nuclear-news

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

Greenpeace Luxembourg Protests against Belgian Nuclear Waste

Published on Wednesday, 10 Jun 2020

On Wednesday morning, Greenpeace Luxembourg activists held a protest in front of the Belgian Embassy against the disposal of nuclear waste at the Luxembourg border.

The activists demanded concrete measures for the abandonment of nuclear energy production and against the landfill project proposed by ONDRAF (the national body for radioactive waste and enriched fissile materials). This action follows the launch of the cross-border public consultation on the geological disposal of Belgian radioactive waste in the midst of the current health crisis.

EaJI8xCWsAAl8p3

Outside the embassy, ​​six activists displayed a banner with the words “Enfouissement géologique des déchets radioactifs : c’est non” (no to the geological burial of radioactive waste) and symbolically piled up nuclear waste drums.

The protest followed Luxembourg’s Environment Minister Carole Dieschbourg’s announcement last month that the Belgian authorities were planning to dispose of its radioactive waste underground at the Luxembourg border. Greenpeace has maintained that ONDRAF / NIRAS presents this project on the geological disposal of high-level and long-lived radioactive waste without objectively proposing the possible alternatives. The NGO also claimed that there is a lack of information on the feasibility and safety of the proposed geological disposal, as well as on the long-term costs and the environmental impact (including the cross-border impact) of such a project. Greenpeace expressed its concerns in a joint opinion of the National Action Committee against Nuclear Ppwer.

Roger Spautz, Greenpeace Nuclear Campaign Manager, insisted: “The burial of radioactive waste is a dangerous solution. At such a depth, it is impossible to manage a leak of radioactive material. If the Belgian project materialises, an accident of this type could contaminate the Luxembourg water tables and the consequences for our country would be unmanageable”.

Furthermore, Greenpeace has denounced the fact that a possible geological storage site would not be fully operational before 2100. By then, nuclear waste must be stored safely and a “temporary” alternative must be developed as early as possible. According to Roger Spautz, “it is important to develop a solid, transparent and participatory process to achieve this. There is an urgent need to carry out a thorough and independent evaluation of this research work and to discuss the priorities and corresponding budgets for the coming years in order to minimise the burden of this waste for future generations. Currently, dry storage, on the surface or subsurface, is the “least bad” solution. The fact that practically all the countries that produce nuclear waste continue to stockpile it rather indicates that there are practically no alternatives for this hazardous waste”.

The environmental organisation has called on the Luxembourg government to take action against Belgium’s project for the geological disposal of radioactive waste near the Luxembourg border and against extending the life of its reactors.

Article source https://chronicle.lu/category/environment/33038-greenpeace-luxembourg-protests-against-belgian-nuclear-waste-disposal-plans

June 11, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gamma data missing from Hinckley radiation monitoring – EURDEP June 2020

Whilst perusing EURDEP radiation mapping after the Stack collapse and release of dust that happened earlier today

See

 

 

 

I caught these 2 screenshots From the same tab;

Screenshot_2020-06-10 Radiological Maps - European Commission

Screenshot_2020-06-10 Radiological Maps - European Commission(1)

The readings are low (The ones that can be read..

Oddly, What might have triggered the deletion of data?

Were they using contaminated crushed concrete?

Documented in any case

Awaiting further data.

Source to EURDEP monitoring https://remap.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Simple.aspx

 

Also might add this nightmare scenario to the UK nuclear threats (internal)

https://nuclear-news.net/2020/06/09/will-sellafields-nuclear-waste-waft-to-ireland-or-waft-somewhere-else-nuclearban/

Regards Shaun aka arclight2011

 

June 10, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Will Sellafields nuclear waste waft to Ireland? Or waft somewhere else? #nuclearban

…Prof Chris Busby first consulted the online NOAA Hy-Split atmospheric projection software with the same date as the EPA report and got a completely different scenario showing most of Ireland being covered with meandering waves of highly radioactive particles and gases….

REPOST due to images being hacked from page on previous version and also here is a Sellafield update; Sellafield’s 11000 cubic metres of nuclear waste – UK’s storage problem  https://nuclear-news.net/2020/06/08/sellafields-11000-cubic-metres-of-nuclear-waste-uks-storage-problem/

Introduction by Shaun McGee (aka arclight2011)

Published exclusive to nuclear-news.net (Creative Commons applies)

2 February 2018

The Irish Sellafield nuclear accident fallout projection report has some issues, in my opinion.
In December 2016 the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in Irish Media Sources a report on radioactive fallout from a “worse case” scenario.

