nuclear-news

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

The life and times of a Domestic Extremist in the UK

@jimmy_dore The new term “Violent Domestic Extremists” from the USA is just another expansion of the reaction to independent thinking. #AtlanticCouncil
During 2012 I accrued 2 police crime numbers for my BT and Vodaphone numbers being hacked. Long story short, My Vodaphone account was hacked by GCHQ who were doing the Daily Mail phone hacking Inquiry at the time..

nuclear-news

Exclusive to Nuclear-news.net

Posted on 27th May 2021

As a young man I was doing work for Greenpeace, CND and other Green Groups for the Turnham Green Green Fair organisers. When Chernobyl happened I was in London and information about nuclear accidents was very hard to find. I even considering paying hundreds of pounds to access the Hiroshima report. As time progressed though, things seem to calm down in the media and very little else was said or thought of concerning this matter. My life got busy, I raised a family who eventually flew the coup and I worked as a motorcycle courier sub contracting for the Daily Mail, NHS, UK Home office amongst many others.

I had a good level of security clearance (for a courier) and my reputation and job references were good. Then one day whilst watching the news I saw the first explosion at the Fukushima…

View original post 1,597 more words

July 25, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Repost of Sellafield nuclear accident Ireland report debunk (with unhacked [Again] shocking pictures)

…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 the damning images being hacked from page again and again!! So here is the wayback link I retrieved the pics from if you find the pics missing; http://web.archive.org/web/20190827094936/https://nuclear-news.net/2019/08/27/a-report-corrects-sellafield-nuclear-damage-to-ireland-scenario-from-the-uk-espoo-brexit/

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 nuclideTotal activity BqHalf LifeComment
Zr-951.4 E+1564daysAll decayed away; almost none there
Nb-955.8 E+1435 daysDaughter of Zr-95; all decayed away; none there
Ru-1061.33 E+16366 daysAll decayed away; almost none there
Sb-1251.6 E+152.7 yearsAll decayed away; almost none there
Cs-1341.04 E+162.0 yearsAll decayed away; almost none there
Cs-1375.26 E+1730 yearsSignificant
Ce-1449.65 E+15284 daysAll decayed away; almost none there
Eu-1544.41 E+158.5yearsMinor significance now
Eu-1553.39 E+155 yearsMinor significance now
Sr-903.6 E+1728.8 yearsHighly Significant; DNA seeker
Am-2412.72 E+15432 yearsHighly Significant alpha; decays to Np-237 alpha; daughter of Plutonium-241
Cm-2424.57 E+13162 daysAll decayed away; almost none there
Cm-2431.92 E+1432 yearsHighly 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

IsotopeHalf Life
U-2384.5 E+9yAlpha
U-2357.1 E+8yAlpha
U-2342.4 E+5yAlpha
Th-2308 E+4yAlpha
Ra-2261599yAlpha
Pu-23886.4yAlpha
Pu-2392.4 E+4yAlpha
Pu-24114.4yDecays to Am-241 listed by EPA
Np-2372.1 E+6yAm-241 daughter
Mn-54312dActivation
Co-605.27yActivation
Y-9064hIn equilibrium with Sr-90
H-312.3yLife component; radioactive water
C-145730yLife 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] .

Table 5 Approximate activity of an estimated 800 spent fuel assemblies in the Sellafield

per assyper 1000
nuclidehalflifecuriesBqBq
Am242m150y2.881.0656E+111.0656E+14
Am241430y3731.3801E+131.3801E+16
Am2437400y8.633.1931E+113.1931E+14
Cs1342.1y13104.847E+134.847E+16
Cs13730y241008.917E+148.917E+17
C145700y0.2177700000007.77E+12
Cd113m14y227008.399E+148.399E+17
Ce144284d17.36.401E+116.401E+14
Cm24329y5.552.0535E+112.0535E+14
Cm24418y9233.4151E+133.4151E+16
Cm2458500y9233.4151E+133.4151E+16
Cm2464700y0.0414800000001.48E+12
Eu1548.8y1927.104E+127.104E+15
H312.3y1053.885E+123.885E+15
Kr8511y11704.329E+134.329E+16
Np239400d8.633.1931E+113.1931E+14
Pm1472.62y21107.807E+137.807E+16
Pu23888y10203.774E+133.774E+16
Pu23924000y54.12.0017E+122.0017E+15
Pu24114y157005.809E+145.809E+17
Ru106376d903.33E+123.33E+15
Sb1252.77y1204.44E+124.44E+15
Sm15190y672.479E+122.479E+15
Sr9029.1y166006.142E+146.142E+17
U2384.4Bny0.0622200000002.22E+12
U23623My0.0725900000002.59E+12
U234244000y0.2488800000008.88E+12
U23272y0.013700000003.7E+11
Y9064h166006.142E+146.142E+17
Zr9315300000.351.295E+101.295E+13
1042013.8554E+153.8554E+18

Comparisons with releases from Chernobyl and Fukushima

Since all these numbers are meaningless without comparisons, Table 6 gives comparisons in terms of Cs-137, which has become a yardstick for releases, discharges and ground contamination in the last 50 years with three contamination events, Chernobyl, Fukushima and the 1950-1980 atmospheric nuclear tests. These are useful comparisons since in the cases of Chernobyl and the nuclear tests, we have evidence for the effects on human health, an issue which is discussed later.

Table 6. Contents of one HAST tank, the spent fuel pools at Sellafield with releases from Chernobyl, Fukushima and Atmospheric bomb tests.

Event/ contents
Cs-137 (Bq)
Reference
Atmospheric Nuclear weapons tests (Global)
5000 E+15
UNSCEAR 2000
Chernobyl
38 E+15
UNSCEAR, Busby 2013
Fukushima initial
37 E+15
Various, see Busby 2013
Fukushima contents
3000 E+15
Various, see Busby 2013
One Sellafield HAST Tank
1850 E+15
1977 Windscale Enquiry. 1976 Royal Commission (Flowers).
Sellafield Spent Fuel Pools
1000 E+15
Estimate based on photograph and Alvarez 2014
21 HAST Tanks
38850 E+15

Total Sellafield
40000E+15

Ireland EPA Source term
526 E+15
EPA 2016

A domino scenario

There are 21 HAST tanks which, from the 1976 Royal Commission report [2] and the 1977 Windscale enquiry [3] can be assumed to contain 50 Million Curies (1.8 x 1018 ) Becquerels of Caesium-137 plus 40 Million Curies (1.4 x 1018 Bq) of Strontium-90 plus 30 Million Curies of Ruthenium-106 (1.1 x 1018 Bq). In addition there are, of course plenty of otheradionuclides which can be added in (See Table 2). All initial scenarios involve an explosion of a single HAST tank. This would undoubtedly result in high level contamination of the whole Sellafield site, such that access of human personnel would be restricted because of the lethal radiation fields. This would affect the ability of personnel to maintain the security of the cooling systems for the other HAST tanks and the spent fuel pools. In the case of Fukushima, access to the damaged reactors and the areas surrounding them was impossible due to the lethal radiation levels. This domino effect is quite possible, having been the cause of the sequential explosions at Fukushima as one reactor after another lost cooling and melted down.

Modelling unlikely scenarios; the worst case source term

It should be noted that Uranium and Plutonium, together with other alpha emitters are not assumed to be present in the EPA source term which focuses exclusively on Cs-137. However, more than 98% of the mass of material in the spent fuel pools consists of Uranium and Plutonium, and loss of coolant there can result in prompt criticality following melt down and a Zirconium Magnesium fire. Thus a nuclear explosion as well as a radiolytic hydrogen explosion is a possibility. Since the EPA report was advertised as a worst case scenario, given Murphy’s Law, and Rumsfeld’s warning, such events should have been modelled, however the analysis shows them to have been vanishingly unlikely.

3. The baseline assumptions of exposure

3.1 The EPA dispersion model and assumptions

The EPA have employed an atmospheric dispersion model named RIMPUFF which I do not have access to. Their report chooses a specific day, 29th Nov 2010 when the wind was apparently Easterly and carried the dispersed radioactivity across Ireland. Their map of the air concentration dispersion is of interest and I copy it in Fig 1 below.

Fig 1 The EPA air modelling result for Nov 29th 2010. Caesium-137 in air (isolines 1 x 106 Bq.s/m3 and 1×107 Bq.s/m3 (hatched))

sr2

(b) Caesium-137 Surface deposition (wet) (isoline 1 x 105 Bq/m2)

sr3

The interesting feature of this model is that it shows an unrealistically narrow dispersion for the plume. In order to examine this issue further I ran the air modelling computer program of the US National Oceanographic and Aeronautic Agency NOAA HYSPLIT [12] for a number of releases from Sellafield on the same day as the EPA RIMPUFF result. NOAA HYSPLIT employs meteorological data from a number of sources and is generally accepted to be a gold-standard dispersion modelling program. None of the results I obtained were close to the results shown by the EPA report. In particular, my concern is that the very large population of Dublin is entirely spared in the EPA model, whereas in all the NOAA HYSPLIT air models I ran for that same day, Dublin was directly in the path of the release plume. I show a series of developing particle dispersion maps calculated by the HYSPLIT model for unit release at 10am on 29th November 2010 below in Fig 2. It is perfectly clear that the real plume will cross Dublin and contaminate most of Ireland.

Fig 2 (a) to (e) Sequential snapshots of position of particle plume from 24 h release beginning at 10am on 29th Nov 2010 as calculated by NOAA HYSPLIT.

  1. At 1400
sr4
  1. 12 hrs later
sr5
  1. 15 hrs later
sr6
  1. 23 hours later
sr7

(e)Time of arrival of radioactivity

sr8

I have run several HYSPLIT model simulations with both short and longer releases. None of them give anything like the narrow plume presented by the EPA report and shown in Fig 1. It is certainly possible, given time and resources to make a comprehensive study of this issue, but for the purposes of this report it is sufficient to demonstrate that there are circumstances where the whole of the Republic of Ireland will be contaminated, and that the model employed by EPA 2016 is highly questionable.

3.2 Peter Taylor 1999

Between 1998 and 2001 Green Audit was commissioned to examine the health effects of the releases from Sellafield to the Irish Sea. At the same time, and in connection with the same case Herr and Ors vs. BNFL, Peter Taylor, a British Scientist working with the Oxford Environmental Group, which also included Gordon Thompson, made a study of the worst case scenario for a Sellafield accident and contamination of the Republic of Ireland. Taylor obtained a computer model COSYMA from the European Union and modelled a release only of Caesium 137, using 1 x 1018 Bq as a source term. Tables 3 to 6 suggest that this is conservative. The report was never published but was certainly shown to the Irish State, since the work was supported by it. It should therefore have been available to those creating the 2016 EPA report. Taylors Report [ref: A Major Accident Potential at Sellafield—The impact on Ireland, 48pp] was given to me by Dr Taylor. Taylor made several computer runs for different wind directions and Pasquil categories (a measure of turbulence) producing contamination maps and predictions of precipitation.. The program divides the release point into a number of sectors. For North Easterly airflow, and Pasquil category 1A Taylor’s results are shown in Fig 3 below. The level of contamination over the whole of southern Ireland including Dublin is predicted to be about 1 x 107 Bq./m2 . Taylor argues that the high levels of peat in Ireland will result in this Cs-137 remaining on the ground for a very long time. However, what we see here is a level of contamination of 10MBq/m2 for a source term of 1 x 1018 Bq.

Fig 3. (a) Contamination map generated for easterly airflow by Taylor 1999 using COSYMA program. Blue line represents boundary of contamination. (b) area contamination by distance from source.

sr9

(3b) Contamination levels by distance from Sellafield (km)

sr10

3. 3 Cs-137 contamination: comparing Taylor and EPA 2016

Continue reading

June 19, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The life and times of a Domestic Extremist in the UK

Exclusive to Nuclear-news.net

Posted on 27th May 2021

As a young man I was doing work for Greenpeace, CND and other Green Groups for the Turnham Green Green Fair organisers. When Chernobyl happened I was in London and information about nuclear accidents was very hard to find. I even considering paying hundreds of pounds to access the Hiroshima report. As time progressed though, things seem to calm down in the media and very little else was said or thought of concerning this matter. My life got busy, I raised a family who eventually flew the coup and I worked as a motorcycle courier sub contracting for the Daily Mail, NHS, UK Home office amongst many others.

I had a good level of security clearance (for a courier) and my reputation and job references were good. Then one day whilst watching the news I saw the first explosion at the Fukushima Prefectures Daichi nuclear reactor site. Unlike after the Chernobyl accident, we had the internet for information. Searching the web I found very little about Fukushima and also even less about Chernobyl. TEPCOs nuclear disaster seemed to quickly disappear and eventually I found an obscure forum where many people had gathered to investigate the TEPCO disaster.

As time went by through the summer of 2011 many bloggers and forums sprang into being with both anti and pro nuclear people trying to ascertain the truth. I found myself organising with Fukushima residents and other groups and individuals from Japan. Sharing info from on the ground that seemed to highlight inconsistencies with the formal narrative.

Come the summer I went to Norway where I was blocked from accessing a website in real time, that was a bit of a shocker at the time but my connection came back and the website was behind a protected paywall. At this point I had linked with groups around the world trying to monitor radiation in various ways. We were determined to find any radiation that might still be about.

Whilst looking for radiation releases we tumbled across some incidents that did try to blame Fukushima (IAEA report) then when challenged with data we had accumulated the IAEA said it was from Pakistan!. Our data disproved this and it was later confirmed by CRIIRAD of France to be a release from a medical isotope reactor in Hungary that did not admit to the incident in full.

This led me to see where else radiation pollution might be coming from that is not declared. I decided to buy a Geiger counter and monitor the air in London whilst driving around on my motorbike. Some of the results were interesting and I tracked pollution from Sellafield as well as other reactors.

One point to note with Sellafield was that it came with high CO2 levels that could be measured with a Geiger counter as well, as the pollution was mildly radioactive. I say mildly but that was in London and Sellafield has been shutdown because of releases being pushed down on the site instead of going up and away. There could be issues with people locally getting high spikes of radiation and CO2 that have not been fully addressed as was the case in Hungary in 2011.

So I have completed that whole year researching and sharing info from Fukushima and many other nuclear related areas.

During 2012 I accrued 2 police crime numbers for my BT and Vodaphone numbers being hacked. Long story short, My Vodaphone account was hacked by GCHQ who were doing the Daily Mail phone hacking Inquiry at the time. They interrupted a call and cleverly pretended to be the Daily Mail reception (I called to pay a parking fine and have never called the Daily Mail directly). After lodging a complaint with my local police station (who I worked with helping Young people while in custody – Appropriate Adult) the guy from GCHQ called me direct and said they wanted to know who I was to rule me out of the investigation and after a short talk I had passed muster.

We finished the conversation with my concerns abated and I kept the whole thing confidential as agreed. However a few weeks later I contacted a scientist with some simple inquiries (well known in the media) concerning radiaiton harm and the same day my BT internet email account was hacked through my Vodaphone mobile and I was locked out. I reported it to the Vodaphone police liaison officer who informed me that the account was hacked and they had the IP address. I was later to find out that the investigation into that IP address was turned around withing days to being an investigation on me. The excuse for nothing happening that Vodaphone gave initially was that the investigation was blocked by the police. I did get a crime number for that as well though.

As the months progressed, the overt surveillance got worse. My internet was a law unto itself and I had to use cafes and libraries to upload posts. The only problems I had with my phone connection happened in those months.

By the end of 2012 things got serious! It began as I was doing an NHS blood run for a well known cancer hospital. When i got home, I looked at my mobile and realise I had been texted from the Insurance company as I was driving and they had cancelled my Insurance! If I had been stopped the police would have taken my brand new 700 cc Honda and crushed it immediately, as per new law.

Calling the brokers was interesting, The underwriters came into the call and said that the price for reinstating the Insurance was £1,500 and left the call. The original price was £500. It stopped me paying my TAX bill (which was about the same amount £1,500). What a coincidence I though!

Now is a good time to mention Number Plate Recognition Software. I hate it. Once I saw 2 police arguing in their vehicle whether to give me points for “filtering”. Pointing at the screen (showing clean license, no record, 10 yrs Insurance clean and a blood sample box on the back of the bike). Another occasion was in the snow and my MOT was a day late. They were printing of the fine before i got to their window. Looking them in the face, I asked, “Did my name come up as a Domestic Extremist?” and both officers looked awkward with one looking away. I had my answer (I trained in body language with Brunel Uni on an MA level psychology course).

So where was I? Oh yes, Christmas had a bit of extra stress that year but I was still working, had a roof over my head and Insurance (for now). On the downside, It looked as if I had been blacklisted and the buggers had scooped my Tax payment for 2013 to boot!

2013 was shaping up to be interesting and I was not to be disappointed.

The Tax man kept insisting that I use digital forms even though I repeatedly asked for paper quoting my 2 crime numbers in mitigation. By the time they agreed I had been let go by the Daiily Mail using strange procedures, threatened by the Insurance underwriters twice with them using questionnaires (same questions both times), likely using software analysis to find the lies. They finished with “You wait until your insurance is up for renewal because it will be going up by alot” (paraphrased).

As i got into difficulty financially, I contacted the bank and asked for a 3 month cushion and they agreed but a couple of weeks later I got demands for everything now! At this point i was cashing cheques to get cash to survive and paying bills was a hardship. I got 2 computers hacked and damaged after the requested increase in GCHQ Cyber warriors in 2013 (Called Battalion 77 now I believe) April approx of 30,000 posts. I think they used me for practice?

I think you get the gist of the pressures, I have left out a lot of day to day details. So the question is, what to do now? Having my financial security and ability to contact and make arrangements, find work, get insured etc being undermined in the way it was, was a real eye opener! So far the attacks were purely over the phone and interference in the digital domain and they were enough to destroy my life in a matter of months.

Who else did this happen too? Would they know if a situation was an attack or some unfortunate luck? In my case the overt and in my face interactions said the former but some of these are still subtle enough to make one wonder? How hard would it be to destroy someones life without them knowing someone was behind it? With the UK heading in an even worse direction now I shudder to think.

Well, I have documented, in brief, to about half way through 2013 and the best is to come yet.

I summary I and my colleagues and friends around the UK were targeted in various ways. I became more isolated as friends etc were targeted and most backed off quickly and some tried to resist but they got work email accounts deleted, internet, email, phone problems and even straight up threats!

In 2014 I found myself using a homeless charity address who saw my postal mail was always blocked. I had my tyres punctured severely requiring replacement and had to leave London when my friends phone was cut off for 24 hrs after i used it and he began to get concerned. I lived like a Nomad relying on cash to survive but as the targeting got worse I had to make a decision to leave.

For the record. I witnessed £60,000 being removed (without trace) from the Swift money transfer system. It only re appeared when concerned bank managers realised that Swift was easily hackable. That was to stop me getting money for selling my remaining motor bike before i moved to Ireland but thanks to the quick work of the bank managers and a solicitor I got the money in time to leave for a new life in April 2014

Oh! and of course I have been part of this blog and supported by fellow admins and friends Herve and Christina amongst others!

Statement of Fact (partial) from Shaun McGee aka arclight2011

May 27, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Are “Advanced” Nuclear Reactors Actually Better?

A Critical Examination of the Safety, Security, and Environmental Risks of Non-Light-Water Technologies

RSVP Required

Wed., May 26, 2021 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm

Online Series Project on Managing the Atom Seminar Series

A Project on Managing the Atom (MTA) seminar with Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Please RSVP to receive the Zoom link.

RSVP Required

Wed., May 26, 2021 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm

Online Series Project on Managing the Atom Seminar Series

A Project on Managing the Atom (MTA) seminar with Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Please RSVP to receive the Zoom link. https://harvard.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUucOCtqzIoGdG9KSqzSafFkDd8PCnt2z-S

ABOUT

If nuclear power is to play an expanded role in mitigating climate change, newly built reactors should be demonstrably safer and more secure than current-generation reactors. Today, many US companies and the Department of Energy are making significant investments in the development of nuclear reactors that use coolants other than water, such as liquid sodium, helium gas, and molten salt. These are fundamentally different from today’s water-cooled reactors. But is different actually better? A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) finds the answer is “no” for most designs in terms of safety and security, sustainability, and the risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. The report recommends that policymakers and private investors fully vet the risks and benefits of these technologies before committing the vast resources needed to safely commercialize them.

Edwin Lyman is the Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC. He earned a doctorate in physics from Cornell University in 1992. From 1992 to 1995, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (now the Science and Global Security Program). From 1995 to 2003, he worked for the Nuclear Control Institute. His research focuses on nuclear power safety and security. He is a co-author (with David Lochbaum and Susan Q. Stranahan) of the book Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster (The New Press, 2014). In 2018 he received the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award from the American Physical Society. 

Source link (need to keep retrying as link is slow and fails regularly)

https://www.belfercenter.org/event/are-advanced-nuclear-reactors-actually-better-critical-examination-safety-security-and

May 22, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Thyroid cancer at ages 0 and 2 at the time of the nuclear accident-Health survey in Fukushima Prefecture January 2021

Thyroid cancer at ages 0 and 2 at the time of the nuclear accident-Health survey in Fukushima Prefecture Posted by: ourplanet Posted on: Thu, 01/14/2021 –00:46 http://ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/2537 (Japanese only)

(Translated from Google) The “Prefectural Health Survey” Review Committee was held in Fukushima City on the 15th to discuss the health survey of Fukushima citizens following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. For the first time, it was discovered that two infants, a 0-year-old girl and a 2-year-old girl at the time of the accident, were diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

Material https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/kenkocyosa-kentoiinkai-40.html

This time, the result of the fourth round of thyroid examination until June last year was newly announced. The number of children diagnosed with suspected thyroid cancer by fine needle cytology increased by 6 from the previous time to 27, and the number of children who underwent thyroidectomy increased by 3 from the previous time to 16 children. Up to now, 252 patients have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer or suspected thyroid cancer from prior examination, of which 203 have undergone thyroid surgery. 202 people, excluding one, were confirmed to have thyroid cancer.

In the fourth round of examination, it was found for the first time that a girl who was 0 years old and a girl who was 2 years old at the time of the accident were diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Since the age of the examination is not the actual age but the grade, the ages at the time of the examination are 9 years old (3rd grade of elementary school) and 11 years old (5th grade of elementary school), respectively. According to the previous test results of 27 patients, 5 patients had “A1 judgement” without nodules or tumors, and 16 people had “A2 judgement” with nodules of 5 mm or less or cysts of 2 cm or less, 5 mm or more. 5 people had a “B-judgement” with nodules or cysts of 2 cm or more, and 1 had not been examined. He had the smallest tumor size of 6.1 mm and the largest tumor was 29.4 mm.

What stands out in the results of the fourth round of examination is the high dose of radiation for people diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Of the 27 patients diagnosed as suspected of being malignant by fine needle cytology, 11 patients (40.7%) who submitted the basic survey questionnaire had an exposure dose of less than 1 mSv in 2 patients (18.1%) 4 months after the accident. The number of children exposed to 2mSv or more was the highest, with 4 (36.3%) from 1mSv to 2mSv and 5 (45.5%) from 2mSv to 5mSv. In particular, the two boys who were five years old at the time of the accident were both over 2mSv.

According to the results of the basic survey of all Fukushima residents, 62.2% are less than 1mSv, 31.6% are from 1mSv to 2mSv, and 5.5% are from 2mSv to 3mSv. Very different.

To review the mass examination at school At this review committee, a major shift was made to reviewing simultaneous examinations at schools. The test, which has found more than 200 people with thyroid cancer, raises the theory of “overdiagnosis” among experts who deny the effects of radiation exposure, saying that they are finding thyroid cancer that they do not have to find. There is a growing opinion that the mass examination at school should be reviewed.

Based on these opinions, the review committee decided to conduct an interview survey at schools in the prefecture on August 31st last time. This time, there was a report on the results of a survey conducted by the prefecture at 26 elementary and junior high schools and high schools in the prefecture.

At many schools, thyroid examinations were performed during class hours, criticized by Shoichiro Tsugane, a member of the National Cancer Center, saying, “You can’t take this without a strong will.” “The benefits of the test are not except that you can be reassured when you get negative. The discovery of thyroid cancer has little benefit in avoiding death or poor quality of life, especially when you are diagnosed with thyroid cancer. “I think it will be a huge disadvantage for those who do,” he said. “Thyroid examination in a group of asymptomatic healthy people is not desirable. I asked him to stop the mass examination at school. ..

In addition, Professor Toshiya Inaba of Hiroshima University also cut out at the school examination that “they are left behind” and said, “Parents are not worried. The school rents the venue. The prefectural medical college has an inspection. I understand each position well, but in the end, it is the people who are left unattended. ” He emphasized that the prefectures and medical colleges that are the subjects of the survey should explain more to children and students the significance of the test and the fact that it can be rejected.

Screenshot of Zoom chat from the meeting 2021

In response, Professor Satoshi Tomita of Fukushima University argued head-on. He criticized that “many Fukushima residents have anxiety about their health” and that members of the Prefectural Health Investigation Committee, especially members outside Fukushima Prefecture, are calling for the cancellation or reduction of examinations. He said that thyroid examination is a way to relieve the anxiety of Fukushima residents, “the anxiety of Fukushima residents, especially those with children, is left behind.” “It is dangerous to go in the direction of reduction easily.” “Thinking” was pointed out.

Ikuko Abe, chairman of the Fukushima Clinical Psychologists Association, who also lives in Fukushima Prefecture and has a close relationship with schools, agrees with this, saying, “I agree with Professor Tomita’s opinion.” “Given the anxiety about radiation that Fukushima residents have, thyroid examinations are very reassuring,” she said. “Reducing or eliminating the examinations still takes the opposite position. I want you to do it. “

What caught my eye in the discussion was the presence of Katsushi Tahara, director of the Ministry of the Environment’s Health and Welfare Department. The members of the review committee from the Ministry of the Environment have not said much, but have played a role in important aspects of policy change. This time too, Mr. Tahara considers the fact that the school is cooperating with the implementation of the examination, such as encouraging households whose delivery to Fukushima Medical University is delayed to submit again when the deadline has passed. About 30% of the children undergoing medical examinations at school were asked intensively about this point, such as confirming that the school side took over the collection of consent forms.

To conduct hearings with the person to be inspected Following a survey of the school, the prefecture proposed to have a place to hear directly from the children and students who had been inspected. Questions were raised about the representativeness of the interviewees, and there was an opinion requesting a quantitative survey such as a questionnaire, but the prefecture’s proposal was approved because the survey took too long.

Regarding this “interview survey,” there was a harsh debate over the neutrality of the content, such as the opinion that a pilot study was unavoidable and that the voices of patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer should also be heard. With the strong push back of the constellation chairman, it was decided that the selection of the target audience and the holding method would be left to the chairperson and the prefecture. The results will be reported at the next meeting.

In response to the further shift to reviewing mass screening at school in this “interview,” Chiba parent and child of the “thyroid cancer support group Hydrangea Association” that supports families with thyroid cancer said, “Accident Among the 0-year-old and 2-year-old children at that time, a child with thyroid cancer appeared and my chest hurts. Thyroid cancer also has recurrence and metastasis, and early detection and early treatment are beneficial for the child. Given that the cancer was found in a school test, there can be no argument to eliminate the school test. ” The group has made offers to the prefecture three times in the past and opposes the reduction of inspections.

January 16, 2021 Posted by | children, Fukushima continuing, Reference | 2 Comments

Fukushima criticism for unauthorized use of radiation exposure data-Interim report on Date City

According to the report, Mr. Tanaka wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun on April 4, last year, “Even if the paper is withdrawn, the data analysis should be re-analyzed through appropriate procedures. It will be useful for estimation and reduction measures, “he said, and pointed out that Mr. Tanaka, who is in a position to relax the standards for food and air dose, may have influenced the paper.

http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/2520 25th September 2020
Hobara Central Exchange Hall, where Mr. Miyazaki and Mr. Hayano examined “Materials for Chairman Shunichi Tanaka” on October 20, 2015

After the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, he wrote a dissertation that led to an underestimation of radiation exposure without obtaining the consent of the residents of Date City, and on the 24th, a parliamentary-style dissertation was raised. The special committee made an interim report. The researchers have severely denounced the transfer of responsibility to Date City as “an act of sin.” The report also goes into detail, pointing out the relationship with Mr. Shunichi Tanaka.

At issue are two papers published in British scientific journals between 2016 and 2017 by Professor Makoto Miyazaki of Fukushima Medical University and Professor Emeritus Ryugo Hayano of the University of Tokyo.

In February of this year, the Date City Investigation Committee released a report pointing out the suspicion of violating the Personal Information Protection Ordinance, but in response to this, the city council established a special committee to verify the city’s investigation results. It was.

Special Committee for Investigation on Provision of Radiation Exposure Data, Interim Report (Japanese only)
https://www.city.fukushima-date.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/47281.pdf

Pointed out that “hidden illegal acquisition of data”


Kunio Kikuchi, chairman of the special committee, first pointed out that the researchers did not give informed consent at all.

After accusing him of saying, “It is highly likely that he was trying to write by ignoring consent and disagreement rather than by explaining it,” he said,

“I try to avoid passing responsibility as if there is a problem with the city’s data provision.” Is an act of sin as a researcher, ” he pointed out the responsibility of the researcher.

Furthermore, regarding the fact that the “Paper Request Form” issued on August 1, 2015 in the name of the mayor was actually created in late October, to conceal the illegal acquisition of citizen data. It was pointed out that it was “work”. Although it had already been analyzed, Mr. Miyazaki formally applied to the Ethics Review Board and stated that he had obtained a doctorate, and even Mr. Miyazaki’s dissertation withdrawal comment was strict. I criticized it.

Pointed out the city’s omission of survey-Provided by flying in 2014
In addition, the report pointed out the omission of investigation by the city’s investigation committee. In the city’s investigation report, only the data provided in February 2015 and August of the same year was reported, but in December 2014, Mr. Miyazaki ignored the procedure for the then director Takahiro Hanzawa of the city. Then, I introduced the existence of an email that asked Mr. Hayano to provide data at his discretion. “Ignoring the Personal Information Protection Law, Illegal provision, assistance, and illegal acquisition,” he said.

Date City’s “Investigative Committee on Radiation Exposure Data Provision” Report (Japanese only)
https://www.city.fukushima-date.lg.jp/soshiki/3/39948.html

Also mentioned the provision of analysis data to Mr. Shunichi Tanaka
In addition, the report also mentioned that the analysis data was passed on to Mr. Shunichi Tanaka, who became the city administration advisor of Date City after the accident and then became the chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority.

In June 2013, a person in charge of the department had a meeting with Mr. Miyazaki and Mr. Hayano about dose measurement in the meeting materials of the Nuclear Disaster Victims Life Support Team of the Cabinet Office, which is responsible for designating and canceling evacuation orders. Pointed out that the facts that are stated. On October 20, 2015, Mr. Hayano said that the analysis data had been provided to Mr. Tanaka, and that the data of Date City was provided by illegal means, which influences the national policy he suggested.

According to the report, Mr. Tanaka wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun on April 4, last year, “Even if the paper is withdrawn, the data analysis should be re-analyzed through appropriate procedures. It will be useful for estimation and reduction measures, “he said, and pointed out that Mr. Tanaka, who is in a position to relax the standards for food and air dose, may have influenced the paper.

JPR Comments on Papers and Withdrawals
The first paper “Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): 1. Comparison of individual dose with ambient dose rate monitored by aircraft surveys”

The second paper, “Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): II. Prediction of lifetime additional effective dose and evaluating the effect of decontamination on individual dose”

Full article in Japanese with sources from Our Planet TV here; http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/2520

Follow Our Planet TV on Twitter; @OurPlanetTV

September 25, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cesium in seawater rises 4.3 times due to typhoon, investigated by Fukushima University


20 September 2020
The fact that the concentration of cesium, a radioactive substance dissolved in seawater along the coast of Fukushima Prefecture, temporarily increased by 4.3 times due to Typhoon No. 19 last fall was a specially appointed associate professor at the Fukushima University Institute for Environmental Radioactivity (Ocean). It was found in the investigation by (Chemistry) et al. Sediment runoff due to heavy rain seems to be one of the causes.


The research group collected seawater from June to October last year at a total of 25 locations near the mouth of rivers such as Tomioka Town and Iwaki City, along the coast, and offshore, and investigated the cesium concentration. In October after the typhoon passed, the average concentration at three locations near the mouths of the Tomioka, Natsui, Same, and Hikita rivers was 39 millibecquerels per liter, which was much higher than the average of 9 millibecquerels from June to September.
Cesium is attached to the sediment deposited on the bottom of the river. Associate Professor Takada analyzed that the record heavy rain caused by the typhoon caused sediment to flow out of the river into the sea, and cesium was dissolved in response to potassium ions in the seawater. It is estimated that about 30% of the increase in concentration is due to this mechanism.


Associate Professor Takada said, “Although there is a study that the amount of cesium discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is decreasing year by year, there are many unclear points about the increase in concentration derived from typhoons. Collect data and dispel rumors. I want to connect to. “
The research was published in a magazine published by the Chemical Society of America in early August.

Source;

https://www.kahoku.co.jp/tohokunews/202009/20200903_63021.html

September 20, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Church Rock Uranium Tailings Pond Breach Disaster in Navajo Nation – 40th Year

IMG_0885-1024x768@2x

by | Jul 14, 2020

Listen here

http://nuclearhotseat.com/2020/07/14/church-rock-uranium-tailings-pond-breach-40th-anniversary-special-473/

Church Rock 40th anniversary commemoration, July 16, 2019 –
former Uranium Miner Larry J. King (center) explains the site of the 1979 Church Rock uranium tailings pond breach.  This under-reported radioactive disaster dumped more than 94 million gallons of uranium-contaminated waste water into the adjacent Puerco River.  Now 41 years later, it has yet to be cleaned up
.

Church Rock Uranium Tailings Pond Spill Commemoration, July 16, 2019:  Uranium mining marks the start of the nuclear fuel chain, the deadly journey uranium takes to become atomic weapons, nuclear reactors, and tons of highly radioactive waste.  NOTE: This is a special ENCORE PRESENTATION of the 2019 40th anniversary of the disaster.

On July 13 and 14, 2019, Nuclear Hotseat’s Libbe HaLevy attended commemorative events for the 1979 Church Rock uranium tailings pond breach and spill.  This under-reported nuclear disaster dumped more than 94 million gallons of highly acidic radioactive water into the adjacent Puerco River. The contamination reached Sanders, Arizona, more than 80 miles away. The spill has never been cleaned up.  Even after being declared a Superfund site, it needs at least two years before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission finishes its review of the EPA’s clean-up plan.  Clean-up can’t even begin until and unless the plan is approved.  And even that plan has come in for criticism by activists and community members.

Church Rock – This Week’s SPECIAL Featured Interviews:

This very SPECIAL Nuclear Hotseat from July 2019, presents an audio montage of interviews with community leaders from Navajo Nation.  They include: residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community, located adjacent to the spill site; commemoration event attendees; government officials; and activists from as far away as Japan. We spoke with:

  • Former uranium miner Larry J. King, who worked on-site at the United Nuclear Corporation mine the day of the tailings pond spill

July 16, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warns about the risk of a nuclear war 10/07/20

Screenshot_2020-07-14 Russia Lavrov warns of growing nuclear war threat as US seeks 'global domination'

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the United States wants to dominate the world and warned about the risk of a nuclear war, speaking at the international ‘Primakov Readings’ summit via videoconference in Moscow on Friday.

“”The US wants to regain global dominance and achieve victory in what they call the ‘major power rivalry’. They reject the term ‘strategic stability’ and call it ‘strategic rivalry’. They want to win this competition,” he stated.

The diplomat added that Moscow was “particularly concerned about the two-year refusal of the Americans to reassert the fundamental principle, the postulate that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, [and], accordingly, it should never be unleashed.”

He also commented on the trade war between US and China, saying that he can’t see any benefits for Russia from it.

Discussing how the coronavirus pandemic had changed the world, Lavrov said that the epidemic had “exacerbated” existing issues.

“This infection has exacerbated all the challenges and threats that existed before it began, but it hasn’t disappeared, including international terrorism. As you know, there are already some speculations when terrorists are considering how to use a virus strain or perhaps create some new strains in order to achieve their nefarious goals,” he said.

Video ID: 20200710-039

Full translation here;

Ec1Oa9qWkAA-AGREc1OqeTXgAMSTPd

July 14, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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