The more radiation, the weirder Fukushima’s fir trees became.
NUCLEAR DISASTER IN JAPAN DID SOMETHING STRANGE TO TREES https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-japan-trees
SOMETHING IS UP WITH THOSE TREES. by ABBY LEE HOOD ( Journalist) They didn’t grow any larger or suddenly become sentient, but the trees outside the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant are definitely acting weird, according to a new study published earlier this month in the journal Plants.
Researchers from multiple universities in Italy and Brazil studied fir trees growing near the plant, which was destroyed in 2011 following a severe earthquake. The scientists studied whorls — nodes where leaves, branches or other plant parts grow from a central point — and found that fir trees around Fukushima exhibited weird growth patterns around them.
“These conifers showed irregular branching at the main axis whorls,” reads the study, spotted by Newsweek. “The frequency of these anomalies corresponded to the environmental radiation dose rate at the observed sites.”
The more radiation, in other words, the weirder the trees got.
Circle of Life
It’s pretty interesting that trees affected by nuclear radiation grow in funky patterns and are still affected by material in the soil near Fukushima. But even more important is the team’s goal of learning how to better take care of people caught up in similar, future disasters, and to create better emergency management plans.
“Ten years have passed since the FNPP accident, and still the large-scale effects are visible,” the researchers concluded. “Learning from past incidents and implementing this knowledge can make a significant difference in terms of lives and costs in healthcare management.”
We may not always be good stewards of the environment around us, but nature seems happy to provide cautionary tales for humanity to learn from all the same.
More on Fukushima weirdness: Scientists Monitoring Radioactive Snakes Near Fukushima Meltdown Site
What’s the situation of Bikini atoll and its people now?
What Bikini Atoll Looks Like 60 Years Post-Nuclear Testing https://www.thetravel.com/bikini-atoll-nuclear-testing-can-you-visit-now/
Bikini Atoll sounds like a tropical paradise, but its history includes that of nuclear testing… So, what does it look like six decades following?
BY AARON SPRAYPUBLISHED 1 DAY AGO Bikini Atoll is an example of a tropical paradise-come-fire-and-brimstone apocalypse. It is a coral reef in the Marshall Islands made up of 23 islands that surround a large central lagoon. After WW2 all of the atoll’s population were forcibly relocated in 1946 to make way for a nuclear testing site for the United States.
Between 1946 and 1958 Bikini Atoll was subjected to 23 nuclear tests by the United States. And here is to be found the sunken American nuclear fleet. Another stunning lagoon to see a ship graveyard is in Truk (Chuuk) Lagoon in Micronesia.
The American authorities had promised the Bikini Atoll’s residents they would be able to return home after they were done nuking their home. Most of the islanders agreed to leave and moved to Rogerik Atoll and then Kili Island. But both of these new islands were unable to sustain them forcing the government to keep giving them aid.
After the end of the nuclear tests, three families were resettled on Bikini Island in 1970 (about 100 residents). But dangerously high levels of contamination were found in the well water and they were evacuated again in 1980.
In the end, the United States paid the islands and their descendants $125 million in compensation.
Fukushima nuclear radiation has had strange effects on plants and trees
Fukushima Radiation Made Japanese Fir Trees Go Haywire After Nuclear Disaster Newsweek, BY ORLANDO JENKINSON ON 1/27/22 Plants in Fukushima are growing in abnormal ways because of the radiation left over from the 2011 nuclear accident, a study suggests.
In a study published on January 15 in the journal Plants, scientists described changes to the structure of plants and trees in areas close to where a partial meltdown occurred at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) after an earthquake caused a tsunami that overwhelmed the plant’s cooling systems.
………….. To come to their conclusion, researchers examined the whorls—the places on plants where foliage like leaves, petals or needles spread out from a central point.
Instead of branching out in the expected way, the whorls showed irregular growths and even elimination of some shoots in ways not seen on trees that avoided radiation.
What is more, the number of strange mutations like this corresponded with the amount of radiation the trees were hit with. Researchers said that the rate of mutations was “directly proportional to the dose of ionizing radiation to which the conifers had been exposed.”
The authors of the paper said that another abnormality they found was the “deletion” of shoots of Japanese fir and red pine trees. This happened most often after the spring of 2012, and peaked in 2013, though precisely why remains a mystery.
The paper consequently offered further evidence that ionizing radiation like that produced by nuclear accidents can alter the structure of conifer trees.
The authors noted that the abnormalities they uncovered were like those found on Scots Pine trees in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, the 18.6-mile radius surrounding the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the former Soviet Union in 1986. https://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-radiation-japanese-fir-trees-haywire-nuclear-disaster-1673577
Sizewell C nuclear plant will have catastrophic effects on nature, and the Minsmere nature reserve.
RSPB officials have expressed dismay at the government’s decision to back the potential Sizewell C nuclear plant with £100million of funding. The proposed twin reactor development would be built next to Sizewell B, close to the RSPB Minsmere nature reserve. The RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust have long been opposed to the development because they say it will lead to a large loss of habitat for animals and could see millions of dead fish pumped into the sea each year. EDF has always maintained that the power station would help biodiversity by helping to tackle climate change. A spokesperson for the RSPB said: “The RSPB is shocked to hear that the government will be investing £100million of tax payer’s money in Sizewell C before a decision has been made to build it. The government claim to want to be a world leader in their response to the nature crisis. That’s a great ambition, but it is utterly incompatible with throwing £100m at a development that could have catastrophic impacts on nature. East Anglian Daily Times 27th Jan 2022 https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/business/suffolk-groups-react-to-sizewell-c-100m-8649412 |
Increased mutations in animals affected by Chernobyl radiation
New insights into the effects of radiation from Chernobyl
by University of Stirling Phys Org. 26 Jan 22, Researchers at the University of Stirling have found that animals in lakes closest to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor have more genetic mutations than those from further away, giving new insight into the effect of radiation on wild species.
DNA analysis of freshwater crustaceans, called Daphnia, revealed greater genetic diversity in lake populations that experienced the highest radiation dose rates following the accident in 1986. Radiation is the primary cause of these genetic mutations, according to Dr. Stuart Auld, who led the research.
Dr. Auld, of Stirling’s Faculty of Natural Sciences, said: “Chernobyl is a natural experiment in evolution, because the rate of genetic mutation is higher, and all evolutionary change is fuelled by mutations.
“Normally you have to wait for generations to see the effect of the environment on mutations, and most mutant animals are pretty damaged so don’t live long. By sequencing non-coding DNA—bits of genetic code that don’t actually affect the form or function of the organism—we were able to uncover these mutations………..
The paper, “Radiation-mediated supply of genetic variation outweighs the effects of selection and drift in Chernobyl Daphnia populations,” is published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. https://phys.org/news/2022-01-insights-effects-chernobyl.html
Rockets Destroy Ozone and Cause Climate Change – Aerospace Programs’ Deadly Impacts to the Earth.
 | |||
Rockets Destroy Ozone and Cause Climate Change – Aerospace Programs’ Deadly Impacts to the Earth https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockets-destroy-ozone-and-cause-climate-change-aerospace-programs-deadly-impacts-to-the-earth/5767944By Nina BeetyGlobal Research, January 24, 2022 Since its beginnings, the space industry has used PR, Hollywood, and a parade of stars to carve itself into the public psyche, including targeting children. Aerospace costs have been largely ignored or hidden, but these costs are serious and accelerating.
The ozone layer in the sky continues to deteriorate despite international action such as the ban on CFCs. The Antarctic ozone hole is becoming permanent year-round, and the soothing green and blue on NASA’s maps actually signifies low ozone levels.1 The aerospace industry is a major factor in this problem. Dallas etal. (2020): [O]zone depletion is one of the largest environmental concerns surrounding rocket launches from Earth.”2 Why?
1. Rockets’ radical emissions cause immediate, almost total ozone destruction for hundreds of square miles and which lasts days.3
2. Rockets’ exhaust and pollutants introduced into the stratosphere persist there and react with and destroy ozone over the long term.4
3. The sun creates the ozone layer by changing oxygen into ozone in the stratosphere. But rockets put pollutants such as exhaust, water vapor, black carbon, and fuel components such as alumina into the stratosphere, blocking the sun’s rays. This reduces the sun’s creation of ozone, reducing ozone layer repair and replenishment. The long-lived rocket byproducts persist in the stratosphere for 3-5 years,5 and accumulate with every rocket launch, decreasing ozone regeneration with each launch.6
4. The shockwave of de-orbitting debris, satellites, and rockets creates nitric oxide which destroys ozone.7
There is no environmental oversight. Researchers including Martin Ross, Darin Toohey, and James Vedda have repeatedly warned the industry,8 but the industry and governments are escalating space funding and programs instead.
Prior to 2021, 2000 satellites were in orbit around the Earth. Then in 2021, 2800 satellites were launched — more than doubling the total in just one year.9 However, the FCC has approved 17,270 low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites. 65,912 more LEO applications are pending. Governments and private companies plan an additional 30,947+. Rwanda has applied to the ITU for a staggering 327,320 satellites (Firstenberg, 2022). These numbers don’t include systems fewer than five satellites, geostationary, or medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, or rockets into space.
These programs will acceleratingly destroy the ozone layer which is essential to protect the Earth and life.10 NASA discovered in 2007 that UV-C and UV-B were already reaching the Earth and failed to act.11 UV radiation is having lethal effects on species now.
LEO satellites are very short-lived, lasting 5-7 years; the U.S. military plans 3-year duration satellites. These LEOs need frequent replacement via rocket launch.
Aleksandr Dunayev of the Russian Space Agency said in 1991: “About 300 launches of the [space] shuttle each year would be a catastrophe, and the ozone layer would be completely destroyed.”12
Science author Arthur Firstenberg says: “In 2021, there were 146 orbital rocket launches to put 1,800 satellites into space. At that rate, to maintain and continually replace 100,000 low-earth-orbit satellites, which have a lifespan of five years, would require more than 1,600 rocket launches per year, or more than four every day, forever into the future.”13 That’s over five times the amount to totally destroy the ozone layer.
The long-lived rocket pollution in the stratosphere also traps Earth’s natural and human-made heat under a rapidly thickening blanket, preventing the heat from venting into space. This will increasingly raise Earth’s temperature.14 This has nothing to do with carbon or methane. However, the increased heat will release methane stored in permafrost and formerly ice-covered regions, and this methane will poison Earth.
These satellite systems are largely intended for 4G/5G global Wi-Fi, military warfighting, and the Internet of Things. They exponentially increase RF-EMF radiation levels in the atmosphere and on Earth. This radiation damages health and causes environmental damage. It damages neurology, DNA, cell membranes, the brain, cognition, learning, memory, immunity, reproduction and fertility, blood, and mitochondria, dysregulates hormones, the blood-brain barrier, and sleep cycles, and causes cancer, stroke, heart attacks, and oxidative stress.15
It disrupts wildlife’s ability to navigate and orient by Earth’s natural EMF fields. Bees, insects, and birds are particularly vulnerable.16 The U.S. Department of Interior warned in 2014 about the devastating impacts to birds from this radiation.17 In 2020, a 5G military/SpaceX “live fire” drill killed up to millions of birds in the Southwest.18 Western governments and the FCC ignore the substantial research showing devastating impacts.
What a disaster.
Another problem: dead spacecraft and debris are rapidly accumulating in the sky, creating collision hazards for other rockets, satellites, and the space stations.19 Every collision creates more debris, leading to more collisions. Unstoppable chain-reaction collisions – Kessler Syndrome — are inevitable. It is increasingly difficult to navigate through these debris fields.
High rates of satellite failure leave dead, unmaneuverable satellites in orbit. The new large constellations will dramatically worsen this problem.20
All of this debris, computers, electronic and chemical waste, radioactive elements, weapons, dead satellites, rocket parts, and dust come down. Aerospace officials and agencies, including the FCC,21 talk nonsense about “disposal” via “safe” de-orbitting and vaporization, as if the waste simply disappears.
The reality is that de-orbitting and vaporization create new problems — exploding burning debris, aerosolizing toxins, metals, paints, fuels, and other chemicals. They fall into the lower atmosphere to pollute the soil, ocean, waters, and air we breathe. “Vaporized” means it explodes into tiny particles and dust.
With these large constellations of short lifespan, increasing failures, and launch rocket debris, a barrage of debris and fall-out and increasing atmospheric dust are just beginning.
All of this debris burns at very hot temperatures as it re-enters the atmosphere, with big and little chunks landing everywhere.22 Exponential increases in fall-out increases the risk for fires, injuries, deaths, and property damage. A large chunk of space debris fell into a Michigan family’s yard and just missed hitting anyone.23 Hot debris fell in Chile last year causing fires.24 A Russian satellite that was supposed to stay in orbit for ten thousand years fell out of orbit this month and possibly landed in the Pacific Ocean.25
In 2020, the FCC proposed an “acceptable” casualty rate of 1 in 10,000 from falling satellites and rockets.26 The FCC also discussed liability and indemnity. However, any liability depends on debris being attributable to a company or government. Otherwise, injured parties would likely have limited or no recourse.
Direct land, air, and ocean pollution from dumping, rocket liftoffs, launch pad runoff and accidents, is another terrible problem.27
No one is discussing this.
The US also wants to put nuclear power into space 28 — reactors in the sky — and awarded a major contract to a team that includes GE, the company which engineered the flawed Fukushima reactors.29 Rockets can explode at launch, malfunction after launch, or fail to reach orbit. This last happened with SNAP 9-A in 1964. As a result, 2.1 pounds of plutonium-238 “vaporized in the atmosphere and spread worldwide… Dr. John Goffman …concluded that the dispersed deadly plutonium-238 was a leading cause of the increase in cancers around the world today.”30 There have been other space nuclear accidents. Officials don’t seem to care.
The militarization of the atmosphere, space, and the moon risk World War III — another problem. 5G in space will control weapons systems on Earth and in the ocean, 31 including military sonar already responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of dolphins, whales, and other marine animals.32
The militarization of the atmosphere, space, and the moon risk World War III — another problem. 5G in space will control weapons systems on Earth and in the ocean, 31 including military sonar already responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of dolphins, whales, and other marine animals.32
Elon Musk/SpaceX in partnership with the US government has endangered Chinese astronauts by getting too close to their space station.33 Musk is the same man who advocates nuking Mars and saying the U.S. can coup whatever country it wants for rare earth minerals such as lithium.34 The military and its contractors are not guided by responsible, calm leaders. The worst is already happening.
Add to that accelerating plans to exploit, extract, militarize, and privatize the sovereign moon which stabilizes Earth’s rotation and climates, creates the tides, and is essential to all life, as I detailed in my previous article.35 Who’s protecting the moon and the Earth?
Military conquest, profiteering through extraction, mining, tourism, and exploitation are the main goals driving the expenditure of public monies and private investment, not pretty space pictures or neutral, scientific “exploration”. The plutonium ecocide of Saturn by the space industry via the Cassini probe should have been a wakeup call to pull the plug on NASA and the aerospace industry before more planets are destroyed including the Earth.
Subsidizing this industry has caused a brain drain into its high-paying jobs, neglecting and hampering work on Earth’s urgent problems. And the aerospace industry has siphoned off billions in public funds that could fund solutions, while causing expensive environmental problems to be dealt with “later”. The $10 billion dollar Webb telescope is one recent example. Decisionmakers are dashing headlong toward the mirage of a new Gold Rush.
It’s time to strip back the curtain and reveal the protected astronauts, aerospace moguls, and rocket scientists. They are not heroes. They are destroying the Earth. The joy rides of William Shatner and Jeff Bezos were sickening.
Those who want to stop climate change and protect the ozone layer must halt the space programs including space tourism and military programs.
Those who would protect the environment must stop these programs and do it now.
This is common sense. This is about Earth protection. This is about growing up.
Stop the rockets. Defund the space programs. Protect the Earth now.
Scientists trace the path of radioactive cesium in the ecosystem of Fukushima
Scientists trace the path of radioactive cesium in the ecosystem of Fukushima https://phys.org/news/2022-01-scientists-path-radioactive-cesium-ecosystem.html
by National Institute for Environmental Studies In 2011, the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan, resulted in the deposit of radioactive cesium (radiocesium) into habitats in the vicinity. A decade after the accident, researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Studies, Japan, have collated the complicated dynamics of radiocesium within forest-stream ecosystems. Understanding radiocesium flow in the environment could help mitigate contamination and inform future containment strategies.
In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Japanese government performed intensive decontamination in the human-occupied parts of the affected area by removing soil surface layers. But a major affected region consists of dense, uninhabited forests, where such decontamination strategies are not feasible. So, finding ways to avoid the spread of radioactive contaminants like radiocesium to areas of human activity that lie downstream to these contaminated forests is crucial.
The first step to this is to understand the dynamics of radiocesium flow through forest-stream ecosystems. In the decade since the accident, a vast body of research has been dedicated to doing just that. Scientists from the National Institute of Environmental Studies, Japan, sifted through the data and detangled the threads of individual radiocesium transport processes in forest-stream ecosystems. “We identified that radiocesium accumulates primarily in the organic soil layer in forests and in stagnant water in streams, thereby making them potent sources for contaminating organisms. Contamination management in these habitats is crucial to provisioning services in forest-stream ecosystems,” says Dr. Masaru Sakai, who led the study. The findings of this study was made available online on 6 July 2021 and published in volume 288 of the journal Environmental Pollution on 1st November 2021.
The research team reviewed a broad range of scientific research on radiocesium in forests and streams to identify regions of radiocesium accumulation and storage. After the accident, radiocesium was primarily deposited onto the forest canopy and forest floor. This radiocesium reaches the earth eventually—through rainfall and falling leaves—where it builds up in the upper layers of the soil. Biological activities, such as those of detritivores (insects and fungi that live off leaf debris etc.) ensure that radiocesium is circulated through the upper layers of the soil and subsequently incorporated into plants and fungi. This allows radiocesium to enter the food web, eventually making its way into higher organisms. Radiocesium is chemically similar to potassium, an essential mineral in living organisms, contributing to its uptake in plants and animals. “Fertilizing” contaminated areas with an excess of potassium provides an effective strategy to suppress the biological absorption of radiocesium.
Streams and water bodies in the surrounding area get their share of radiocesium from runoff and fallen leaves. Most radiocesium in streams is likely to be captured by the clay minerals on stream beds, but a small part dissolves in the water. Unfortunately, there is little information on the relationship between dissolved radiocesium and aquatic organisms, like fish, which could be important to the formulation of contamination management strategies. Radiocesium in streams also accumulates in headwater valleys,pools, and other areas of stagnant water. Constructions such as reservoir dams provide a way to effectively trap radiocesium but steady leaching from the reservoir sediments causes re-contamination downstream.
This complicated web of radiocesium transport is hard to trace, making the development of a one-stop solution to radiocesium contamination impossible. Dr. Sakai and team recommend interdisciplinary studies to accelerate a full understanding of radiocesium pathways in forest-stream ecosystems so that measures can be developed to reduce future contamination. “This review can serve as basal knowledge for exploring future contamination management strategies. The tangled radiocesium pathways documented here may also imply the difficulties of creating successful radiation contamination management strategies after unwished-for nuclear accidents,” explains Dr. Sakai.
Nuclear power is often touted as a solution to the energy crisis, but it is important to plan response measures to unpredictable contamination events. To address the essential need for clean energy in view of the climate crisis, contamination management in societies depending on nuclear power is integral. Fully understanding the behavior of radiocesium in ecosystems can not only lead to the successful management of existing contamination but can also ensure the swift containment of potential future accidents.
Nuclear power plants – ”no significant harm?”-risks of catastrophic accidents, wastes dangers to future generations, water consumption.
Not green and not sustainable, The science-based case for excluding nuclear power from the EU taxonomy, Beyond Nuclear, 15 Jan 2022, ”………………………Does the present generation of nuclear fission power plants ‘do no significant harm’?
To answer this question, two specific issues for nuclear power stand out: the risk of a catastrophic accident and the management of high-level nuclear waste (HLW). Nuclear fission energy is characterized by low probability, high consequence risks to humans and the environment. Even the JRC recognizes that the risk of a severe nuclear accident cannot be excluded, even in the best commercially available nuclear power plants.
The disaster in Fukushima (2011) was triggered by a process that these nuclear reactors were not “designed” to withstand. These circumstances shed light on the limitations of the technical risk assessments, which have not fully taken into account beyond design risks in particular of core melt accidents.
The events in Fukushima have made it apparent that such assessments are based on specific assumptions, for example on seismic safety or the maximum height of a tsunami, and that reality can disprove these assumptions. Deciding whether such risks belong to the category of ‘tolerable risks’ for a given society depends on the various risk regulation measures put in place. Especially relevant for nuclear fission power is the fact that the liability of the operator in the case of a severe accident is limited and the remaining costs are (largely) taken on by the state (privatization of profits, socialization of risks).
The Taxonomy architecture is not designed to cater for such risks that carry an intergenerational impact lasting for thousands of years, making it an unsuitable instrument to decide on the sustainable nature of nuclear power.
The characteristics and nature of HLW generated by the nuclear fission process present long-term intergenerational risks and thereby challenge the principle of ‘do no significant harm’ to the extent that nuclear fission energy may not be considered eligible for the EU Taxonomy.
This was made abundantly clear to the Commission in the TEG’s recommendations, which were not published in their entirety. Independent, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence compiled by TEG provided confirmation of the risk of significant harm arising from nuclear waste.
The back end of the fuel cycle is currently dominated by the containment of spent fuel rods and waste from nuclear power facilities. Safe and secure long-term storage of nuclear waste remains unresolved and has to be demonstrated in its operational complexity. Whilst the nuclear industry and international nuclear waste experts provide assurances of multiple engineered safeguards designed to reduce the risks from nuclear waste through geological disposal, the question remains whether, despite the solid scientific basis and thorough geological knowledge gathered, in the absence of experience with this technology, one can really guarantee that HLW will remain isolated from humans and the environment for thousands, let alone millions of years.
The fact that a ‘solution’ has to be found for the existing quantities of waste (as well spent fuel as conditioned high level waste forms), and that geological disposal is the least bad solution for this, does not imply that nuclear power can suddenly be classified as a ‘green’ energy source. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the risks presented by nuclear fission energy to the ‘do no significant harm’ principle and technical screening criteria of the EU Taxonomy means that it can not be considered EU Taxonomy eligible or aligned as long as the technology and fuel cycle management has not proven to be sustainable as a whole.
Other concerns with regard to DNSH criteria
Nuclear fission power plants require about three cubic metres of cooling water per megawatt hour (MWh) produced. A nuclear plant’s cooling water consumption is higher than that of fossil-fuel plants. Throughout the world, new nuclear plants and existing plants increasingly face cooling water scarcity induced by heat waves, a situation that is likely to be aggravated by climate change. More efficient cooling technologies could be considered, but this adds to the already high costs of nuclear power plants.
For reasons of having access to enough cooling water, nuclear plants are mostly sited in coastal or estuarine locations, but this makes them vulnerable to flooding and extreme events that climate change may occasion. The siting of nuclear power plants along coastal zones presents adaptation risks associated with sea-level rise, water temperature rise, coastal erosion as well as natural catastrophes such as the Fukushima disaster demonstrates.
The Fukushima disaster reveals how powerless human operators are when nuclear systems escape full, continuous control. Instead of helping to address the impacts of the Tsunami as renewable energy sources would have, the devastated nuclear power plant strongly aggravated the emergency relief in the province and left huge new problems of liquid waste and radioactive waste resulting from infrastructure and land cleaning activities, never encountered before in densely populated industrial areas.
Furthermore, when major nuclear plant accidents occur significant land areas become unsuitable for human habitation (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima).
Advocates of nuclear power draw attention to the survival of natural flora and fauna in zones contaminated by radioactive materials and precluding human access. However, this is presumably not the type of ecological protection and resilience that the EU Taxonomy aims to achieve. Surface or underground mining and the processing of uranium ore can substantially damage surrounding ecosystems and waterways. The huge volumes of associated mining waste in developing countries are normally not considered in life cycle waste inventories of nuclear energy producing countries.
More critically, the adverse effects on local environmental conditions of routine discharging of nuclear isotopes to the air and water at reprocessing plants have not been considered thoroughly enough. A number of adverse impacts (of radiation) on soil/sediment, benthic flora and fauna and marine mammals has been demonstrated ……………………………… https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3774941784
Our Oceans Are Not Sewers
Our Oceans Are Not Sewers https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/our-oceans-are-not-sewers
December 26, 2021
Reckless endangerment of the world’s oceans and seas by governmental agencies and industry continues, By The Fairewinds Crew
Whether it’s plastic, mercury, or radioactivity, the entire world has treated our planet’s oceans as its sewage dump. As if we need more proof that Radioactivity Knows No Borders, three recent events discussed below prove the reality of our statements. The global authorities that regulate atomic power and nuclear waste often assure us that there are no significant risks to communities near radioactive disasters and operating facilities. Yet, communities must determine the actual dangers themselves.
Demystifying Nuclear Power
in 2015, Arnie Gundersen traveled to Cumbria, adjacent to the Irish Sea in the UK. Fairewinds went to the UK to work with citizen scientists collecting local samples. When Fairewinds testified at the House of Commons, Arnie detailed radioactive contamination emanating from the Sellafield reprocessing plant, Chernobyl, and the 1957 Windscale nuclear disaster. He was sampling in the summer resort community of Seascale near the
Sellafield Nuclear Site along the Irish Sea, where the beaches are frequented by families with children.
Unfortunately, the nuclear power and weapons industries have continued to use the Irish Sea as a dumping ground for British atomic waste since the 1950s.
Thanks to the Unfriending the Atomorganization and program, we recently found out that Arnie’s winter coat has plutonium in its pockets – even after being dry cleaned from travel abroad. While working with citizen scientists, he wore this coat to collect samples on public open-space estuary-land. Also, view the whole Unfriending the Atom Zoofor more images of “exotic data from mundane objects”.
Arnie’s time sampling near Sellafield is part of our worldwide campaign to protect families and communities from the devasting and lasting impact of radiation exposure. Currently, we have begun the process of researching and documenting our Irish Sea data for another peer-reviewed journal article. When this paper has been accepted by a publisher, we will share this open and accessible data for our community-volunteer citizen-scientists and the public.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) back in 1999. As you will see in the map [on original], the IAEA identified that our planet’s oceans have been used as a sewer for radioactive waste. BTW (By the Way), for our readers today who do not know this, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) was created by the United Nations. And, when it was founded, the IAEA was charted to regulate and promote nuclear power! Imagine regulating AND promoting.
Secondly, this week, there was more breaking news of additional radioactive dumps into the world’s oceans. A ship bound from India was detained last week in Kenya when authorities uncovered a large cargo of radioactive waste (Red alert as nuclear ship docks in Mombasa). Authorities believe that the toxic radioactive waste was destined for illegal dumping in the Atlantic Ocean! You must be wondering, as Fairewinds is, how long this has been going on? Once again, atomic regulators have failed to protect our Earth and its people. Unfortunately, dumping in the Atlantic Ocean is not a new issue, and the United States is far from blameless. Read about the U.S. Atomic Sailors here!
Third, we have more to discuss with you about Japan’s Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), where the infamous Japanese nuclear meltdown occurred. Once again, TEPCO is seeking permission from Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) to discharge hundreds of thousands of tons of highly-toxic radioactive wastewater into the Pacific.
Organizations and individuals worldwide have publicly and privately criticized TEPCO’s plan and the apparent approval of the NRA and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Representatives from South Korea, China, and the Marshall Islands have been particularly vocal about this disaster-in-waiting. They are requesting much greater transparency in their dialog with Japan. However, Japanese regulators are still not cooperating with the neighboring communities, severely impacted by these releases.
Moreover, Greenpeace submitted a damning public comment to TEPCO. Three days after the public comment period was officially closed, TEPCO announced it filed for approval to discharge nuclear waste into the sea. They plan to release this toxic liquid radioactivity directly into the ocean via a pipe they are preparing to construct.
- Where is the accountability?
- When will regulators get serious about preventing the dumping of radioactive nuclear waste by the nuclear industry, its contractors, and the military, who has radioactive waste from weapons manufacturing?
Treaties, conventions, and laws are not enough to prevent the illegal dumping of highly toxic waste of any kind into our communities. However, since firm statutory regulations are already in place, the enforcement of these laws is key to protecting our oceans worldwide. This is why Fairewinds community-based citizen-science is so critical.
Fairewinds will keep you informed in 2022. As we have said over and over again, Radiation Knows No Borders.
Nuclear authorities dismiss a massive tritium leak from nuclear reactor as unimportant. But should they?
Nuclear: do our power plants release too much tritium? This fission residue is not very radiotoxic. But the discharge standards in waterways are more permissive in France than in Japan. With the holiday season and the covid epidemic, the event has gone almost unnoticed. But it is reported in detail on the site of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN). Between November 25 and December 8, 2021, at the Tricastin site, around 900 liters of effluents containing tritium infiltrated the soil, causing “abnormal radiological activity”. More precisely, the measurements carried out on site made it possible to detect a peak in radioactivity of 28,900 Becquerels per liter on December 12. Taking up this information, the Mediapart site mentions a major radioactive leak. After ASN inspection, the event was nevertheless classified at level 0 on the international nuclear events scale. How to explain this difference in perception? L’Express 28th Dec 2021 https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sciences/nucleaire-nos-centrales-rejettent-elles-trop-de-tritium_2165111.html |
Land and water ecosystems, ‘stressed to a critical point’
| Entitled, State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture – Systems at breaking point (SOLAW 2021), the report highlights the challenges that lie ahead in feeding a global population that should near ten billion by 2050. At the launch of the publication, FAO Director-General, QU Dongyu, said that “current patterns of agrifood production are not proving sustainable.” Yet, he added, these systems “can play a major role in alleviating these pressures and contributing positively to climate and development goals.” Main findings: If the world keeps to the current trajectory, producing the additional 50 per cent more food needed, could mean an increase of 35 per cent, in the water withdrawals needed for farming. That could create environmental disasters, increase competition for resources, and fuel new social challenges and conflicts. Currently, human-induced soil degradation affects 34 per cent (around 1,660 million hectares), of agricultural land. Even though more than 95 per cent of all food is produced on land, there is little room for expanding the area that can be made more productive. In fact, urban areas occupy less than 0.5 per cent of the Earth’s land surface, but the rapid growth of cities has significantly reduced resources, polluting and encroaching on prime agricultural land. In only 17 years, between 2000 and 2017, land use per capita declined by 20 per cent. UN News 9th Dec 2021 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/12/110753 |
World urgently needs a Paris-style agreement for biodiversity
‘We’ll get it done. Come hell, high water or Covid’: Can 2022 be a
super year for nature? Biodiversity talks in Kunming are likely to be
delayed again, but the world urgently needs a Paris-style agreement for
nature.
Guardian 30th Dec 2021
France’s Environmental Authority requires a list of all the problems encountered in building the Flamanville EPR nuclear reactor
An inventory of incidents on the EPR required according to the
Environmental Authority. In its latest opinion, the Environmental Authority
recommends a listing of all the problems encountered during the
construction of the EPR, as well as an update on the various solutions
provided.
France Bleu 23rd Dec 2021
Science & Avenir 23rd Dec 2021
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature-environnement/nucleaire-l-autorite-environnementale-reclame-plus-d-informations-sur-flamanville_160059
Le Figaro 23rd Dec 2021
Swedish environmental groups sound a warning on the government’s plans for a new radioactive waste dump.
| On 22 December, the Government decided to approve the extension of the repository for short-lived radioactive waste in Forsmark (SFR) with a new repository (SFR 2). SFR is the current repository for short-lived radioactive operational waste from the nuclear power plants and is located under the seabed outside the Forsmark nuclear power plant. SFR 2 is a new repository for short-lived radioactive waste from the decommissioning of the Swedish nuclear reactors, and the repository will be built next to the old one. The government decided to grant permissibility according to the Environmental Code and a license according to the Nuclear Activities Act. The decisions can be found in the news story on the MKG Swedish web page (link below on original)). The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, The Swedish Friends of the Earth and the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) have stated that the government should say no to the new repository. The organisations recently told the government in an opinion that it has not been shown that the new repository will be safe enough. The environment risks being damaged by the repository leaking radioactive particles into the Öregrundsgrepen outside Forsmark faster than expected, perhaps already within 50 to 100 years after closure. In addition, there is already a relatively unexpected and extensive breakdown of the technical repository barriers in the existing repository. The organisations believe that the government should have conditioned the decision on leaving the repository open under supervision for the 400 to 500 years required for the radioactive content to have decayed to less dangerous levels. MKG 22nd Dec 2021 https://www.mkg.se/en/the-government-approves-the-expansion-of-sfr-in-forsmark |
China opposes Japanese decision to release nuclear-contaminated water into ocean
BEIJING, Dec. 22 (Xinhua) — China is seriously concerned about and firmly opposes Japan’s unilateral decision to discharge the nuclear-contaminated water into the sea and its proceeding with the preparatory work, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Wednesday.
Zhao Lijian made the remarks when asked to comment on a media report that Tokyo Electric Power Company has submitted an application to Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority with a detailed plan of discharging nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea.
Since April this year, the international community has raised concerns to the Japanese side over the legitimacy of the discharge into the sea, the rationality of the discharge plan, the credibility of the data about the nuclear contaminated water and the reliability of the equipment to purify the nuclear-contaminated water, Zhao said.
The work of the IAEA technical working group on the handling of the nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima is still undergoing, he added.
“In total disregard of the legitimate and reasonable concerns of the international community, the Japanese side only continues to proceed with the preparations for the discharge both policy-wise and technology-wise,” Zhao said.
“Obviously, it wants to impose its wrong decision on the entire international community, and it is all the littoral countries of the Pacific Ocean that will have to take the risk for such move. The Japanese side is extremely irresponsible in doing so.”……….. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/asiapacific/20211015/C9A4AEDD72B00001F26810B030601260/c.html
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (141)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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 