sr8
At the time, I was in contact with the Irish EPA concerning new evidence that shows a larger health effect from radiation sources and I was trying to challenge the pro nuclear bias that underestimated the health and environmental problems using mechanisms from the EURATOM nuclear treaty in Europe. I have to say that the Irish EPA were forthcoming in their many responses to my inquiries but eventually we reached a stale mate as the EPA claimed that the specific Isotopes relevant to the Euratom Treaty are not to be found in Ireland with the exception of Iodine 131 which they claimed was unlikely to be a health problem. They said that other fission (from a nuclear reactor) isotopes were not found on the island of Ireland.
The 2016 report from the Irish EPA (link) shows, what I think, is a minimal dispersion of radioactive fallout with little impact to health or the environment. However, there are other reports of fallout plumes from the Sellafield site that show much worse contamination than the 2016 EPA report posits and I requested Prof Chris Busby (who had been involved with Irish activists and government groups concerning Sellafield) to do a report (Full report below) on the problems that seemed to be highlighted with the Irish EPA report.
Prof Chris Busby first consulted the online NOAA Hy-Split atmospheric projection software with the same date as the EPA report and got a completely different scenario showing most of Ireland being covered with meandering waves of highly radioactive particles and gases. He then consulted 2 other reports, one of which the Irish Government commissioned that was completed by 2014 using the European gold standard software fallout projection model that showed a large plume covering large sways of Ireland (reaching the south west coast).
It would seem that the 2016 report completely runs counter to the 2014 and earlier report as well as the Hy-Split projection whilst using the same date as the 2016 Irish report.
So the issue of the types of accident that the Irish EPA thought to be worse case scenario. A direct hit by a Meteorite was seen to be plausible but if a meteorite hit sellafield then much of the nuclear site would be lofted high into the atmosphere and more evenly spread around the globe. This would fudge the numbers for plumes that are moving nearer the ground.
No where in the report was the more likely and and more dangerous scenario of terrorists attacking the spent fuel pools causing low altitude fallout over many weeks that would cause a larger pollution incident that would effect local countries to the UK border such as Ireland, Norway etc.In fact such concerns have been reported in main stream media sources as well as government/private think tanks.

Thanks to Prof Chris Busby for taking the time off his busy schedule to compile a response to the Irish EPA report on Sellafields projected damage to Ireland.

Please feel free to leave a comment belowif you agree or disagree with any of the points raised, a discussion about this issue needs to be had.

Shaun McGee (aka arclight2011)

………………………………………………………………………………..

Conclusion to report

The EPA 2016 report is unsafe and cannot be relied upon by the public, the media or administrators. The anonymous authors have shown extraordinary bias in every aspect of the report. They made elementary mistakes in their source term listing of isotopes, by including those which had short half-lives and will clearly not have been present in any significant concentration. They omitted a whole series of nuclides which are present in the tanks and the fuel pools. They choose a source term which is demonstrably too low based on available data, they choose a worst-case accident which involves only one HAST tank and only Caesium-137. They omit mentioning the spent fuel pools which are a highly likely site of a major coolant loss and subsequent fire or explosion. Their air modelling results are extremely unusual with implausibly narrow plumes, whilst a NOAA HYSPLIT model for the same day shows a completely different dispersion covering most of highly populated Ireland. Their surface contamination levels are 200 times lower than a previous computer model by Dr Taylor, which they must have had access to, and they fail to calculate the increased levels of cancer in the exposed population. This has been rectified here.

Historic releases from Sellafield to the Irish Sea have caused measurable increases in cancer and leukemia in coastal populations of Ireland. There is no doubt that the existence of Sellafield represents a potential catastrophic danger to the Irish Republic. A serious accident there could destroy the country and also most of Britain. As the Chernobyl accident effects showed, and the Fukushima accident effects will reveal (and in the case of Thyroid cancer have revealed) the ICRP risk model is unsafe for explaining or predicting health effects from such contamination. The Authors of the EPA 2016 report should be sanctioned in some way for producing such a travesty of the real picture, especially since they will have had access to the earlier study and modelling by Peter Taylor and the details of the COSYMA model employed by him.

Christopher Busby

August 17th 2017

Using recognised plume projection software for same day

sr7

UK version given to Irish EPA for same day

sr2

…………………………………………………………………….

The health impact on Ireland of a severe accident at Sellafield.

A criticism of the report “Potential radiological impact on Ireland of postulated severe accidents at Sellafield” Anon. (Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland: September 2016) with a re-assessment of the range of health outcomes.

Christopher Busby PhD

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

Donald Rumsfeld

Murphy’s Law is an adage or epigram that is typically stated as:

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law]

Introduction

The nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria, UK, has always represented a real danger to the Republic of Ireland. There has been and remains a chronic danger to the people of the East Coast of Ireland. First, radioactivity released from Sellafield under licence to the Irish Sea, particularly in the 1970s did not, as had been hoped, dilute and disperse in the sea, but instead became attached to sediment particles along the coasts and inlets of Ireland (e.g. Carlingford Lough, Drogheda) and the particles represented a cause of cancer and illnesses in coastal populations and those exposed through eating fish and shellfish. A court case (Herr and Ors. Vs BNFL) was supported by the Irish State and my organisation was funded by the Irish State for 3 years from 1998 to examine the contamination and health issue. Green Audit examined the cancer rates in small areas in North and mid Wales, and also in Ireland by distance from the contaminated coasts. Results were published in Busby 2006 and showed that there had been a significant 30% increase in cancer and leukemia in coastal populations of the Irish Sea [1]. The second issue of continuing interest is the danger of a serious accident at Sellafield at a time when the wind direction is from the East and airborne material passes across Ireland. This issue became more urgent and of interest to the Irish public after the Fukushima Daiichi reactor explosions and melt-downs in Japan in 2011. However, the potential outcome of such an accident had been part of a report by Peter Taylor [2] written in 1999 for McGuill and Company, the solicitors representing the Herr and Ors vs. BNFL case which was abandoned by the Irish State for reasons which remain unclear.

In September 2016, a report was produced by the EPA Office of Radiological Protection entitled Potential radiological impact on Ireland of postulated severe accidents at Sellafield. [3]. This anonymous report has serious shortcomings and errors which will be addressed here. A more realistic assessment of the potential impact of a serious accident at Sellafield on the Republic of Ireland will be presented here using the radiological risk models both of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, [4]) and also the Model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR [5]).

 

2. The baseline assumptions of maximum release.

2.1 The EPA worst case.

The EPA report discussed some possible accidents involving releases of radionuclides. It examined some potential sources of radionuclides but not others. It chose a number of possible scenarios, but excluded others. In general terms (and referring to Murphy’s Law, appropriately in this case of Ireland) it could not assess accidents which are totally unforeseen. Therefore, also in general, we should consider a worst case-scenario in which most of the radioactivity inventory of the Sellafield site becomes airborne at a time when the weather patterns were most unfavourable for Ireland.

For example, in Busby 2007 [1] the Windscale reactor fire was examined in some detail. At the time of the fire, which continued for some days, the main releases were initially offshore towards Ireland. This is contrary to the discourse promoted by the British Radiological Protection Board in 1974. It is, however confirmed by Air Ministry historical data. But the point is that at the time a cold front laying North East to South West was moving from Ireland towards England across the Irish Sea. This meant the releases from the fire and heavy radioactive rain fell along the front. This rain fell on the Isle of Man, and historical mortality data show a large increase in the death rate after this event. There have also been reports of significant birth effects (Downs Syndrome cluster) in County Louth reported by the Irish GP Patricia Sheehan, who died in an automobile accident shortly after beginning to follow this up.

In order to estimate the effects of a worst case, initially there must be a choice of the source term, that is, the quantity and radionuclide identity of the material released to the atmosphere.

The EPA report decided that this could be modelled as the contents of one of the 21 High Active Storage Tanks (HAST). The true content of one of these is unknown, probably also to the operators BNFL. The estimate for the contents was taken from a report by Turvey and Hone [6]. This is shown in Table 1 below where I note a number of concerns. In Table 2 I provide examples of some hazardous radionuclides not listed in the EPA source term table. In Table 3 I copy the source terms used by the British 1976 Royal Commission (the Flowers Report) [7]. Note that all these estimates are for a single or multiple HAST tanks on the tank farm and exclude explosions of the spent fuel ponds which could dry up and suffer prompt criticality. This could result from a domino scenario (see below).

Table 1 EPA assumed release source term. (E-notation, thus 1 x 1014 is written 1 E+14_

Radio

nuclide

Total activity Bq

Half Life

Comment

Zr-95

1.4 E+15

64days

All decayed away; almost none there

Nb-95

5.8 E+14

35 days

Daughter of Zr-95; all decayed away; none there

Ru-106

1.33 E+16

366 days

All decayed away; almost none there

Sb-125

1.6 E+15

2.7 years

All decayed away; almost none there

Cs-134

1.04 E+16

2.0 years

All decayed away; almost none there

Cs-137

5.26 E+17

30 years

Significant

Ce-144

9.65 E+15

284 days

All decayed away; almost none there

Eu-154

4.41 E+15

8.5years

Minor significance now

Eu-155

3.39 E+15

5 years

Minor significance now

Sr-90

3.6 E+17

28.8 years

Highly Significant; DNA seeker

Am-241

2.72 E+15

432 years

Highly Significant alpha; decays to Np-237 alpha; daughter of Plutonium-241

Cm-242

4.57 E+13

162 days

All decayed away; almost none there

Cm-243

1.92 E+14

32 years

Highly Significant alpha; decays to Plutonium-239, so there must be approximately the same or more Plutonium-239 (fissionable) in the mix

2.2 Concerns about the source term table of the EPA 2016 report

Table 1 gives the source terms employed by the EPA report. It lists 13 isotopes. The table is an astonishing example of bad science, produced either through bias or ignorance. Since the table is apparently taken from another report by Turvey and Hone 2000, we can perhaps blame them for the original mistakes. I have included a column showing the half-lives of their isotopes. The main concerns are as follows:


It is perfectly clear than all but four of the thirteen will have physically decayed away by 2016. For example, a half life of Zr-95 of 65 days, at 1980 would by now have had 36 x 365 days to decay. This is 202 half-lives. There would be virtually none left of the listed quantity.
A significant number of seriously hazardous radionuclides which must be in the tanks are not listed. In particular we have Plutonium-239, Plutonium- 238, Plutonium-241, Uranium and other actinide alpha emitters including Neptunium-237, Radium-226, Carbon-14 and Tritium.
The overall total activity tabulated the EPA report is about 4 times less than the quantity in a HAST tank given in the report of the UK Royal Commission 1976 (Flowers) and the 1977 Windscale Enquiry which totalled 1.8 x 1018 Becquerels of Caesium-137 plus 1.4 x 1018 Bq of Strontium-90 plus 1.1 x 1018 Bq of Ruthenium-106 [8].
Why did the EPA report reduce the quantities assumed by the earlier reports? Why did it omit the dangerous actinides Uranium, Plutonium and Neptunium with the exception of Americium-241? Why did it omit a whole range of other radionuclides like Tritium and Carbon-14?

Table 2 Some Missing isotopes from the EPA Source term with longer half-lives or present as daughters

Isotope

Half Life

U-238

4.5 E+9y

Alpha

U-235

7.1 E+8y

Alpha

U-234

2.4 E+5y

Alpha

Th-230

8 E+4y

Alpha

Ra-226

1599y

Alpha

Pu-238

86.4y

Alpha

Pu-239

2.4 E+4y

Alpha

Pu-241

14.4y

Decays to Am-241 listed by EPA

Np-237

2.1 E+6y

Am-241 daughter

Mn-54

312d

Activation

Co-60

5.27y

Activation

Y-90

64h

In equilibrium with Sr-90

H-3

12.3y

Life component; radioactive water

C-14

5730y

Life component

Table 3 HAST tank content according to Windscale Enquiry 1977 and Royal Commission 1976

Isotope
Quantity(Bq)
Cs-137
1.8 E+18
Sr-90 + Y-90
2.8 E+18
Ru-106
1.1 E+18

2.3 The more accurate source terms for HAST tanks

Taylor 1999 [2] based his calculations on only Cs-137 and assumed a source term of 1 x 1018 Bq. Therefore, his results (which I will review below) should be adjusted by a factor of 1.8 on the basis of the Table 3 results, but particularly also modified upwards by the presence of the Sr-90/Y-90 and the actinides, the Plutonium, Uranium, Radium and Americium, which, though they are present in smaller quantities each carry a weighting of 20 due to their alpha biological effectiveness. Thus the quantity of 2.72 E+15 listed by EPA in Table 1 has the effect (in Sieverts) of 5.44 E+16 due to its alpha emission.

2.4 The spent fuel pools

In addition to HAST tank scenarios, there has been reported the existence [ 9: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2611216/leaked_sellafield_photos_reveal_massive_radioactive_release_threat.html%5D in a very dangerous state, a series of concrete spent fuel pools containing hundreds of tons of spent fuel. Loss of integrity of these tanks (drying up) would result in meltdown and prompt criticality with explosive distribution and burning of the spent fuel elements.

The approximate activity inventory of a spent fuel assembly for a Boiling Water Reactor is available from Alvarez 2014 [10] and the EIA for a Pressurized Water reactor fuel assembly from the Swedish Forsmark High Level Waste repository documents [11]. Therefore these are not exactly the same as the assemblies in the Sellafield pools. However, they will not be very different. The radioactive elements and their activity is given in Table 5 [Ref 5,6] .

Continue reading

June 9, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Caring about Cancer? A UK and Irish perspective

Just in case you missed this..
Support Cancer Research UK. Not the corporations!

nuclear-news

“This means that no new research projects will be funded for at least the first 6 months of this financial year.” Cancer Research UK statement 16th April 2020

In these turbulent financial times many NGO`s and charities are straining at the hilt. Our hearts and minds are with the health workers, world wide that are dealing with this epidemic.

Especially thank you to the Chinese Nurses and Doctors who lost their lives as they negotiated the first complicated month of the pandemic and drew up the first protocols that saved so many western health workers lives. Namaste!

1232330

Picture courtesy of the Express UK

One such Charity is Cancer Research UK who have a shortfall in their annual funding. Here is what they had to say on the matter;

Our shops have closed, our mass fundraising events have stopped, legacies have reduced. We expect our fundraising income to fall by at…

View original post 434 more words

June 6, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Caring about Cancer? A UK and Irish perspective

“This means that no new research projects will be funded for at least the first 6 months of this financial year.” Cancer Research UK statement 16th April 2020

In these turbulent financial times many NGO`s and charities are straining at the hilt. Our hearts and minds are with the health workers, world wide that are dealing with this epidemic.

Especially thank you to the Chinese Nurses and Doctors who lost their lives as they negotiated the first complicated month of the pandemic and drew up the first protocols that saved so many western health workers lives. Namaste!

1232330

Picture courtesy of the Express UK

One such Charity is Cancer Research UK who have a shortfall in their annual funding. Here is what they had to say on the matter;

Our shops have closed, our mass fundraising events have stopped, legacies have reduced. We expect our fundraising income to fall by at least 20–25% in the next financial year as a direct result of this pandemic – a reduction of around £120m.

So, the UK Government has bailed out many business`s recently. Here is a breakdown of that; (Thxs to Afshin Rattansi from Going Underground for these  stats)

NEW: UK state-aid coronavirus bailouts:

John Lewis £300m

Marks & Spencer £260m

Greggs £150m

Intercontinental Hotels £600m 

£300m each to Privatized bus co. FirstGroup Privatized bus co. Stagecoach

Nissan £600m

Toyota £365m (Brexit bribe?)

Ryanair/Easyjet £600m

Privatized BA £300m    

At the same time there are calls for £100m to go towards a Yacht for the Queen;

 

The difficulties for CRUK are looking grim. Here is a few quotes from the latest report they have submitted (From April 2020)

“This means that no new research projects will be funded for at least the first 6 months of this financial year.”

And concerning the funds they have been offered;

“But right now, it’s not clear whether Cancer Research UK will be able to access this fund to support our work,”

Full report here;

Protecting our future by taking action now: why we’re making cuts to our research funding

So whilst a confused and beleaguered British public are left with mixed messaging from their leaders, Irish cancer treatments are going ahead fairly normally;

Ireland, a country that didn`t run its medical staff raged

“Are you currently getting treatment for cancer? We understand that you might be worried about attending hospital. But it is very important that you continue to attend for your treatment.”

Source for that here;

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/cancer/news/cancer%20treatment%20during%20covid-19.html

And Alzheimers sufferers are under strain because the UK couldn`t organise a party in a brothel (actually this particular observation may need some fact checking by a reporter :/) .

Extra 10,000 dementia deaths in England and Wales in April;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/covid-19-causing-10000-dementia-deaths-beyond-infections-research-says?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

For any Journalists and bloggers you can use this blogpost as you will. Give CRUK and the HSE Ireland a shout out though. And lastly, another little reported health funding problem is the UN Yemen appeal that is seriously underfunded. I will link to the most recent UN video covering this. I will not comment on what I think the Saudi Dr is messaging to the world but the under-funding issue is well described by the UN representative Mark Lowcock.

Source for that rabbit hole here;

 

Reported by Shaun McGee

Reported on Nuclear-news.net

5th June 2020

June 5, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Criirad final report on Chernobyl Fires – Recommendations and findings

Images satellites NASA / FIRMS /Période du 14 au 15 avril 2020 (4H GMT)

cher11cher12

NASA 1 satellite images updated April 15, 2020 at 4:00 GMT (see illustrations) confirm what Ukrainian authorities announced yesterday that the recent rains and the action of firefighters have led to the arrest of the fires which were a few hundred meters from the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl. As the satellite image of the region shows, most of the fires that affected the contaminated areas are resolved but some limited foci persist. CRIIRAD will maintain its surveillance.
These fires resulted in a one-time increase of more than 700 times 2 in the concentration of cesium 137 in the air of the city of Kiev located more than 100 kilometers south of the Chernobyl power plant. Of many questions remain about the radiological impact of these fires for firefighters, local residents as well as the safety of nuclear installations and waste storage in the exclusion zone. The recurrence of fires in contaminated areas also raises questions about the means of prevention and management implemented to limit these repeated releases of radioactivity, just like on the absence of air radioactivity control beacons in the most exposed inhabited areas.

See all CRIIRAD press releases on the dedicated page:
http://balises.criirad.org/actuTchernobyl2020.html
Impact on France
With regard to the impact on French territory, as indicated in our press release of April 8, the modeling suggests that air masses from the Chernobyl area may have reached
French territory at the start of last week, but with very low and difficult levels of contamination to measure.
As indicated in our press release of April 14, the analysis of the filter for the radioactivity monitoring beacon atmosphere operated by CRIIRAD in Montélimar (Drôme, Rhône valley) confirmed that over the period from 3 as of April 10, the volume activity of cesium 137 in ambient air remained very low, below the limits of detection (<6 μBq / m 3).
The same observations are made for the Romans-sur-Isère tag (Drôme): the analysis of the aerosol filter that night for the period from April 5 to April 14 (morning) does not show cesium 137 above the limit of detection (<13 μBq / m 3).
This means that the traces of cesium 137 necessarily present in the atmosphere are lower than detection capabilities of the measurement means implemented by CRIIRAD. These detection limits are different for these two analyzes because the Montélimar filter counted the entire weekend, 300,000 seconds, which is not the case for the pre-counting of the Romans filter.
Editing: Bruno Chareyron, nuclear physics engineer, director of the CRIIRAD laboratory, with the participation of Jérémie Motte, head of the beacons service and Stéphane Patrigeon, metrologist technician.

Document source https://balises.criirad.org/pdf/200415_CPCRIIRAD_Radioactivite_incendies_Tchernobyl.pdf

 

 

April 15, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Increased Strontium in Sardines since Fukushima Accident?

As the Chernobyl forest fires seem to be releasing Strontium 90 into the atmosphere, I thought I would remind people of the little known story of Strontium 90 in JAPAN.. READ ON

nuclear-news

fish_1024x1024
Dogs fed sardines show high Strontium levels
by Dr. Peter Dobias, DVM
Why you might want to cut out small fish from your dog’s diet

I have had two dog patients with severely elevated levels of the element strontium. The interesting part is that these two dogs were fed a high amount of sardines and I highly suspect that strontium is coming from this source.

Strontium acts in the body the same way as calcium and deposits in bones. Sardines and other small fish are eaten whole with the bones and that is why they are more likely a source of this toxic element.

The reason why I am concerned is that the radioactive isotope strontium 90 is a toxic carcinogen and it has been released in Japan’s Fukushima disaster.

Here is an example of the results:

png

As a veterinarian, I source from almost three decades of experience, but still I like…

View original post 130 more words

April 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is causing the Chernobyl Wildfires? Year on Year, mostly in the Summer. Fukushima forests future?

EVUONkYXYAUA6I2

Hint….

Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas

  • 2388 Accesses

  • 30 Citations

  • 213 Altmetric

  • Metric

Abstract

The effects of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl on decomposition of plant material still remain unknown. We predicted that decomposition rate would be reduced in the most contaminated sites due to an absence or reduced densities of soil invertebrates. If microorganisms were the main agents responsible for decomposition, exclusion of large soil invertebrates should not affect decomposition. In September 2007 we deposited 572 bags with uncontaminated dry leaf litter from four species of trees in the leaf litter layer at 20 forest sites around Chernobyl that varied in background radiation by more than a factor 2,600. Approximately one quarter of these bags were made of a fine mesh that prevented access to litter by soil invertebrates. These bags were retrieved in June 2008, dried and weighed to estimate litter mass loss. Litter mass loss was 40 % lower in the most contaminated sites relative to sites with a normal background radiation level for Ukraine. Similar reductions in litter mass loss were estimated for individual litter bags, litter bags at different sites, and differences between litter bags at pairs of neighboring sites differing in level of radioactive contamination. Litter mass loss was slightly greater in the presence of large soil invertebrates than in their absence. The thickness of the forest floor increased with the level of radiation and decreased with proportional loss of mass from all litter bags. These findings suggest that radioactive contamination has reduced the rate of litter mass loss, increased accumulation of litter, and affected growth conditions for plants.

Source ; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00442-014-2908-8

Will this happen in the forests of Fukushima as well?

More Independent analysis from a French NGO that is monitoring the situation in Ukraine with an unbiased and with authoritative risk assessment for the public. Link to CRIIRAD report here;

https://nuclear-news.net/2020/04/12/criirad-monitoring-kiev-nuclear-risk-of-chernobyl-radioactive-plumes-strontium90-plutonium-cesium137-134/

April 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Julian Assange family finally speak out!

During Julian Assanges trial the threat of publishing Julians private family details for public scrutiny was used (and could yet be upheld) in the UK courtroom.

9d526303a3364b0fa4773bc246e71c35

Now his family decide to break their privacy to let us all know more of the full ramifications of the persecution of Julian Assange. Watch this video, it is now part of our shared history.

April 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CRIIRAD monitoring Kiev nuclear risk of Chernobyl radioactive plumes #Strontium90 #Plutonium #Cesium137/134

Fires in contaminated areas
Still no worries for France but the situation is getting worse around Chernobyl

Next report Tuesday 14th 2020

cher1

The fires in the highly contaminated area of ​​Polesskoye, located some 50 km west of
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, are still active, but other fires have developed during the week, in the heart of the 30 kilometer zone. The fire in the Korogodsky forest is thus located only a few kilometers from the damaged reactor (see illustration above).


Besides the resuspension in the atmosphere of cesium 137 accumulated in the biomass (and probably also plutonium and strontium 90), questions arise about the safety of nuclear installations. The April 9, Ukrainian authorities 1 said: “Large-scale fires can threaten security in the region as well as the facilities located in the exclusion zone where the radioactive waste, used nuclear fuel and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant ”and“ Due to the heavy smoke, it is impossible to precisely determine the area affected by the fire, which, according to preliminary, may be 100 ha ‘.
According to the DAZV agency, the State Agency in charge of the Management of the Forbidden Zone 2, the gamma dose rates measured by sensors located in areas close to fires have fluctuation levels usual.

But the concentration of cesium 137 in the air in the heart of the prohibited area is high. The maximum value of 54 microbecquerels per cubic meter published on April 9 by this agency corresponds to a measurement on a sensor which is not necessarily the most exposed. The theoretical values ​​for cesium 137 calculated by modeling 3 could indeed exceed a priori by place the 30 Bq / m 3. The agency said on April 9 that the admissible doses would not be exceeded for firefighters, provided that they wear protective respiratory gear.
.

cher2

cher3

As indicated in our previous press release 4, the contaminated plumes first headed for the
south towards the city of Kiev. According to the models carried out by the Ukrainian services, the increases theoretical maximum point doses of the activity of cesium 137 in air had been evaluated at 2 mBq / m 3
for April 8. The samples taken in Kiev on April 8 by the Ukrainian services 5 showed values between 5 and 7 mBq / m 3 between 12.25pm ​​and 4.35pm. These are values ​​several hundred times higher than laughs at the level of background noise. The induced doses remain effectively low for the inhabitants of Kiev.
But the impact is cumulative and the fires are not extinguished.
The models of the contaminated plumes put online by the Ukrainian specialized services indicate trajectories towards north 6 of Ukraine from 9 to 10 April, then again towards Kiev 7, from 10 to April 11. Extracts from the official models are reproduced below (activity of cesium 137 in air).
Plume simulations contaminated by cesium 137 (extracts) – Source: OSTC
CRIIRAD is monitoring the situation closely.
In France, as expected, the measurements carried out live by the warning beacons operated by CRIIRAD in Rhône valley (for example in Montélimar) did not show an increase in the radioactivity of atmospheric dust. The gamma probe located in Geneva did not reveal any anomalies.

The CRIIRAD proceeded however this morning April 10 to a sample of aerosol filter on one of the beacons in order to verify, with much higher precision than live measurements allow, as the concentration of cesium 137 in the air masses potentially impacted by the first fires remains very low (this as indicated by the models).
The results will be posted online on Tuesday at https://balises.criirad.org/

Source for blogpost (In French) content;

Click to access 2020-04-10_CPCRIIRAD_Incendies_Tchernobyl2.pdf

April 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Satellite Imagery of Chernobyl Fires April 8 & 9 2020 – NASA

#NASA images show continuing spread of fires in high-radiation #Chernobyl zone from April 8 to April 9

EVUONkYXYAUA6I2

 

EVUOOLhXgAAAupe

Source; https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146561/fires-burn-in-northern-ukraine

April 11, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UK Kick Nuclear Monthly Newsletter March 2020 – Fukushima Anniversay

Note that the Fukushima Anniversary Public Meeting planned for Thursday March 19th has had to be cancelled due to the Corona Virus epidemic.

However the vigil due to take place this evening outside the Japanese Embassy in London, from 5.30 to 6.30pm, is going ahead, as is the March nad rally this Saturday, March 14th.  (See front of newsletter for details.)  As these events are in the open air the chances of contagion are less.

