, 2015 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | 2 Comments

The many ways in which fracking is radioactively contaminated

Radioactive isotopes that contaminate fracking industry waste and its machinery include radon, radium-226, uranium-238, and thorium-232. According to the Health Department’s website, these long-lived radioactive pollutants come in six forms:

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

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

* Contaminated soil and machinery;

* Filter socks, contaminated by  filtering “produced water”;

* Synthetic “proppants” or sand; and

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

Fracking Radiation- 
North Dakota Considers Weaker Landfill Rules, Less Oversight , CounterPunch, MARCH 19, 201 by JOHN LaFORGE Radioactive waste produced by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is making headlines all over gas land, particularly in North Dakota’s booming Bakken gas and oil field. Continue reading

March 21, 2015 Posted by | radiation, Reference, safety | 2 Comments

Rapid expansion of renewable energy predicted for Middle East

Renewables Poised For Massive Growth In The Middle East, Oil  By Darrell Delamaide 19 March 2015 

Growing scale in renewable energy projects has sharply reduced the price of sustainable energy to near parity with fossil fuels, creating new opportunities for energy companies but also for investors.

This is the thrust of a report published this month by the National Bank of Abu Dhabi entitled “Financing The Future Of Energy,” prepared by the University of Cambridge and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The report focuses on renewable energy prospects in the wider Gulf region – the ‘West-East corridor’ stretching from Africa into Central Asia – in the context of global energy development…….

Prices for new sustainable energy have fallen so dramatically in the past few years that perceptions have failed to keep up, the report says. The price for solar PV has fallen by 80% in six years, and onshore wind by 40%.

A new global benchmark for utility scale solar PV was set at the end of 2014, the report says, as the 200 MW Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) bid in Dubai showed that photovoltaic technologies are competitive with oil at US$10 per barrel and gas at US$5 per MMBtu.

For the last few years, the report says, more than half of the total investment in new electricity generation worldwide has been in renewable technologies. In 2014 alone, US$150 billion was invested in solar and US$100 billion in wind globally.

This kind of scale means that renewable energy projects can now draw on the full panoply of financing used for large infrastructure projects.

Recent wind and solar projects have used new financing approaches, such as securitization, aggregation and green bonds. These projects can also lend themselves to Special Purpose Vehicle financing, with the advantages this brings for limiting liability but also for channeling government input.

Government policies have an important role to play, not only in setting energy and environmental goals, but in providing guarantees in the form of power purchase agreements or procurement frameworks……

March 21, 2015 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, renewable | Leave a comment

Doubts that American nuclear companies will sell reactors to India

IS THE INDIA NUCLEAR AGREEMENT REALLY THE ‘BREAKTHROUGH’ OBAMA PROMISED? Chauthi Duniya, March 20th, 2015 Analysts and experts familiar with the negotiations say that the legal issues remain so complex that private U.S. companies may continue to shy away from new deals in India,….

The Indian Government has already slated sites for nuclear power facilities for Westinghouse Toshiba in the western state of Gujarat and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in the state of Andhra Pradesh. “My feeling is that there’s not as much there,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the nonprofit Arms Control Association, a non-proliferation watchdog group. “The real test is, will GE or Westinghouse say ‘this is good enough for us’ or not and whether they will sign contracts.”…….

The key issue will be whether the conflict between international law and Indian law can be waved away by a memorandum from India’s Attorney General. The memorandum would have to say that the 2010 liability law “doesn’t mean what it says,” said a Washington lawyer familiar with the issues but who asked for anonymity to protect his professional relationships. Continue reading

March 21, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, India, politics international | 2 Comments

Nuclear regulatory Commission deceives on nuclear radionuclides

text-exposing-liesUS NRC Radioactive Dilute and Deceive Scam – Comment Deadline June 22nd (Extended) Mining Awareness Plus, 18 Mar 15 US NRC Comment Deadline extended to 22 June 2015:!documentDetail;D=NRC-2009-0279-0098

The most strange and deadly scam, which the US NRC is running, is the dilute to deceive scam, where they actually tell the nuclear industry (and labs) that if they dilute the radionuclides with a certain amount of water (or air), then it is ok to put it into the rivers, ocean, air and even into regular sewerage drains! This is what they call “effluent concentration”. Even then the amounts allowed exceed amounts allowed under the EPA’s Clean Water Act, though it doesn’t really matter because what matters is how much radionuclide is actually emitted into the environment and how many months, years, decades, centuries, it’s going to stay there.

So, now it is easy to see that the following question by the NRC is meaningless BS. The actual amounts – not concentration – of the various radionuclides must be modelled. And, how long they stay in the environment:
Q1-3: How should the calculations of effluent concentration, currently in the 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection regulations, be modified to reflect advances in modeling that are now available? In particular, the NRC is interested in preliminary views on the age and gender averaged approach.

What the F(ukushima Daiichi) would age and gender averaged approach mean? Assuming they were speaking of actual amounts, then the amounts should be “appropriate” for the most fragile. If you are considering age and gender then the fragile must be considered – period. There is no average! Fragility varies according to disease. But, until they start modeling for actual emissions and actual half-life of the radionuclides, then it is meaningless. Half-life in the body is also meaningless because at some point the body will enter steady-state with the environment. And, actually the “appropriate” amount of exposure is none.

Here’s another crazy NRC question “Q1-4: Should the public dose limit of 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) continue to be the basis for the effluent concentration limits for the radionuclides in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2, Columns 1 and 2? Should it be reduced or otherwise modified?

As noted above, effluent concentrations are a dilute to deceive scam. What matters is the amounts and not the concentration. 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2 should be modified to reflect actual amounts allowed and not concentrations. And, really, any short-lived radionuclides should be contained until they are no longer radioactive, and long-lived radionuclides should never be emitted at all.

It’s not clear where they are getting the 0.5 mSv from. On the NRC web site 1 mSv per year is mentioned. Is this right or wrong? The US EPA has a standard of 0.25 mSv for the body and 0.75 mSv for the thyroid. The ICRP 103 (2007) which they pretend to be coming up to speed with has a dose constraint of less than or equal to 0.1 mSv per year where “prolonged component from long-lived nuclides” (p. 116)

How many cancers will there be in a lifetime from the 1 mSv per year proposed by the US NRC? According to National Academy of Sciences BEIR report, it would be 1 (or more) per 100 people. The ICRP has it at about 0.55 which would round up to one. However, this is assuming that the 1 mSv per year is new, whereas the radionuclides will be building up in the environment and even in the body. If half of the 1mSv emitted were short lived, the next year there would still be 1 mSv emitted plus 0.5 mSv (half) already emitted. Some of the radionuclides (cesium and strontium) have half-lives of about 30 years; other radionuclides like plutonium-americium in the 100s or 1000s of years: “The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,065 years. This half-life is short enough that 1 microgram of material will undergo more than 2000 decay events per second, but it is long enough to allow that microgram to decay at an approximately constant rate for thousands of years. If plutonium had uranium’s half-life of 4 billion years, there would be so few decays over the span of a human’s lifetime that the radiological toxicity of plutonium would be much less severe. [3] However, that is not the case… [3 Uranium is also much more soluble than plutonium and leaves the body rapidly.]” Los Alamos Science Number 26 2000, p. 78 (That’s straight from the heart of the beast – Los Alamos Nuclear Lab – hardly anti-nuclear!)

Plutonium 241 has a half life of 14 years, which is used to trick people since it becomes more dangerous 241 Americium with a half life of around 432 years.

Furthermore, BEIR is based on low-LET external, radiation. ICRP appears more appropriate for low-LET, as well. ICRP inappropriately lumps medical radiology and the nuclear industry together. BEIR is excluding more dangerous high-LET and internal radiation in their calculation. However, they recognize high LET such as alpha and neutrons as more dangerous. Most of the ICRP research would seem to be based on either external or very short-lived internal low LET radiation. While they are supposed to add weighting factors for high LET and amount of time spent in the body, it’s difficult to see if they can or will add enough weighting factors to thoroughly account for plutonium and americium, which even in a totally clean environment would stay in the body for a lifetime. It takes 20 to 50 years to excrete one half of them, in a clean environment. Furthermore, the US gov has at least one so-called expert who has messed up the formula, making more radiation safer and less more dangerous! Then he’s prancing around the world as an “expert”: (This topic is important for the March 24th deadline too.) To err is human, but there is no room for blunders with something so dangerous as radiation, especially not gross blunders………


March 21, 2015 Posted by | Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Radioactive waste produced by fracking for gas

Fracking Radiation– North Dakota Considers Weaker Landfill Rules, Less Oversight , CounterPunch, MARCH 19, 201 by JOHN LaFORGE

Radioactive waste produced by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is making headlines all over gas land, particularly in North Dakota’s booming Bakken gas and oil field.

National news coverage of the scandalous illegal dumping of radioactive filter “socks” there  — on Indian Reservations no less — has led North Dakota’s legislature to consider changes to its radioactive waste laws so that fracking’s contaminated wastes can be dumped in ordinary landfills.

One current bill would permit fracking’s radioactive waste in state landfills to be contaminated with 10 times the radioactivity that state law now allows — as long as it’s covered with 10 feet of dirt. Radioactive fracking waste that’s not being illegally discarded — no Victoria, mobster dumping probably hasn’t ended — is supposed to be being trucked out of state.

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

The ND Newspaper Association and the ND Broadcasters Association complained that one bill eliminates mandatory public hearings about landfill rule changes and instead permits them “when appropriate.” The bill also cancels public notification of the permitting process for disposition of radioactive materials.

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

Locals are Worried

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

Radioactive isotopes that contaminate fracking industry waste and its machinery include radon, radium-226, uranium-238, and thorium-232. According to the Health Department’s website, these long-lived radioactive pollutants come in six forms:

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

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

* Contaminated soil and machinery;

* Filter socks, contaminated by  filtering “produced water”;

* Synthetic “proppants” or sand; and

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

March 21, 2015 Posted by | environment, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Tepco doesn’t know whereabouts of the Fukishima nuclear reactor 1 fuel cores

Thousands of TEPCO Nuclear Bombs missing March 19, 2015 by Mikkai No Meltdown!

Missing: The radioactivity of 1,000 uranium bombs and 40 plutonium bombs

Just in: TEPCO Reactor 1 EMPTY: “no fuel or water remaining in reactor core of Reactor 1″:

A year before: “As a result, highly radioactive parts were found near the inert gas pipes, which were used to venting in 311″:


“an average operating nuclear power reactor will have approximately 16 billioncuries in its reactor core. This is the equivalent long-lived radioactivity of at least 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.”

Unit 2 also empty: NO MELTDOWN:

March 21, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment