Belarussian kids receive care
Belarussian kids receive careBy John Henderson Rocky Mount Telegram July 06, 2009 Children from Belarus who continue to be exposed to radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident have once again traveled to Rocky Mount from the former Soviet Union to receive free medical care.But fewer local “host families” in this down economy have been able pay for the flights and take the children into their homes for six weeks. The host families also take the children to local offices for medical, eye and dental care treatment………………………….
On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant reactor exploded, releasing dangerous amounts of radiation into the air. The wind on that day carried it toward Belarus, contaminating the region’s air, soil and water.
“The problem is there is so much unknown radiation material (in Belarus), and it will probably be there for 3,000 or 4,000 years,” Patrone said. “Some of the food is not safe.”………………………………….
“Medically, they are small in size,” Patrone said. “Some have thyroid problems and an occasional immune-deficiency problem. They are still suffering, because basically, radiation is still in the dirt.”
If a child is diagnosed with a major problem here such as thyroid cancer, they are sent back to Belarus for treatment, he said.
“(The trip to Rocky Mount) is a way to get out of the radiation zone and to give kids a second (doctor’s) opinion,” he said.
Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage
Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage By Blair Koch Times-News 7 july 09 A common fear among victims of radiation fallout caused by nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and ’60s is that they will not live long enough to see the government take accountability.Ilene Hoisington expressed this sentiment when interviewed by the Times-News in June 2007. At 75, she had seen both her sons die of cancer and had her own larynx removed due to the same disease. Hoisington’s sister also died of cancer.In June 2008, Hoisington lost her battle too, having died before Idaho fallout victims were included in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.”I think (the government) is waiting until we all die and then there won’t be anymore downwinders, problem solved,” Hoisington said in 2007.
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer –
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer Brattleboro Reformer By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff July 2BRATTLEBORO — Are nuclear power plant workers at higher risk to die of cancer?A study conducted by a Canadian researcher concluded the risk is substantially higher to them than to the general public.The document, “Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes” was made public last week. It was written by Mark Lemstra, who was formerly a senior research epidemiologist for the Saskatoon, Canada, Health Region……………………In the radiation report, in which Lemstra reviewed 1,725 articles related to radiation studies, he concluded that nuclear power plant workers have a “relative excess risk” of getting cancer.
In epidemiology, excess risk is defined as the difference between the proportion of subjects in a population with a particular disease who were exposed to a specific risk factor and the proportion of subjects with that same disease who were not exposed.
In the case of nuclear power plant workers, that risk factor is low-dose radiation.
New study: Nuclear workers at higher risk for cancer – Brattleboro Reformer
No answer on nuclear waste issue
No answer on waste issue Rutland Herald KATHLEEN KREVETSKI 29 June 09 “……………………. the Areva nuclear fuel processing plant — La Hague in France where spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. La Hague acknowledges that it is intentionally dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the ocean while the incidence of childhood cancer is rampant in the area surrounding that plant.
Before George Bush left office, the U.S. EPA had radically increased permissible public exposure to radiation in drinking water, including a nearly 1,000-fold increase in permissible concentrations of strontium-90, 3,000- to 100,000-fold for iodine-131, and a nearly 25,000 increase for nickel-63. The relaxation of these radiation protection regulations had been sought for years by the nuclear industry and its allies in the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
In the most extreme case, the new standards permit radionuclide concentrations seven million times more lax than permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act and would permit public exposure to radiation levels vastly higher than EPA had previously deemed unacceptably dangerous. The public did not get to comment on these changes. What exactly is the radioactive waste that is now being discharged into the Connecticut River. When will our Vermont Department of Public Health start reporting on the trends of cancer incidence rising in Vermont? And Entergy and the NRC thinks its OK to continue to build up the stockpile of the radioactive waste here in Vermont because no one else will accept it
Nuclear power is well-disguised fossil fuel
Nuclear power is well-disguised fossil fuel1 Mail and Guardian 30 June 09 …by Roger DiamondAs global warming gets hotter on the international political agenda, and with recent oil price volatility, the nuclear power proponents have jumped on a bandwagon to promote “the peaceful atom” as a means to power our society………………….. Carbon free? When uranium, or any other fissionable material, reacts, indeed, it does not give off any carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gases. However, almost every other aspect of the production of nuclear power does. Let’s start with mining uranium…………………All of this mining, processing and transporting activity uses energy — fossil fuels to be precise. But that’s not even the big energy user in nuclear power. The biggest factor is probably the building of the power stations that have to be over-engineered for terrorist strikes, earthquakes, careless operators………………………..the energy consumed in earth moving, making thousands of tons of cement and building a nuclear power station, is very significant. Maintenance of the power station also consumes energy, as does the transport and disposal of the low and medium-level radioactive waste, but the big unknowns in nuclear power are decommissioning and disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
All of this activity is driven by fossil fuels and so to say that nuclear power is carbon free is to pretend that nuclear power stations descend from the heavens and that fuel rods grow on trees, neither of which are particularly believable. It is also to ignore the challenge that decommissioning and high-level waste disposal pose………………………….he clincher is that all of this adds up to make nuclear power rather expensive and uncertain, and so the predicted boom in nuclear power has not materialised and in fact, the construction of new nuclear power stations is only keeping pace with the decommissioning of old ones built in the 1960s. This is even without the years of expense that we look forward to in guarding and maintaining radioactive hulks of concrete for the rest of civilisation so that they don’t crumble and leak radiation or demolishing the monstrosities and finding a hole to bury them in.
Thought Leader » Peak Oil Perspectives » Nuclear power is well-disguised fossil fuel
Thousands of consumer products found to contain low levels of radiation
Thousands of consumer products found to contain low levels of radiationBy ISAAC WOLF Scripps Howard News ServiceSunday, June 21, 2009
Thousands of everyday products and materials containing radioactive metals are surfacing across the United States and around the world.
Common kitchen cheese graters, reclining chairs, women’s handbags and tableware manufactured with contaminated metals have been identified, some after having been in circulation for as long as a decade. So have fencing wire and fence posts, shovel blades, elevator buttons, airline parts and steel used in construction.
A Scripps Howard News Service investigation has found that – because of haphazard screening, an absence of oversight and substantial disincentives for businesses to report contamination – no one knows how many tainted goods are in circulation in the United States.
But thousands of consumer goods and millions of pounds of unfinished metal and its byproducts have been found to contain low levels of radioactivity, and experts think the true amount could be much higher, perhaps by a factor of 10.
New power-plant drain on rivers sparks debate
New power-plant drain on rivers sparks debate Ny san Antonio 21 June 09 by Antonio Caputo
New power plants planned along the lower Colorado River could use the same water supply that was denied San Antonio for future growth.
The driving force is simple. Power shortages are forecast for Texas’ future — shortages that power companies are rushing to meet with new plants.
But experts, environmental groups and others are beginning to question whether there is enough water available to serve the massive facilities.
The issue pits two fundamental resources critical to the fast-growing state against each other — water and power.
In an indirect way, it even puts San Antonio’s two largest utilities in competition for water from the lower Colorado River, some 200 miles away……………………
Nukes’ take
The lower Colorado River is a microcosm of an issue exploding statewide.
The South Texas Project, which supplies San Antonio with about a third of its energy, wants to build two more nuclear reactors and use the Colorado River water for cooling.
Remember Erin Brockovich?
appomatox’s posterous by , Jane Kollmer17 June 09 Four counties in the lower Hudson Valley of New York are reported to have the highest rates of thyroid cancer in the nation. With alarming statistics coming from a specific region, health experts are looking for the culprit, which appears to be the nearby Indian Point Power Plant.The plant produces and emits radioactive iodine particles, which when they enter the human body, attack thyroid cells and lead to cancer and other problems such as hypothyroidism. About 300 residents in the four surrounding counties are diagnosed with thyroid cancer each year……………………………….This is to those who believe that open pit uranium mines and mills can be GOOD for you, ie: thinking that uranium ore equals radiation for cancer treatment. No matter how you cut it, radiation is dangerous for humans………………………The difference between using radiation as cancer treatment and radiation that occurs in mining and milling is that there is some transparency in the former.
Remember Erin Brockovich? Image Mag – appomattox’s posterous
Ottawa to spend $6M seeking medical isotope alternatives
Approval for alternative types of medical isotopes such as thallium for cardiac scans and sodium fluoride for bone scans has also been been sped up, Aglukkaq said.”Although the next month is going to be challenging with Petten down as well, I believe that the increasing use of those two alternatives really does give us a significant step up in coping with the need to help our patients,” said Dr. Sandy McEwan, the federal government’s new special adviser on medical isotopes.Also on Tuesday, Ontario’s Health Ministry announced it will pay $1.4 million in one-time funding to produce sodium fluoride as an alternative diagnostic procedure for about 2,000 cancer patients.
Is depleted uranium too hot for Utah site?
Is depleted uranium too hot for Utah site?
Environment » State Radiation Control Board has decided to look further into the question.
06/10/2009 03
Utah‘s Radiation Control Board will dig deeper into the long-term risks of depleted uranium before it decides whether the unusual form of low-level radioactive waste warrants a moratorium. ………………………..”First of all, I believe the public should be protected and the environment should be protected,” said board vice chair Elizabeth Goryunova, suggesting that the board had a responsibility to consider the need for a moratorium despite hassles that might be involved in imposing one. “That’s absolutely a must.”…………………………
Atomic tests ruling is ‘too late’
An atomic test veteran from Manchester said a ruling by the High Court to give ex-servicemen the right to sue the British government has come too late.
Peter Gilbody, 70, of Withington, was involved in clearing up nuclear bomb debris in Australia in 1958. He has since been diagnosed with skin cancer.
About 1,000 servicemen blame their ill health on Britain’s involvement in nuclear tests in the South Pacific……………………..
He said: “I used to bury radioactive material… I had a mate who washed down our vehicles and planes and he got it terrible.
“Widows have lost husbands very early in life, children have got leukaemia.
“Compensation is a bit late now, it won’t do me any good now will it?”
In January the MoD tried to halt compensation claims, arguing that they had been made far too late to go ahead.
Many atomic veterans are terminally ill and since the original hearing seven claimants have died.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Merseyside | Atomic tests ruling is ‘too late’
Is nuclear a green fuel? « Voices from Ghana
Is nuclear a green fuel?June 1, 2009 · Voices From Ghana “…………….some forecasters predict an uptick in nuclear power.
Yet, for nuclear energy to contribute to a significant degree to greenhouse gas abatement, the rate of construction would need to vastly accelerate. Offsetting even 10 percent of global carbon emissions by 2050 would be an immense undertaking, requiring some 2,200 new plants, or more than one per week in the coming decades.
The nuclear power option faces a set of vexing problems that should temper enthusiasm for an expansion of this scale.
Safety and CostAlthough no plant design can be risk-free, new research has brought claims of a new generation of nuclear reactors with advanced safety features. However, they have yet to be tested at full scale, and all reactors on order now use conventional technology. Moreover, nuclear power plants are now considered plausible targets for terrorist attacks. Whether caused by accident or malice, a sudden dispersal of radioactivity would have severe community impact, perhaps exacerbated by inadequate evacuation plans. If such an event triggered a renewal of anti-nuclear sentiment in the general public and led to demands for a nuclear moratorium, the resilience and sustainability of the energy system would be greatly compromised.
The full economic costs of nuclear energy are difficult to determine. A comprehensive accounting would include accident insurance, safety assurance, decommissioning, and radioactive waste disposal — costs that are often buried in generous public subsidies for the nuclear industry or shifted to future generations. As the experience in the U.S. with the first wave of nuclear plants indicated, projected costs will soar as the full costs of the nuclear-fuel cycle are reflected in the price of electricity. Of course, high costs might not be a key issue if nuclear power were the only option for climate mitigation. It is not.some forecasters predict an uptick in nuclear power.
Yet, for nuclear energy to contribute to a significant degree to greenhouse gas abatement, the rate of construction would need to vastly accelerate. Offsetting even 10 percent of global carbon emissions by 2050 would be an immense undertaking, requiring some 2,200 new plants, or more than one per week in the coming decades.
The nuclear power option faces a set of vexing problems that should temper enthusiasm for an expansion of this scale.
Safety and CostAlthough no plant design can be risk-free, new research has brought claims of a new generation of nuclear reactors with advanced safety features. However, they have yet to be tested at full scale, and all reactors on order now use conventional technology. Moreover, nuclear power plants are now considered plausible targets for terrorist attacks. Whether caused by accident or malice, a sudden dispersal of radioactivity would have severe community impact, perhaps exacerbated by inadequate evacuation plans. If such an event triggered a renewal of anti-nuclear sentiment in the general public and led to demands for a nuclear moratorium, the resilience and sustainability of the energy system would be greatly compromised.
The full economic costs of nuclear energy are difficult to determine. A comprehensive accounting would include accident insurance, safety assurance, decommissioning, and radioactive waste disposal — costs that are often buried in generous public subsidies for the nuclear industry or shifted to future generations. As the experience in the U.S. with the first wave of nuclear plants indicated, projected costs will soar as the full costs of the nuclear-fuel cycle are reflected in the price of electricity. Of course, high costs might not be a key issue if nuclear power were the only option for climate mitigation. It is not.
Proliferation and Security
Nuclear power cannot be de-coupled from nuclear weapons. Two paths lead from a nuclear energy program to weapons-grade material; one involves uranium and the other plutonium.
Nuclear Power Deflects Us From the Path to Sustainability……………….With its long-term legacy of heightened risks and toxic burden, nuclear power violates a fundamental principle of sustainability: passing on a resilient world to future generations. At the least, a world laced with nuclear power plants and crisscrossed with commerce of fissionable materials would require a strong international regime of security and control, a world more consonant with an authoritarian Fortress World scenario than a Great Transition.
Radiation contamination by Depleted Uranium
Concerns regarding radiation contamination by the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Eastern Mediterranean Countries. The Palestine Telegraph By Peter Eyre 1 June 09 The majority of high tech weapons today contain Depleted Uranium and or other Heavy Metals. Some are coated in DU and others have both DU and Heavy Metal in their warheads. DU is also used to act as a counterweight…………………………..
The European Parliament has expressed grave concerns on the use of such weapons as follows:
having regard to UN General Assembly resolution of 5 December 2007, highlighting serious health concerns about the use of depleted uranium weapons, having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas (depleted) uranium has been widely used in modern warfare, both as ammunition against hardened targets in rural and urban environments and as hardened armoured protection against missile and artillery attacks,
B. whereas, ever since its use by the allied forces in the first war against Iraq, there have been serious concerns about the radiological and chemical toxicity of the fine uranium particles produced when such weapons impact on hard targets; whereas concerns have also been expressed about the contamination of soil and groundwater by expended rounds that have missed their targets and their implications for civilian populations,
C. whereas, despite the fact that scientific research has so far been unable to find conclusive evidence of harm, there are numerous testimonies as to the harmful and often deadly effects on both military personnel and civilians,
D. whereas the last few years have seen great advances in terms of understanding the environmental and health hazards posed by depleted uranium, ………………
………………………..All of my research experts state it is radiation alpha particles from uranium atoms that causes the problem, and this type of contamination can be measured very precisely. It is the alpha particle that once inside your body runs rife and the rate and type of “Cancer” is subject to if it was inhaled or ingested. The latter is caused mainly in areas where DU dust has spread in the atmosphere and returned to earth in precipitation.
Climate crisis will not be solved by nuclear power
Guest column: Climate crisis will not be solved by nuclear power greenbay pressgazette.com Bill Christofferson • May 27, 2009 Concern about climate change has sparked a campaign by the nuclear power industry to try to sell itself as a “clean” energy solution, with Wisconsin a key target……….the campaign to persuade the Legislature and governor to open the door to more reactors in Wisconsin, which has not built one since 1974……..
……….Nuclear power makes no more sense today than it did when the law was passed in 1983. Wisconsin must address the climate crisis, but renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power………………
What is ‘low-level’ waste, and is it good* for you?
The nuclear-power lobby
San Antonio Current by Greg Harman 27 May 09
…………………………..What is ‘low-level’ waste, and is it good* for you?
So-called “low-level” radioactive waste is basically everything except the nuclear fuel, weapons waste, or uranium mill tailings from mining.
While “high-level” radioactive waste includes irradiated fuel, “low-level” waste includes everything from shoe covers, rags, and mops to irradiated nuke plant components and piping, control rods from reactor cores, and the poison curtains that soak up neutrons from reactor-core water.
Critics claims the term “low-level” is misleading, since these wastes can emit anywhere from one or two curies per cubic meter all the way to up to 5,000 curies per cubic meter.
Ultimately, entire nuclear power plants will be dismantled and buried as “low-level” nuclear waste.
Carcasses of animals “treated” with radioactive elements in pharmaceutical or medical research also need to be disposed of as low-level waste.
And scientific, medical, and some research waste also fall into this category. Most medical wastes decay within days or weeks, while wastes from nuclear power plants can remain deadly for hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years.
Sources: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Information Resource Service, Ohio State University
*Not on your irradiated life.
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (12)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 