2020

KICK NUCLEAR

monthly newsletter

March 2020

(There was no February edition)

Editor: David Polden, Mordechai Vanunu House, 162 Holloway Rd. N7 8DQ

www.kicknuclear.com ; www.nonucleartrains.org.uk ; 020-7700 2393

REGULAR FRIDAY SOLIDARITY VIGILS

Every Friday (since August 2012): leafletting outside the Japanese Embassy, 101-104 Piccadilly (Green Park tube) from 10am-12.30pm; and then outside Tokyo Electric Power Co. offices, 14-18 Holborn (Chancery Lane tube) from 1-1.30pm.  Held in solidarity with the anti-nuclear movement in Japan.  Organised by: Kick Nuclear and Japanese Against Nuclear UK (JAN UK)

FUKUSHIMA 9th ANNIVERSARY EVENTS

Saturday March 14th: March from Japanese Embassy (address above) to opposite entrance to Downing Street in Whitehall for rally there.  Assemble outside Japanese Embassy at noon for 12.30pm start.   Rally begins at 2pm.

(The meeting planned for March 19th has been cancelled.)

NUCLEAR TRAIN ACTION GROUP STALLS

Saturday March 21st, 11am-2pm: stall and leafletting near the exit from Brixton tube station.  (Nuclear trains pass over a bridge near the exit.  Help welcome.

Saturday May 2nd, 2.30-4pm: stall and leafletting outside Bromley South station (Nuclear trains pass through).  Organised by Bromley CND with support of NTAG.

NEXT JOINT KN/NTAG PLANNING MEETINGS

Thursday April 23rd, 6.30pm, at CND Office.  (Address above.)

50 YEARS “ENRICHING THE FUTURE”

Cheshire-Live reported on a March 4th demonstration at Capenhurst uranium enrichment plant in Cheshire.  An edited version of the report follows:

“Urenco’s nuclear plant at Capenhurst [jointly owned by the UK and Dutch governments and German energy companies] this week celebrated 50 years since the company was founded.

“But outside Capenhurst protesters lamented the damage to human health and the environment caused by disasters like Chernobyl, Ukraine and Fukushima.

“Close Capenhurst [group organising the demonstration] campaigners argued that [the nuclear energy industry] was unsafe, from uranium mining to nuclear power production and transportation and storage of highly radioactive waste.

“Concerns have been raised about the Urenco plant itself which enriches uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors, with depleted uranium – a low level radioactive and toxic by-product of the process – stored on site.

“Marianne Birkby, an anti-nuclear campaigner [with the “Nuclear-Free Lakeland” campaign], speaking at the [eight-strong] demonstration outside the plant, said: ‘The start of the nuclear fuel cycle is here and where it ends up is Sellafield in Cumbria, and every day, virtually, there’s nuclear waste transported on the roads, rail, sea and nobody wants the waste.

“It’s all very well for Urenco to say ‘enriching the future’ [the plant’s Orwellian slogan] … but nobody wants nuclear waste at the end of the day. And nuclear waste is the product of nuclear power.”

“Japanese campaigner Kaori Mikata-Pralat [from Kick Nuclear] read out a statement on behalf of a group pursuing legal action against the Tokyo Electric Power Company over the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

“Explaining that Fukushima had alerted her to the dangers, she told Cheshire Live: ‘I wasn’t quite aware of the scale of the problem of the nuclear industry.’

She has met victims of nuclear accidents, adding: ‘what they want is this tragedy should not be repeated anywhere in the world. Fukushima people suffered a lot.’

“Kaori said the ocean had also been poisoned.  Even nuclear power stations functioning normally affect the eco-system as sea and river water were used to cool the reactors with the hot water put back, harming fish and plant life.

“Pointing at the sun, fellow protester Philip Gilligan said: ‘That nuclear power station up there is supplying the energy.  It’s the only nuclear power station we want.  So the energy coming to earth could easily be used with zero carbon output and zero nuclear.  The problem is we need a bomb.  And it’s hidden in statements like ‘energy as cheap as water’ which was current when Sellafield went critical in the ‘70s’.

“He said in fact nuclear power was ‘hugely expensive’.”

Two officials from the plant came out to talk to the protestors.

Kaori from Japanese Against Nuclear UK has posted a video-diary of the event on twitter.   See https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2020/03/05/50-years-of-enriching-the-future

FUKUSHIMA UPDATE 2020

Since August 2011, Kick Nuclear and Japanese Against Nuclear UK have organised a weekly Friday vigil outside the Japanese Embassy to remind visitors to the Embassy and passers-by of the continuing 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima and calling for the UK to give up nuclear power.  Rik, a regular on the vigil, has been producing regular updates, published in English with a Japanese translation, on the unfolding of the disaster.

The recently-published 2020 Update starts by warning athletes and spectators, intending to go to the Tokyo Olympic Games this summer, of some of the dangers they will face.  Here is an extract from the Update on this issue:

“Nine years ago, three nuclear reactors melted down in Fukushima.  For nine years Japan has put enormous effort into dealing with – and downplaying – the disaster.  Why the downplaying and denial?  After nine years the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is still dangerous, while further dangers still lurk in the food, water, soil and air.  Could it be to protect the Japanese nuclear industry and its embedded bureaucrats?

This past year more evidence has emerged of the highly-radioactive microparticles to which Japan’s Olympic guests risk being exposed this summer.  These are microparticles of nuclear reactor fuel, 2-3 micrometres in size and rich in caesium.  It is believed that they were formed when reactor 3 exploded, its fuel vapourising at 3,000ºC then rapidly cooling and condensing.

These microparticles have been found as far as 320km away from the nuclear power plant and 200km away in Tokyo, while 80km away, topsoil in some areas has been found to contain as many as 100 particles per gram.  They are glassy, near-insoluble and so tiny that they float like dust and, if breathed-in, they penetrate lung tissue and lodge there, permanently, bombarding the surrounding cells with radiation.  This can cause cancer.  Astonishingly it seems that they have never been part of the public health reaction.

All Olympic visitors are at risk of receiving higher doses of radiation than need be.  They can’t avoid breathing, and hot summer air can be dusty.  While the South Korean athletes will bring their own food, water and radiation-detectors, other visitors may not be aware of the risks and many will be unable to read labelling, ask about where their rice, tea, plums, etc. are from, or read radiation survey results.  It appear that the Japanese government is going out of its way to hide and deny rather than help visitors and residents with this information.

(A copy or copies of the 2020 Update can be obtained from the editor at request – contact details under masthead.)

ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION AGAINST SIZEWELL C

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) are collecting signatures for a petition.  They write: “EDF, wanting to begin preparation works for Sizewell C [have] submitted a planning application to East Suffolk Council for permission to demolish the 100-year old Coronation Wood and turn a large area of priority habitat acidic grassland (Pillbox Field) into a car park.

“East Suffolk Council granted permission in November 2019 for, in effect, Coronation Wood and other areas of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to be trashed.

“TASC consider this to be unlawful as Sizewell C has not been given the go-ahead and may never be built.”

Enter TASC Together to get into website.

March 12, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fukushima – Invisible Fallout documentary from CRIIRAD March 2020

Screenshot from 2020-03-11 16-41-06

Nuclear disasters like those of Chernobyl and Fukushima cause massive releases of radioactive substances to the environment and lasting contamination of large areas. They are accompanied by lies about the severity of the contamination and the extent of the health risks. The manipulations are all the easier since the radioactivity cannot be seen. Given its aging nuclear fleet, France is particularly affected by nuclear risks.

Written and produced by the association CRIIRAD (Independent Research and Information Commission on RADioactivity) and directed by Cris Ubermann, the film “Invisibles Retombées” is based on the missions carried out by the CRIIRAD laboratory in Japan, to make this invisible radioactivity palpable and the consequences for the populations affected by the fallout. It reports on meetings with residents of contaminated areas and measurements of radiation levels carried out alongside them.

Press – Contact : bruno.chareyron@criirad.org

March 11, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Norways Nuclear Naughtiness – Censored Secrets and Haldens Hurtful History

Norway, having no experience in nuclear waste turned to the French nuclear company Orano and the Swedish company Studsvik,. Not the best idea in the world as these companies eyed an opportunity for profit and maybe, just maybe a few kilos of moldy farm salmon as well. But we will never know because of the Letter D (The only letter to be transparently offered to the FOI request by these 2 brave and intrepid sleuths).

nuclear-news

5 February 2020

Out of respect to the Author of the article under unfair use I had to change the copy to fair use as requested. More changes may happen as the days, weeks and years go on depending on how fair use I am allowed. Takk!

Ole Petter Pedersen is the original source for this diatribe (his version is better  and linked at the bottom)

“One of the documents TU has received “partial access” in. In addition to the email’s metadata, we can glimpse what might be the letter “d” in the upper left corner on page 4 of the document. (Illustration: Ole Petter Pedersen)”

forvaltningskunst tu.1000x561

The Norwegian nuclear reactor that recently shut down is estimated to  cost some 20 billion Kroner. A lack of transparency overshadows the whole project against the recommendations of the IAEA`s report on the Failings of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

On  the January 29, Martiniussen…

View original post 608 more words

February 10, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fukushima Thyroid Cancer Symposium live stream 3 February 2020

Reblog and edited. Here are some Lies? Read on!
“As it happened, South Korea had carried out a similar screening at around the same time in a population not exposed to Fukushima – and found very similar results. “It is very difficult to convince the public about this,” said Nollet. “And when we try we are seen as complicit in nuclear power.”

nuclear-news

Screenshot from 2020-02-03 02-17-32

The Symposium is mostly in Japanese (awaiting translations for child cancer data)

10:30-11:00 3.3 Current status of thyroid cancer treatment in overseas countries

Speaker Peter ANGELOS (The University of Chicago, USA)

Posted to Nuclear-news.net

Posted by Shaun McGee

Posted on 3 February 2020

Talks about the recommended treatment for Thyroid Cancer in Adults in different countries.

Partial removal advice, though an option, in most (Apart from one EU group) countries is generally ignored for full removal and resultant life long medication.

Some interesting notes I took From that part of the Symposium

3000 approx Thyroid cancers per year in the USA averaged (Pop 350 million) and 550 per year approx in China (pop 1.5 billion)

Higher rates of Adult Thyroid cancer in Korea and Japan for adults compared to rest of world. Korea has a slightly higher rate than Japan

Maybe the choice of total removal given is because of…

View original post 275 more words

February 7, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment