nuclear-news

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

Commission decision a ‘gut-punch’, so years-long battle over radioactive waste mound will continue

“You cannot sit there and tell me that over the next 550 years nothing is going to leach out of this mound and get in and make its way into the surrounding environment and waterways.” —Kebaowek First Nation Councillor Justin Roy

By Shari Narine
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Windspeaker.com   12 Jan 24

Kebaowek First Nation is considering legal action now that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has given the go ahead to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to construct a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) for solid low-level radioactive waste at its Chalk River Laboratories site on traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

“The big thing being discussed right now is pushing for a judicial review of the project. Just based on all of our environmental findings and the impacts that could be shown, we strongly believe we’d have a good case for this,” said Kebaowek First Nation Councillor Justin Roy.

Next steps will be decided once the legal team has fully reviewed the 169-page decision from the commission, which was released Jan. 9, he says.

The commission ruled it was confident that the NSDF project, an engineered containment mound for up to a million tonnes of radioactive and hazardous waste, was “not likely to cause significant adverse effects with respect to Aboriginal peoples.”

The containment mound is to be located 1.1 km from the Ottawa River on a bedrock ridge. The Kichi Sibi (Ottawa River) is sacred to the Algonquin people. The Chalk River site is also close to the sacred Algonquin sites of Oiseau Rock and Baptism Point.

The commission concluded “the design of the NSDF project is robust, supported by a strong safety case, able to meet its required design life, and sufficient to withstand severe weather events, seismic activity, and the effects of climate change.”

Roy calls the decision a “gut punch” but admits he is not surprised.


What does surprise him, however, is that the decision states that CNL adequately undertook a duty to consult with First Nations.

“I find that hard to believe when you have 10 of 11 Algonquin communities in direct opposition to the project. After everything that we’ve done over the last number of years and everything that we presented at last year’s hearing and then even in the hearing this last August, we’re just falling on deaf ears once again,” said Roy.

On June 9, the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan signed a long-term relationship agreement with CNL and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, another nuclear organization. The agreement establishes a working group with representatives from all three parties.

The commission held that the disposal facility was also “not likely to cause significant adverse effects” when it came to fish and fish habitat, aquatic species at risk, migratory birds, or federal lands.

“We have inherent rights to our unceded Algonquin territory and that means we need to protect everything that encompasses that territory, from the environment, the trees, the land, the air, the water and all the living species that make up our Algonquin territory,” said Roy.


Algonquin people are on the ground, he said, hunting, fishing and picking berries and “were able to show that there are going to be plenty of environmental impacts and, especially, species at risk that are going to be affected by this.”………………………………………………………………  https://windspeaker.com/news/windspeaker-news/commission-decision-gut-punch-so-years-long-battle-over-radioactive-waste

January 14, 2024 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

Kebaowek First Nation strongly opposes nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River

Radioactive waste site in Chalk River a go

National Observer, By Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer, 9 Jan 24

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has greenlit a proposed nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River, Ont., after a years-long battle waged by concerned citizens, environmentalists and First Nations.

On Jan. 9, the commission announced Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ operating licence will be changed to allow construction of a “near-surface disposal facility” to hold up to a million tonnes of radioactive and hazardous waste. Stored in a large mound, the waste would sit about a kilometre from the Ottawa River, a culturally important river for Algonquins, and this proximity to drinking water for millions is one of many factors that raised alarm bells for opponents.

The proposed facility, referred to as the NSDF, “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” as long as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories sticks to its proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, the commission said in its decision.

Within hours of the announcement, Kebaowek First Nation put out a press release calling on the federal government to intervene and stop the project. Organizations representing 10 of the 11 Algonquin First Nations have opposed the project, alongside leaders and elders from those nations. Pikwakanagan First Nation, the only Ontario-based Algonquin Nation and closest to Chalk River, signed a long-term relationship agreement with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories on June 9, 2023………………………………………………

Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond called the commission’s decision “unacceptable” because it goes against the rights of Indigenous Peoples and environmental protection in a press release issued a few hours after the decision.

“I want to be very clear: the Algonquin Peoples did not consent to the construction of this radioactive waste dump on our unceded territory,” Haymond said. “We believe the consultation was inadequate, to say the least, and that our Indigenous rights are threatened by this proposal.”

Algonquin leaders from Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nations and Algonquins of Barriere Lake have long opposed the NSDF and have urged the commission to heed their concerns about environmental and human health. At the final licensing hearing in August, Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg argued the consultation was inadequate because it began far too late in the decision-making process and did not appear to take their concerns or traditional knowledge seriously………………………………………….

James Walker, a nuclear waste expert and former director of safety engineering and licensing at AECL, disputed the proclamation that all waste will be low-level in a submission to the commission. His calculations, based on the inventory of waste provided by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, show that much of it is intermediate-level radioactive waste and should not be placed in a near-surface facility. There is also no inventory management system to properly verify the waste complies with the acceptance criteria, he wrote. Walker said the project is “non-compliant with International Safety Standards” for these reasons……………………..

Last month, concerned citizen Ole Hendrickson initiated a House of Commons petition (authorized by Pontiac, Que. MP Sophie Chatel) calling for an international review of three radioactive waste projects including the NSDF at Chalk River. At the time of writing, it has almost 2,950 signatures. Petitions require a minimum of 500 signatures to be presented in the House of Commons and receive an official response from the government.  https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/01/09/news/radioactive-waste-site-chalk-river-go#

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

Mr President, saying that nuclear power will save the climate is a lie.

While Emmanuel Macron continues to affirm his attachment to the atom,
Yannick Jadot, Marine Tondelier, Eric Piolle and Sandra Regol are calling
on France not to get stuck again in costly and dangerous dependence on this
energy.

At the end of 2023, first in a forum, then in his wishes to the
French, President Macron reaffirmed his attachment to the relaunch of
nuclear power. He who questioned in 2017 the relevance of depending
three-quarters on a single source of electricity production has today
transformed into a nuclear industry salesman.

In Dubai, busy tripling
global production by 2050, he actively campaigned for the mention of
nuclear power in the final COP 28 agreement.

 Liberation 9th Jan 2024

https://www.liberation.fr/idees-et-debats/tribunes/monsieur-le-president-affirmer-que-le-nucleaire-sauvera-le-climat-est-un-mensonge-20240109_L5XQ3GCEE5GPXD5BLDU2MHJCI4/

January 11, 2024 Posted by | France, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Behind the (somewhat dirty) scenes of nuclear waste processing

 Behind the (somewhat dirty) scenes of nuclear waste processing. Nuclear
energy, even if many call it “clean”, produces a lot of waste (and costs
“crazy money”). A researcher was able to carry out a survey lasting
approximately one year on two French waste landfill sites. How are these
things managed? Exclusive interview. “There is no such thing as
decontamination. This is an abuse of language. You don’t kill the
radioactivity, you move it.”

 Mediapart 9th Jan 2024

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/mouais-le-journal-dubitatif/blog/090124/dans-les-coulisses-un-peu-sales-du-traitement-des-dechets-nucleaires

January 11, 2024 Posted by | France, wastes | Leave a comment

The mystery of a Truchas woman who died with extraordinary amounts of plutonium in her body

KUNM | By Alice Fordham, https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2024-01-08/the-mystery-of-a-truchas-woman-who-died-with-extraordinary-amounts-of-plutonium-in-her-body

With the release of the movie Oppenheimer last year, there has been a resurgence of interest in the history of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But for writer Alicia Inez Guzmán at the investigative nonprofit Searchlight New Mexico, that interest has been there for years as she has covered the past and present of the lab and its impact on the people of northern New Mexico. Her reporting includes the town of Truchas, where she grew up. In her latest report, Guzmán looks at the story of one woman who lived in Truchas, and died in 1972, inexplicably with extraordinarily high levels of plutonium in her body. Guzmán spoke with KUNM about her reporting.

ALICIA INEZ GUZMAN: When I first heard about this mystery woman, it was on an airplane coming back to Santa Fe. And I was sitting next to Jay Coghlan, who’s the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. And he said something to the effect of, the woman with the most plutonium in her body after the Trinity Site detonation, was from Truchas. And I just thought it was so fascinating and cryptic that I actually got the source of the information, which is the LAHDRA report or the Los Alamos Historical Document and Retrieval Assessment. And that’s where I was able to read for myself that there was a woman from Truchas, who had 60 times the amount of plutonium than the average New Mexico resident, and it was attributed to the Trinity Site, which led me on a wild goose chase basically

KUNM: Why was this so intriguing to you?

GUZMAN: Sure, so Truchas is 225 miles away from the Trinity Site. It’s in northern New Mexico in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. And we know of course, the fallout did reach places like Truchas and far beyond, but in order for somebody to have plutonium in their body, they have to ingest it or inhale it. And so that was part of the question that I had was: well, she’s 225 miles away, could she have ingested or inhaled plutonium at that distance?

KUNM: So you had these questions, how did you go about finding out more about this person?

GUZMAN: When she was listed in the larger report, simply she was from Truchas, alive when Trinity detonated. So I had two pieces of information to go on. But what I realized was that the reason why they had that information about her at all was because the lab had conducted a series of autopsies on not only workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory, but the surrounding community. And once I found that information out, I was able to determine that there had actually been a class action lawsuit made on behalf of families of people who had been autopsied, because their families had never given informed consent. So I had to go to the courthouse here in Santa Fe, and from there, I found an issue of Health Physics magazine from 1979. And her name was not given, but it gave her age, at death, where she was from, what she did — a housewife — and the year that she died. And so, when I did a search in obituaries for that set of criteria, only one woman came up. And it turns out, as I suspected, that I knew the family.

KUNM: And what did they learn from you, and what did you learn from them?

GUZMAN: I should start out with what they learned, because I had to basically call them and reveal that possibly their grandmother had been involved in this clandestine study. And that if it was her, she had by far the most amount of plutonium in her body than anybody else who had been autopsied as a resident in that study. So, I think it was a huge shock to them.

Of course, what I learned from them was that this woman, whose name is Epifania Trujillo, she ended up moving in with her daughter and son in law, and her son in law, as it happened, worked at the laboratory as a janitor in a hot site, a hot site being somewhere where there was radiation, and that all of his children, he had seven children, all of his children except for one ended up getting cancer, and his wife. And so, I started talking to epidemiologists and toxicologists and physicists to really think through: is it possible that instead of having been exposed or contaminated from the Trinity Site, could it be Epifania and her family had been exposed and contaminated by what I later came to know or find out was take-home toxins? And largely what I hypothesize in the story was it is far more likely that her exposure came from Los Alamos National Laboratory, then it would be from Trinity Site.

January 10, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, health, USA | 1 Comment

Carlsbad depositary- 79% of waste came from nuclear wastes from Idaho National Laboratory

Hundreds of shipments of nuclear waste were buried at a facility near
Carlsbad in 2024, and the federal government was poised to send even more
waste to the site in 2024. For that work, the Department of Energy’s
contractor Salado Isolation Mining Contractors (SIMCO) earned about $11.5
million or about 89% of its available $13 million fee between Feb. 4, 2023
when SIMCO took over the contract and the end of the last federal fiscal
year on Sept. 30, 2023.

DOE records show 479 shipments of transuranic (TRU)
nuclear waste were received at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant between Jan.
1 and Dec. 31, 2023, from federal labs and other nuclear facilities around
the U.S. TRU waste is made of clothing materials, equipment and other
debris irradiated during nuclear activities, and it is buried in a salt
deposit at WIPP about 2,000 feet underground. The DOE said in 2023 it
worked to increase shipments to 17 per week, and hold that level in the
coming years. Most of the waste, about 79%, came from Idaho National
Laboratory in the form of 377 waste shipments.

 Carlsbad Current-Argus 7th Jan 2024

https://eu.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2024/01/07/carlsbad-area-repository-is-disposing-of-mostly-idaho-nuclear-waste/72096824007/

January 9, 2024 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Challenging questions concerning UK’s Geological Disposal Facility (GDF)Test of Public Support.

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), the division of the taxpayer-funded Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority, charged with identifying a location for a
Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) into which Britain’s legacy and future
high-level radioactive waste will be deposited, has stated that the two
criteria that will determine the location are – the availability of
sufficient ‘suitable’ geology and the consent of a ‘willing
community’.

Three ‘Search Areas’ are known to be under consideration
for the GDF – Theddlethorpe on the East Lincolnshire coast and Mid and
South Copeland on the West coast of Cumbria.

According to the government
and industry guidance that governs the conduct of this investigation,
whether such consent exists will ultimately be determined by a Test of
Public Support amongst the members of the Potential Host Community (PHC).


The timing of the test is down to the Relevant Principal Local Authorities
(RPLAs) – Cumberland Council in Cumbria and Lincolnshire County Council
and East Lindsey District Council in Lincolnshire, but its nature and the
participants in it are determined by the Community Partnerships that have
been established supposedly to provide stakeholder oversight to the
process.

Whether the test is then carried out by the RPLAs, NWS staff or
both is not specified, but if the result is negative, NWS are required to
withdraw the area from further consideration.

 NFLA 2nd Jan 2024

January 9, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

UK’s Nuclear Waste Service (NWS) to grant £millions to the 3 Community Partnerships, to seek a site for nuclear waste dump.

 In Phase 1, Community Investment Funding of up to £1 million per annum is
made available by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) to each of the three
Community Partnerships currently engaged in the siting process for a
Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

Where a Community Partnership / Search
Area is taken forward into Phase 2, involving the commencement of borehole
investigations, this sum will increase to £2.5 million per annum.

A decision on which two Search Areas will be taken forward is anticipated in
2026. The grants can be used to fund projects, schemes or initiatives
benefiting the community of each Search Area that: provide economic
opportunities, enhance the natural and built environment, or improve
community wellbeing. Each Community Partnership can also agree its own
criteria for awards based on local circumstances.

A Freedom of Information
request was submitted to NWS with a short question set which was identical
for each of the Community Partnerships. The responses received from NWS
follow.

 NFLA 5th Jan 2024

January 9, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Rokkasho redux: Japan’s never-ending nuclear reprocessing saga

By Tatsujiro Suzuki | December 26, 2023,  https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/rokkasho-redux-japans-never-ending-reprocessing-saga/

The policy seeks to at least begin to deal with the huge stocks of plutonium Japan has amassed

According to a recent Reuters report, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL) still hopes to finish construction of Japan’s long-delayed Rokkasho reprocessing plant in the first half of the 2024 fiscal year (i.e. during April-September 2024). The plant—which would reprocess spent nuclear fuel from existing power plants, separating plutonium for use as reactor fuel—is already more than 25 years behind schedule, and there are reasons to believe that this new announcement is just another wishful plan that will end with another postponement.

One indication of further possible delays: On September 28, 2023, Naohiro Masuda, president of JNFL, stated that the safety review of the reprocessing plant by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority will be difficult to complete by the end of 2023. He nevertheless insisted that the company could still meet completion target date in 2024.

Here is a partial history of past key developments that make completion in 2024 seem unlikely:

1993: Construction starts.

1997: Initial target for completion.

2006-2008: Hot tests conducted, revealing technical problems with the vitrification process for dealing with waste produced during reprocessing.

2011: Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant accident.

2012: New safety regulation standards introduced.

2022: Completion target date postponed to June 2024)

The 2022 postponement was the 26th of the Rokkasho project.

Why so many postponements? There seem to be at least five underlying reasons for the postponements for the Rokkasho plant. First, JNFL lacks relevant expertise to manage such a technologically complex and hazardous project, which is owned by nine nuclear utilities plus all other major companies associated with nuclear power in Japan. Most of the firm’s senior executives are from shareholding companies (especially utility companies) and are not necessarily experts in the field of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Second, the technologies in the plant came from different companies and institutions. The management of the project is therefore technically complex.

Third, the post-Fukushima-accident nuclear facility safety licensing review process is much more stringent than what existed before the accident. For example, the Nuclear Regulation Authority told JNFL at their November 25, 2023 meeting: “JNFL should immediately make improvements because it is clear that JNFL does not understand the contents of the permit well enough to confirm the adequacy of the design of the facilities on site and has not visited the site.”

Fourth, the financial costs to JNFL of postponement are covered by the utilities’ customers, because the utilities must pay a “reprocessing fee” every year, based on the spent fuel generated during that year, whether or not the reprocessing plant operates. The system by which the Nuclear Reprocessing Organization of Japan decides the reprocessing fee is not transparent.

Fifth, the project lacks independent oversight. Even though JNFL’s estimate of the cost of building and operating the Rokkasho plant has increased several-fold, no independent analysis has been done by a third party. One reason is that some of the shareholders are themselves contractors working on the plant and have no incentive to scrutinize the reasons for the cost increases or the indefinite extension of the construction project.

After so many postponements, there is reason to wonder whether the plant will ever operate, but the government and utilities continue to insist that the plant will open soon. Even if Rokkasho were to operate, it may suffer from the same kinds of problems that marked Britain’s light-water reactor spent fuel reprocessing experience, as described in Endless Trouble: Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP).

Despite the serious and longstanding problems the Rokkasho plant has faced (and continues to face), Japanese regulators and nuclear operators have doggedly pursued the project. There are four reasons:

Spent fuel management. Currently, most of Japan’s spent nuclear fuel is stored in nuclear power plant cooling pools. But the pool capacities are limited, and the 3,000-ton-capacity Rokkasho spent fuel pool is also almost full. The nuclear utilities must therefore start operating the Rokkasho plant unless they can create additional spent fuel storage capacity, either on- or off-site. The Mutsu spent fuel storage facility is a candidate for additional capacity, but due to the concern that spent fuel could stay there forever, Mutsu city refuses to accept spent fuel unless the Rokkasho reprocessing plant begins to operate. The Rokkasho plant design capacity is 800 tons of spent fuel per year.

Legal and institutional commitments. Under Japan’s nuclear regulations, utilities must specify a “final disposal method” for spent fuel. The law on regulation of nuclear materials and nuclear reactors states that “when applying for reactor licensing, operators must specify the final disposal method of spent fuel” (Article 23.2.8). In addition, there was a clause that “disposal method” should be consistent with implementation of the government policy, which specified reprocessing as the disposal method. Although that clause was deleted in the 2012 revision of the law after the Fukushima accident, the Law on Final Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste still bans direct disposal of spent fuel. In addition, the 2016 Law on Reprocessing Fees legally requires utilities to submit reprocessing fees for all spent fuel generated every year since they stated in their applications that “final disposal method” for their spent fuel would be reprocessing.

Commitments to hosting communities. The nuclear utilities committed—albeit tacitly—to the communities hosting nuclear power plants that they would remove the spent fuel to reprocessing plants, since that was the national policy. Separately, JNFL signed an agreement with Rokkasho village and Aomori prefecture that says that if the Rokkasho reprocessing plant faces “severe difficulties,” other measures will be considered—including the return of spent fuel stored at Rokkasho to the nuclear power plants.

Local governments hosting nuclear power plants were not involved in this deal, however. They could therefore just refuse to receive spent fuel from Aomori. 

 In fact, after the Fukushima accident, when the government was considering amending the nuclear fuel cycle policy to include a “direct disposal option” for spent fuel in a deep underground repository, the Rokkasho village parliament (at the behind the scenes suggestion by the then JNFL president, Yoshihiko Kawai), issued a strong statement asking for “maintenance of the current nuclear fuel cycle policy.”

The statement continued that, if Japan’s fuel cycle policy changed, Rokkasho would: refuse to accept further waste from the reprocessing of Japan’s spent fuel in the UK and France; require the removal of reprocessing waste and spent fuel stored in Rokkasho; no longer accept spent fuel; and seek compensation for the damages caused by the change of the policy.

Institutional and bureaucratic inertia. In Japan, bureaucrats rotate to new positions every two or three years and are reluctant to take the risk of changing existing policies. They therefore tend to stick with past commitments. Institutional inertia becomes stronger as a project becomes bigger. The Rokkasho reprocessing project is one of the largest projects ever in Japan. Changing the project is therefore very difficult.

Will Japan’s new plutonium capping policy have any real impact? In 2018, Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission announced a new policy on “Basic Principles on Utilization of Plutonium” (see also this post). Under the new policy, the commission proposed that Japan would reduce its stockpile of separated plutonium, starting with a commitment not to increase it, and that reprocessing would take place only when a credible plan to use the separated plutonium existed.

The policy seeks to at least begin to deal with the huge stocks of plutonium Japan has amassed, both in European separation facilities (some 36.7 tons) and in Japan (10.5 tons), in anticipation of using the plutonium widely to fuel nuclear reactors—which so far has not materialized. In conjunction with the new Reprocessing Fee Law, the new plutonium policy gives the government legal authority to control the pace of reprocessing.

But it is not clear how the “capping policy” will be implemented. It is not a legally binding document, and no regulation has been introduced to control reprocessing. Utilities must submit specific plans for plutonium use to the Atomic Energy Commission for its review before reprocessing of their fuel begins. But the commission can only give advice to the government about the credibility of these plans, giving rise to questions about whether the policy will lead to sustained changes in reprocessing activity. A similar “paper rule” on plutonium has existed since 2003.

A way out. Japan could extricate itself from its reprocessing and plutonium problems in several ways. All involve significant changes in policy that would:

Find additional spent fuel storage capacity, on- or off-site. Local communities may be more willing to accept on-site dry cask storage of spent fuel if they are told that it is safer than spent fuel pool storage. For example, Saga Prefecture and Genkai-town, which host Kyushu Electric’s Genkai Nuclear Power Plant, have agreed to host dry cask storage starting in 2027. Host communities may want guarantees that spent fuel will be removed after a specified storage period. Such a guarantee could be given by the central government.

Amend the law on final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. An amendment could allow direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep underground repository. This would provide more flexibility in spent fuel management and make it easier for communities to host interim spent fuel storage.

Amend the Reprocessing Fee Law and shut down Rokkasho. An amendment to the law on reprocessing fees could allow the government to use reprocessing funds to implement a shutdown of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Such a plan could include payment of the debt JNFL has incurred while pursuing the Rokkasho project and funds for dry cask interim storage. This would enable the government to finally end the problem-plagued Rokkasho reprocessing plant project.

January 7, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Japan, Reference, reprocessing | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste could threaten rare spot where endangered mussel thrives, experts say

Vast underwater cave in Ottawa River provides habitat for hickorynut mussel

Stu Mills ·CBC Ottawa reporter, Jan 02, 2024 

Researchers with the Canadian Museum of Nature say a proposed nuclear waste storage facility upstream could destroy the delicate balance of two endangered species thriving in an Ottawa River cave network.

Last month, the museum’s André Martel lowered his scuba goggles and plunged into what he deemed an “extraordinary” segment of the river around Lac Coulonge east of Pembroke, Ont.

An absence of hydroelectric dams, a fast-flowing current, naturally forming fluvial sand dunes and the country’s longest freshwater cave network have made this an Eden for an endangered, wavy brown mollusc called the Hickorynut mussel.

Martel believes the delicate population of the freshwater mussel has a secret ally in a fish just as enigmatic and just as threatened: the lake sturgeon………………………………………………………………………………………

New facility at Chalk River

Though they don’t yet have the full answer, there is real concern about a proposal to dump nuclear waste near the shoreline upstream in Deep River, Ont.

A consortium led by SNC-Lavalin has proposed a “near surface disposal facility”  waste site just one kilometre from the river.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission plan has been panned by Montreal-area mayors whose millions of residents draw drinking water from the Ottawa River and by Algonquins who compared the proposal to building an outhouse next to a drinking well.

“Let’s be sure that we are aware of what we’re doing, what is at stake,” Martel said.

He said special protection is needed for the 141-kilometre segment of river where the fragile hickorynut and ancient sturgeon are working together to filter silt and bacteria from the water like a massive river kidney.

Katriina Ilves, a Canadian Museum of Nature ichthyologist — a marine biologist who studies different fish species —  called the Lac Coulonge-area sturgeon population “an important, and enigmatic species.”

“I would have some concerns over any type of development that would have the potential to lead to contamination of this water system,” she said.

In an email, a spokesperson with the nuclear safety commission said it couldn’t answer specific questions about the proposal while the decision was likely just a few weeks away.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-river-nuclear-waste-hickorynut-mussel-cave-1.7065462

 

January 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Burial review – deep dive into underworld of nuclear power and its toxic legacy

Phuong Le

Emilija Škarnulytė’s hypnotic documentary zooms into the science of uranium and radioactivity, as well as cold war politics.

Occupying the liminal space between a geological excavation and speculative realism, Emilija Škarnulytė’s hypnotic documentary effortlessly moves between the micro and the macro. Zooming into a 3D-configuration of uranium ore, the film’s opening cuts to X-ray-esque renderings of radioactive household objects, all cast in an eerie shade of sickly green. These abstractions soon give way to something seemingly concrete yet equally mysterious: the camera plunges underwater, bringing us face to face with the remains of a 1950s uranium mine in Poland, once dug out in secrecy under the Soviet Union. Slithering through the wreckage is a water python, whose glistening presence serves as a kind of cosmic counterpart to the exploitation of natural resources.

Such slipperiness, both in terms of the imagery and the camera’s point of view, recurs throughout Škarnulytė’s film. Cutting to the Ignalina nuclear power station in Lithuania, a sister plant of Chernobyl, the film uses on-screen text to describe its decommissioning process, which produced millions of cubic metres of reinforced concrete structures to be demolished. This colossal waste will, hopefully, be processed at a research facility at Meuse in France, which is situated about 500 metres below sea level.

Though moving through these highly technological spaces, Škarnulytė’s film also makes space for bursts of surrealism. The python reappears in the Ignalina plant, as its gleaming form coils around the station’s switchboards. Bringing together the lush forests, the mushroom clouds of nuclear tests, and closeups of a snake shedding its skin, Burial questions the very possibility of rebirth and transformation. Even as Ignalina is ground into dust and buried away from prying eyes, the political spectre of the Soviet Union control continues to lurk, as the film offers a final message of support for Ukraine.

 Burial is available from 5 January on True Story.

January 2, 2024 Posted by | media, wastes | Leave a comment

WIPP’s Legacy Transuranic Waste Disposal Plan Demonstrates DOE’s Broken Promises; Get Your Comments in by Friday, January 3rd, 2025

 https://nuclearactive.org/ 30 Dec 24

The New Mexico Environment Department’s hazardous waste permit for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to submit a Legacy Transuranic, or TRU, Waste Disposal Plan to the Environment Department.  DOE submitted its inadequate plan on November 4th for a 60-day public comment period, which ends on Friday, January 3rd, 2025.  https://wipp.energy.gov/Library/documents/2024/24-0772-s.pdf 

A sample public comment letter you can use to create your comments is available HERE.  

The DOE plan ignores the promises DOE made to New Mexicans.  WIPP was sold as a pilot project to clean up Cold War legacy radioactive and hazardous waste at DOE’s nuclear weapons sites located across the country.  It was a test case for the deep geologic disposal of transuranic, or plutonium-contaminated, nuclear waste made during the Cold War.  DOE promised it would cleanup all its transuranic waste, ship it to WIPP for disposal and close WIPP after 25 years of operations.  WIPP opened in 1999 and was scheduled to close in 2024.

But DOE changed its mind.  DOE now wants to keep WIPP open until at least 2083 for the transuranic waste created by fabricating new plutonium triggers, or pits, for nuclear weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.  

DOE is ignoring its promises and the buried transuranic waste at LANL that needs to be packaged and shipped to WIPP.  Further, there are 2,025 transuranic waste containers stored aboveground in the Area G fabric tents in a wildfire zone.  https://n3b-la.com/area-g-tru/ New Mexicans can challenge DOE’s plan through the WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit and the three new permit conditions that address the need for another nuclear waste repository in a state other than New Mexico; the need to prioritize and reduce risk of transuranic waste stored in New Mexico; and the need for a Legacy TRU Waste Disposal Plan that prioritizes disposal of Cold War legacy waste over newly generated nuclear waste, including at LANL.  https://www.env.nm.gov/hazardous-waste/wipp-permit-page/ , see permit conditions 2.14.3 Repository Siting Annual Report; 4.2.1.4 Prioritization and Risk Reduction of New Mexico Waste; and 4.2.1.5 Legacy TRU Waste Disposal Plan on the attached.  240924 NMED WIPP HazWaste Renewal Permit Conditions

DOE’s plan fails to define legacy waste.  DOE’s definition is explicitly intended to include as legacy waste whatever any DOE site describes as legacy, including waste generated more than a decade after WIPP opened.  The plan also includes as legacy waste “surplus” plutonium that DOE plans to ship and process at LANL and dispose of at WIPP.

DOE will submit the public comments to the Environment Department before the end of January.  The Environment Department will determine whether DOE met the permit requirements for the plan.

The public comments that have been submitted so far are available on the WIPP homepage at the third blue box labeled “Legacy TRU Waste Disposal Plan” or at https://wipp.energy.gov/Legacy-TRU-Waste-Disposal-Plan.asp

January 1, 2024 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Cold War nuclear waste is prioritized at Carlsbad-area repository. How much is there?

Ed comment. This article is yet another example of what a mess the nuclear industry really is!.

Whatever label they give it, nuclear waste is just long-lasting toxic radioactive trash, with no real solution in sight.

Yet our revered leaders still think it’s OK to just keep on making this trash!!

Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus

Concerns were raised by government watchdog groups for a plan to dispose of Cold War nuclear waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant repository in southeast New Mexico, as the federal government could soon generate more new waste through weapons development that would also need disposal.

In a recent 10-year renewal of the Department of Energy’s permit with the New Mexico Environment Department for WIPP’s operations, the NMED added a mandate to prioritize “legacy waste” held for decades at DOE sites and ensure there was adequate space in the underground for its disposal.

At a Dec. 13 public meeting held in Carlsbad and virtually, required by the new permit enacted Nov. 3, DOE and WIPP officials sought input on officially defining legacy waste and how it would be disposed of at WIPP.

:More than 400 shipments of nuclear waste came to Carlsbad-area repository in 2023

Joni Arends with New Mexico-based Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety argued the DOE had held inadequate public meetings with the generator sites, and needed to work quicker to determine how much legacy waste was needing disposal around the U.S.

“You’ve got to do more to get people involved in this very important issue so that we have a complete inventory by the due date in November 2024,” she said.

The permit specified that a legacy waste disposal plan must be developed and submitted to NMED a  year after the permit takes effect, and reserved Panel 12 for the disposal of this waste.

That panel was one of two new panels approved for mining in the permit, intended to replace space lost to contamination in a 2014 incident……………………………………………………………………

Edward Holbrook, with the Department of Ecology’s nuclear waste program at Washington State University said legacy waste is not officially defined at the DOE’s Hanford Site in Washington.

He proposed meetings at the local level as the project moves forward to better determine what the term meant to specific sites, and how much of the waste was present.

“I don’t have those answers right now,” Holbrook said.

Former-NMED scientist Steve Zappe said during the meeting the legacy waste requirement was added to the permit amid concerns that newer streams of waste, such as from increased plutonium pit production at Los Alamos and other facilities, could take up space originally intended for older waste.

“Newly-generated waste which might be easier to dispose of could displace legacy waste which is maybe difficult to characterize or retrieve,” he said.

Tom Clements, executive director at Savannah River Site Watch, a government watchdog group focused on the DOE facility in South Carolina, worried an ongoing project to “down-blend” or dilute surplus weapons-grade plutonium at the facility could result in excess waste needing disposal.

This new stream would likely not be considered legacy waste, and Clements argued the DOE would need to find a process to balance such emerging needs, including planned pit production at Savannah River.

“This is not legacy material,” Clements said. “The pit-TRU is not included. I wonder how the plutonium down-blended material is going to be categorized. To me it is not legacy waste.”

Chavez agreed that the wastes Clements mentioned were not legacy waste.

That could be a problem, said Don Hancock with the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque.

Hancock pointed to a 2020 study from the National Academies of Science finding there may not be enough space at WIPP for the waste the DOE plans to produce in the coming years.  https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/2023/12/28/cold-war-nuclear-waste-disposed-of-new-mexico-amid-space-concerns/72014679007/

December 30, 2023 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Site for Canada’s underground nuclear waste repository to be selected next year

Allison Jones, The Canadian Press, December 27, 2023 

A critical milestone is on the horizon for Canada’s 175-year-long plan to bury its nuclear waste underground, with two pairs of Ontario communities set to decide if they would be willing hosts.

Late next year, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization plans to select the site for Canada’s deep geological repository, where millions of bundles of used nuclear fuel will be placed in a network of rooms connected by cavernous tunnels, as deep below the Earth’s surface as the CN Tower is tall — if the process goes according to plan.

The sites are down to the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area in northwestern Ontario and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southern Ontario. The municipalities and First Nations are planning votes for next year, the culmination of a years-long information gathering process that some say has left deep divisions within their communities.

The process to move ahead with a deep geological repository is already more than 20 years along. The NWMO was established under legislation in 2002 and is funded by the corporations that generate nuclear power and waste, such as Ontario Power Generation and Hydro-Quebec.

While officials say they are confident at least one area will say yes, two rejections would be a major setback for the $26-billion project.

Ultimately, if both areas say no, then we have to start over — and by we I mean Canada,” said Lise Morton, the vice-president of site selection.

“We as a country would then be really pushing the resolution of this issue to the next generation.”

Both the municipality and First Nation in the area of either proposed site must confirm willingness to host the repository before the NWMO will proceed.

…………………………..there are a good number of people in the community who are not convinced — about 20 per cent are with Protect Our Waterways, the main opposition group, Goetz estimates — and it has caused “quite a friction.”

South Bruce is also in the shadow of Walkerton, Ont., where seven people died and thousands fell ill after drinking contaminated water in 2000. Fears about drinking water have lingered there long after the tragedy, said Bill Noll, vice chair of Protect Our Waterways.

Water also weighs heavily on the minds of members of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, who have seen members of another northwestern Ontario First Nation on the English-Wabigoon river system grapple with generations of mercury poisoning after a mill in Dryden dumped 9,000 kilograms of the substance in the 1960s.

“That’s the evidence right now of how an industry went astray or how government oversight wasn’t there,” said Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Chief Clayton Wetelain…………………………………………………….

all the tests and planning and modelling are not easing the fears of the project’s critics, either with the southern Ontario-based Protect Our Waterways or We the Nuclear Free North.

“The whole thing is a grand experiment,” said Brennain Lloyd, with the northern group.

“There’s not a deep geological repository … operating anywhere in the world. The NWMO likes to say, ‘Well, this is best international practice,’ but practice implies that it’s been done before. And there is no practice. Nobody has done this before.”…………………………………………………………………………….more https://www.cp24.com/news/site-for-canada-s-underground-nuclear-waste-repository-to-be-selected-next-year-1.6701756

“There is a big concern relative to water,” Noll said. “Once you pollute the water, there’s not much you can do about it.”

December 28, 2023 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Buried secrets, plutonium poisoned bodies

Why did a Truchas woman die with extraordinary amounts of plutonium in her body — and why was she illegally autopsied? For this reporter, the answers hit close to home.

Searchlight, by Alicia Inez Guzmán, December 20, 2023

The first reference to her comes, of all places, on an airplane. It’s the end of April and sitting next to me is Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. Both of us are on our way back to Santa Fe from Washington, D.C., after the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s weeklong annual gathering. Coghlan, galvanized by the last several days of activities, spends most of the flight ticking down his list of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s most recent sins. But suddenly he turns to the past.

“Did you know that the person with the highest levels of plutonium in her body after the atomic detonation at Trinity Site was a woman from Truchas?” he asks me. The remark, more hearsay than fact, piques my interest. As Coghlan knows, that’s my pueblito, the place in northern New Mexico where I grew up on land passed down through many generations of women. Tina Cordova — co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium — would know more, he adds. “Ask her.” 

Truchas, short for Nuestra Señora del Rosario, San Fernando y Santiago del Río de las Truchas, sits on a ridge in the Sangre de Cristo mountains, 8,000 feet above sea level. With some 370 people in town, most everybody keeps up with the latest mitote, or gossip, at the local post office. A regional variation of Spanish is still spoken by elders. Bloodlines go back centuries. And neighbors might also be relatives. If she is from this tiny, but remarkable, speck on the map, I must at least know of her. My mom, a deft weaver of family trees, definitely would. 

Truchas is also 225 miles north of the Trinity Site, the location of the world’s first atomic blast. On July 16, 1945, at the peak of monsoon season, a clandestine group of scientists lit up the skies of the Chihuahuan Desert with the equivalent of 24.8 kilotons of TNT. In the first 10 days, wind would carry the radioactive fallout across 46 states — so far, in fact, that the Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, New York, traced spots on film to radioactive material released by the bomb.

It’s plausible, given such an expansive reach, that this Trucheña who Coghlan casually mentions is among a wave of Trinity’s first unknowing victims. Historically, she signals a profound rupture in time — before nuclear weapons and after. But at the moment, his comment seems impossible to grasp. It’s only in hindsight that the single most important question takes form, one that will dog me for more than six months: Who is she?

Incomprehensible autopsies 

Just over a month later, I hear about her for the second time, at a journalism conference………………………………………………….  this time adding the original source of the information: the Los Alamos Historical Document Retrieval and Assessment project, known as the LAHDRA report.

Published in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and based on millions of classified and unclassified documents from the earliest years of the Manhattan Project to the late 1990s — the report’s stated purpose was to identify “all available information” concerning radioactive materials and chemicals released at Los Alamos National Laboratory (known as the Los Alamos Scientific Library from 1947 to 1981).

Some of the documents are autopsy records, I come to find. The lab routinely released plutonium into the air from several facilities on its campus, but it wasn’t until 1978 that it began to measure those releases consistently. One question that preoccupied researchers was whether data culled from the autopsies would reveal higher rates of plutonium in people who lived near or worked in those nuclear facilities.

There is another cache of autopsies, too, for the scientific equivalent of a control group — randomly selected people who simply lived and died in northern New Mexico. Cases from the control group were also analyzed, the report added, “in an effort to review the possible plutonium exposure from the July 16, 1945 Trinity test.”

I quickly scroll down to see which person in this group had the highest plutonium levels. And there it is: The highest levels do indeed belong to an unnamed woman from Truchas, alive at the time of the Trinity detonation. 

But what comes next in the report will preoccupy me for months: “The plutonium concentration in her liver was 60 times higher than that of the average New Mexico resident.”

The number is incomprehensible to me. First, the actual amount is never stated, nor is the amount for the average New Mexican. But there is also a glaring contradiction that I detect only after reading the paragraph’s final cryptic line many times over. Fallout from Trinity, it essentially explains, didn’t cascade over Truchas until 12 hours after the initial blast. At that distance, there was no telling whether fallout could be inhaled or ingested — the most direct and harmful paths of entry.  

It’s a paradox. Trinity stood out as the most obvious culprit — she was, after all, alive when it was detonated — but even the researchers weren’t certain. The only fact is the plutonium itself. Somewhere, somehow it entered her body in the form of barely visible specks of alpha radiation. And once there, those particles began a long migration, from her bloodstream to her kidneys and, ultimately, to her liver. The question is how?

The entry is most striking for its brevity, no more than a paragraph amid the report’s 638 pages. Partly, this has to do with the expansive scope of the LAHDRA project, which covers far more than these autopsies, and partly because of the secrecy and laws that protect personal privacy. 

 Through the prism of science, this Trucheña is a single, mysterious data point. From this same prism, the unwritten parts of her life look like negative space. But when I imagine who she is, I also imagine what would fill that space — all the parts of her story that must exist but have been left out.

For now, I don’t even know her name.

Exotic poison

In an interview with the Atomic Heritage Foundation in 1965, chemist Glenn Seaborg described plutonium as “one of the most exotic metals in the periodic table — maybe the most.” Seaborg had created plutonium out of uranium in 1940 and still, 25 years later, at least some of its properties were anomalous.

How plutonium poisoned the body was also largely unknown. The survivors in Nagasaki, Japan, where U.S. forces dropped a plutonium bomb on August 9, 1945, began to see increased rates of leukemia in the years immediately following the blast, most notably among children. Twelve years later, tumor registries were founded to track the cancer incidences in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the United States detonated “Little Boy,” a uranium bomb, on Aug. 6, 1945.

But in Los Alamos, there were only three instances of acute radiation poisoning — Harry Daghlian in 1945, Louis Slotin, in 1946, and Cecil Kelley, in 1958. Daghlian and Slotin both received a fatal blast of radiation while handling the same core of plutonium, the “demon core” as it was later dubbed. Daghlian died 25 days after the accident; Slotin survived for only nine. Kelley died within 35 hours of performing an operation to purify and concentrate plutonium in a large mixing tank. As the tank swirled, the plutonium inside it assumed the right shape and size to produce a brief nuclear chain reaction. The injuries the men suffered were ghastly.

Besides those were the less dramatic cases: Nuclear workers who were routinely exposed to much smaller amounts of plutonium on the job, and citizens exposed through atmospheric testing, which began in Nevada in 1951 and didn’t end in America until 1963. By the time of Kelley’s death, data on those other groups had yet to be collected, much less analyzed.

When I email Joseph Shonka, the primary author of the LAHDRA report, I get my first insights about the Human Tissue Analysis Program, a landmark project that gathered data about how plutonium exposure affected people’s health long-term.

“During the concerns about global fallout in the late 1950s and 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission conducted a research program to measure the levels of plutonium in US residents,” he replied by email in August. The research was based on “plutonium workers who voluntarily agreed to contribute their bodies to research, as well as appropriately obtained tissues from autopsies from nearby residents of AEC facilities and from random individuals across the US, including New Mexico.”

I can’t help but obsess over two words: “appropriately obtained.” History tells of doctors performing grisly acts in the name of science, but that was before the dawn of biomedical ethics. I’d assumed that those ethics had become self-evident in  modern-day autopsy practices and that tissues were always “appropriately obtained.” That’s not the case here, I realize after an Internet search. How the tissues for this research program were obtained was, in fact, deeply controversial, if not unlawful. 

Autopsy authority from ‘God’

In 1996, Cecil Kelley’s wife and daughter filed a class-action lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California, the school that had managed the lab since 1943, and 10 other defendants, including former lab director Norris E. Bradbury. The autopsies, unlawful and fraudulent, were conducted on both lab employees and the general public “without the knowledge, informed consent, or permission of the families involved,” the complaint asserted. What occurred, it went on, was the “unauthorized and illegal research and experimentation” on the corpses of hundreds of New Mexico residents and others around the country. And plaintiffs only became aware of it, “to their extreme shock and horror,” many decades after the fact. In the press, it was known as the case of the “body snatchers.” 

The human tissue program began on Jan. 1, 1959, a day after Cecil Kelley’s horrific death. Clarence Lushbaugh, who worked for the lab and was also the pathologist and chief of staff at Los Alamos Medical Center, had long been waiting for “an employee with known exposure to radioactive substances to die so that the body could be autopsied and the radioactivity of the lungs could be counted,” legal filings said. “Mr. Kelley’s accident and subsequent death provided Defendant Lushbaugh with the opportunity he’d been waiting for.”

By the program’s end in 1985, 271 lab workers and 1,825 members of the general population, from New Mexico and across the country, had been secretly autopsied and their organs sent to the lab to be studied for plutonium content. Besides the obvious transgressions, the project had a number of other yawning flaws, including 489 tissue samples that were lost when a freezer failed.

Participating pathologists, first at Los Alamos Medical Center, the program’s unofficial headquarters in New Mexico, and then in other cities, ostensibly performed the autopsies to determine a person’s cause of death. But that was just a cover for the real motive, which was to entirely remove and analyze lungs, kidneys, spleen, vertebrae, lymph nodes and, in men, gonads, the class action asserted. 

The pathologists “exercised a clause in their autopsy permit form that allowed collection of tissues for ‘scientific research,’ a U.S. General Accounting Office report later said. “As a result, Los Alamos officials did not feel it was necessary to obtain their own informed consent documentation.” Families, in other words, were never asked for permission.

Among the records, I read about Kelley’s particularly ghoulish autopsy; Lushbaugh stored his entire nervous system in a mayonnaise jar and sent his brain to Washington, D.C., for study. When asked in his deposition who granted him the authority to do so, Lushbaugh said “God.”

Clues without names

A kind of armor protects the lab’s nuclear secrets. For that reason alone, I have little faith that I will be able to identify her — the anonymous Trucheña with 60 times more plutonium in her body than any other New Mexican autopsied in this hair-raising study.  But I keep looking. Maybe it’s that I believe finding her can reaffirm, in some small measure, her humanity. All I know is that I need a tangible public record. And the class-action lawsuit is the best and only place to start. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………….  volume 37 of “Health Physics, a medical journal devoted to radiation safety. Published in 1979, it contains the biggest lead yet — a list of the Human Tissue Analysis Program’s decedents in New Mexico and across the country, all unnamed.

Each entry reads like a bullet point: Case number, occupation, residence, state and cause of death. A separate column includes sex, age, years of living in Los Alamos — if they did live there — and year of death. The columns reveal, in clinical and unnerving detail, each organ by weight and radioactivity, if any.

Here, there is no whole greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, it’s the parts that so preoccupied researchers — line after line of organs measured down to the gram, and line after line of radioactivity measured down to disintegrations per minute. But the story I glean is more complicated than these facts and figures alone. It’s about the scientific desire to reduce people into mere objects of study and the violence of that reduction.

…………………………………………………………………………..“Epifania S. Trujillo, a lifelong resident of Truchas died at the age of 91, September 26, in the Los Alamos Medical Center following a long illness,” reads the October 1972 obituary in the Rio Grande Sun. “She is survived by two daughters, Mrs. Cosme Romero of Truchas and Mrs. Glenn Manges of Gallup; a sister Veronice Padilla of Truchas, 25 grandchildren and 35 great-grandchildren.”

…………………………………………….I tell them (descendants of Epifania Trujillo), she had by far the most plutonium in her body of any other New Mexico resident who was autopsied as part of that macabre program. 

…………………It might explain, she (Cecilia Romero, granddaughter) continues, “why so many in the family have gotten cancer.” She begins to run down the list. 

“My oldest brother, Sam, died of multiple myeloma. Susie had pancreatic cancer. My mom died of pancreatic cancer. Nora got pancreatic cancer, which is metastatic, so she now suffers from lung cancer. Mary Helen and I have both had breast cancer. And Henry had prostate cancer.” Only one sibling, Bernice, was spared. (Cecilia and Nora said they had genetic testing for both pancreatic and breast cancer risk that showed those cancers were not hereditary.) 

I’m shocked. The only time I’ve heard of such a pervasive history of cancer is in conversations with Tina Cordova, Bernice Gutierrez and Mary Martinez White, all members of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, who lived within 50 miles of the Trinity Site, where the world’s first atomic bomb was detonated. But this is different. Truchas is 225 miles from Trinity. How did a woman living at that distance end up with such an extraordinary amount of plutonium in her liver?

As I keep talking to the two sisters, I realize the answer might lie closer to home — Los Alamos.

Cosme (Cecilia’s father) was the only one in the family who worked at the lab. That he could have unwittingly carried home undetectable radioactive particles on his clothing and boots and trigger illness throughout the family had long flickered in the Romeros’ minds. But they never could have guessed that Epifania might be the bellwether. She lived to the age of 91 — no small feat — and did not suffer from cancer herself. But over the long arc of time, almost everyone around her did. 

…………………………………………………. Cosme worked at Technical Area 8, a “hot site.” 

Rare photos from TA-8 

Technical Area 8, also known as Gun Site, was named after the gun-type design used in Little Boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The War Department built the facility off of Los Alamos’s West Jemez Road, complete with three “bombproof” concrete buildings and a firing range for scientists to study projectiles and ballistics. Research there involved “high explosives, plutonium, uranium, arsenic, lithium hydride, and titanium oxide,” as one lab document read. 

……………………………………………………… What, precisely, did Cosme do at the lab? And could he have brought home the plutonium that affected Epifania?

……………………….Safety measures at LANL have changed since Cosme’s time and today include shielding, protective clothing, air sampling, radiation safety evaluations and other precautions, all aimed at safeguarding workers, the environment and the community, according to LANL spokespeople.

………. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself has recorded instances of radioactive “take-home toxins.” How many times might workers have taken toxins home and never known?

“I’ve visited hundreds of nuclear workers’ homes over the years, possibly thousands,” says Marco Kaltofen, a specialist in nuclear forensics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, who wrote a 2018 report on nuclear workers’ house dust.

…………………………………….. The kind of plutonium used to make nuclear weapons, plutonium 239, has a 24,000-year radioactive half-life. With that lifespan, the particles could still be present today in a forgotten corner of an attic, cellar or basement, Kaltofen says. Radioactive dust is not only a “potential source of internal radiation exposure to nuclear site workers,” his report warned: It could also expose their families “via secondary contamination.”

Plutonium and cancer 

Health studies have shown that residents downwind of the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington state, where plutonium was first produced at full-scale, have high incidences of all cancers, including uterine, ovarian, cervical and breast. 

There is also evidence suggesting that exposure to ionizing radiation, which includes alpha particles emitted by plutonium, is linked to an increase in pancreatic cancer. Additional research at LANL — the unpublished Zia Study — posits that increased radiation exposure among male employees between 1946 and 1978 led to increased rates of pancreatic cancer deaths. Any cumulative exposure to low doses of radiation is associated with higher risks of death by cancer, recent research shows. 

………………………………………..It’s almost too easy to think of all the ways the Romero children, and the cousins who occasionally lived with them, could have come into contact with radioactive dust, and how their bodies, still growing, could have been poisoned. 

The last clue

…………………………………………………………………………. Seeing her name among the court records is definite proof — Epifania was unlawfully autopsied as part of the Human Tissue Analysis Program.

……………………………………Indeed, it’s not until over a decade after the suit was settled that the Romeros get all the wrenching news at once: Their father might have brought home toxic plutonium on his work clothes; their grandmother was unlawfully autopsied; the family was left out of the settlement altogether; and Los Alamos had a hand in all of it. Epifania, emblematic of so much, fell through the cracks in every way possible…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Alicia Inez Guzmán

alicia@searchlightnm.org

Raised in the northern New Mexican village of Truchas, Alicia Inez Guzmán has written about histories of place, identity, and land use in New Mexico. She brings this knowledge to her current role at Searchlight.   https://searchlightnm.org/buried-secrets-poisoned-bodies/?utm_source=Searchlight+New+Mexico&utm_campaign=c42014a33e-12%2F20%2F2023+-+Buried+secrets%2C+poisoned+bodies&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e05fb0467-c42014a33e-395610620&mc_cid=c42014a33e&mc_eid=a70296a261

December 21, 2023 Posted by | - plutonium, health, Legal, USA | Leave a comment