How Fukushima’s radioactive fallout in Tokyo was concealed from the public

Because of the controversy surrounding Satoshi’s paper and the lack of research on the health impacts of these particles, it remains unclear to what extent Tokyo residents have been exposed to dangerous radiation levels as a result of the Fukushima accident.
Because CsMPs are so small, typically two microns or less in diameter, if humans breathe them, they could potentially reach the bottom of the lung, and be lodged into sacs known as alveoli, where the lung generally cannot expel them.
By unit of mass, CsMPs are much more radioactive than even spent reactor fuel
Japanese radiochemist Satoshi Utsunomiya found that air samples from March 15, 2011, in Tokyo contained a very high concentration of insoluble cesium microparticles. He immediately realized the implications of the findings for public safety, but his study was kept from publication for years.
Bulletin, By François Diaz-Maurin, January 13, 2025 [excellent illustrations]
On March 14 and 15, 2011—three days after the Great East Japan Earthquake and its resulting tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear power plant—explosions at two of the plant’s reactor buildings released a huge amount of invisible radioactivity. These radioactive plumes were blown away by the wind, descending over the surrounding area and into the ocean. Eventually, the radiation emitted from the Fukushima plants spread over the entire Northern Hemisphere. It also spread to Japan’s capital, Tokyo.
Following the explosions, Japanese researchers rushed to collect and study radioactive materials from the soil and the air to find out what had happened inside the reactors, believed now to have melted down because their cooling systems failed. On March 13, the Tokyo Metropolitan Industrial Technology Research Institute, the agency responsible for measuring the air quality of particulate matter in the Tokyo area, started to collect air samples more frequently. This effort was part of the Tokyo metropolitan government’s emergency monitoring program for environmental radiation, which aimed to detect gamma-emitting nuclides in airborne dust. The filters revealed that at around 10 a.m. on March 15, 2011, a large plume of radioactivity reached Tokyo, some 240 kilometers (149 miles) south of Fukushima. All samples taken on March 14 and March 15 showed spikes in radioactivity.
The institute’s researchers published their first results in the journal of the Japan Radioisotope Association in June 2011 (Nagakawa et al. 2011); they estimated the total exposure dose to humans from radioactive substances, including iodine 131 and cesium 137 found in airborne dust, foodstuffs, and drinking water from the Setagaya ward in the old Tokyo City. Extrapolating from their measurements from March 13 to May 31, they calculated the corresponding annual cumulative dose of radiation in that part of Tokyo as being 425.1 microsieverts, which is less than half the annual dose limit to the public recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. In a second conference publication in English (Nagakawa et al. 2012), the researchers extended their monitoring period to October and estimated that the total annual effective dose due to inhalation for adults in the Tokyo metropolitan area from the Fukushima radioactive plumes was far lower, at 25 microsieverts.
But two years after the accident, Japanese scientists discovered a new type of highly radioactive microparticle in the exclusion zone around the Fukushima plant. The microparticles, which had been ejected from the Fukushima reactors, contained extremely high concentrations of cesium 137—a radioactive element that can cause burns, acute radiation sickness, and even death. Satoshi Utsunomiya, an environmental radiochemist from Kyushu University in southwestern Japan, soon found that these particles were also present in air filter samples collected in Tokyo in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident.
The controversy surrounding his attempts to publish his findings nearly cost him his career and prevented his results from being widely known by the Japanese public ahead of the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.[1] Scientists still don’t know if these highly radioactive microparticles present significant danger to people, and Satoshi is one of the very few scientists who is focused on trying to find out. “We have the measurements now that tell that the particles did pass over population centers and were being deposited in places,” Gareth Law, a radiochemist from the University of Helsinki, told me. “We should answer the question.”
The discovery
In May 2012, Toshihiko Ohnuki, an accomplished environmental radiochemist then at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), visited Yoshiyasu Nagakawa at the Tokyo Metropolitan Industrial Technology Research Institute, also known as TIRI. Nagakawa was the first author of two TIRI studies on radiation exposure in Tokyo, and Ohnuki asked Nagakawa if he could obtain some air samples for further analysis. Ohnuki had already studied how radioactive cesium fallout from Fukushima reacted with components of contaminated soil. Now, he wanted to do the same with the airborne dust samples from Tokyo.
Nagakawa gave Ohnuki five small filters that had been collected from the Setagaya ward in old Tokyo City at different times on March 15, 2011—the day the radioactive plume reached Tokyo. Ohnuki received the samples without restriction on their use, and no written agreement was made.[2]
Back in his laboratory at JAEA, Ohnuki performed autoradiography of the five samples, revealing many radioactive spots on all of them. The bulk radioactivity on each sample was measured to be between 300 counts per minute for the filter that covered the midnight to 7 a.m. period and 10,500 counts per minute between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on March 15.[3] The radiation rate was so high that Ohnuki had to cut some of the filters into small pieces, less than one square centimeter, to keep from saturating the scanning electron microscope. Ohnuki stored the unexamined filters for future analysis.
Months later, in August 2013, four researchers from the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan reported for the first time about a new type of spherical radioactive cesium-bearing particle that had been ejected in the early days of the Fukushima accident (Adachi et al. 2013). The researchers had collected air samples on quartz fiber filters at their institute in Tsukuba, located 170 kilometers southwest of the Fukushima plant. Their findings, published in Scientific Reports, were about to revolutionize the way environmental radiochemists understood the radioactive fallout from Fukushima.
Back in the lab, the researchers placed the filters on an imaging plate and inserted them into a portable radiography scanner. The images revealed many black dots, which indicated the presence of radioactive materials on the filters, with a maximum radioactivity level measured on the sample at 9:10 a.m. on March 15, 2011, four days after the Fukushima accident began. The researchers placed this sample under a scanning electron microscope and then into an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer to directly observe the shape and composition of the radioactive materials on the filters. What they saw stunned them………………………………………………………………
Shocking results
The newly discovered entities were initially called spherical cesium-bearing particles, but Satoshi and his co-workers coined the term cesium-rich microparticles, or CsMPs, in 2017, which is now what researchers call them generally (Furuki et al. 2017). CsMPs had not been noted in earlier major reactor accidents.
Scientists knew the microparticles came from the Fukushima reactors because their isotopic ratio between cesium 134 and cesium 137 matched the average ratio for the three damaged reactors calculated by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.[5] Because these particles emanated from the Fukushima reactors, Satoshi and the other scientists studying them thought that they may contain evidence about reactions that occurred during the accident. But the environmental radiochemist’s curiosity was also triggered by the unique features of these microparticles: Their size is very small, typically two to three microns, even smaller than one micron in some cases.[6] And the cesium concentration in each of the particles is very high relative to their size.
After Satoshi obtained four small pieces of the Tokyo air filters, he designed what he calls “a very simple procedure” to find out whether the filters contained cesium-rich microparticles. In April 2015, he took autoradiograph images of the four pieces, confirming what Ohnuki had already seen with a digital microscope at JAEA. Then Satoshi moved to characterize the structural and chemical properties of the particles using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic-resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Although the procedure’s design was simple, executing these steps would prove to be extremely difficult.
In July 2015, as Satoshi was busy working on the Tokyo air filters in his lab at Kyushu University, Ohnuki received a note from Nagakawa, the TIRI researcher who had provided the samples, asking him to return them so they could be reanalyzed. In his e-mail, Nagakawa did not specify the motive for his request, which appeared innocuous: “Please return at least some of the materials we gave you for reanalysis … if the location is unknown, it can’t be helped.”
Ohnuki immediately sent Nagakawa two filters from March 15, including the filter from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. that had the highest level of radioactivity and contained the largest number of radioactive spots. Ohnuki added that he had discarded the other three filters after he analyzed them in 2013.
Nagakawa also asked Ohnuki whether he was planning to publish papers based on the samples. Ohnuki explained that he stopped analyzing them after his inconclusive attempts in 2013, but did not mention he had given Satoshi part of the filters for study.[9]
Satoshi was now ready to publish his results in a scientific journal. These were important findings that the scientific community needed to know. But Satoshi also understood that they could create a public relations crisis in Japan because his findings contradicted previous statements that played down the implications for public health of Fukushima fallout in Tokyo.
The Goldschmidt Conference—the foremost such international meeting on geochemistry—that year was held in the Japanese city of Yokohama. Satoshi was invited to give a plenary talk and present his research on environmental contamination from the Fukushima disaster (Utsunomiya 2016). During the talk, he presented his new findings on the Tokyo air filters. His talk received a lot of attention and was even reported by several Japanese and international newspapers. After his presentation, the scientific chair of the conference, Hisayoshi Yurimoto, said: “Very interesting results. And also very shocking results.”[1
In April and June 2016, Satoshi conducted dissolution experiments and quickly confirmed that the CsMPs were insoluble in water. The experiments also showed that most of the cesium activity on these filters came from CsMPs. In fact, up to 90 percent of the cesium radioactivity came from these microparticles, not from soluble forms of cesium—meaning that most of the cesium radioactivity detected during the March 15 plume in Tokyo was from CsMPs.
Between 2016 and 2019, a Kafkaesque sequence of events circled about Ohnuki, the former JAEA researcher who gave Satoshi the Tokyo air filter samples, and Satoshi. During that sequence of events, Satoshi’s research paper was accepted for publication by a prestigious scientific journal after peer review—but the journal delayed publication of the paper for years, eventually deciding not to publish it based on mysterious accusations of misconduct that, it turned out, were unwarranted. As a result, Satoshi’s findings were not made widely known, saving the Japanese authorities a possible public relations crisis as the summer Olympics in Tokyo neared. Because of the controversy surrounding Satoshi’s paper and the lack of research on the health impacts of these particles, it remains unclear to what extent Tokyo residents have been exposed to dangerous radiation levels as a result of the Fukushima accident.
I worked to reconstruct the sequence of events related to Satoshi’s research paper to find out whether the controversy over its publication was the result of some unethical practice on his part; competition between research laboratories; or attempted suppression of scientific results. The account that follows is based on the review of dozens of e-mails, letters, reports, and transcripts of phone conversations the Bulletin has obtained, as well as on multiple interviews with people directly involved in the events.
In August 2016, the leader of Nagakawa’s research group at TIRI, Noboru Sakurai, sent an e-mail to Ohnuki urging him to return filter samples he had earlier obtained from TIRI to the Tokyo Institute of Technology, where Ohnuki was now employed. Ohnuki responded that the filters had already been sent, but Sakurai maintained they had not received them. Ohnuki had asked a staff member of the research group he used to work in at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency to send the samples he had left there, but the samples were not sent. Because the samples were studied in a controlled area, theymay have been disposed of together with other Fukushima-related samples that had been stored at JAEA.
In October, as Ohnuki dealt with insistent requests that he return the filter samples, Satoshi submitted two research manuscripts to the journal Scientific Reports, one on the first successful isotopic analysis of individual cesium-rich microparticles based on soil samples collected from the exclusion zone at Fukushima, and one on the first characterization of the CsMPs from the Tokyo air filter samples that he had presented during his talk in Yokohama. Both articles were accepted in early January 2017 after peer review.[11]
The Tokyo paper, titled “Caesium fallout in Tokyo on 15th March, 2011 is dominated by highly radioactive, caesium-rich microparticles,” was co-authored by three graduate students from Satoshi’s lab—Jumpei Imoto, Genki Furuki, and Asumi Ochiai, who conducted the experiments—and three Japanese collaborators: Shinya Yamasaki from the University of Tsukuba who contributed to the measurement of samples; Kenji Nanba of Fukushima University, who contributed to the collection of samples; and Toshihiko Ohnuki, who had obtained the samples. The paper included two international collaborators who were world experts in the study of radioactive materials, Bernd Grambow of the French National Center for Scientific Research at the University of Nantes in France and Rodney C. Ewing of Stanford University, who contributed to the research ideas and participated in the analysis of the data. Satoshi was the lead author of the study.
……………………………………………..On the day of the visit, Moriguchi sent an e-mail to Ohnuki, pressing him to inform TIRI about the planned publication. “This type of information makes government agencies very sensitive,” Moriguchi wrote. “If the results obtained from these valuable sample collections conducted at a research institute under the administration were to incur the displeasure of government agencies and it becomes difficult to obtain cooperation from research institutions, we are concerned that this could hinder future research using these types of samples.”
…………………………………………………..Almost immediately, Sakurai moved to block the publication, according to e-mails obtained by the Bulletin.
………………………………………………………………………………………In July 2017, TIRI increased the pressure by sending a formal complaint to the Tokyo Institute of Technology, where Ohnuki was now employed. In a letter that the researchers were not able to see until a year after it was sent, TIRI accused Ohnuki of “suspected acts violating internal regulations, researcher’s ethics and code of conduct” in providing Satoshi with samples from TIRI without the institute’s consent.
As the issue became more political and involved more institutions, Satoshi continued his research on CsMPs and presented two other papers about Fukushima at the next Goldschmidt Conference in Paris in August 2017. Later that month, under pressure from the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Industrial Technology, the Tokyo Institute of Technology opened a formal investigation of Ohnuki on suspicion of improper research activities with Satoshi. “It was like a court,” Satoshi said of being called before the compliance committee. Except that, unlike in a trial, he did not know the exact terms of what they were accused of. “The team at TIRI didn’t even allow Kyushu University to show me this letter,” Satoshi said. “So at that point, I didn’t understand what the problem was.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Cleared but still harassed
During the investigation, Satoshi almost gave up on publishing the paper based on examination of the filters in Tokyo. He told the committee members that he would probably withdraw the paper, then “in press,” from Scientific Reports. Both the committee members and TIRI were pleased. “But then I talked to Rod [Ewing], and we did something clever,” Satoshi explained. They would not withdraw the paper; instead, they would keep it “in press” until the investigation was over.
…………………………………………………………………………….Tokyo Tech initiated a pressure campaign against Ohnuki and Satoshi to get the samples back…………………………………..
Satoshi did not want to give the samples away. “These are the only evidence to prove our article,” he said.
………………………………………………………“I sent all the samples to Stanford,” Satoshi said. Satoshi sent the air filter samples through regular postal services “in a UPS package.”[15] On September 13, Kyushu University’s executive vice president, Koji Inoue, called Satoshi to his office and yelled at him, urging him to give back the samples. Satoshi told Inoue that it was too late; he had already sent the samples to Stanford “for further investigation.”
Now the samples were secured, but Satoshi still needed his paper to be published.
……………………………………………………………………….. Thompson’s article in Scientific American was published on March 11, 2019, mentioning the fact that the paper had been rejected (Thompson 2019).
In June 2019, Satoshi and his co-authors posted their paper on arXiv (Utsunomiya et al. 2019), thereby making the findings public—two-and-a-half years after its acceptance by Scientific Reports. Ohnuki’s name does not appear in the list of co-authors on the arXiv paper, and Satoshi did not acknowledge TIRI for providing the samples.
……………………………………………………………………………………. After the paper was made public, the researchers received some attention, but not the visibility commensurate with the implications that the study had for public health in Japan.[16] The three institutions—TIRI, Tokyo Tech, and Kyushu University—were all “very happy,” Satoshi said. “People may think that we lost, but for me, we actually protected science.“
New risks
In the early days after the Fukushima accident, radiochemists thought that the situation was very different from Chernobyl. The three reactor-core damage events at Fukushima were considered to be of low energy, meaning that no actual explosion of the reactors had occurred, as was the case for Chernobyl. This led radiochemists to assume that radioactive particles probably had not come out of the reactors or, at least, not in large volume. A lot of the early post-accident research, therefore, focused on the traditional environmental radiochemist approach of collecting soils and sediments, doing bulk analysis, and learning from that.
It was only after scientists discovered the existence of cesium-rich microparticles that researchers, including Satoshi, realized that particles had actually been ejected from the reactors.
…………………………………………………………………………Because they were unknown until recently, CsMPs pose new risks that are still underappreciated by the research community and public authorities.
Once formed, radioactive cesium 137 has a half-life of about 30 years, after which half of the nuclides will have decayed into stable barium 137, whereas the other half will remain radioactive. CsMPs tend to accumulate, forming hotspots that contain many of the particles.[17] Hotspots of the microparticles have been found inside and outside abandoned buildings in the Fukushima exclusion zone and in other places (Fueda et al. 2023; Ikenoue et al. 2021; Utsunomiya 2024a). “They’re actually there in great numbers in many places, and then that’s when the health questions start to come in,” Law said. Despite their great numbers and potential risks, hotspots of CsMPs have not been systematically mapped around Fukushima. “When we visited the exclusion zone, we could still see some hot spot occurrences on the roadside without any protection,” Satoshi said. “We shouldn’t be able to access freely that kind of hot spots.”
Because CsMPs are so small, typically two microns or less in diameter, if humans breathe them, they could potentially reach the bottom of the lung, and be lodged into sacs known as alveoli, where the lung generally cannot expel them.[18] Scientists don’t know what would happen then. For instance, a typical immune system response would consist of some kind of clearance mechanism that seeks out foreign bodies and tries to either envelop or dissolve them. But it is still unknown how exactly CsMPs would dissolve in lung fluids.
Most knowledge about breathing and radioactive particulates is based on the assumption that particles dissolve, and researchers have calculated the rates for their dissolution in the human body. But because CsMPs don’t dissolve easily, once inhaled, they will likely stay longer in the human body. Researchers believe that, because CsMPs are so slow to dissolve, they may stay much longer—certainly for several months, maybe longer—in the body, compared to hours or days for suspended cesium.[19]
By unit of mass, CsMPs are much more radioactive than even spent reactor fuel. Some researchers from the Japan Atomic Energy Agency have shown that cultured cells exposed to the radiation from suspended CsMPs display a stronger local impact compared to what is known from previous radiological simulation studies using soluble radionuclides (Matsuya et al. 2022). Scientists are only now seeing some emerging evidence that the point-source nature of the radioactivity from CsMPs could lead to damage to cell systems. This is qualitatively different from the conventional estimate of internal radiation dose at the organ level based on uniform exposure to soluble cesium.
Despite the new risks that CsMPs might pose, the study of their impacts has received little interest.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….Satoshi continues to study CsMPs actively and regularly presents his results to the Goldschmidt Conference and publishes his results in scientific journals. He and his collaborators work relentlessly to understand better the fate of CsMPs in the environment and their impacts on human health. In 2024, Satoshi received the Geochemical Society’s Clair C. Patterson Award in recognition of his innovative contributions to the understanding of CsMPs.[21]……………… more https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-01/how-fukushimas-radioactive-fallout-in-tokyo-was-concealed-from-the-public/?utm_source=SocialShare&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Facebook&utm_term&fbclid=IwY2xjawHyUndleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHb1H3gK2UVzfBC5I7-s75EVtx4t5Q9uUi2MspvTqpluEOqbarYJJnhIwUA_aem_ok6x3HQOxccGg2I-7KnZjA
Independent testing of radiation levels in air- Woolsey Fire and Santa Susana Field Lab Site.

WOOLSEY FIRE: ARE YOU BREATHING TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE AIR? http://lancasterweeklyreview.com/woolsey-fire-radiation-toxic-testing by fdr | Nov 14, 2018 Preliminary Independent Radiation Test Results from US Nuclear Corporation from The Woolsey Fire and Santa Susana Field Lab Site
After various complaints and talking with numerous concerned parents The Lancaster Weekly Review has ordered a commission in a preliminary study in order to finally answer some of the community’s concerns regarding potential toxic materials released from the Woolsey Fire as well as radiation from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. The Field Lab was the site of a nuclear meltdown in 1959 with many locals and doctors condemning subpar cleanup efforts that point to high cancer rates which are 60% higher for those people living within a 2 mile radius of the SSFL. A lingering effect of the various toxins within the Field Labs vicinity.
It appears that the recent Woolsey Fire which has devastated swathes of Ventura and northwestern Los Angeles Counties, originated at the Santa Susa Field Lab and Testing Site with varied reports to the damage to the facility as well as the contamination area of the nuclear meltdown. The Southern California Edison Chatsworth Substation which is on the SSFL site shut down 2 minutes prior to start of the Woolsey Fire.
An independent study of air testing was conducted by US Nuclear Corporation of Canoga Park on Tuesday, November 13, five days after the Woolsey fire began. The owner, Mr. Bob Goldstein, was more than happy to help with the study and dispatched David Alban and Detwan Robinson to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory on Tuesday, November 13th at 3PM. They took two types of measurements for radiation with the US Nuclear Fast-Cam Air Monitor and another with a filter air tape. Twenty minute samples were taken at high flow rate of 40cfm at the Lab Entrance, which is up wind from the Lab. Another 20 minute sample was taken on the down wind side, which is North of the Lab. Given the proximity of the company’s headquarters to the Woolsey Fire US Nuclear Corporation’s team also took indoor samples at their office in Canoga Park.
It appears that many of the preliminary tests are picking up increased levels of Radon. Mr. Goldstein of US Nuclear Corporation commented, “Ordinary background radiation from minerals in the soil (and also from the solar wind and from cosmic rays) gives a dose rate of 0.015mR/hr (milliRem per hour) in the San Fernando Valley. But at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory background levels were found to be elevated to 0.040mR/hr. which is 0.025mR/hr higher than expected.”
Mr. Goldstein also stated, “The radioactivity collected on the filters decayed down to undetectable levels within 3 hours, leading us to conclude that this radioactive material is from Radon gas which decays after a short half life.” Overall, the tests that were conducted found that the area’s Radon levels are about 3 times higher than the surrounding San Fernando Valley.
Additional independent testing of other contaminants and toxins will take place in the coming days and will be published as soon as testing has taken place.
Protect your girls: We show that biological sex IS a factor in radiation outcomes, WIDELY

Mary Olson, GENDER AND RADIATION IMPACT PROJECT, 1 Jan 25
NEWS: We show in a new paper that the finding that girls and women suffer greater harm from radiation exposure compared to boys and men (who are also harmed) can be seen WIDELY in recent radiation research literature.
Dr Amanda Nichols, University of California at Santa Barbara, lead author, joins Mary Olson, founder of Gender and Radiation Impact Project in the new paper, entitled “Gender and Ionizing Radiation: Towards a New Research Agenda Addressing Disproportionate Harm.”
The paper is available to view or download at no charge, from the publisher: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research .
The news here is the simple difference between standing on a relatively slender branch, and standing on a robust limb—apply this image to research and it is the difference between evidence found in a limited case, versus the same evidence being FOUND widely—beyond what could have been limited application.
In terms of radiation—a finding was made that radiation harms girls and women more than boys and men in one set of data as early as 2006. That data was in the National Academy of Science (NAS) watershed report called the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII (BEIR VII).
Now, thanks to the invitation by the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), I and my co-author Dr Amanda Nichols have sampled the research literature since 2006 (post-BEIR VII) and find that in studies that report data on males and females separately (now common) the sex-based difference can be seen, and in all cases where it is seen, females are harmed more than males. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.genderandradiation.org/blog/2024/12/31/protect-your-girls-we-show-that-biological-sex-is-a-factor-in-radiation-outcome-widely
Improved way to gauge radiation doses developed for Fukushima
Asahi Shimbun, By KEITARO FUKUCHI/ Staff Writer, December 31, 2024
[Ed. they studied only 30 people]
The Japan Atomic Energy Agency said it has developed a more accurate method to estimate radiation exposure doses among people who spend time around the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
The JAEA has adapted the method, based on daily life patterns, into program format and is offering it for free on a municipal government website and elsewhere.
When the central government designated evacuation zones following the 2011 triple meltdown at the plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co., it estimated radiation doses among residents using a simple evaluation method that assumed they spent eight hours outdoors and 16 hours indoors a day.
That method allowed for quick estimation, but it tended to overestimate the doses.
Other existing evaluation methods also have shortcomings, including a failure to reflect the actual environment.
The JAEA began developing the new method in 2017.
JAEA researchers drew on data compiled by the Nuclear Regulation Authority to calculate average air dose rates for 100-meter-by-100-meter areas.
They also took into account where and for how long the residents and workers frequented near the plant, and how they moved between different locations, such as on foot or by car, the officials said.
They asked around 30 people working in former and current evacuation zones to carry personal dosimeters and then compared the measurements and estimates for their exposure doses in 106 patterns……………………………………………………………….. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15553626?fbclid=IwY2xjawHh0Y9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRIRfUukVbNPX60rGOQi_qUp5oMiYFThXBvPZN4h0XJiPQ_xn8trGYEIkA_aem_GwPtrY24MPxB4L0v2u8SuA
High tide for Holtec

The study — Model-Based Study of Near-Surface Transport in and around Cape Cod Bay, Its Seasonal Variability, and Response to Wind — found that contrary to Holtec’s claims, the wastewater would not immediately disperse into the ocean, but would linger potentially for months, and wash up on the shores of area communities.
by beyondnuclearinternational, Linda Pentz Gunter
Tritium dumped into Cape Cod Bay will wash back onto community shores, says a new report
Holtec, the company that has purchased a number of permanently closed nuclear reactors in order to decommission them, has encountered yet another obstacle to its “dilution is the solution to pollution” plans.
One of the reactor sites Holtec has taken over is Pilgrim in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on the Cape Cod Bay, which closed permanently in 2019. Holtec’s not-so-little problem there is what do with what started out as at least 1.1 million gallons of radioactively contaminated wastewater stored at the site.
The company first suggested it would simply release the wastewater into Cape Cod Bay, assuring residents and the immediately alarmed fishing community not to worry because (a) the wastewater isn’t dangerous anyway (b) everyone does this all the time at reactor sites and no one has gotten sick so far and (c) it would quickly disperse into the wider ocean. Holtec chose this disposal method for one reason alone: it is the cheapest.
The proposal was vigorously fought by citizens, the state, and powerful Massachusetts Democrat, Senator Ed Markey. The state of Massachusetts effectively banned the discharge option, a decision Holtec is contesting.
That Final Determination to Deny Application to Modify a Massachusetts Permit to Discharge Pollutants to Surface Waters was issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management on July 18, 2024. A month later, Holtec launched its appeal to reverse the decision, something that could take months or longer to find its way to court.
In the meantime, help has come from a new quarter in the form of an in-depth study by the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, also, as it happens, based on the Massachusetts shoreline, near Falmouth.
The study — Model-Based Study of Near-Surface Transport in and around Cape Cod Bay, Its Seasonal Variability, and Response to Wind — found that contrary to Holtec’s claims, the wastewater would not immediately disperse into the ocean, but would linger potentially for months, and wash up on the shores of area communities.
“We found virtually no out-of-the-Bay transport in winter and fall and slightly larger, but still low, probability of some of the plume exiting the Bay in spring and summer,” said Woods Hole study leader and physical oceanographer, Irina Rypina.
The radioactively contaminated wastewater stored at Pilgrim is contaminated with what Holtec and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health have described as “four gamma emitters —Manganese-54, Cobalt-60, Zinc-65 and Cesium-137 along with Tritium, a beta radiation emitter”.
While the Woods Hole Study did not look at the health outcomes of releasing the radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay — only at the plume pathway — there are plenty of data that demonstrate the harmful effects of these radioisotopes on human health, especially women and children…………………………………………………….. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/12/29/high-tide-for-holtec/
Did Israel explode a small nuclear bomb in Syria? Spike in radiation report says…

Story by support@india.com (India.com News Desk), 25 Dec 24, https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/did-israel-explode-a-small-nuclear-bomb-in-syria-spike-in-radiation-report-says/ar-AA1wqXyT
In a step that has shocked the whole world, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) carried out an airstrike on the weapons depot in Tartus, Syria on 16 December 2024. Through the massive strike, Israel reportedly destroyed the Scud missile facility. However, reports are speculating that the damage caused by the strike was much more and a small nuclear weapon might have been used. Here are the details you need to note about the Israeli strike on Syria.
As a result of the attack, an earthquake of magnitude 3 also occurred along with the massive explosion. The earthquake was so huge that it was felt up to Iznik in Turkey, 820 km away. Moreover, Russian media organization Sputnik had then said that Israel had targeted it with a new missile from a warship. However, some reports also claim that the B61 nuclear bomb developed by America was used here.
Reports have also added that the European Union’s Radioactive Environmental Monitoring surprisingly found that the amount of radiation increased in Turkey and Cyprus 20 hours after the intense blast, pointing towards a small nuclear attack.
Israeli army in the Golan Heights after UN extends peacekeeping mission between Syria, Israel
Israeli forces continued to operate along the Syria-Israel ceasefire line in the Golan Heights on Sunday (December 22) after the United Nations Security Council on Friday (December 20) extended a long-running peacekeeping mission between the two countries.
The UN mission was extended for six months and the security council expressed concern that military activities in the area could escalate tensions.
Ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
Since a lightning rebel offensive ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad earlier this month, Israeli troops have moved into the demilitarized zone – created after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war – that is patrolled by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).
Israeli officials have described the move as a limited and temporary measure to ensure the security of Israel’s borders but have given no indication of when the troops might be withdrawn. Armed forces from Israel and Syria are not allowed in the demilitarized zone – a 400-square-km (155-square-mile) “Area of Separation” – under the ceasefire arrangement.
(With inputs from agencies)
Radioactive sea spray is dosing communities

by beyondnuclearinternational, By Tim Deere-Jones https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/02/17/radioactive-sea-spray-is-dosing-communities/
Governments want to cover it up
I am taking a walk along the path at Manorbier on the south Pembrokeshire coast in Wales. The tomb of King’s Quoit is still in its midwinter shadow. It gets no direct sunlight for 28 days either side of the solstice. And yet the first daffodils and pink campions are already in bloom.
A visit to the tomb on the first day when light returns is a truly amazing sight. It is perched by fresh running water, on the edge of cliffs, just above the sea. You can smell the salt in the air, and feel the mist of sea spray blown in by the prevailing onshore winds.
And yet in some coastal areas such a moment may not be as idyllic as it seems.
It is clear from the available empirical data that coastal populations impacted by prevailing onshore winds and living next to sea areas contaminated with liquid radioactive effluents from nuclear sites, are annually exposed to dietary and inhalation doses of man-made marine radioactivity.
Effluents discharged to the sea by nuclear power stations, fuel fabrication sites and reprocessing facilities are transferred from sea to land in airborne sea spray and marine aerosols (micro-droplets). They come in also during episodes of coastal flooding.
This problem has been particularly pronounced around the UK Sellafield reprocessing and plutonium production site in Cumbria. In 1988, independent empirical research commissioned by a west Wales local authority reported that Sellafield-derived, sea-discharged cesium had been found in pasture grass up to 10 miles inland of the Ceredigion coast.
Clearly, this contributes to human dietary doses via the dairy and beef food chain. The research also implies the inevitability of further dietary doses via arable and horticultural crops. Given that airborne radioactivity is driven at least 10 miles inland, it should be assumed that coastal populations are exposed, on a repeated annual basis, to inhalation doses.
Independent, empirical field research by a team of doctors (general practitioners) in the Hebrides off the Scottish coast, has shown broadly similar, but more detailed results and demonstrated that island and coastal environments are saturated with sea-borne cesium from distant sources.
The GP’s research demonstrated that those who ate more “local” terrestrial produce had higher doses of Sellafield sea discharged cesium-137 than those who ate “non-local” produce.
Some island residents received higher doses of Sellafield derived, sea discharged cesium, from their locally grown terrestrial produce, than from sea foods. The same residents received higher doses from their terrestrial produce than some sea food-eating populations living adjacent to nuclear pipelines discharging liquid waste to the sea.
Given the available evidence of the West Wales study, it is logical to propose that the same would apply in that case.
Early research on this in the UK was initiated by the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear governments, acting through the UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA). In the late 1970s and early ‘80s the agency researched the sea to land transfer of the alpha emitting plutoniums (Pu) 238, 239, and 240 and americium (Am) 241, and the beta emitting cesiums (Cs) 134 and 137, across the Cumbrian coast near Sellafield.
The UKAEA work confirmed that all five radionuclides studied transferred readily from the sea to the land in onshore winds. In wind speeds of less than 10 metres per sec (22 mph) cesium was enriched in spray and marine aerosols with enrichment factors (EFs) of around 2.
However, the alpha emitting plutonium and americium were shown to have EFs, relative to filtered ambient seawater, of up to 800. The alpha emitters were found to be associated (by Ad-sorbtion) with micro particles of sedimentary and organic material suspended in the marine water column and ejected into the atmosphere, as aerosols, by bursting bubbles at sea and at the surf line.
However, once the sea to land transfer of alpha emitters with massive enrichments was confirmed, such studies were rapidly abandoned and virtually no empirical field work on the extent of the inland penetration of spray and aerosols and human doses and exposure pathways has been completed by “official” sources.
Furthermore, of the 70 + radionuclides known to be discharged to sea from UK nuclear sites, only the five named radionuclides have ever been researched for their sea to land transfer potential.
I have no doubt that this is a global phenomenon and that the various mechanisms of sea to land transfer are not unique to the UK. However, I have observed that the scientific literature on the subject appears to be restricted to the output of UK official (pro-nuclear) and independent (non-aligned) researchers and that, to date, no other sources of such research have been identified.
The UK Government and a number of its departments and its environmental regulatory agencies are aware of the concerns discussed above, but appear to prefer a cover-up rather than an open discussion. The UK research itself was terminated within a few years of its inception and, coupled with the absence of any similar research in other “nuclear states”, it is my assumption that the international nuclear community has no interest in promoting such work and is happy to see the whole issue sidelined and downplayed.
Tim Deere-Jones was educated at the Cardiff University (Wales): Department of Maritime Studies, where his research dissertation was on the Sea to Land Transfer of Marine Pollutants. He has been working as a “non-aligned” marine pollution researcher and consultant since 1983 and has worked with major NGOs and campaign groups in the UK, Europe, the US and Australia. Tim has a particular field and research interest in the behavior and fate of anthropogenic radioactivity released/spilled into marine environments.
Read Tim’s full report with citations here.
Call to Action! Stop LANL Tritium Venting and Protect the Most Vulnerable

https://nuclearactive.org/call-to-action-stop-lanl-tritium-venting-and-protect-the-most-vulnerable/ November 21st, 2024
On Monday, Tewa Women United released two independent scientific reports about the harm that would be done to public health and the environment should Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) be allowed to vent radioactive tritium from four Flanged Tritium Waste Containers stored at LANL’s Area G radioactive and hazardous waste dump.
It is another important step taken by Tewa Women United to hold LANL and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accountable to the law.
The two new reports reveal that the proposed venting of tritium, a form of radioactive hydrogen, into the environment would not meet the current EPA or Department of Energy (DOE) regulations.
Tewa Women United collaborated with German scientist Bernd Franke, a Director of the Institute für Energie und Umweliforschung (IFEU), and Dr. Arjun Makhijani from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The first report, Review of LANL Radiation Dose Assessment for the Venting of Flanged Tritium Waste Containers (FTWC) at TA-54 at LANL, authored by Franke, contains results from computer models used to assess the possible range of radiation doses to the public across various weather scenarios.
Dr. Makhijani stated, “According to the EPA regulatory radiation standards, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61 Subpart H, require[s that] the radiation dose to ‘any member of the public’ should be less than 10 millirem per year.” Dr. Makhijani noted, “EPA allowed LANL to ignore children and infants in its dose calculations.”
Further, the second report, authored by Dr. Makhijani and titled Out of Order: An evaluation of the regulatory aspects of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s proposal to vent tritium from waste containers, similarly assessed LANL’s compliance with the Clean Air Act regulations and DOE Order 458.1 to keep public exposure to “as low as reasonably achieveable.”
Over the past four years DOE and EPA have ignored repeated requests from Tewa Women United to release their 53 alternatives to the proposed venting.
Kathy Wan Povi Sanchez, member of Pueblo de San Ildefonso and one of Tewa Women United’s co-founders, said, “Tritium makes water, our sacred source of life, radioactive. We were shocked to learn that LANL’s compliance calculations did not take infants and other children into account.
Talavi Cook, the Environmental Justice Program Manager at Tewa Women United, explained: “…Tewa Women United believes … radiation protection should extend to pregnant women due to fetuses comprising of 70% – 90% water; pregnant members of the public are not currently protected by the Clean Air Act or any other radiation protection regulation…. It is a matter of simple environmental justice for future generations.”
For more information, please visit https://tewawomenunited.org/2024/11/press-release-new-report-reveals-lanl-tritium-venting-could-have-triple-the-radiation-exposure-to-infants-compared-to-adults
NFLA submarine champion raises concerns over Clyde Tritium contamination
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities have written to the Defence Secretary and the Head of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency over recent revelations that radioactive tritium discharges from nuclear subs operating in the Clyde are on the increase.
Investigative journalist Rob Edwards recently published the damning findings in award-winning paper The Ferret[i]. The latest data from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s Scottish Pollution Release Inventory[ii] shows that emissions of the radioactive gas, tritium, from military nuclear operations on the Clyde into the air and sea have more than doubled over the last six years.
His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in Scotland is home to the Royal Navy’s Submarine Service. When not at sea on patrol, the navy’s four Vanguard and five Astute nuclear powered submarines are berthed at Faslane. Whilst Astute are conventionally armed submarines, the Vanguards are each equipped with Trident missiles with nuclear warheads deployed on a rotational basis as a so-called ‘continuous-at-sea deterrent’.
Eight miles from Faslane across the Gare Loch at Coulport is the shore facility where the missiles and warheads are stored. These are fitted or removed from the submarines at an explosive handling jetty, with warheads being periodically and controversially taken by road convoys to and from Aldermaston for maintenance.
21st November 2024
NFLA sub champion raises concerns over Clyde Tritium contamination
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities have written to the Defence Secretary and the Head of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency over recent revelations that radioactive tritium discharges from nuclear subs operating in the Clyde are on the increase.
Investigative journalist Rob Edwards recently published the damning findings in award-winning paper The Ferret[i]. The latest data from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s Scottish Pollution Release Inventory[ii] shows that emissions of the radioactive gas, tritium, from military nuclear operations on the Clyde into the air and sea have more than doubled over the last six years.
His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in Scotland is home to the Royal Navy’s Submarine Service. When not at sea on patrol, the navy’s four Vanguard and five Astute nuclear powered submarines are berthed at Faslane. Whilst Astute are conventionally armed submarines, the Vanguards are each equipped with Trident missiles with nuclear warheads deployed on a rotational basis as a so-called ‘continuous-at-sea deterrent’.
Eight miles from Faslane across the Gare Loch at Coulport is the shore facility where the missiles and warheads are stored. These are fitted or removed from the submarines at an explosive handling jetty, with warheads being periodically and controversially taken by road convoys to and from Aldermaston for maintenance.
Emissions of radioactive tritium from the associated Royal Naval Armaments Depot on Loch Long into the air have risen steadily from 1,770 megabequerels (MBq) in 2018 to 4,224 MBq in 2023, whilst the Faslane base discharged over 50,000 MBq of tritium contaminated effluents into the Clyde between 2018 and 2023; this peaked at 16,609 MBq in 2020.
The NFLAs have always been concerned about the long-term impact on human and marine animal health of exposure to radioactive contamination, and have repeatedly challenged the practice by military and civil nuclear authorities of discharges into the air, land and watercourses.
Discharges of tritium are an especial concern. Tritium has been found in sewage, waste and ballast water expelled by the submarines. It is also found in reactors and is an essential component of nuclear warheads. The Vanguard submarines are very old and their crews are being stretched by testing patrols which are getting longer. Old boats are more likely to leak and tired crews are more likely to make mistakes.
Dr Ian Fairlie, an expert on radioactivity in the environment, who has previously advised the UK government, told The Ferret that he found the emissions “worrying”. Dr Fairlie explained why: “First, they are large, more than four billion becquerels per year; second, they are steadily increasing; and third, they are of tritium – which is very hazardous when it’s inhaled or ingested” .
Whilst much of our recent attention has been focused on pushing back against the practices of discharges at Dounreay, Sellafield and Trawsfynydd, the NFLAs’ Spokesperson on Nuclear Submarine issues, Councillor Brian Goodall has used Rob’s revelations to write to Labour’s Defence Secretary, John Healey, and the Chief Executive of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Nicole Paterson with his questions and concerns.
Most specifically, Councillor Goodall is seeking clarification of the reasons for the increase in tritium discharges and also the steps being taken by the Ministry of Defence to reduce them and – given our previous criticism of the agency’s oversight at Dounreay – by the SEPA to monitor them.
New Book. The Scientists Who Alerted Us To The Dangers of Radiation.

The Scientists Who Alerted us to Radiation’s Dangers by Ian Fairlie, PhD
and Beyond Nuclear’s Cindy Folkers, MS, published by The Ethics Press, is
now available in paperback and ebook.
The book profiles 23 radiation scientists over the previous half-century or so, who revealed that radiation risks were higher than thought, but who were victimized by
governments and the nuclear establishments for doing so.
What this book reveals is that the harmful effects of radiation exposure especially from
the nuclear sector, and especially to children, are more pervasive and
worse than thought. These have been known for decades but suppressed by
politically-motivated censorship and overt disparagement/persecution. A big
problem is the exclusion of independent voices and members of the public.
The hegemony of the nuclear elite, backed by their governments, has kept
radiation’s dangers an “inside game”, leaving the public in the dark
and thereby violating their human rights, especially the rights of the
child. “It’s a timely and rewarding book. It’s timely because several
governments are pushing hard for more public exposures to radiation via
nuclear power.
And it’s rewarding as it explains radiation in
easy-to-grasp language which clarifies its dangers and risks. Anyone who
has ever wondered about radiation or its first cousin, radioactivity,
should read it.”
In addition to the profiles of radiation scientists, the
book includes hundreds of references, 14 scientific Appendices, 5 Annexes,
a glossary and an extensive bibliography. “This galaxy of information
will serve to help activists and students counter the misrepresentations,
incorrect assertions, and plain untruths about radiation often disseminated
by the nuclear establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. It will also
serve as a useful up-to-date reference book for academics on the dangers
and risks of radiation and radioactivity.
Ethics Press 19th Nov 2024
https://ethicspress.com/products/the-scientists-who-alerted-us-to-the-dangers-of-radiation
Occupational exposure to radiation among health workers: Genome integrity and predictors of exposure

Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis
Volume 893, January 2024, Hayal Çobanoğlu, Akın Çayır
Highlights
- •Significant increase of genomic instability biomarkers reflecting long term disease risk
- •Significant association between radiation exposure and NPB, and NBUD frequencies
- •Work-related parameters have the potential to explain increase of genomic instability
- •Higher risk of exposure in plain radiography field
Abstract
The current study aimed to investigate genomic instabilities in healthcare workers who may experience varying levels of radiation exposure through various radiological procedures. It also sought to determine if factors related to the work environment and dosimeter reading could effectively explain the observed genomic instabilities. Utilizing the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN) on peripheral blood lymphocytes, we assessed a spectrum of genomic aberrations, including nucleoplasmic bridge (NPB), nuclear budding (NBUD), micronucleus (MN) formation, and total DNA damage (TDD). The study uncovered a statistically significant increase in the occurrence of distinct DNA anomalies among radiology workers (with a significance level of P < 0.0001 for all measurements). Notably, parameters such as total working hours, average work duration, and time spent in projection radiography exhibited significant correlations with MN and TDD levels in these workers. The dosimeter readings demonstrated a positive correlation with the frequency of NPB and NBUD, indicating a substantial association between radiation exposure and these two genomic anomalies. Our multivariable models identified the time spent in projection radiography as a promising parameter for explaining the overall genomic instability observed in these professionals. Thus, while dosimeters alone may not fully explain elevated total DNA damage, intrinsic work environment factors hold potential in indicating exposure levels for these individuals, providing a complementary approach to monitoring.
Introduction
Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation constitute inevitable forms of environmental exposure, to which a substantial portion of the global population remains consistently subjected. Among those at heightened risk are individuals employed in radiology, who utilize radiation sources for both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. More than 30 million medical radiology workers are exposed to low level of radiation worldwide [1], [2], which provides the opportunity to understand the health risks of chronic exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation (IR) [3].
It has been observed that there are increased risks for many cancer types, including skin, leukemia, breast, and thyroid, in medical radiology workers who started working before the 1950 s [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. These results probably reflect higher occupational radiation exposure of medical radiology workers [5], [9]. Today, even if radiation exposure is less than in the past owing to technological advances and radiation safety measures [9], recent studies show that long-term exposure to low-dose IR may still be a significant health risk [10], [11], [12].
Introduction
Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation constitute inevitable forms of environmental exposure, to which a substantial portion of the global population remains consistently subjected. Among those at heightened risk are individuals employed in radiology, who utilize radiation sources for both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. More than 30 million medical radiology workers are exposed to low level of radiation worldwide [1], [2], which provides the opportunity to understand the health risks of chronic exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation (IR) [3]. It has been observed that there are increased risks for many cancer types, including skin, leukemia, breast, and thyroid, in medical radiology workers who started working before the 1950 s [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. These results probably reflect higher occupational radiation exposure of medical radiology workers [5], [9]. Today, even if radiation exposure is less than in the past owing to technological advances and radiation safety measures [9], recent studies show that long-term exposure to low-dose IR may still be a significant health risk [10], [11], [12].
Despite the efforts to minimize radiation exposure, radiation-exposed health workers may frequently encounter low levels of ionizing radiation due to various occupational factors, including excessive work hours, inadequate shielding in their work environment, a high volume of daily imaging procedures, and failure to employ personal protective equipment during imaging activities. Although traditional methods such as physical dosimeters and blood-based clinical assessments are routinely used to monitor worker health, these approaches possess limitations when it comes to assessing the long-term effects of low-dose radiation exposure. Consequently, it is imperative to implement more robust biomarkers to routinely monitor radiology workers………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383571824000020
Updated findings provide insights into radiation exposure’s impact on cancer risk

by University of California, Irvine, 7 Oct 24, https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-10-insights-exposure-impact-cancer.html
A major update was made to the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS), an international epidemiological study of workers in the nuclear sector to assess their risks of cancer and non-cancerous diseases.
David Richardson, Ph.D., professor of environmental and occupational health at UC Irvine Joe C. Wen School of Population & Public Health, was the principal investigator for this study and senior author of a publication in The Lancet Haematology that outlines the new findings.
With the study update, Richardson and colleagues sought to understand the associations between low-dose exposure to penetrating forms of ionizing radiation and its effect on risk of leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
The researchers assembled a cohort of more than 300,000 radiation-monitored workers from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, employed at nuclear facilities between 1944 and 2016. Using Poisson regression methods, researchers measured the amount of radiation that got absorbed into bone marrow.
Since radiation exposure is a known risk factor for leukemia, excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the study primarily focused on measuring incidence of leukemia and other cancer subtypes such as myelodysplastic syndromes, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and multiple myeloma.
The study revealed a positive association between prolonged low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and mortality from these hematological cancers. The study concluded that health risk remains low at low exposure levels. Nevertheless, the evidence of associations between total radiation exposure and multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes signals the necessity for future radiation studies to expand the discussion on radiation protection and occupational safety measures on a global scale.
“Our studies of people exposed to low doses of radiation add to our understanding of radiation risks at the exposure levels encountered in many contemporary settings,” said Richardson who is the associate dean for research at Wen Public Health. “Our results can inform radiation protection standards and will provide input for discussions on protections from radiation.”
More information: Klervi Leuraud et al, Leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality after low-level exposure to ionising radiation in nuclear workers (INWORKS): updated findings from an international cohort study, The Lancet Haematology (2024). DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00240-0
Journal information: The Lancet Haematology
The challenge of long-lived alpha emitters in the Chalk River legacy wastes
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, January 22, 2024 (revised September 17, 2024)
Why is so little Chalk River waste suitable for near surface disposal?
Extensive research work at the Chalk River Laboratories on nuclear reactor fuels, and in the early days, on materials for nuclear weapons, produced waste with large quantities of long-lived alpha emitters. This waste is difficult to manage and can even become increasingly radioactive over time.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, because of the presence of long-lived alpha emitters, waste from nuclear research facilities is generally classified as intermediate level, and even in some cases, as high level. This waste cannot be put in a near surface disposal facility because its radioactivity will not decay to harmless levels during the period that the facility remains under institutional control.
Alpha emitters decay by throwing off an alpha particle, the equivalent of a helium nucleus, with two protons and two neutrons. The external penetrating power of an alpha particle is low, but alpha emitters have extremely serious health effects if ingested or inhaled. They can lodge in your lungs and cause cancer.
Research at Chalk River and all other nuclear laboratories is ultimately based on three long-lived alpha emitters — thorium-232, uranium-235, and uranium-238. These are the “naturally occurring” or “primordial” radionuclides. They were created by large stars and then incorporated into the Earth and the solar system when they formed some 4.5 billion years ago. The waste inventory proposed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories for the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) includes over six tons each of thorium-232 and uranium-238……………………………………………………..
Hazards increase when uranium and thorium are mined and concentrated from ores and used in their pure form. Marie Curie, who spent much of her career isolating radium and polonium from uranium, died of radiation-induced leukemia at age 66. She was buried in a lead-lined tomb because her corpse emitted so much radiation.
When thorium-232, uranium-235, and uranium-238 are irradiated in a reactor, as at Chalk River, they absorb neutrons and produce significant quantities of new, man-made, long-lived alpha-emitters. Irradiated uranium-238 absorbs a neutron and temporarily forms uranium-239. Uranium-239 transmutes to neptunium-239, which quickly transmutes to long-lived plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years.
Plutonium-239 is “fissile” – it can readily support a chain reaction. It is what the early Chalk River researchers produced for the manufacture of U.S. nuclear weapons, by separating the plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel. They also used the separated plutonium to make “mixed oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel, mixing it with fresh uranium………………………………………….
Detecting alpha emitters in mixed waste is expensive and challenging. Putting inadequately characterized waste in the NSDF would invalidate its safety case.
Unfortunately, the NSDF Project lacks adequate waste characterization procedures. If the project is allowed to proceed, workers and future Ottawa valley residents could be exposed to unknown quantities of long-lived alpha emitters and suffer the serious health effects associated with them. https://concernedcitizens.net/2024/09/17/the-challenge-of-long-lived-alpha-emitters-in-the-chalk-river-legacy-wastes/
Radiation levels mysteriously spike along Norway’s border with Russia – as it’s claimed activity has been seen at test site for Putin’s ‘Flying Chernobyl’ nuclear missile
Traces of radioactive Cesium-137 have been
measured along Norway’s border with Russia, it was revealed today. The
radiation levels are ‘clearly’ higher than normal, authorities have said,
and the cause of the mysterious spike is unknown.
One fear is that it could
relate to Russia’s Pankovo test site for the Burevestnik – a
nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile – on the Novaya Zemlya
archipelago.
Daily Mail 17th Sept 2024
Tritium into the air?

“You get layers and layers and layers and layers of denial.”
Venting plans at Los Alamos have received scant attention, writes Alicia Inez Guzmán of Searchlight New Mexico
Beyond Nuclear International, 16 Sept 24
Last fall, the international community rose up in defense of the Pacific Ocean. Seafood and salt purveyors, public policy professors, scientists and environmentalists, all lambasted Japan’s release of radioactive wastewater from the disastrously damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the sea.
At the heart of the contention was tritium, an element that, by mass, is 150,000 times more radioactive than the plutonium used in the cores of nuclear weapons. Odorless and colorless, tritium — the radioactive form of hydrogen — combines with oxygen to form water. Just one teaspoon is enough to contaminate 100 billion gallons more water up to the U.S. drinking water standard, according to Arjun Makhijani, an expert on nuclear fusion and author of the monograph, “Exploring Tritium Dangers.”
What didn’t make international headlines — but was quietly taking place on the other side of the world — was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s own plans to vent the same radioactive substance into northern New Mexico’s mountain air. Japan’s releases would take place over three decades. LANL’s would include up to three times more tritium — and take place in a matter of days.
There is no hard timeline for the release, but if the plans are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, LANL is looking at a period with “sufficiently warm weather,” a spokesperson from the National Nuclear Security Administration wrote by email. That could mean as soon as this summer.
Those controversial plans date back to 2016, when LANL discovered that a potentially explosive amount of hydrogen and oxygen was building up in four containers of tritium waste stored in a decades-old nuclear dump called Area G. The safest and most technically viable solution, the lab decided — and the best way to protect workers — would be to release the pressure and, with it, thousands of curies of tritium into the air.
When advocates caught wind of the venting in March 2020, Covid was in its earliest and most unnerving phase. Pueblo leaders, advocates and environmentalists wrote impassioned letters to the lab and the EPA, demanding that they change or, at the very least, postpone the release until after the pandemic. At the same time, Tewa Women United, a nonprofit founded by Indigenous women from northern New Mexico, issued its first online petition, focusing on tritium’s ability to cross the placental barrier and possibly harm pregnant women and their fetuses. Only after a maelstrom of opposition did the lab pause its plans and begin briefing local tribes and other concerned members of the community.
“We see this as a generational health issue,” said Kayleigh Warren, Tewa Women United’s food and seed sovereignty coordinator. “Just like all the issues of radioactive exposure are generational health issues.”
Last fall, the lab again sought the EPA’s consent. A second petition from Tewa Women United followed. Eight months later, the federal agency’s decision is still pending.
The NNSA, which oversees the health of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile from within the Department of Energy, declined Searchlight New Mexico’s requests for an interview.
The crux of the issue comes down to what is and isn’t known about the state of the containers’ contents. Computer modeling suggests they are pressurized and flammable, but the actual explosive risk has not been measured, the lab has conceded.
Critics have requested that the contents be sampled first to determine whether there is any explosive risk and whether venting is even needed. The EPA says that sampling would require going through the same red tape as venting. The lab, for its part, plans to sample and vent the contents in one fell swoop.
But why, critics wonder, are these containers in this state in the first place? Were they knowingly over packed and left for years to grow into ticking time bombs?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………..Tritium 101
Plutonium and uranium are familiar to most people, if by name only. But few know anything at all about tritium — a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is used to make watch dials and EXIT signs glow bright neon. Tritium’s other, lesser-known use is as a “boost gas,” which, when inserted into the hollow core of a plutonium pit, amplifies a nuclear weapon’s yield. Globally, hundreds of atmospheric weapons tests dispersed tritium into the atmosphere, steeping rain, sea, and groundwater with the element and, ultimately, lacing sediment worldwide.
Tritium is widely produced at nuclear reactors and is today tested, handled and routinely released at Los Alamos National Laboratory
Criticisms of this venting have always centered on two of the element’s key characteristics: First, it travels “tens to hundreds of miles,” according to lab documents. Second, when tritium is in the form of water, it becomes omnipresent and easy for bodies to absorb.
“Tritium is unique in this,” wrote Makhijani. “It makes water, the stuff of life, most of the mass of living beings, radioactive.”
Years of LANL reports depict tritium’s ubiquity in the lands and ecosystem within its bounds, a palimpsest of radioactive decay. This is measured in curies, a basic unit that counts the rate of decay second by second.
The lab’s first environmental impact statement, published in 1979, estimated that it had buried close to 262,000 curies of tritium at Area G and released tens of thousands more into the air from various stacks over the decades. The lab had two major accidental releases of tritium around the same time — 22,000 curies in the summer of 1976 and nearly 31,000 curies in the fall of 1977.
Today, trees have taken it into their root systems on Area G’s southeast edge. Rodents scurrying in and out of waste shafts are riddled with the substance, owing to tritium vapors from years past. A barn owl ate those rodents and had 740 times more tritium concentration in its body than the U.S. drinking water standard, the common reference value for indicating tritium contamination. The lab’s honeybee colonies — kept to determine how radioactive contaminants are absorbed — produced tritiated honey up to 380 times more concentrated than the drinking water standard, reports show.
The EPA set the current standard for radioactive emissions at DOE facilities in 1989, but that didn’t stop the lab from releasing thousands of curies of tritium into the air shortly afterward. In 1991, the EPA issued a notice of non-compliance to the lab for not calculating how much of a radiation dose the public received. Another notice followed in 1992.
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety filed a lawsuit two years later alleging that the DOE hadn’t properly monitored radioactive emissions, as required by the Clean Air Act. At the time, a former lab safety officer, Luke Bartlein, observed what he described in an affidavit as a “pattern and practice of deception at LANL with respect to the radionuclide air monitoring system.” It was routine for lab staffers and management to vent glove boxes and other materials contaminated with tritium outside so that the contamination would deliberately “not register” on the stack monitors, he recounted, leading to false emissions reports.
The lab settled in 1997; a consent decree followed and would stay in effect until 2003. The lab says it has maintained low annual emissions ever since……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Tewa Women United and others now worry that the region’s famously fitful winds will carry tritium, a consummate shapeshifter, to corners far beyond the lab’s bounds.
The movement will be invisible. First, tritium will transform moisture in the air. Then, that moisture will quickly contaminate other “open water surfaces and biota downwind, including food growing in the area and food in open-air markets, and humans themselves,” according to Ian Fairlie, a London-based radiation consultant for the European Parliament.
A fraction of that tritium can linger in the body, if ingested. In pregnant women, tritium can then stage another imperceptible passage across the placental barrier, concentrating 60 percent more of the element in the fetus than in the mother, according to Makhijani. Radiation exposure can lead to early failed pregnancies and neurological damage in the first weeks of gestation.
While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has radiation exposure limits for pregnant women in the workplace, there are no specific radiation protections for pregnant women in the public — or their fetuses.
In 1999, Makhijani and more than 100 scientists, activists and physicians across the country and worldwide signed a letter to the National Academy of Sciences. Their ask? To evaluate how radionuclides that cross the placental boundary, including tritium, impact the fetus, a request Makhijani renewed in 2022.
As he put it, tritium — the “most ubiquitous pollutant from both nuclear power and nuclear weapons” — has largely escaped regulatory and scientific scrutiny when it comes to matters of pregnancy.
Cindy Folkers, the radiation and health hazard specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a national advocacy organization, believes the reason is rooted in the radiation establishment’s fear of liability. “You get layers and layers and layers and layers of denial.”
The scant research that does exist comes from pregnant women who survived atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1986, the International Commission on Radiation Protection concluded that exposing a fetus to ionizing radiation, the kind that tritium emits, has a “damaging effect…upon the development of the embryonic and fetal brain.” The area most at risk of harm, it went on, is the forebrain, which controls complex and fundamental functions like thinking and processing information, eating, sleeping and reproduction.
Ionizing radiation damages the cell in two ways. On the one hand, it breaks apart the building blocks from which humans are made, causing rifts in DNA. On the other, it fundamentally changes the chemistry of the cell, breaking apart its water molecules and upsetting its metabolism.
That’s what makes it different from, say, an X-ray, Folkers said. “A machine can be shut off,” but “a radioactive particle that’s inside your body will continue irradiating you.” For a pregnant woman, this adds up to “cumulative biological damage,” the kind that cuts across generations.
“We’re dealing with a life cycle,” Folkers said. “And females are an integral part of that life cycle. Not only are they more damaged by radioactivity, and their risks are higher for cancer, but they are also carrying in them the future generations. So when you’re dealing with a female baby who’s developing in the womb, you are dealing with that child’s children at the very least.”
In other words, a mother is like a Russian nesting doll. She holds a fetus and that fetus, if a female, holds all future eggs. Exposure to her is exposure to future generations.
Alicia Inez Guzmán was raised in the northern New Mexican village of Truchas and has written about histories of place, identity and land use in New Mexico. She brings this knowledge to her current role at Searchlight, where she focuses on nuclear issues and the impacts of the nuclear industry. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/09/16/tritium-into-the-air/
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- 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