‘Climate Change Fix” chosen as 2015 theme by World Nuclear Association
Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs
Australia’s nuclear propagandist Ben Heard is over in London, attending the World Nuclear Association’s Symposium. Heard has been advising them on how to spin the pro nuclear. message to the public.
It seems that the big message of the nuclear lobby is that lie that “Nuclear can solve climate change”
World Nuclear Association urges industry growth to 25%, WNA 10 September 2015 The global nuclear industry should aim to achieve a 25% share of world electricity production by 2050, Agneta Rising, director general of the World Nuclear Association said today. To do that it will need to add 1000 gigawatts of new generation capacity.
In her opening remarks to delegates at the association’s annual Symposium, being held in London this week, Rising said there are political and regulatory barriers to overcome in achieving this target, and the industry could find more ways to reduce its own costs. “But we have a goal,” she said.
That goal is the focus of the association’s new Harmony initiative. To achieve it, Rising stressed the industry was capable of adding 50 GWe of capacity in 2015-2020, 125 GWe in 2020-2025 and 825 GWe in 2025-2050……
To achieve the 1000 GWe target, the World Nuclear Association has outlined three objectives in its Harmony initiative – a level playing field for nuclear among sources of electricity generation, a harmonised regulatory process, and an effective safety paradigm. To achieve them, the industry must manage the challenges with deregulated markets and nuclear energy taxes, high capital investments, grid system costs and subsidies for alternative sources of electricity. It must also seek to gain recognition for nuclear power for its low-carbon generation.……….. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WNN-World-Nuclear-Association-urges-industry-growth-to-25-10091501.html
Scrutinising Japan’s government PR about The Reopening Of Nahara Fukushima
The Reopening Of Nahara Fukushima, What The Press Failed To Mention, Simply Info September 9th, 2015 The press has widely reported the reopening of Nahara as the government uses it as a PR tool. Much of the reporting focused on issues such as the lack of stores, services or schools. This is a distraction from the very real pressing concern of the radiation levels and uncertain status of the town’s decontamination efforts.
Nahara has been plagued with problems and high radiation levels yet the government has characterized the town as being “safe”. Nahara was the site of Fukushima Daiichi debris findings in 2013. ……..
Asahi Shimbun discovered illegal practices were being used in the decontamination work being done in Nahara in 2013. Nahara currently houses large stockpiles of radioactive soil and debris as seen in this photo. The town is part of the long term consolidated storage plan where contaminated soil from around Japan is being collected and stored near Fukushima Daiichi.
Nahara’s city water supply was found to have 18,700 bq/kg of cesium in the soil in the bottom of the reservoir. In May of 2014 Nahara officials demanded that the central government decontaminate Nahara to pre-disaster levels. Nothing further was reported on this to show any response to these requests………
Recent soil sampling done by Iwaki Radiation Measuring Center with the help of a former Fukushima Daiichi worker who collected the samples found alarmingly high radiation.
Soil samples in Nahara were found as high as:
52500 bq/kg cesium 137 & 134 combined
34790 bq/kg cesium 137 & 134 combined
26480 bq/kg cesium 137 & 134 combined……..http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=15023
South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission – conflict of interest revealed.
Submission To The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal
Commission Regarding Issues Papers 1 and 4 byYurij Poetzl http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/09/Yuri-Poetzl-24-07-2015.pdf
I’m a private citizen and have no vested interest in the nuclear industry; however the nuclear industry does direct ly impact me, my family and my friends As a member of the public I wish to give evidence and express my concerns in regard to the issues being examined by the Royal Commission.It is valid to examine economics and risks relating to the nuclear industry; however is the Royal Commission a fair and objective examination of the Nuclear Cycle? It has been disclosed that Kevin Scarce Is a shareholder in the Rio Tinto Group,who own and operate 
uranium mines in Australia and internationally. ls this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner? It is of great concern that the Royal Commissioner has selected predominantly pro-nuclear experts for the R.C’s Advisory Committee (the single exception being Professor lan Lowe). See Appendix 1.
It also seems remiss that there isn’t any health or medical professionals engaged in the R.C’s Expert Advisory Committee or Key Commission staff. It’s well documented that by-products of the nuclear industry can have adverse effects on the health of the global community for many future generations. The omission of health experts makes me question whether the R.C is truly considering what is in my and the general public’s best interest.
The Public Health Association of Australia have made their position clear in regard to the R.C and the Nuclear Industry, see http :1 /www .phaa. net. au/ documents/item/51 0 or http://www .phaa.net.au/documents/item/264 The Royal Commission could prove to be pivotal in South Australia’s future having significant and far reaching consequences, affecting many future generations; however, was the process leading toward the establishment the Royal Commission flawed?
The S.A. public (and wider global communit y) deserve a balanced and unbiased assessment of the issues raised Appendix 2. Contains questions regarding issues papers 1 and 4 Yours sincerely Yurij Poetzl
Appendix. 1 4 of the 5 Royal Commissions Expert Advisory Committee appear to be pro nuclear. They are Professor Barry Brook, Dr Timothy Stone, John Carlson AM and Dr Leanna Read. Below is a brief summary oftheir involvement in the nuclear industry Professor Barry Brook is an active advocate of the Nuclear Industry. The self described”Promethean Environmentalist” is openly critical of people who have concerns regarding the Industry. Professor Brook is the author of, or contributor to several pro nuclear publications such as; Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation, Australia’s nuclear options and, An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy. To name a few.
Dr Timothy Stone is an advocate for nuclear power generation and nuclear industrial expansion in Australia. In the UK Dr Stone has held the position of Expert Chair ofthe Office for Nuclear Development and he is currently on the board of Horizon Nuclear Power as non-executive Director John Carlson AM has been Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. In part 6 of the introduction to Mr Carlson’s paper “Nuclear power for Australia”- an outline of the key issues he claims “Nuclear has a major advantage over other energy sources”. Later in the same document Mr Carlson states “Currently both major parties say that nuclear power is “offlimits”. While this is disappointing, at least it ensures neither side is making statements tlhat will later be embarrassing to retract” It is clear that Mr Carlson is pro nuclear providing the appropriate safeguards are met
Dr Leanna Read has publicly stated that she “has an open mind” regarding the Nuclear Industry. Dr Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy ofTechnological Sciences and Engineering, which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014. This seems to contradict Dr Read’s claims of impartiality toward the nuclear industry Given the information in Appendix 1, can the Royal Commission be considered truly independent?
Appendix 2
- Question: 1. Even with best practice and best intentions, industrial accidents happen. What infrastructure is currently in place, should a truck loaded with uranium oxide be involved in an accident in the Metropolitan area and whilst doing so, have a breach of its load or catch fire?
- Question: 2. Is it possible to insure against a nuclear mishap and how is Public Liability insurance affected in an accident scenario?
- Question: 3.Many environmentalists believe that The Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982 al lows wide ranging exemptions from key environmental laws such as the SA Environmental Protection Act 1993, Freedom of information Act 1991 and the Natural Resources Act 2004 critical water resources and Great Artesian Basin. Is this true?
- Question: 4. If the answer to question 3 is true, please explain how these exemptions are in the public interest?
- Question: 5.1s it possible that similar exemptions will be extended to waste dumps, uranium enrichment operations or nuclear power stations?
- Question: 6. Recent revelations by the EPA {Environmental Protection Agency) reveal widespread and irreversible groundwater contamination by industrial practices in several of Adelaide’s suburbs. Wouldn’t it be prudent for the Commissions terms of reference to contain a review of current uranium mining and transport practices?
- Question: 7. Would it be sensible to hold a review of the current condition of waterways and aquifers affected by mining practices before an expansion of SA’s nuclear industry commences?
- Question: 8. Since the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam a few years ago, has the SA public been receiving fair and balanced media coverage on the nuclear Industry, particularly in printed media?
- Question: 9. What has been the ratio of Pro/Con nuclear industry stories and editorials in the Advertiser Newspaper since 201 0?
- Question: 10. What influence has this ratio had on the general public’s current view towards the nuclear industry?
- Question: 11. Will the commission call on medical and health specialists to give their perspectives on the nuclear industry and its impact on workers within the industry and the wider community?
- Question: 12. Can Nuclear Energy really be defined as a low carbon emission energy source when millions of litres of Diesel are consumed in the Nuclear Cycle annually, particularly in the mining and transport of uranium oxide?
- Question: 13. Uranium waste products can take hundreds of thousands of years to halve their level of toxicity. Pyramids are amongst the oldest surviving manmade structures and are no more than 5000 years old. Therefore what assurances are there, that nuclear waste can be safely stored over much longer periods oftime?
- Question 14.1f South Australia is perceived to be a nuclear waste site by the global community, what will the impact be on Tourism, Real Estate, Food, Wine and manufacturing industries be?
- Question 15.Highly toxic Radon gas is released by the mining activities at Roxby downs and apparently can be detected in Antarctica. This gas must pass through Adelaide to get there. What is the effect of Radon gas to workers in the mines and what impact does it have on the wider community?
- Question: 16. What is the volume of airborne radioactive dust released into atmosphere by mining and storage of tailings exposed to the wind?
- Question: 17.What impact does radioactive dust released by mining practices, have on the Australian public, fauna and flora?
- Question: 18.Presumably nuclear waste will be transported from Port Adelaide to its storage destination. What would be the outcome, in the advent of an accident, or fire to the transport within the M etropolitan area?
- Question: 19. 33.6 percent of Australian uranium is exported to North America. The US military has depleted uranium coated ammunitions and armaments, such as bullets and tank shielding. There have been reports claiming an alarming rise of birth defects to children of returned US soldiers and civilians occupying militarised zones. These reports claim the birth defects can be attributed to use of depleted uranium coated ordnance. What checks are in place to guarantee no Australian uranium or its by-products is used to coat US military
- Question: 20. Has uranium coated ordinance or tank shielding been used by the United States Army in war games in central Australia?
- Question: 21. Prior to his selection as “Chair of the Royal Commission” Kevin Scarce had aligned himself with CEDA (the Committee for Economic Development In Australia). CEDA’s Policy Perspectives of Nov 2011 clearly supports and promotes the growth of South Australia’s nuclear industry. Is this a conflict of interest for the Royal Commissioner?
- Question: 22.There are cl ips on You T ube(see Aug 12th 2014) where Kevin Scarce confirms his association with CEDA, using terms like “we were able to get our draft report considered by government. ” Given his connection with CEDA and their pro nuclear stance, is Kevin Scarce truly impartial and unbiased in regard to South Australia’s nuclear issues?
- In Summary To be considered an effective, balanced, honest and legitimate assessment of SA’s role in the nuclear cycle, the Royal Commission needs to assess and answer many more tough questions than the ones listed above. Kind regards Yu.rij Poetzl Adelaide South Australia
South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission gets some crummy Submissions
South Australia is having a Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, with the goal of making that State the world’s nuclear toilet, and guinea pig for new experimental nukes. They invited submissions (published at http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions.) Of course nuclear companies are sending them in. But the rules are that the corporate submissions don’t have to be published. So the nuclear lobby has to rely mainly on non-corporate enthusiasts for published submissions.
And boy – do some of them put in crummy submissions.
I was particularly taken with this one, and the author’s idea that falls from solar paneled roofs are a bigger health problem than Fukushima radiation.
Geoff Russell, Extract from Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission “……The Royal Commission is uniquely placed to learn from the past, but it will need to deal with the drivers of nuclear fear in the community. To build confidence in the community, the Commission’s report will need to convince both sides of politics to speak with one voice about the misinformation that drove (and drives) the Fukushima evacuation.
Appeasement, in the form of more and more levels of safeguards and protocols to attempt to say that “it can’t happen here” isn’t the answer. There will always be accidents despite every effort to avoid them. Planes still crash, but people understand the relative risks and board them regardless of personal fear.
They understand that fear is their personal problem and not a function of the objective facts. So it’s time to put nuclear accidents into perspective and stop treating them as something fundamentally different.
The fear and irrationality at Fukushima saw people die to avoid a trivial risk. Governments are supposed to protect people from nutters, not act on their behalf.
All energy sources have risks and in a rational world they’d be compared according to proper measures of suffering and disability; the simple trigger sequence logic (“nuclear -> cancer -> end of civilisation”) of decades past shouldn’t be allowed to influence decision making in 2015.
In Australia in 2010-11 there were 7730 Worker’s45 Compensation claims for serious injury resulting from falls from a height. How many were associated with rooftop solar panels? As far as I can see, nobody is even counting, but a million solar rooftops means more people on ladders; many of them amateurs. This is real danger, the kind that can put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. A proper comparison of nuclear risks with those of other energy sources will measure and include such risks along with the considerable risks associated with not avoiding continued climate destabilisation because we acted too slowly. We need safe clean energy and climate scientists say we need it fast. The Royal Commission will need to break with past traditions and confront nuclear fear head on and call it for what it is.”
Nuclear lobby’s wishful thinking about Small Modular (SMR) and Generation IV reactors
Nor should the industry look for help from the trendy new kids on the block: small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV technologies. The report predicts that electricity costs from SMRs will typically be 50-100% higher than for current large reactors, although it holds out some hope that large volume production of SMRs could help reduce costs–if that large volume production is comprised of “a sufficiently large number of identical SMR designs…built and replicated in factory assembly workshops.” Not very likely unless the industry accepts a socialist approach to reactor manufacturing, which is even less likely than that the approach would lead to any significant cost savings.
As for Generation IV reactors, the report at its most optimistic can only say, “In terms of generation costs, generation IV technologies aim to be at least as competitive as generation III technologies….though the additional complexity of these designs, the need to develop a specific supply chain for these reactors and the development of the associated fuel cycles will make this a challenging task.”
So, at best the Generation IV reactors are aiming to be as competitive as the current–and economically failing–Generation III reactors. And even realizing that inadequate goal will be “challenging.” The report might as well have recommended to Generation IV developers not to bother……..
Nuclear advocates fight back with wishful thinking. Green World, Michael Mariotte September 3, 2015 It must be rough to be a nuclear power advocate these days: clean renewable energy is cleaning nuclear’s clock in the marketplace; energy efficiency programs are working and causing electricity demand to remain stable and even fall in some regions; despite decades of industry effort radioactive waste remains an intractable problem; and Fukushima’s fallout–both literal and metaphoric–continues to cast a pall over the industry’s future. Continue reading
#nuclear lobby using women to propagandise the idea of “Nuclear fixing climate change”
Women in Nuclear for Climate http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Women-in-Nuclear-for-Climate-0109151.html 01 September 2015 Women in Nuclear (WiN) has leant its support to a civil society campaign for nuclear energy to be recognised as a low-carbon option for fighting climate change.
At the organisation’s global annual conference in Vienna last week, WiN president and vice president, Se-Moon Park and Dominique Moillot, put their names to a declaration asserting that every country should have access to the widest possible portfolio of low-carbon technologies – including nuclear power – in order to reduce emissions and meet energy goals.
WiN requested that the UNFCCC “recognise nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy option”, in its protocols, and include it in its climate funding mechanisms, “as is the case for all other low-carbon energy sources”. The organisation pledged to bring this to the attention of the conference to take place in Paris in December.
By pledging support for the Nuclear for Climate movement on behalf of its 25,000 members, WiN joined the European Nuclear Society Young Generation Network and 39 other associations of nuclear scientists, engineers and professionals, including the French Nuclear Energy Society which leads the campaign. WiN’s global membership means that individual nuclear experts from more than 102 countries are now in support of Nuclear for Climate.
In lead-up to its license review, Indian Point nuclear company targets its propaganda to women
Reisman: Indian Point’s information war to counter nuke plant mishaps http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/columnists/phil-reisman/2015/08/21/nukeplant–mailers-license-renewal/32130213/ Phil Reisman, preisman@lohud.com10:48 a.m. EDT August 22, 2015
Columnist Phil Reisman looks into the information campaign by Entergy Corp. to counter bad Indian Point publicity. The corporate owners of the Indian Point nuclear power plant are trying to win the hearts and minds of the citizenry.
Not long ago, two slickly produced fliers from Entergy Corp. came to my house — and I assume also to thousands upon thousands of other homeowners who live within a 50-mile radius of the controversial plant.
The cover of one flier shows a smiling woman lifting her head to a blue sky, taking in the air. Her eyes are closed. She appears to be blissfully lost in an intoxicated swoon.
“Breathe Easy,” it says. “Clean Energy Means A Cleaner Environment.”
Inside the flier, the environmental theme is carried further. Nuclear power reduces greenhouse gases, it says, citing research that 1.8 million lives have been saved because nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air like fossil fuels do.
The other flier features a woman in a business suit holding a red pen. “New Yorkers need affordable energy sources to create jobs,” reads the copy. Claims are made as to the economic benefits of Indian Point — among them an annual infusion of $1.6 billion to the regional economy, 1,000 local jobs and $75 million in property taxes.
Both pieces of mail seemed to be aimed at women, and perhaps chiefly suburban soccer moms who may not be totally convinced that Indian Point is “safe, secure, vital.” Some polls show a gender gap on the issue of nuclear energy.
That the fliers were also addressed to my wife adds credence to the supposition.
Targeting a specific demographic audience is hardly unusual. Earlier this summer, it was reported by Time Warner Cable’s News NY 1 that Entergy had mailed fliers to a section of Brooklyn with a large African-American population.
The content of that mailing included a statistic that 4.5 million African-Americans suffer from asthma and that 71 percent of blacks live in places with high air pollution — the idea, of course, being that, without Indian Point, the air would be dirtier and more people would suffer from respiratory illness.
This has been an especially bad year for the creaky nuke complex, which had several unplanned shutdowns, raising serious concerns about the plant’s age, safety and maintenance standards. It experienced its third transformer explosion and fire in eight years in May, a mishap that caused thousands of gallons of oil to spill into the Hudson River
Against that backdrop the public relations campaign seems obvious. But none of the technical woes at Indian Point are mentioned in the slick Entergy fliers.
Nor is it stated anywhere that the federal license for the perpetually troubled Unit 3 reactor expires in December. In its report, NY 1 interviewed Assemblyman Nick Perry of Brooklyn, who observed, “Every once in a while, the nuclear folks in Westchester get concerned about their license, and they try to pump up some support for their operation there.”
Well, Perry hit the nail on the head.
After the transformer fire, there were renewed calls for the permanent shutdown of Indian Point.
In his blog, Riverkeeper President Paul Gallay pounded the energy facility when he wrote: “We must face facts regarding the Indian Point nuclear plant. Its infrastructure is aging, its safety is dubious, and most everyone knows it.”
Gallay cited the usual concerns about radioactive waste and Indian Point’s proximity to an earthquake fault. But he seemed to be directly answering one of the Entergy fliers, which pulled a quote from Mike Bloomberg, who said that, when he was New York City mayor in 2011, “There is no alternative to the energy that we get from Indian Point.”
In contradiction, Gallay said new technologies are being developed that will allow the nuclear plant to be replaced “at little cost to taxpayers.”
License review and renewal is within the purview of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But that doesn’t leave state and local politics completely out of the equation. Entergy officials know that public opinion matters, which is why they spent what must have been a small fortune on the fliers, which resemble campaign material for political candidates.
They are telling everyone to “breathe easy,” while holding their breath all the way to December.
How the BBC distorted the story of Sellafield
The spectre of the new nuclear renaissance
Al’Khalili then went on to give every impression that high level nuclear waste can be safely stored using the process of ‘vitrification’, that is, turning it in glass, and so binding the waste safely into a permanent, impermeable matrix.
What he failed to mention is that the glass is by no means permanent and durable storage medium for “thousands of generations” as the glass is liable to break down – and that the problem of long term disposal of these wastes remains unsolved. For example, asR C Ewing and colleagues wrote in 1995 in the journal Progress in Nuclear Energy,
“the post-disposal radiation damage to waste form glasses and crystalline ceramics is significant. The cumulative α-decay doses which are projected for nuclear waste glasses … are well within the range for which important changes in the physical and chemical properties may occur, e.g. the transition from the crystalline-to-aperiodic state in ceramics.”
‘Inside Sellafield’ and military plutonium – the BBC’s nuclear lies of omission http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/2984689/inside_sellafield_and_military_plutonium_the_bbcs_nuclear_lies_
of_omission.html Dr David Lowry 12th August 2015
Lowry – understating the severity of accidents, concealing the role of the UK’s nuclear power stations in breeding military plutonium, and giving false reassurance over the unsolved problems of high level nuclear waste.For one of these programmes the BBC commissioned Baghdad-born Professor Jameel ‘Jim’ Al-Khalili, theoretical physicist and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science from the University of Surrey, to research and present one programme called ‘Britain’s Nuclear Secrets: Inside Sellafield‘.
As a regular BBC broadcaster, hosting the long-running The Life Scientific on Radio 4, and maker of several science television programmes on television, including on quantum physics and the history of electricity, he was eminently qualified to make this programme.
However the programme was highly misleading thanks to major omissions, concealing the severity of accidents, and how the UK’s entire ‘civilian’ nuclear programme was subverted into producing military plutonium that fed into the Sellafield bomb factory. Continue reading
Confusing message in new documentary about #uranium – a ‘soft sell’ for the nuclear lobby?
A Critical Look at ‘Uranium: Twisting the Dragon’s Tail’, truthdig, Aug 9, 2015 By Stanley Heller A week or so before the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, I watched a curious documentary on PBS. It was called “Uranium: Twisting the Dragon’s Tail.” You can see it here. The presenter was a physicist named Derek Muller. What’s odd is that Muller concludes that nuclear power is not the way to go, but the way the film was edited, the message is the opposite: that nuclear power is relatively safe and that its technical problems are at the point of being solved. Continue reading
The nuclear lobby’s hype about ‘safe ionising radiation’ exposed
Regardless of whether we chose to pay attention or not, over the past month a massive number of radiotoxic and genotoxic particles have been released into the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere, and due to the continuous westerly circular flow of the Jet stream no one in the Northern latitudes will be spared some degree of exposure as time proceeds.
The question of exposure should not be “if” but “when,” and “how” we deal with it once it happens. Cesium-137 for instance, has a half-life of 30 years (90 years later 12.5% of its radioactivity remains), and due to its similarity to potassium will make its way up the food chain bioaccumulating and distributing broadly in the tissues of both plants and animals as it goes. Eventually all such radioisotopes must meet mankind who is perched precariously on top of an unsustainable, highly toxic food pyramid of his own making, and from which he has an exceedingly difficult time escaping and/or detoxifying. Continue reading
Nuclear lobby promotes a new ‘health disorder’ – radiophobia
Is Radioactivity Really Good for You? – NRC to be The Decider NoNukesCA.netAugust 1, 2015 by James Heddle
“……./.YOU may be suffering from… RADIOLOGICAL PHOBIA!
Yes, folks, its a new psychosomatic disorder recently discovered in the Fukushima aftermath by ‘health care professionals’ and their allies in the global pro-nuclear lobby and the PR firms that specialize in the ‘manufacture of doubt.’
Just think, the million-plus deaths shown to have resulted form Chernobyl and all the thousands of mutated kids being cared for in orphanages in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine weren’t caused by Chernobyl fallout radiation exposure – its all in their heads (even if their brains are on the outside of their skulls)!
Same with the so-called Fukushima ‘victims.’ Its all about their MENTAL ATTITUDE – their fact- and experience-based BELIEF SYSTEMS.
The cure – as with other related psychosomatic maladies such as: Climate Change Phobia, GMO Phobia, Surveillance State Phobia or Arctic Oil Drilling Phobia – is DENIAL. What could be more simple…or more simple-minded?
NRC Leaps into the Breach
Always ready to uphold its well-earned reputation as Jonny-on-the-Spot for identifying and resolving any conceivable danger to public health and safety from nuclear technology, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its august wisdom has decided to respond to a petition from three people claiming to represent Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information to revisit in an official proceeding the long-discredited theory of ‘hormesis,’ the idea that chronic exposure to low-level nuclear radiation is actually Good for you, because it makes you better able to withstand higher exposures. Wow, what a liberating, needless worry-reducing concept!
Don’t Be Fooled: Even Low Levels of Radiation Are Bad
Information and links to sources debunking the ridiculous, irresponsible and long-discredited claim that chronic exposure to low-level radioactivity is good for you. are included below……..
Radiation Experts: Radiation Standards Are Up to 1,000 Higher Than Is Safe for the Human Body
Don’t be fooled by the spin: radiation is bad
On chemical hormesis:
Hormesis is a flawed theory
On electromagnetic hormesis (thanks to Nina Beety:
Hormesis and EMF: A Complex Dose-Response Phenomenon (pdf) http://nonukesca.net/?p=692
Governments, scientists and industry experts can’t face the truth about Fukushima
Have you considered …Fukushima will never be over Karen Warnick The Independent, 31 July 15
There are very good reasons why we aren’t being told the truth about the Fukushima disaster, but it doesn’t matter what those reasons are. The fact that we aren’t getting updated information in the “normal” media and the scant information that is coming out from them can’t be counted on to be accurate is the problem.
If we were to be told the real truth, civilization as we know it would become utter chaos. It’s hard not to be too fatalistic, or too much of a “conspiracy theorist” over this issue. The reason being that the truth is the disaster that was and is Fukushima will never be over.
There has never been a disaster of this magnitude before and the scientific community and nuclear energy experts don’t have a clue how to fix it
There has been news about Fukushima in the past four years; it’s just hard for the average person to find.
Consider some of the statements made by “experts” in various articles in scientific papers and other world media sites: “Even more ominously, Seiichi Mizuno, a former member of Japan’s House of Councillors (Upper House of Parliament, 1995-2001) in March 2015 said: “The biggest problem is the melt-through of reactor cores… We have groundwater contamination… The idea that the contaminated water is somehow blocked in the harbor is especially absurd. It is leaking directly into the ocean. There’s evidence of more than 40 known hotspot areas where extremely contaminated water is flowing directly into the ocean… We face huge problems with no prospect of solution.” (Source: Nuclear Hotseat #194)”……..
. It doesn’t matter anymore. We are never going to be over Fukushima.
We are still not “over” Chernobyl, which happened in 1986. The land around it will never be habitable again and hundreds of thousands have died, and hundreds of thousands have cancer.
It’s no wonder governments, scientists and industry experts don’t want to talk about it. There’s nothing any of them can do about it. Fukushima is not over, will never be over, and it could get a lot worse. That’s all anyone needs to know.
Karen Warnick is a reporter with The Independent. Reach her at kwarnick@wmicentral.com. http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/fukushima-will-never-be-over/article_908093a8-34ce-11e5-9cbe-774ed88209e0.html
Japan’s government and the International Atomic Energy Agency “Normalise” the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe
Normalizing” Nuclear Catastrophe: Japan’s Abe Government Risks Fukushima Victims’ Lives with “Forced Return” to Contaminated Areas By Kendra Ulrich Global Research, July 30, 2015 Ecologist 29 July 2015 ‘Normalizing’ nuclear catastrophe
“…….In an effort to reduce public opposition, Abe has been pushing forward the pro-nuclear agenda to ‘normalize’ nuclear disaster.
If the public can be convinced that less than five years after the worst nuclear disaster in a generation, citizens can go home and return to life the way it was before the disaster – with no additional health risks – then that is a powerful argument against the majority of Japanese citizens who oppose nuclear reactor restarts.
The effort to minimize the impact of the disaster on the nuclear industry has been aided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency charged with the promotion of nuclear energy in its charter.
The IAEA has sought to downplay the radiological risks to the population since the early days in 2011. In fact, it produced two documents that can be said to have laid the foundation and justification for Abe’s current policy of de facto forced resettlement.
The reality is this myth making requires that the people of Fukushima prefecture – especially the people of Iitate – be the sacrificial lambs for the nuclear industry. This is not only wholly unjust, but is a violation of their human rights.
They have already been exposed to more radiation than any other population in the region. To deliberately force the people of Iitate, especially women and children, back to areas where dose rates reach up to 20 millisieverts per year puts them at significant, unacceptable, and unnecessary risk.
A deliberate plan that will have terrible consequences Continue reading
UNSCEAR All-Clear Report on Fukushima – not really
Fukushima Not Even Close To Being Under Control, Oil Price, By ZeroHedge Sun, 28 June 2015
“………A UN (UNSCEAR) report on April 2, 2014 on health impacts of the Fukushima accident concluded that any radiation-induced effects would be too small to identify. People were well protected and received “low or very low” radiation doses. UNSCEAR gave an all-clear report.
A rebuttal of the UNSCEAR report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War d/d July 18, 2014 takes a defiant stance in opposition to the UN report, to wit: “The Fukushima nuclear disaster is far from over. Despite the declaration of ‘cold shutdown’ by the Japanese government in December 2011, the crippled reactors have not yet achieved a stable status and even UNSCEAR admits that emissions of radioisotopes are continuing unabated. 188 TEPCO is struggling with an enormous amount of contaminated water, which continues to leak into the surrounding soil and sea. Large quantities of contaminated cooling water are accumulating at the site. Failures in the makeshift cooling systems are occurring repeatedly. The discharge of radioactive waste will most likely continue for a long time.”
“Both the damaged nuclear reactors and the spent fuel ponds contain vast amounts of radioactivity and are highly vulnerable to further earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and human error. Catastrophic releases of radioactivity could occur at any time and eliminating this risk will take many decades… It is impossible at this point in time to come up with an exact prognosis of the effects that the Fukushima nuclear disaster will have on the population in Japan… the UNSCEAR report represents a systematic underestimation and conjures up an illusion of scientific certainty that obscures the true impact of the nuclear catastrophe on health and the environment.”………http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fukushima-Not-Even-Close-To-Being-Under-Control.html
USA’s government ignoring the continuing disaster of Fukushima
Fukushima Continues Out of Control – Obama Silent on Risks, DC Clothesline – #Airing Out America’s Dirty Laundry” July 28, 2015 by Suzanne Hamner The propaganda “ministry” of the federal government works feverishly and incessantly to focus attention on “issues” they design in order to keep Americans from investigating issues that pose real threats to the citizenry. It’s a well-oiled machine that Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin would envy since it is from the Goebbels and Hitler model, with a littleStalin thrown in, this administration copied and perfected. To further confuse the public and keep emotions stirred, dog and pony shows occur in both chambers of Congress to the point it becomes hard to tell the difference between Republican, Democrat, GOP establishment, liberal, RINO, communist and socialist.
Despite the attempt to redirect attention away from the important issues to “contrived” ones, reports surface daily indicating multiple crises are imminent. One can almost guarantee the US government agencies, politburo (Senate and House), and the Liar-in-Chief are clueless as to action to be taken, if any can be taken at all, to quell the coming tide. Case in point remains the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant disaster of March 2011.
In April 2015, Melissa Dykes reported the media propaganda arm of the administration pushed the idea that radiation from Fukushima was “low risk” and “you could swim in the ocean for six hours every day for a year and receive a dose more than a thousand times less than a dental x-ray.” Melissa called “BS” then, as did the rest of us, and continuing reports coming out of Japan indicate the media, controlled by this administration, is lying. However, what’s a little radiation that could kill millions when that “racist” Confederate Battle Flag is stirring up trouble and sodomites are denied rights (rolls eyes).
A presentation by Fairewinds Chief Engineer and nuclear expert Arne Gundersen claims there is plenty to generate concern. The catastrophe is far from over despite the Japanese Government and Tokyo Electric Power Company push to decommission the Fukushima plant in 30 years. The closest cousin to the Fukushima disaster remains Chernobyl in Ukraine. The government there is waiting close to 100 years to decommission Chernobyl. Why the rush on Fukushima? The answer is more about politics and money than science.
According to Gundersen, problems exist at Fukushima that will last decades.
- Three of the nuclear cores at Fukushima Daiichi are in direct contact with groundwater, a problem “nuclear power designers and engineers never anticipated.
- Units 1, 2, and 3 were destroyed allowing the formation of holes and cracks; which withcontainment units breached, groundwater is allowed to come in contact with the nuclear cores.
- “23,000 tanker truckloads of radioactive water have leaked into the Pacific Ocean” with groundwater continuing to leak in and out at a rate “at least 300 tons per day;” so far more than 1500 days have passed and no end is in sight.
- The ice wall is a complete failure meaning Cesium, Strontium and Plutonium from Fukushima will bleed into the Pacific for decades due to unmitigated groundwater flow.
- Constraints of the press by the Japanese government’s secrecy act continue to hide the full human, financial and environmental costs of the disaster.
- Levels of Strontium-90 concentrations outside the destroyed plant spiked 1000 % in three months from April 2015 to July 2015.
According to Natural News:
Censored and heavily redacted emails [PDF] from US government scientists and officials reveal that there were major concerns among American policymakers shortly after the devastating Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in March 2011 that there would be widespread radiological contamination and spikes in thyroid cancer rates.
“I would like to raise another issue which now merits expeditious, near term action. There is a short time window … during which it will remain possible to … measure I-131 that members of the public may have ingested,” said an email sent to John Holdren, senior adviser to Pres. Obama on science and technology, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, DOE/NRC officials, and others whose names were redacted on March 23, 2011, 12 days after the disaster on March 11, according to a recently released trove of email documents, per a Freedom of Information Act request.
“Collecting this data … would be very valuable,” said the email.
[Using the Ctrl-F function, ability to readily access this cited email confirms the above.]
Nuclear science experts were clearly concerned that radioactive fallout from the disaster would not merely spread to the US West Coast but cause a spike in thyroid cancer rates there, as well — though none of those concerns were publicized by reports or expressed publicly by the Obama administration at the time. [Emphasis mine.]………..http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/07/28/fukushima-continues-out-of-control-obama-silent-on-risks/
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 (170)
- 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 