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

Temporary waste sites to be returned to owners

minami-somaAs of the end of June, there were 1,134 temporary storage sites in Fukushima Prefecture, storing a total of 6.4 million cubic meters of contaminated waste — equal to filling Tokyo Dome five times over. However, due to a chronic shortage of temporary storage sites, about 1.8 million cubic meters of contaminated waste and soil have been kept at decontamination sites as it is impossible to transport them anywhere else. 

 The Minami-Soma municipal government in Fukushima Prefecture plans to return to landowners part of the private land used for the temporary storage of radioactive contaminated waste, marking the first time a municipal government has decided not to renew a land lease for a temporary storage site.

The construction of an interim storage facility (see below) has been delayed and three-year land leases for temporary storage sites in the prefecture have been expiring one after another since early this year. As the municipal government feels there are no prospects for gaining the understanding of landowners, it has decided to make the move with six months left on the existing lease.

Temporary storage sites were set up to store radioactive contaminated waste and soil collected during decontamination work following the nuclear crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. At other locations, there have been many cases in which landowners and nearby residents have shown reluctance to have their lands continue to be used as temporary storage sites, due to concerns over radioactive materials.

Under such circumstances, it is more likely that a plan for the disposal of radioactive contaminated waste, which has been promoted by the Environment Ministry, could be stalled.

Temporary storage sites were set up to store contaminated waste and soil until it becomes possible to bring the contaminated materials to an interim storage facility. To secure land for such sites, the central government signed leases with landowners in designated evacuation zones. In other areas, relevant municipal governments signed such leases.

As of the end of June, there were 1,134 temporary storage sites in Fukushima Prefecture, storing a total of 6.4 million cubic meters of contaminated waste — equal to filling Tokyo Dome five times over. However, due to a chronic shortage of temporary storage sites, about 1.8 million cubic meters of contaminated waste and soil have been kept at decontamination sites as it is impossible to transport them anywhere else.

minami-soma2Minami-Soma has decided to return to landowners a temporary storage site in the Baba area of the city. It is the second largest such site in the city, set up in March 2013 by the Minami-Soma municipal government, which leased about 12 hectares of paddy fields from 41 landowners.

In October 2011, while announcing the construction plan for the interim storage facility, the Environment Ministry stated that contaminated waste and soil should be stored for three years at temporary storage sites. With this in mind, the Minami-Soma municipal government signed a three-year land lease with individual landowners, thinking that it would be possible to move contaminated waste out of the temporary storage sites in March 2016. Currently, bags filled with contaminated waste are piled up at these temporary storage sites. The amount of waste stored in the bags totals about 65,000 cubic meters, equal to filling 120 25-meter swimming pools.

However, there has been little progress in the construction of the interim storage facility due to difficulties in acquiring the necessary land. The landowners of the temporary storage site in the Baba area plan to readjust their paddy fields from around 2018, and the municipal government has considered it difficult to extend the land lease with no prospect of when contaminated waste can be removed. The municipal government has not yet found another site to store the contaminated waste after the current temporary storage site is returned to landowners.

■ Interim storage facility

An interim storage facility is planned to be built in an area covering 16 square kilometers in a difficult-to-return zone straddling the Fukushima Prefecture towns of Okuma and Futaba, site of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The envisaged facility is intended to be able to store up to 22 million cubic meters of contaminated waste and soil generated by decontamination work. In March this year, a small amount of contaminated waste was transported to the facility site on a trial basis. The law stipulates that contaminated waste should be transported outside the prefecture within 30 years after it is first stored at the interim storage facility.

Source: Yomiuri

September 23, 2015 Posted by | Japan | , , | Leave a comment

Radiation Impact Studies: Chernobyl and Fukushima

highly-recommended“Chernobyl and Fukushima Studies Show that Radiation Reduces Animal and Plant Numbers, Fertility, Brain Size and Diversity… and Increases Deformities and Abnormalities”

Some nuclear advocates suggest that wildlife thrives in the highly-radioactive Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, animals like it, and not only that, a little radiation for anybody and everybody is harmless and maybe good, not bad. This may seem like a senseless argument to tackle were it not for the persistence of positive-plus commentary by nuke lovers. The public domain deserves better, more studied, more crucial answers.

Fortunately, as well as unfortunately, the world has two major real life archetypes of radiation’s impact on the ecosystem: Chernobyl and Fukushima.  Chernobyl is a sealed-off 30klm restricted zone for the past 30 years because of high radiation levels, whereas PM Abe’s government in Japan has already started returning people to formerly restricted zones surrounding the ongoing Fukushima nuclear melt-down.

The short answer to the supposition that a “little dab of radiation is A-Okay” may be suggested in the title of a Washington Blog d/d March 12, 2014 in an interview of Dr. Timothy Mousseau, the world-renowned expert on radiation effects on living organisms. The hard answer is included further on in this article.

Dr. Mousseau is former Program Director at the National Science Foundation in Population Biology, Panelist for the National Academy of Sciences’ Panels on Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities and GAO Panel on Health and Environmental Effects from Tritium Leaks at Nuclear Power Plants, and a biology professor – and former Dean of the Graduate School, and Chair of the Graduate Program in Ecology – at the University of South Carolina.

The title of the Washington Blog interview is:

“Chernobyl and Fukushima Studies Show that Radiation Reduces Animal and Plant Numbers, Fertility, Brain Size and Diversity… and Increases Deformities and Abnormalities”

Dr. Mousseau made many trips to Chernobyl and Fukushima, making 896 inventories at Chernobyl and 1,100 biotic inventories in Fukushima. His mission was to test the effects of radiation on plants and animals. The title of his interview (above) handily serves to answer the question of whether radiation is positive for animals and plants. Without itemizing reams and reams of study data, the short answer is: Absolutely not! It is not positive for animals and plants, period.

Moreover, low doses of radiation, aka “radiation hormesis”, is not good for humans, as advocated by certain energy-related outlets. Data supporting their theory is extremely shaky and more to the point, flaky.

Furthermore, according to the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews, including reported results by wide-ranging analyses of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over 40 years, low-level natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA and several measures of good health.

Dr. Mousseau, with co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud, examined more that 5,000 papers involving background radiation in order to narrow their findings to 46 peer-reviewed studies. These studies examined plants and animals with a large preponderance of human subjects.

The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

There is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation.

With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level…. But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine. And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants….

Results of Major Landmark Study on Low Dose Radiation (July 2015)

A consortium of researchers coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, examined causes of death in a study of more than 300,000 nuclear-industry workers in France, the United States and the United Kingdom, all of whom wore dosimeter badges.1

The workers received on average just 1.1 millisieverts (mSv) per year above background radiation, which itself is about 2–3 mSv per year from sources such as cosmic rays and radon. The study confirmed that the risk of leukemia does rise proportionately with higher doses, but also showed that this linear relationship is present at extremely low levels of radiation.

The study effectively “scuppers the popular idea that there might be a threshold dose below which radiation is harmless.”

Even so, the significant issue regarding radiation exposure for humans is that it is a “silent destroyer” that takes years and only manifests once damage has occurred; for example, 200 American sailors of the USS Reagan have filed a lawsuit against TEPCO et al because of radiation-related illnesses, like leukemia, only four years after radiation exposure from Fukushima.

Japan Moving People Back to Fukushima Restricted Zones

Japan’s Abe government has started moving people back into former restricted zones surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station even though it is an on-going major nuclear meltdown that is totally out of control.

Accordingly, Greenpeace Japan conducted a radiation survey and sampling program in Iitate, a village in Fukushima Prefecture. Even after decontamination, radiation dose rates measured ten times (10xs) the maximum allowed to the general public.

According to Greenpeace Japan:

The Japanese government plans to lift restrictions in all of Area 2 [2], including Iitate, where people could receive radiation doses of up to 20mSV each year and in subsequent years. International radiation protection standards recommend public exposure should be 1mSv/year or less in non-post accident situations. The radiation limit that excluded people from living in the 30km zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant exclusion zone was set at 5mSV/year, five years after the nuclear accident. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from within the zone and will never return.2

  1. “Researchers Pin Down Risks of Low-Dose Radiation”, Nature, July 8, 2015.
  2. Greenpeace Press Release, July 21, 2015

Source: The Dissident

September 23, 2015 Posted by | Belarus, Japan, Reference, Ukraine | , , | Leave a comment

Fukushima Disaster Aftermath: Japanese Government Has Something to Hide

highly-recommendedCommenting on the aftermath of Fukushima disaster, US climate journalist Robert Hunziker suggests that the Japanese government has something to hide; “it must be really big,” the journalist notes, referring to the hard-hitting new secrecy law Tokyo has adopted.

 There is something sinister about the Japanese government’s optimistic claims that the notorious Fukushima Prefecture is largely safe for habitation, Los-Angeles based climate journalist Robert Hunziker notes, warning that scientific data published by third-party NGOs shows otherwise.

 “The immediate direct exposure of radiation over population centers at Chernobyl was significantly more than Fukushima, where 80% drifted out into the Pacific Ocean. However, that may be slight solace because, horrifyingly, nobody knows where the Fukushima melted cores are located; it’s absolutely true, nobody knows whether the molten cores are within the containment vessels, outside of the vessels, deep in the ground, or cataclysmically traversing towards the water table,” Hunziker elaborated in his article for CounterPunch.

Meanwhile, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe’s government is encouraging people to move back into former restricted zones, claiming that “a whole lot of the mess outside of the immediate meltdown” has already been cleaned up.

Alas, it’s nearly impossible to give such an optimistic signal, since the Fukushima contamination still remains out of control, the journalist emphasized.

Citing nuclear expert Eben Harrell, the journalist underscored that some of the isotopes released during a nuclear catastrophe remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Remarkably, when asked in 2011 when the Chernobyl site would be inhabitable again, Igor Gramotkin, General Director of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, answered laconically: “At least 20,000 years.”

“One of the issues in trying to assess the dangers, as well as timing of recovery, for Fukushima is believability. Who can be trusted? In that regard, the Abe government’s enactment of strict extraordinarily broad secrecy laws, similar to WWII, with the threat of prison sentences up to 10 years for any violators of indeterminately wide-open secrecy laws undermines confidence in believability of the Japanese government, by definition,” Hunziker pointed out.

The journalist called attention to the latest radiation survey carried out by Greenpeace Japan, that has indicated that the Japanese government plans to move people to the areas where they could receive radiation doses of up to 20mSV annually for many years to come.According to international radiation protection standards, the recommended public exposure limit should not exceed 1mSv/year or less in non-post accidental situations.

“The radiation limit that excluded people from living in the 30km zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant exclusion zone was set at 5mSV/year, five years after the nuclear accident. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from within the zone and will never return,” Greenpeace Japan’s report read.

The question arises why the Japanese government turns a blind eye to the fact that Fukushima residents would be exposed to 20mSV/year of radiation regardless of international norms and practices.

“Continued exposure to low-level radiation, entering the human body on a daily basis through food intake, is of particular consequence,” The Green Cross International 2015 Fukushima Report warned, as quoted by the journalist.

But that is not all, Hunziker stressed, referring to a worrisome report released by the National Institute of Radiological Science/Japan. The scientists are beating the environmental drum over the “strange growth patterns” of fir trees observed in Fukushima.About 98 percent of inspected fir trees within a 3.5 km zone surrounding Fukushima’s damaged nuclear power stations “have severe defects,” the journalist highlighted.

Furthermore,  two hundred US sailors of the USS Reagan which participated in Operation Tomodachi (“Friends”), providing assistance to the infamous prefecture when it was struck by the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, have filed a lawsuit against TEPCO, General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba and Hitachi.

“The lawsuit includes claims for illnesses such as leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals, brain cancer, brain tumors, testicular cancer, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach ailments and a host of other complaints unusual in such young adults,” Hunziker underscored, elaborating that the sailors were most likely affected by radiation.

Inexplicably though, the Fukushima disaster still remains shrouded in secrecy. Moreover, the Abe government’s draconian new secrets law allows Japanese bureaucrats to conceal information from public and imprison journalists for “soliciting information that is classified a secret.”

It is obvious that Tokyo has something to hide and it must be really big, the journalist stressed, asking rhetorically: “Why else adopt a hard-hitting secrecy law on the heels of the worst disaster to hit Japan since America dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?”

Source: Sputnik News

September 23, 2015 Posted by | Japan, secrets,lies and civil liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Fortum to supply more ion exchange materials for purification of radioactive liquids in Fukushima, Japan –

TEPCO and their contract partners have been fairly secretive about what exactly makes the ALPS system work. While they have provided schematics and some explanation of the systems processes, they have not said what filtration materials are being used in the systems.
Finnish company Fortum has been providing ion exchange materials to Fukushima Daiichi since 2012. In their recent press release they explain what some of those filtration materials used in ALPS are.
A proprietary ion exchange material called Nures® includes three proprietary ion exchange materials
CsTreat® removes cesiums
SrTreat® removes strontium
CoTreat® removes cobalt

FORTUM CORPORATION 22 September  2015 at 10.00 EET

Fortum has received a significant additional order from the American EnergySolutions for ion exchange materials for purification of radioactive waters at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Fortum’s ion exchange materials have been used in the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) in the power plant area to purify radioactive waters for the past three years. EnergySolutions’s most recent order is one of Fortum’s largest deliveries of Nures® ion exchange materials to date.

“Fortum’s ion exchange materials effectively remove e.g. caesium and strontium from radioactive water. In addition to purification effectiveness, another advantage of the Fortum products is their cost efficiency: the amount of the product needed is very small compared to the volume of liquids to be purified,” says Fortum’s Heikki Andersson, Vice President, Power Solutions.

Fortum’s method significantly reduces the need for intermediate and final disposal repository space for radioactive liquids. Fortum has sold ion exchange materials for some 60 different applications around the world. Fortum has supplied ion exchange materials to Fukushima since spring 2012.

Fortum Corporation
Corporate Communications

Further information:
Heikki Andersson, Vice President, Power Solutions, Fortum, tel. +358 50 453 4092

Nures® product and ion exchange materials
Fortum has over 20 years of experience in treating waste containing radioactive impurities with Nures® products. Fortum initially developed the product for use at its own Loviisa nuclear power plant. The Fortum-developed products are designed to e.g. remove caesium, strontium and cobalt especially from large volumes of liquids that are particularly difficult to treat and which typically are very difficult and expensive to purify. Nures® contains extremely selective ion exchange materials CsTreat®, SrTreat® and CoTreat® to absorb radioactivity. A very small amount of these materials are needed compared to the volume of the liquid to be purified. The purified water doesn’t contain any harmful substances and thus it can be released into a water system. Esko Tusa, who has developed and sold products at Fortum for decades, received the 2015 Finnish Engineering Award for his accomplishments. The award is granted by Tekniikan akateemiset TEK and Tekniska Föreningen i Finland TFiF.

Fortum’s purpose is to create energy that improves life for present and future generations. Fortum’s expertise is in CO2-free and efficient electricity and heat production. The company also offers energy-related products and expert services to private and industrial customers and energy producers. Fortum’s main areas of operation are the Nordic and the Baltic countries, Russia and Poland. In 2014, the annual sales (excluding the divested electricity distribution business) totalled EUR 4.1 billion, and comparable operating profit was EUR 1.1 billion. The company employs approximately 8,000 people. Fortum’s share is listed on Nasdaq Helsinki.

Source: Nasdaq

September 23, 2015 Posted by | Japan | , | Leave a comment

Cs-134/137 measured from Tokyo tap-water

Cs-134137-measured-from-Tokyo-tap-water-SEPT 22, 2015

According to MHLH (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare), Cs-134/137 has been detected from tap-water of Tokyo since October of 2014. The data is from October 2014 to March 2015. The newer result hasn’t been announced yet.

The sample was collected from the tap of Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health in Shinjuku.

The density was from 0.00178 to 0.003 Bq/Kg. Cs-134 was detected to prove it is from Fukushima plant.

The analysis was implemented by NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority).

All the other analyses were carried out by Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Waterworks or municipal governments and the lowest detectable amount was over 0.5 Bq/kg to show none of the actual readings.


Click to access 0000082427.pdf

Source: Fukushima Daiichi


September 23, 2015 Posted by | Japan | , , , , | 1 Comment

Survey: 20% of reactor operators inexperienced

NHK has learned that one out of 5 workers who operate reactors at nuclear power plants in Japan has no experience in the work.

NHK surveyed 10 electric power companies to study the impact of suspended operations at their reactors following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

The survey shows that an average of 22 percent of the reactor operators were inexperienced, as of the end of August.

The ratio of such workers was the highest, at about 40 percent, at the Sendai plant in Kagoshima Prefecture, southwestern Japan. One of the plant’s reactors was restarted last month.

This is followed by 37 percent at the Shimane plant, 33 percent at the Ikata plant, and 30 percent at the Genkai plant, all in the country’s west.

The power companies attributed the lack of experienced workers to the increasing number of workers hired after they suspended operations at their reactors.

It is said to take 10 years to become a full-fledged operator, as comprehensive knowledge and experience are needed in such fields as nuclear fuel, radiation, electricity, mechanics and chemistry.

At nuclear plants, teams of about 10 workers operate a reactor in shifts. The survey shows that 2 of these people are inexperienced.

The power companies say they are training newly hired operators at facilities simulating reactor control rooms or at their thermal power plants.

But the companies are facing difficulties educating their operators. Some officials say one reason is that they cannot use actual machines for training.

Source: NHK

September 23, 2015 Posted by | Japan | | Leave a comment

Join the ‘Don’t Nuke the Climate’ Thunderclap

globalnukeNO Michael Mariotte President, Nuclear Information and Resource Service On Saturday, September 26, 2015, the Don’t Nuke the Climate campaign will be putting out some noise that will be heard around the world! If you’ve got a Facebook, Twitter, and/or Tumblr account, we ask you to join our Thunderclap and help amplify that noise.
It’s easy to do, just sign up at:

When you do, the Thunderclap will automatically post a message to your Facebook friends, Twitter followers, and/or Tumblr list on Saturday, September 26.
We’re sending out this message: Tell EDF: nuclear can’t save the climate: too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, too slow #exposeEDF #EDFMenteur
EDF is, of course, Electricite de France, the largest nuclear power utility in the world. EDF wants to have a big influence at December’s COP-21 UN climate negotiations in Paris; their future depends on a nuclear-powered future. But our future, and our planet’s future, depends on just the opposite: we want and need a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system that will power our planet cleanly, safely, affordably and sustainably.
That’s the message the Don’t Nuke the Climate campaign is taking to Paris. We hope you’ll help us reach millions of people across the globe.
You can find our more about the Don’t Nuke the Climate campaign at the international campaign page ( and the U.S. campaign page (

And if you haven’t done so yet, don’t forget to sign the Don’t Nuke the Climate petition to be presented to global leaders at COP 21 in December.

Organizations, sign at:

Individuals, sign at:

September 23, 2015 Posted by | ACTION | Leave a comment

Dirty dangerous expensive nuclear power can’t save the climate

globalnukeNONuclear ≠ the solution!
by Don’t Nuke the Climate
“Tell EDF: nuclear can’t save the climate: too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, too slow #exposeEDF #EDFMenteur

Thousands of people will join the climate negotiations, the COP 21, in Paris this year to discuss a new agreement. Under the expiring Kyoto Protocol, nuclear energy is rightly excluded from the possible solutions available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the nuclear industry, in collaboration with certain nations, is lobbying for their dangerous and polluting technology to be seen as a climate-friendly option. This would obstruct real progress in protecting the climate.

An example of these lobbyists is EDF, world’s biggest electricity generator. Which is running many nuclear and coal plants all over the world and all French nuclear power plants. They are shamelessly using the context of climate negotiations to promote its nuclear electricity as climate-friendly and carbon-free… And EDF is also one of the big sponsors of the COP 21!

Poster EDF menteur

EDF’s argument is misleading: the nuclear industry does emit greenhouse gas, particularly during uranium mining! Nuclear power manifests a wide range of human rights violations, from the rights to life and health, to disproportionate impacts on indigenous peoples, women, children, and future generations. No matter what else EDF claims.

Join us in exposing EDF. Tweet or share in English, German, French, or any language (copy paste this in the text field):

  • Tell EDF: nuclear can’t save the climate: too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, too slow #exposeEDF #EDFMenteur

The French petition will be online before the 26th of September.

September 23, 2015 Posted by | ACTION, climate change | Leave a comment

Children are uniquely vulnerable to even small amounts of ionising radiation

chld-Japan-medicalProtect children from radiation exposure! TELL NRC: A little radiation is BAD for you. It can give you cancer and other diseases. Children are uniquely vulnerable.


Background radiation 

Studies show that even natural background doses of radiation—doses we are normally, and inescapably, exposed to– can give children cancer. Now people who deny the danger of radiation are wanting NRC to allow the public to be exposed to 50 to 100 times this amount in the form of artificial radioactivity, as from nuclear power industry releases. They want to allow this exposure even for “pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, and children under 18 years of age.”

Women are more vulnerable to radiation than men. Childhood and in utero life stages are the most vulnerable.

The NRC already allows nuclear power facilities to release enough radiation to double this dose each year, risking our and our children’s health. NRC should NOT adopt a “little radiation is good for you” model. Instead, they should fully protect the most vulnerable which they are failing to do now.

September 23, 2015 Posted by | ACTION | 1 Comment

How the USA govt covered up a nuclear meltdown, and radiation pollution in Southern California

Six weeks after the meltdown, the Atomic Energy Commission issued a press release saying that there had been a minor “fuel element failure” at Area Four’s largest reactor in July. But they said there had been “no release of radioactive materials” to the environment………

In 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed a $40 million soil test of the site and found 423 hot spots — places contaminated with high levels of man-made radiation.

see-no-eviltext ionisingLA’s Nuclear Secret: Part 1  Tucked away in the hills above the San Fernando and Simi valleys was a 2,800-acre laboratory with a mission that was a mystery to the thousands of people who lived in its shadow 4 Southern California  By Joel Grover and Matthew Glasser, 22 Sep 15 The U.S. government secretly allowed radiation from a damaged reactor to be released into air over the San Fernando and Simi valleys in the wake of a major nuclear meltdown in Southern California more than 50 years ago — fallout that nearby residents contend continues to cause serious health consequences and, in some cases, death.

LA’s Nuclear Secret: Timelines, Documents, FAQ

Those are the findings of a yearlong NBC4 I-Team investigation into “Area Four,” which is part of the once-secret Santa Susana Field Lab. Founded in 1947 to test experimental nuclear reactors and rocket systems, the research facility was built in the hills above the two valleys. In 1959, Area Four was the site of one of the worst nuclear accidents in U.S. history. But the federal government still hasn’t told the public that radiation was released into the atmosphere as a result of the partial nuclear meltdown.

Now, whistleblowers interviewed on camera by NBC4 have recounted how during and after that accident they were ordered to release dangerous radioactive gases into the air above Los Angeles and Ventura counties, often under cover of night, and how their bosses swore them to secrecy.

In addition, the I-Team reviewed over 15,000 pages of studies and government documents, and interviewed other insiders, uncovering that for years starting in 1959, workers at Area Four were routinely instructed to release radioactive materials into the air above neighboring communities , through the exhaust stacks of nuclear reactors , open doors, and by burning radioactive waste.

How It Began Continue reading

September 23, 2015 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 1 Comment

Pentagon Preparing War Plans for Baltic Battle Against Russia

weapons1flag-UKThe Sum of All Fears: Pentagon Preparing War Plans for Baltic Battle Against Russia SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 BY 21st Century Wire says… This truly is the sum of all fears.
In an exclusive report, Foreign Policy is breaking the alarming news that the Pentagon is preparing new war plans for battles with Russia in the Baltic. Plans for war with Russia were reportedly shelved after 1991, as the collapse of the Soviet Union pushed Russia into the globalized world where they had no option other than trying to make things work with the West.

Consequently those plans are having to be updated, with a senior defence official saying that “given the security environment, given the actions of Russia, it has become apparent that we need to make sure to update the plans that we have in response to any potential aggression against any NATO allies“……….

Foreign Policy says the Pentagon is “chewing on various hybrid warfare scenarios, and even a nuclear one” – The sum of all fears.

The most positive aspect of this report are the words of a State Department official:

A lot of people at the Pentagon are unhappy about the confrontation. They were very happy with the military-to-military cooperation with Russia. We would like to be partners with Russia. We think that is the preferred course — that it benefits us, it benefits Russia, and it benefits the rest of the world.”

What this reveals is existence of different factions within the Pentagon. Some are seriously concerned about the growing confrontational stance with Russia, while others are seeking to push the two nations even closer to war. In order to avoid such a disastrous, potentially nuclear, confrontation, we would suggest those in the ‘unhappy’ camp continue to come forward, publicly, and air their concerns for the world to hear.

Any and all action that can prevent the outbreak of World War Three, the conclusion of the sum of all fears, will be remembered as a world historic event of the utmost importance.

September 23, 2015 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK’s absurdly uneconomic Hinkley C nuclear deal

 Up until now, nuclear power has not been treated like other energy sources. In the UK and many other countries it has always been given a blank cheque to cover its construction costs and its electricity has never been costed according to commercial risk criteria. Now, in a bowdlerised way, it has been costed according to some commercial criteria under the UK’s Electricity Market Reform system for incentivising low-carbon power generation.
Of course many would point out that we could have lots of other things, including wind farms and solar farms generating loads of clean energy by the time (if ever) that our nuclear power programme gets going. But the government has made sure this is not going to happen, by cutting the incentives.
nukes-hungryflag-UKIf the Hinkley C nuclear deal looks astonishing, that’s because it is September 22, 2015 I was rather perplexed to wake up to hear the news that George Osborne was pledging £2bn in loan guarantees for the ill-fated Hinkley C nuclear power project in England. Hadn’t he already pledged £10bn in loan guarantees more than two years ago?

Hinkley C, all 3.2 gigawatts of it, was according to earlier proud boasts supposed to be up and running in 2018, but will now be lucky to be started by 2025. As recently as 2008, the total cost of such a plant was estimated by the UK department of energy at £5.6bn. Now it could easily be five times higher.

Has Osborne decided to cut the support he is offering French group EDF and the Chinese state nuclear companies to build the plant from £10bn to £2bn? No, it seems he is offering an “initial” £2bn. Has George made his current trip to Beijing with £2bn in £50 notes in a secure luggage arrangement? No, of course not. So what does this mean? Well, absolutely nothing apart from, no doubt, some PR consultant coming up with a bright idea to distract attention from the sheer awfulness that is the British nuclear programme.

Although some may feel that how this (awfulness) is all an aberration and that somewhere else nuclear power is being done much better, in my studies I can’t find much evidence of this, certainly not in the US and Europe. Both of the two “generation III” reactors being developed, EPR(Finland, France, China) and AP1000 (China, US, Bulgaria), are taking ages to build and costing mountains more money than originally anticipated. Hitachi’s ABWR, another reactor tipped to be built in the UK, has a very chequered reliability record that would make it a no-go zone for investors.

Even in China the much-vaunted nuclear construction programme is, as much as you hear about these things from Chinese authorities, a lot less vaunted than one would think. And we need to understand that this is before we even know whether any of these upcoming generation III reactors work well or not.

Nuclear numbers

Really this is not much of a change compared with what went on in previous decades. The marvellous hype from the nuclear people suckered an eager-to-be-suckered UK body politic that there really is a magical nuclear answer to our problems. So why do we find this out now? Continue reading

September 23, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

America’s nuclear lobbyists

money-lobbyingMeet the Private Corporations Building Our Nuclear Arsenal,  Privatizing our nuclear arsenal development is not only dangerous, but incredibly inefficient, The Nation By Richard Krushnic andJonathan Alan King, 22 Sept 15 “……..THE NUCLEAR LOBBYISTS Federal tax dollars expended on nuclear weapons maintenance and development are a significant component of the federal budget. Although difficult to pin down precisely, the sums run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported that even the Pentagon had no firm numbers when it came to how much the nuclear mission costs, nor is there a standalone nuclear weapons budget of any sort, so overall costs must be estimated. Analyzing the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as information gleaned from Congressional testimony, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies suggests that, from 2010-2018, the United States will spend at least $179 billion to maintain the current nuclear triad of missiles, bombers, and submarines, with their associated nuclear weaponry, while beginning the process of developing their next-generation replacements. The Congressional Budget Office projects the cost of nuclear forces for 2015-2024 at $348 billion, or $35 billion annually, of which the Pentagon will spend $227 billion and the Department of Energy $121 billion.

In fact, the price for maintaining and developing the nuclear arsenal is actually far greater than either of those estimates. While those numbers include most of the direct costs of nuclear weapons and strategic launching systems like missiles and submarines, as well as the majority of the costs for the military personnel responsible for maintaining, operating, and executing the missions, they don’t include many other expenses, including the decommissioning process and nuclear-waste disposal issues involved in “retiring” weapons. Nor do they include the pensions and healthcare costs that will go with retiring their human operators.

In 2012, a report from a high-level committee chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright concluded that “no sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face [including] threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics, or climate change. In fact, nuclear weapons have on balance arguably become more a part of the problem than any solution.”

Not surprisingly, for the roster of corporations involved in the US nuclear programs, this matters little. They, in fact, maintain elaborate lobbying operations in support of their continuing nuclear weapons contracts. In a 2012 study for the Center for International Policy, “Bombs vs. Budgets: Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby,” William Hartung and Christine Anderson reported that, for the elections of that year, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million directly to Congressional legislators. Not surprisingly, half that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that oversee spending for nuclear arms.

In 2015, the defense industry mobilized a small army of at least 718 lobbyists and doled out more than $67 million dollars pressuring Congress for increased weapons spending generally. Among the largest contributors were corporationswith significant nuclear weapons contracts, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics. Such pro-nuclear lobbying is augmented by contributions and pressure from missile and aircraft companies that are primarily non-nuclear. Some of the systems they produce, however, are potentially dual-use (conventional and nuclear), which means that a robust nuclear weapons program increases their potential market.

The continuing pressure of Congressional Republicans for cuts in domestic social programs are a crucial mechanism that ensures federal tax dollars will be available for lucrative military contracts. In terms of quality of life (and death), this means that underestimating the influence of the nuclear weapons industry is singularly dangerous. For the $35 billion or more the US taxpayer will put into such weaponry annually to support the narrow interests of a modest number of companies, the payback is fear of an apocalyptic future. After all, unlike almost all other corporate lobbies, the nuclear weapons lobby (and so your tax dollars) put life on Earth at risk of rapid extinction, either following the direct destruction of a nuclear holocaust or a radical reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface that would come from the sort of nuclear winter that would follow almost any nuclear exchange. At the moment, the corporate-nuclear complex is hidden in our midst, its budgets and funds shielded from public scrutiny, its project hardly noticed. It’s a formula for disaster.

September 23, 2015 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA to bring new nuclear B61, Mod 12 bomb to Germany

nuclear-missile-readyUS to bring in new advanced nuclear bombs to Germany – report, 22 Sep, 2015  Starting third quarter 2015, the US Air Force is starting preparations to bring in new B61 nuclear bombs to Luftwaffe’s Büchel Air Base, according to ZDF TV channel. German parliament previously called for American nukes to be removed.

The base in Rhineland-Palatinate in western Germany hosts German Panavia Tornado multipurpose aircraft that are capable to deploy the USAF nuclear bombs stored there under a nuclear sharing deal. The base is the only location in Germany that has nuclear weapons since 2007 and has 20 of them, according to the Royal United Services Institute.

The US is currently working on a new variant of the B61, Mod  12, which would be more accurate and have smaller yield than modifications 3 and 4 currently deployed in Europe…….

September 23, 2015 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Pope Francis to spell it out in USA on need to abandon nuclear weapons

Pope & St FrancisThe Pope Is Lining Up to Ban Nuclear Weapons, Defense One SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 BY JOE CIRINCIONE TOM COLLINA Pope Francis is making a key shift in church doctrine on nuclear weapons, and some people are not going to like it. The Catholic Church has long held that nuclear weapons must be eliminated from the face of the Earth.

Pope John XXIII, now a saint, wrote in 1963, “Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program.” The church and the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops have worked actively in support of arms control and disarmament agreements, including the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the 2010 New START treaty between the United States and Russia and the 1996 nuclear test ban treaty.

When the pontiff speaks in Washington and New York this week, he will likely take the church position a step further. He may declare that any possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. No one should have them, at any time, for any reason.

Up to now, the church has abhorred the inhumanity of these weapons that indiscriminately target innocent civilians and would kill them in massive numbers. But—until now—it has recognized a need for states to have nuclear weapons to deter other countries from launching a nuclear attack on them.

 No longer.  ………….

September 23, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment