nuclear-news

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

Isotopic signature of plutonium accumulated in cryoconite on glaciers worldwide

Science Direct, Volume 951, 15 November 2024,

Edyta Łokas a, Giovanni Baccolo b, Anna Cwanek a, Jakub Buda c, Katarzyna Kołtonik a, Nozomu Takeuchi d, Przemysław Wachniew e, Caroline Clason f, Krzysztof Zawierucha c, Dylan Bodhi Beard g, Roberto Ambrosini h, Francesca Pittino i, Andrea Franzetti i, Philip N. Owens j, Massimiliano Nastasi kl, Monica Sisti i, Biagio Di Mauro m

Highlights

  • •Cryoconite samples show larger deposition of 239+240Pu, but not of 238Pu, in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere
  • •Isotopic signatures of Pu in cryoconite show that besides the global fallout the regional contributions may be significant
  • •First evidence of 238Pu contamination from the crash of Interplanetary Station “Mars’96”

Abstract

Glaciers are recognized as repositories for atmospheric pollutants, however, due to climate change and enhanced melting rates, they are rapidly transitioning from being repositories to secondary sources of such apollutants. Artificial radionuclides are one of the pollutants found on glaciers that efficiently accumulate onto glacier surfaces within cryoconite deposits; a dark, often biogenic sediment. This work provides information about the accumulation, distribution and sources of plutonium (Pu) isotopes in cryoconite samples from glaciers worldwide.

 Plutonium is an artificial radionuclide spread into the environment in the last decades as a consequence of nuclear test explosions, accidents and nuclear fuel re-processing. Samples collected from 49 glaciers across nine regions of Earth are considered. Activity concentrations of plutonium in cryoconite are orders of magnitude higher than in other environmental matrices typically used for environmental monitoring (e.g. lichens, mosses, soils and sediments), particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. 

 Isotopic ratios indicate that plutonium contamination of cryoconite is dominated by the global signal of stratospheric fallout related to atmospheric nuclear tests. However, specific glaciers in Svalbard reveal a signature compatible with a contribution from the re-entry of the SNAP-9A satellite in 1964, which was equipped with a 238Pu radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Similarly, an excess of 238Pu is observed in cryoconite from the Exploradores Glacier (Chile). This could be associated with the November 1996 crash of the automatic Interplanetary Station “Mars ’96” which was carrying a 238Pu thermoelectric generator. This is the first time ever that an isotopic evidence for this event is reported. These findings highlight the role that cryoconite can play in reconstructing the radioactive contamination history of different glaciated regions of the Earth.

Introduction

Atmospherically derived radioactivity is the component of environmental radioactivity that is deposited on the Earth’s surface through wet and dry deposition from the atmosphere. The deposited radionuclides are also named fallout radionuclides (FRNs). Some FRNs have a natural origin, such as cosmogenic 7Be and 14C, or are decay products of primordial isotopes. This is the case for 210Pb, which derives from 238U.

However, most FRNs are artificial and occur globally as a result of atmospheric nuclear tests and unintentional nuclear accidents (UNSCEAR, 1982, UNSCEAR, 2000). A key requirement when dealing with environmental radioactivity is the assessment of contamination levels, including the reconstruction of contamination histories, the identification of transport pathways, and of the fate of the radioactivity released into the diverse environmental compartments (Engelbrecht and Schwaiger, 2008).

Glaciers are especially important for studying atmospheric fallout history (Jaworowski et al., 1978). First, glaciers consist of deposits of atmospheric precipitation and intrinsically accumulate fallout species, including FRNs. Under specific conditions (i.e. no melting, low horizontal ice flow), by studying the stratigraphy of ice and snow layers, it becomes possible to reconstruct the depositional history of FRNs (Gabrieli et al., 2011; Olivier et al., 2004). In addition to glacier ice, attention has recently turned to another environmental matrix typical of glaciated landscapes which accumulates radioactivity; cryoconite that is a type of sediment found on the surface of glaciers worldwide (Cook et al., 2016). …………………………………..

Plutonium (Pu) is a toxic, radioactive and predominately anthropogenic element produced through neutron irradiation of uranium in nuclear reactors and during nuclear weapon detonations (Zhong et al., 2019). The most significant releases of plutonium in the Northern Hemisphere were associated with global fallout (GF) resulting from atmospheric nuclear weapon tests carried out between 1945 and 1980, with a peak in the 1960s (UNSCEAR, 1982, UNSCEAR, 2000). 

Other important sources are related to catastrophic events such as the 1978 crash of the Cosmos-954 satellite, which had a nuclear reactor on board (Krey et al., 1979; Tracy et al., 1984), as well as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in 1986 (UNSCEAR, 2010) and the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011 (Povinec et al., 2013a; Povinec et al., 2013b).  Moreover, from 1964 to 1980, China conducted atmospheric nuclear testing at the Lop Nor test site in north-western Chi

The Northern Hemisphere has received two-thirds of global plutonium deposition (Clark et al., 2019). Fig. 1 illustrates the most significant atmospheric nuclear testing and accident sites in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, including those near the Equator. 

The tests conducted in the Northern Hemisphere have received significant interest but much less is known regarding the deposition that took place in the Southern Hemisphere. The United Kingdom (UK) was at the forefront of the atmospheric nuclear testing program in the Southern Hemisphere between 1952 and 1957 in Australian territory (Johansen et al., 2019), while France conducted extensive open-air nuclear testing in French Polynesia in the South Pacific Ocean from 1966 to 1974 (Bouisset et al., 2021). The UK tests resulted in a substantial amount of regional fallout (i.e., tropospheric fallout), compared to the higher-yield French tests, which contributed to the stratospheric fallout.

In 1964, the Transit 5BN3 satellite carrying a SNAP 9A radioisotope thermoelectric generator, launched by the United States of America (USA), failed to achieve orbit. The satellite burned up when descending into the upper atmosphere over Madagascar. The 238Pu load (1 kg) was dispersed worldwide and was detected globally in the environment, even in remote areas. Most of the fallout of 238Pu from this satellite occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (Hardy et al., 1972, Hardy et al., 1973). 

Another important event, although not well-documented, was reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (Radiation and Safety, 2001) in their inventory of accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive material. According to the report, it involved the atmospheric re-entry of the automatic Interplanetary Station “Mars ’96”, which was launched on November 16th, 1996. The station fell off the coast of Chile near the border with Bolivia and has not been located to date.

Plutonium isotope deposition after weapons testing can be local, regional and global, depending on detonation height, yield and meteorological conditions ………………….

This study, for the first time, presents a comprehensive global analysis of the variation in activity concentrations of 238Pu and 239+240Pu, along with activity (238Pu/239+240Pu) and atomic (240Pu/239Pu) ratios, observed in cryoconite on glaciers from both hemispheres. 

…………………………….Conclusions

This study provides new insights into the provenance of Pu isotopes (238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu) in glaciers based on cryoconite samples collected from nine glaciated regions of six continents. The 239+240Pu activity concentrations are significantly higher in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, which reflects the uneven deposition of global fallout between hemispheres. Within the Northern Hemisphere the highest concentrations occur in Scandinavia and the European Alps…………………………………………….. more https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724055062

October 27, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium | Leave a comment

Plutonium just had a bad day in court

In a major decision whose consequences are still being assessed, a federal judge declared that plutonium pit production — one ingredient in the U.S. government’s $1.5 trillion nuclear weapons expansion — has to be performed in accordance with the nation’s strongest environmental law

SEARCHLIGHT NEW MEXICO, by Alicia Inez Guzmán, October 17, 2024

Most Americans don’t seem aware of it, but the United States is plunging into a new nuclear arms race. At the same time that China is ramping up its arsenal of nuclear weapons, Russia has become increasingly bellicose. After a long period of relative dormancy, the U.S. has embarked on its own monumental project to modernize everything in its arsenal — from bomb triggers to warheads to missile systems — at a cost, altogether, of at least $1.5 trillion.

Los Alamos National Laboratory plays a vital role as one of two sites set to manufacture plutonium “pits,” the main explosive element in every thermonuclear warhead. But as a recent court ruling makes clear, the rush to revive weapons production has pushed environmental considerations — from nuclear waste and increases in vehicular traffic to contamination of local waterways, air and vegetation — to the wayside. 

That just changed dramatically. On Sept. 30, United States District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of South Carolina ruled that the federal government violated the National Environmental Policy Act — the “Magna Carta” of federal environmental law — when it formulated and began to proceed with plans to produce plutonium pits at LANL and the Savannah River Site, in Aiken, South Carolina. 

“[T]he Court is unconvinced Defendants took a hard look at the combined effects of environmental impacts of their two-site strategy,” Lewis wrote of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which together oversee America’s nuclear weapons stockpile.

The ruling was momentous for the anti-nuclear community. But it was also mystifying, because Judge Lewis didn’t provide a roadmap for how to move forward with this extraordinarily complicated policy dispute. Rather than bringing pit production to a halt — which plaintiffs argued for in their original complaint, filed in 2021 — the judge instead ordered the parties to reach some sort of “middle ground” among themselves and submit a joint proposal by Oct. 25. What that will consist of is anybody’s guess. The judge was clear on one point, though — she’ll be keeping a close eye on the matter by maintaining jurisdiction over the case. Injunctive relief, she added, could still be in the cards. 

NEPA’s rules require that agencies take a “hard look” at potential environmental impacts. NEPA does not, however, dictate what decision should be made once those impacts are identified. 

Previous impact statements have spelled out a vast array of potential hazards for nuclear facilities. These have included an “inadvertent criticality event,” which happens when nuclear material produces a chain reaction and a pulse of potentially fatal radioactivity. Another risk is fire igniting inside a glovebox — the sealed enclosure where radioactive materials like plutonium are handled — and then resisting suppression, leading to widespread contamination. Other possibilities: a natural gas explosion at vulnerable nuclear sites or a wildfire on LANL’s sprawling campus, which is bounded on all sides by the towns of Los Alamos and White Rock, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, the Santa Fe National Forest and Bandelier National Monument.

“Perhaps more significantly,” Judge Lewis stated, those impact statements “provide a springboard for public comment,” a kind of mechanism for citizens to express criticism and concern and, in some cases, identify a project’s blindspots — risks to people and places that have not been properly taken into account. 

An announcement from the DOE the following day was telling, if not defiant: The first plutonium pit manufactured as part of this modernization program was ready to be deployed into the stockpile. That pit — made at LANL but the product of multiple facilities across the nation’s nuclear weapons complex — is intended for a new warhead, which will be strapped into a new intercontinental ballistic missile called the Sentinel. The Sentinel program, at $140 billion, is one of the costliest in the history of the U.S. Air Force……………………………………………………………………….

Now, almost 40 years later, the court found that the agencies charged with reviving the nuclear weapons complex have not properly evaluated the perils that could come with turning out plutonium pits at two different sites, thousands of miles apart. For the plaintiffs in this case — which include Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition — Lewis’s decision to intervene is a milestone.

“We’ve had a pretty significant victory here on the environmental front,” said Tom Clements, the director of Savannah River Site Watch. “Nonprofit public interest groups are able to hold the U.S. Department of Energy accountable.” 

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. For LANL, which sits on the kind of forested land typical of the Pajarito Plateau, wildfire is a major risk. …………………………………………………..

A “parade of horribles”

The array of sites that play some role in this latest phase of pit production goes well beyond LANL and SRS, and includes existing facilities in Amarillo, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; and Livermore, California. Hypothetically, if the feds ever produce the kind of environmental impact statement plaintiffs demand, it could potentially cover this entire constellation, requiring public hearings at each location and in Washington, D.C………………………………………… more https://searchlightnm.org/federal-judge-ruling-plutonium-pits-environmental-impact/?utm_source=Searchlight+New+Mexico&utm_campaign=ae33d0dc0a-10%2F15%2F2024+%E2%80%93+Plutonium&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e05fb0467-ae33d0dc0a-395610620&mc_cid=ae33d0dc0a&mc_eid=a70296a261

October 19, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

The Energy Department just made one plutonium pit. Making more is uncertain

Bulletin, By Dylan Spaulding | October 10, 2024

Two conflicting developments arose this month in US efforts to produce new plutonium pits for its nuclear weapons: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced it had produced a warhead-ready pit—the explosive core of a nuclear weapon—for the first time in decades, and a federal court ruled that NNSA will be required to consider the cumulative environmental and health impacts of its pit production program.

Overshadowing these events is a vigorous debate over the necessity for new pits at all. Previous analyses have found that plutonium pits have viable lifespans well beyond the expected service life of the current stockpile, whereas production of pits for new weapons is part of a sweeping US nuclear modernization that raises concern over the future of arms control and any possibility for stockpile reductions at a time of deteriorating international relations.

The two most recent developments illustrate a critical tension in the US nuclear weapons program: New pit production demonstrates a doubling down of US reliance on nuclear weapons for the 21st century. The failure to adhere to environmental policy in doing so highlights the unwitting cost that US citizens may bear for this policy choice—as they have repeatedly in the past………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…….Production challenges. Despite any fanfare, demonstrating the ability to certify one plutonium pit doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing toward Los Alamos’s mandated production goals.

The Los Alamos’ Plutonium Facility at Technical Area 55 (PF-4) is conducting the dangerous and difficult work of pit production while also undergoing construction and modernization, with work happening round-the-clock—several other plutonium-related missions are pursued under the same roof. The facility has been criticized for deficiencies in personal safety and safety-related engineering, including recent glovebox fires, floods, worker exposure to plutonium and beryllium, and violations of criticality safety rules. The likelihood of such incidents increases as a result of fast-paced work in close-quarters with a mostly new  workforce. In 2013, the PF-4 facility was shut down for three years following a severe criticality safety violation; a repeat could prove fatal, literally and figuratively.

…………………………………………… Regardless of Los Alamos’ success, the congressionally mandated quota of 80 pits per year remains impossible to meet by NNSA’s own admission. This number relies on completion and commissioning of a second production facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, which won’t be operational until the mid-2030s at the earliest.

Just as the future rate of plutonium pit production is uncertain, the missile these pits are intended for—the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile—is also not likely to be completed on schedule. The troubled Sentinel project remains vastly over budget and behind schedule, putting its future at risk and making coordination of the warhead and missile difficult to foresee. Problems or changes in scope for either program will affect the other.

A federal court ruling.  Coinciding with NNSA’s announcement of the first diamond-stamped pit, a US District Court ruled that the Energy Department and the NNSA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to properly consider alternatives before proceeding with pit production, requiring the agency to conduct a programmatic environmental impact assessment.

This was a victory for transparency and the community groups—among them, Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition—who, for years, have been asking for such an assessment.

Reestablishing pit production on the scale now contemplated is potentially the biggest investment in the nuclear weapons complex since the Manhattan Project. With it comes hiring and training of thousands of new employees, increased transportation between sites, new construction, safely handing radioactive material, and the generation of new nuclear waste. The cumulative nature of these activities, occurring across many Energy Department’s sites, demands that the impacts of pit production be considered holistically in the form of a programmatic environmental impact assessment.

The environmental impact statements issued by the national laboratories offer perhaps the best public-facing analyses of whether their plans comply with standards for protection of public safety and the environment, including the likelihood of specific scenarios and associated risk of public exposure to hazards such as chemicals or radiation. Still, the NNSA has—until now—resisted issuing such a programmatic statement.

The agency clearly recognizes that pit production involves much of the US nuclear weapons complex. The press release announcing the first diamond-stamped pit thanked workers in Kansas City, Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Los Alamos, and the Pantex plant in Texas. But the NNSA has so far relied on a series of addenda and supplements to a 2008 environmental impact statement for work at Los Alamos and considers Savannah River separately. These assessments largely ignore the cross-complex collaboration required and the subsequent risks, including impacts on the potentially overburdened Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico that must absorb the prolific—and complex—waste stream from the pit production process.

The court ruling—which holds that the Energy Department and the NNSA did not follow environmental requirements in pursuing two production sites—will require the NNSA to conduct a new review, bringing renewed public scrutiny and allowing a new opportunity for input from concerned opponents.

An unclear horizon. A programmatic environmental impact statement can take years before it’s finalized. The judge in the case declined to halt construction at NNSA’s second pit production site at Savannah River while the new assessment is being carried out, and the two parties have until October 21st to seek an agreement.  It’s likely that the NNSA will argue that stopping pit-production work would be too expensive, too disruptive, and too damaging to national security to consider. It remains unclear what the potential consequences could be if the NNSA decides to challenge the ruling.

While work at Los Alamos is likely to continue amid a programmatic assessment, design choices are still underway at the Savannah River Site, where the NNSA is attempting to retrofit the troubled former mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication plant which never reached productivity despite more than $7 billion of investment. This site is years away from being active and will require extensive transformation that may cost as much as $25 billion. Given this enormous investment, a programmatic environmental impact statement can ensure that this transformation better addresses the actual hazards and better protects communities, workers, and the environment.

Reestablishing pit production in the United States is a massive undertaking. It involves resurrecting a lost capacity that requires complicated engineering, construction, and extremely hazardous work processes that will be carried out by a largely new work force with little to no prior experience. NNSA and its contractors must manage safety risks across multiple sites where new hazardous waste will be generated in communities that don’t want it and where the Energy Department has a poor historic track record of environmental stewardship.

Congress and the Biden administration should eliminate the mandated 80 pit per year requirement while the NNSA conducts a new, thorough environmental assessment that would go a long way toward promoting increased safety and public protection—a challenge that the NNSA and the labs should take seriously.  https://thebulletin.org/2024/10/the-energy-department-just-made-one-plutonium-pit-making-more-is-uncertain/

October 18, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Plutonium vs Democracy: A Necessary Debate

by Gordon Edwards and Susan O’Donnell submitted to the CNSC on September 30 2024

www.ccnr.org/CCNR_CNSC_Plutonium_Paper_Sept_30_2024.pdf

The following appeal was inserted into the document:

An Appeal for Public Consultation

There is a growing pressure on the government of Canada to allow the civilian use of plutonium as a commercial reactor fuel. Such a move requires extracting plutonium from used nuclear fuel, thereby making it accessible. Once accessible, plutonium can be used as a nuclear fuel or as a nuclear explosive. Even a crude explosive device using plutonium is capable of causing enormous destruction and killing thousands.

The security measures needed to safeguard society from the threat of nuclear terrorism when plutonium becomes an article of commerce are so severe that our democratic way of life will be seriously threatened. Enforced secrecy, intrusive surveillance, and privately maintained security forces equipped with military-style weapons, are not what Canadians have come to expect from their energy suppliers.

In the last two decades, Canada has seen the wisdom of eliminating weapons-usable uranium entirely from civilian use, thereby obviating the need for extreme security measures otherwise needed to keep that material out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. In the same way, keeping plutonium out of circulation is the best way to prevent the further growth of a powerful nuclear security regime that is becoming increasingly militarized, with access to prohibited weapons under Bill C-21.

We urge CNSC to advise Parliament that there is a need in Canada for a broad public consultation or debate on the social desirability of moving toward the civilian use of plutonium in Canada or choosing to avoid that option altogether. As in the case with highly enriched uranium, we believe that there is no demonstrable need for plutonium with or without an expanded nuclear industry. Given the stakes, it is up to the people of Canada to decide the issue by democratic means. That requires a mechanism of consultation that goes far beyond public hearings.

Rumina Velshi, a past president of CNSC, has said ““Reprocessing is going to be a huge, huge deal for this country. We need to be clear: If this is not an area that this country is interested in pursuing, put a stop to it. And if there is a possibility, then let’s at least start that conversation”

As an Agency whose legal mandate is to serve the public interest rather than the interests of the industry, we urge the CNSC to speak out publicly on this important matter so that Canadians are not blindly led into a future that they may live to regret.

Gordon Edwards and Susan O’Donnell, September 30 2024.

October 3, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium | Leave a comment

Japan and 11 other countries call for early start of fissile material ban talks

New York –  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/09/24/japan/politics/kishida-nuke-material-ban-treaty/
Japan and 11 other countries on Monday agreed to work together to launch negotiations immediately on a proposed treaty banning the production of fissile materials, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium, for nuclear weapons.

A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty will significantly contribute to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, high-level representatives from the 12 countries, including Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, said in a joint statement after a meeting in New York.

“A nondiscriminatory, multilateral and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices would represent a significant practical contribution to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation efforts,” the statement said.

“The participants confirmed that they would work closely together…for the immediate commencement of negotiations on an FMCT,” the statement said. The 12 countries included three nuclear powers — the United States, Britain and France.

Kishida told the meeting that a strong political will is needed to start FMCT negotiations. Creating a momentum for an early start of the negotiations will help to maintain and strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, he said.

He also said Japan will send hibakusha atomic bomb victims abroad to promote the understanding of the reality of exposure to nuclear weapons. Next year marks 80 years since the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

September 26, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Japan, Uranium | Leave a comment

How to Make a ‘War Reserve’ Nuclear Bomb

Earlier this year, at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, D.C., there was a palpable sense of excitement at the return to Cold War strategies of shoring up our nuclear arsenal. Today, with what some call the two-peer problem—Russia and China—and the specter of nuclear-armed rogue nations and terrorists, the NSE is racing against what-if targets. The language is aggressive. Opposition is largely mute. Congress has opened the tap. The NSE is hiring, training, building, and spending billions a year.

The dark art of crafting nuclear ‘pits’ was almost lost. Now it’s ramped up into a multibillion dollar industry.

The Progressive Magazine, by Jim Carrier , September 5, 2024

Sometime in the next few months a technician at Los Alamos National Laboratory, using an arc welder, will seal together two half-domes of plutonium, creating a “pit,” a seven-pound ball the size of a grapefruit, which, if tucked into America’s newest nuclear warhead and triggered above Times Square, would destroy most of Manhattan and kill more than 1.2 million people.

The bomb is part of a $1.7 trillion plan to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new pit, and hundreds like it, are being made for the W87-1, a new warhead designed to sit atop the Sentinel, a new intercontinental ballistic missile design that will replace all 400 Minuteman III missiles that have been on alert in silos across the Upper Midwest for the last five decades.

Not since the Manhattan Project, the crash program during World War II to invent the atomic bomb, has so much money and urgent energy been spent by the United States to create a weapon of mass destruction. In a paradox of nuclear madness, production of the W87-1—each one with a yield of around 400 kilotons, twenty times larger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is breathing life into the U.S. Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE), the agency that makes nuclear weapons and runs the planes, missiles, and submarines that deliver them.

The warhead “is reinvigorating and transforming the production complex such that NSE can once again produce all of the components typically required for modern nuclear warheads,” according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which designed the W87-1. “This work will give the nation expanded options for maintaining an effective nuclear deterrence posture for decades to come.”

Earlier this year, at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, D.C., there was a palpable sense of excitement at the return to Cold War strategies of shoring up our nuclear arsenal. Today, with what some call the two-peer problem—Russia and China—and the specter of nuclear-armed rogue nations and terrorists, the NSE is racing against what-if targets. The language is aggressive. Opposition is largely mute. Congress has opened the tap. The NSE is hiring, training, building, and spending billions a year.

At Los Alamos, the urgency can be seen inside Plutonium Facility Building 4, known as PF-4, the only building in the United States where plutonium pits are made. Working around the clock, technicians are dismantling old contaminated glove boxes—the laboratory apparatus that allow technicians using built-in gloves to work with toxic or volatile substances inside a sealed chamber—before a new shift of workers arrives to install shiny new steel glove boxes for work on the new pits…………………….

The process of turning plutonium into a bomb is a dark art—an alchemy invented in 1945 on the same New Mexico mesa. Wizards of physics and math who divined the immense energy locked within its atoms, together with master machinists, created the first atomic bomb, “Trinity,” and its copy, “Fat Man,” which destroyed Nagasaki with the power of twenty kilotons, or 20,000 tons of TNT. These two plutonium bombs produced enough heat and radiation to ignite, or trigger, the kind of fusion fire present in the sun.

One year later, as Baby Boom children were teething, Los Alamos blew up a similar plutonium bomb named “Baker” on Bikini Atoll. Its twenty-one-kiloton underwater eruption captured both the bounty of nuclear power and America’s intent to weaponize it.

During the Cold War, Los Alamos produced ninety-four different nuclear weapons—bigger, smaller, deadlier, more accurate. Many were thermonuclear, or hydrogen bombs, whose design, first revealed to the public by Howard Morland in this magazine in 1979, was theorized during the Manhattan Project. In 1952, Los Alamos, using a plutonium pit as a trigger, detonated its first thermonuclear bomb. That same year, the United States built the Rocky Flats Plant, a plutonium pit factory outside Denver. It produced 1,000 pits a year.

The hands-on, metallurgical master craft of fashioning pits was almost lost, though, when Rocky Flats was raided and closed in 1989 by the FBI for massive environmental crimes—the year the Soviet Union began to collapse, ending the Cold War. The NSE fell into a funk, reduced to cleaning up its messes and “stockpile stewardship.”……………………………………………………………………………………………….

“The reestablishment of pit production capabilities is the largest and most complex infrastructure undertaking at NNSA since shortly after the Manhattan Project,” Jill Hruby, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told the Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century Symposium on April 18. “Our current total estimated acquisition cost range for pit production is $28-37 billion . . . . I know that’s a lot of money . . . . Los Alamos is on track to diamond stamp the first fully qualified War Reserve pit for the W87-1 this year. We anticipate Los Alamos achieving the capability to produce the thirty pits per year envisioned by the two-site plan in or near 2028, with increased manufacturing rate confidence as we install equipment through 2030.”

he United States will never need to make plutonium again. During the Cold War, nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington, produced more than sixty tons of plutonium. Some 14,000 pits, made by Rocky Flats, each bearing the War Reserve diamond stamp, are warehoused in Pantex, Texas.

As Los Alamos cranks up its program, pits are brought from Pantex, torn apart, and subjected to pyrochemistry, which removes impurities. The metal is then heated into a hot syrup and poured into molds, creating two halves of a sphere. These are welded together. This process is done in rows of connected glove boxes, the plutonium moving from one to another in an overhead trolley system, and dumbwaiters that raise and lower it.

Today at Los Alamos, hundreds of people work at the plutonium factory, some of them making plutonium heaters for space vehicles. But on the pit side, fewer than ten people in the world are trained or are being trained to perform final pit assembly, which must be done by hand inside a large, walk-in glove box, wearing multiple layers of personal protective equipment to prevent plutonium contamination. These master machinists and welders hold Q clearances and undergo annual physical and mental exams. It can take up to four years to train them.

…………………………………………………………………………… fundamental questions are being raised. Scientists debate whether new pits are really needed when existing pits might last for decades. And the need for the W87-1 and the Sentinel missile itself is being questioned because of rising costs and its vulnerability as a land-based, easily targeted weapon. The Pentagon reported in July that the missile’s estimated cost has risen 81 percent over budget to $141 billion.

In New Mexico, two longtime watchdog organizations, the Los Alamos Study Group and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, list dozens of reasons to not make pits at Los Alamos: waste disposal, radiation deposits, earthquake potential, cost and schedule overruns among them.

“Every dollar spent at LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory] on this program is wasted,” wrote Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. “Every drum of waste produced in the process need not have been produced. Every career spent making these pits, or supporting the work, is a career that could have been spent building a sustainable, moral, responsible future. The LANL pit production program is a symptom of pure arrogance, greed, and management failure at the highest levels of government.”

………………………. As America’s nuclear train chugs forward, it is virtually certain that if the Sentinel missiles containing the Los Alamos pits are in their silos by the early 2030s, as planned, they will inflame an arms race that is already underway, while posing—if we’re lucky—nothing more than an apocalyptic threat in a new Cold War.  https://progressive.org/magazine/how-to-make-a-war-reserve-nuclear-bomb-carrier-20240905/

September 17, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Atomic Tragedy? Plutonium Levels Near US Nuclear Site In Los Alamos Similar To Chernobyl – New Study.

 https://www.eurasiantimes.com/plutonium-levels-at-los-alamos-comparab/—28 Aug 24

Los Alamos, the birthplace of the American atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project led by Robert Oppenheimer, is now facing a troubling revelation. According to a recent study by Northern Arizona University, plutonium levels in the area are alarmingly high, comparable to those found at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. 

The Guardian reported that “extreme concentrations” of plutonium were detected in soil, plants, and water around Los Alamos, a location in New Mexico that was once the center of the US nuclear weapons development. 

These findings were part of a study led by scientist Michael Ketterer, who noted that the levels of this radioactive material were “among the highest” ever found in a publicly accessible area in the US.

His research indicates that these levels are similar to those observed in Chornobyl, Ukraine, the site of the catastrophic nuclear spill during the Soviet era. 

Ketterer expressed shock at the discovery, stating, “This is one of the most shocking things I’ve ever stumbled across in my life.” He highlighted that these radioactive isotopes are “hiding in plain sight,” posing a significant environmental risk. 

Historically, from the 1940s until 1963, the Los Alamos National Laboratory disposed of radioactive waste into a nearby canyon, which eventually earned the nickname Acid Canyon due to its severe contamination. 

The Atomic Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy later initiated a massive remediation effort costing at least $2 billion, which was said to bring the area into compliance with federal cleanup standards by the 1980s. 

The land was subsequently released to Los Alamos County, which developed it into a popular dirt trail for bikers, hikers, and runners. 

Despite the high levels of plutonium detected, Ketterer said that the immediate danger to trail users is low. However, he cautioned that the environmental risks remain significant. 

Plutonium contamination can potentially infiltrate water supplies, ultimately flowing into the Rio Grande, and may enter the food chain through plants. Additionally, in the event of a wildfire, plutonium could be dispersed widely as ash. 

Public health advocates are also urging the government to post signage warning visitors about the contamination, which would allow them to make informed decisions about using the trail.  

Department oF Energy Downplays Risks

Tina Cordova of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium said that the findings serve as a stark reminder of New Mexico’s long-term radioactive challenges. 

She pointed out that the persistent presence of plutonium, which has a 24,000-year half-life, underscores a “terrible legacy” left by the Trinity bomb, which was notably inefficient and left behind a substantial amount of unfissioned plutonium.

However, the Department of Energy, in response to concerns, said that the detected plutonium levels at Los Alamos are “very low and well within the safe exposure range.”

Similarly, the US Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Los Alamos Field Office maintains that the concerns raised by Ketterer and Nuclear Watch align with data that has been publicly accessible for years and asserts that the canyon remains safe for unrestricted use. 

The Department references a 2018 study that estimates that individuals who frequent the canyon are exposed to less than 0.1 milligrams of radiation annually.

This level is notably lower compared to the average yearly radiation dose of 620 millirems from all sources, as reported by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

This study indicates that the radiation exposure in the canyon is well below the broader average, highlighting the relatively low risk for those using the area for recreational purposes.

However, Ketterer and his colleague Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch, caution that while the immediate health risks may be minimal, there are ongoing issues regarding the downstream migration of plutonium, its absorption by plants, and the potential spread of contaminated ash from wildfires. 

Ketterer described the situation as one that cannot be entirely resolved, likening attempts to clean the area to trying to remove salt from a shag carpet. 

He stressed the importance of transparency, suggesting that informing residents and visitors about the contamination is crucial, even if the problem itself cannot be fully rectified.

Meanwhile, the study’s release comes amid the Department of Defense’s announcement to increase plutonium pit production at Los Alamos, a key component in nuclear weapons. 

Concurrently, a defense bill recently approved by the US Senate provides expanded funding for those affected by government-related radioactive waste, but it notably excludes the Los Alamos area, a decision that has sparked outrage among local health advocates. 

August 30, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | 1 Comment

Extreme’ levels of plutonium contamination found in Los Alamos

  • Levels are comparable to Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine: Researcher
  • Government says area remains safe
  • Researchers say area visitors must be warned

Safia Samee Ali,  Aug 28, 2024,  https://www.newsnationnow.com/science/extreme-levels-plutonium-contamination-los-alamos/

NewsNation) — High levels of plutonium have been found around Los Alamos, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, raising alarms ahead of plans by the federal government to restart nuclear weapons manufacturing in the same area. 

Michael Ketterer, a Northern Arizona University professor emeritus who analyzed soil, water and vegetation samples taken along a popular hiking and biking trail in Acid Canyon, said that there were more extreme concentrations of plutonium found there than at other publicly accessible sites he has ever researched.

Ketterer has compared the levels to those found at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine. 

“This is one of the most shocking things I’ve ever stumbled across in my life,” he said. 

“It’s just an extreme example of very high concentrations of plutonium in soils and sediments. Really, you know, it’s hiding in plain sight.”

The Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Los Alamos Field Office said that the findings are consistent with department data that has been publicly available for years and that the canyon remains safe for unrestricted use.

But Nuclear Watch, a group Ketterer worked with, said officials need to warn people against coming in contact with water in Acid Canyon.

From 1943 until 1963, liquid and often radioactive waste was dumped down a canyon near Los Alamos National Laboratory, which gave it the name Acid Canyon. 

Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch, said plutonium contamination in the heart of Los Alamos is a concern, particularly as the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration are slated to begin producing plutonium pits once again in an effort to build up nuclear weaponry. 

The federal government began cleaning up Acid Canyon in the late 1960s and eventually transferred the land to Los Alamos County. 

Officials determined in the 1980s that conditions within the canyon met DOE standards and were protective of human health and the environment.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

August 29, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

High Detections of Plutonium in Los Alamos Neighborhood

As We Enter a New Nuclear Arms Race the Last One is Still Not Cleaned Up

 https://nukewatch.org/high-detections-of-plutonium-in-los-alamos-neighborhood/ 16 Aug 24

Santa Fe, NM – In April Nuclear Watch New Mexico released a map of plutonium contamination based on Lab data. Today, Dr. Michael Ketterer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Arizona University, is releasing alarmingly high results from samples taken from a popular walking trail in the Los Alamos Town Site, including detections of some of the earliest plutonium produced by humankind.

On July 2 and 17 Dr. Ketterer, with the assistance of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, collected water, soil and plant samples from Acid Canyon in the Los Alamos Town Site and soil and plant samples in Los Alamos Canyon at the Totavi gas station downstream from the Lab. The samples were prepared and analyzed by mass spectrometry at Northern Arizona University to measure concentrations of plutonium, and to ascertain its sources in the environment. For water samples, concentration is expressed in picocuries[1] per liter (pCi/L) and for soil and plants in picocuries per gram (pCi/g). The provenance of the plutonium was determined through isotopic examination of the ratio of 239Pu atoms to 240Pu atoms, which distinguishes it from global nuclear weapons testing fallout.

Acid Canyon is located in the heart of the Los Alamos Town Site, contiguous to the busy Aquatic Center which also has the trailhead for the popular walk into the Canyon. From 1943 to 1963 radioactive liquid wastes were disposed by piping them over the Canyon wall (plutonium is often processed with nitric acid, hence the Canyon’s name). Acid Canyon ultimately drains via the Los Alamos Canyon through San Ildefonso Pueblo lands to the Rio Grande. Earlier studies have identified Lab plutonium as far as 17 miles south in Cochiti Lake.

The Atomic Energy Commission “cleaned up” Acid Canyon in 1967 and released the land to Los Alamos County without restrictions. The Department of Energy performed some additional remediation and in 1984 certified that Acid Canyon was “in compliance with applicable DOE standards and guidelines for cleanup and that radiological conditions were protective of human health and the environment… No monitoring, maintenance, or site inspections are required.” [2]

Forty years later, Dr. Ketterer’s monitoring and inspections strongly indicate otherwise. His samples showed 239+240Pu activities as high as 86 pCi/L in water, 78 pCi/g in sediments, and 5.7 pCi/g in plant ash. He concluded:

“The 239+240Pu activities in all four water samples exceed the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s relevant gross alpha standard of 50 pCi/L and draw attention to an egregious water contamination problem mandating prompt USEPA and/or State intervention. This warrants immediate postings and efforts by State/local agencies to warn people and their pets away from contacting Acid Canyon water.”

While noting the threat of wildfires, as locals will recall the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire that forced the mandatory evacuations of the Lab and Los Alamos Town Site, Dr. Ketterer added,

“Of particular concern is the possibility of wildfire in Acid Canyon. The activity concentrations of 239+240Pu in Acid Canyon sediments and plant matter, along with the Canyon’s close proximity to residential areas of Los Alamos, represents an alarming potential situation of plutonium releases into the air, should a wildfire engulf the canyon.”

Approximately seven miles downstream from Acid Canyon, Dr. Ketterer found “Significant plant uptake of 239+240Pu near the Totavi Philips 66 station along NM Highway 502.”

Of historic interest, he noted,

“The repeated, consistent pattern of 240Pu/239Pu in the range 0.010 – 0.015, observed in the highly contaminated Acid Canyon sediments, water and vegetation, indicates that the Pu in Acid Canyon is some of the oldest known Pu contamination in the ambient environment – a portion of which likely pre-dates the Trinity Test itself.”

Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch, commented,

“Dr. Ketterer’s independent sampling of historic plutonium contamination demonstrates once again that we can’t trust the Department of Energy. This rings especially true as LANL plans to cut cleanup while spending at least $8 billion over the next 5 years to expand the production of plutonium “pit” bomb cores. We demand comprehensive cleanup of past radioactive contaminants and protection from the future radioactive wastes that will be generated by the new nuclear arms race.”

Dr. Michael Ketterer’s methodology, findings and conclusions are available at https://nukewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Ketterer-AcidCanyon-13Aug2024.pdf

August 18, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

Is nuclear waste able to be recycled? Would that solve the  nuclear waste problem?

Radioactive Wastes from Nuclear Reactors, Questions and Answers, Gordon Edwards 28 July 24.

Well, you know, the very first reactors did not produce electricity. They were built for the express purpose of creating plutonium for atomic bombs. Plutonium is a uranium derivative. It is one of the hundreds of radioactive byproducts created inside every uranium-fuelled reactor. Plutonium is the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made. Every large nuclear warhead in the world’s arsenals uses plutonium as a trigger.

But plutonium can also be used as a nuclear fuel. That first power reactor that started up in 1951 in Idaho, the first electricity-producing reactor, was called the EBR-1 — it actually suffered a partial meltdown. EBR stands for “Experimental Breeder Reactor” and it was cooled, not with water, but with hot liquid sodium metal.

By the way, another sodium-cooled electricity producing reactor was built right here in California, and it also had a partial meltdown. The dream of the nuclear industry was, and still is, to use plutonium as the fuel of the future, replacing uranium. A breeder reactor is one that can “burn” plutonium fuel and simultaneously produce even more plutonium than it uses. Breeder reactors are usually sodium-cooled.

In fact sodium-cooled reactors have failed commercially all over the world, in the US, France, Britain, Germany, and Japan, but it is still the holy grail of the nuclear industry, the breeder reactor, so watch out.

To use plutonium, you have to extract it from the fiercely radioactive used nuclear fuel. This technology of plutonium extraction is called reprocessing. It must be carried out robotically because of the deadly penetrating radiation from the used fuel.

Most reprocessing involves dissolving used nuclear fuel in boiling nitric acid and chemically separating the plutonium from the rest of the radioactive garbage. This creates huge volumes of dangerous liquid wastes that can spontaneously explode (as in Russia in 1957) or corrode and leak into the ground (as has happened in the USA). A single gallon of this liquid high-level waste is enough to ruin an entire city’s water supply.

In 1977, US President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing in the USA because of fears of proliferation of nuclear weapons at home and abroad. Three years earlier, in 1974, India tested its first atomic bomb using plutonium from a Canadian research reactor given to India as a gift.

The problem with using plutonium as a fuel is that it is then equally available for making bombs. Any well-equipped group of criminals or terrorists can make its own atomic bombs with a sufficient quantity of plutonium – and it only takes about 8 kilograms to do so. Even the crudest design of a nuclear explosive device is enough to devastate the core of any city.

Plutonium is extremely toxic when inhaled. A few milligrams is enough to kill any human within weeks through massive fibrosis of the lungs.

A few micrograms – a thousand times less– can cause fatal lung cancer with almost 100% certainty. So even small quantities of plutonium can be used by terrorists in a so-called “dirty bomb”. That’s a radioactive dispersal device using conventional explosives. Just a few grams of fine plutonium dust could threaten the lives of thousands if released into the ventilation system of a large office building.

So beware of those who talk about “recycling” used nuclear fuel. What they are really talking about is reprocessing – plutonium extraction – which opens a Pandora’s box of possibilities. The liquid waste and other leftovers are even more environmentally threatening, more costly, and more intractable, than the solid waste. Perpetual isolation is still required. ————

www.ccnr.org/Radioactive_Q&A_2024.pdf

July 29, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, reprocessing | Leave a comment

“Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue” – Catholic Archbishop John C Wester

 Nuclear weapons were invented here in my Archdiocese. Therefore, I feel a special responsibility to address humanity’s most urgent threat.

“Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue. No other issue can cause the immediate collapse of civilization. In January 2022 I wrote a pastoral letter in which I traced the Vatican’s evolution from its uneasy conditional acceptance of so-called deterrence to Pope Francis’ declaration  that the very possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. 

“Therefore, what does this say about expanded plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos Lab? And what does it say about the obscene amounts of money that are being thrown at pit production, often excused as job creation?

“What does this say about the fact that the [NNSA] is pursuing expanded pit production without providing the public the opportunity to review and comment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act? I specifically call upon NNSA to complete a new LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.

“In two weeks, I travel to Japan for the 79th atomic bombing anniversaries. The bishops of Santa Fe, Seattle, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a simple message for world leaders. You utterly failed to begin serious negotiations as required by the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty. In this era, you must demonstrate concrete steps toward multilateral, verifiable nuclear disarmament by the 80th bombing anniversaries a year from now.  http://nuclearactive.org/four-archbishops-urge-g7-leaders-to-undertake-concrete-steps-toward-nuclear-disarmament/

“I have a simple message for NNSA and the nuclear weapons labs. You’re very good at creating them. Now show us how smart you are by demonstrating how to get rid of nuclear weapons. Stop this new arms race that threatens all of civilization. Let’s preserve humanity’s potential to manifest God’s divine love toward all beings.

July 27, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: New evidence of increased activity

Night-time lights visible at the Yongbyon radiochemical laboratory suggest that North Korea is covertly importing spent fuel rods for plutonium extraction reprocessing

DAILY NK By Bruce Songhak Chung, 16 July 24

Evidence suggests that North Korea is ramping up production of plutonium and uranium nuclear materials at the radiochemical laboratory and uranium enrichment facility in the Yongbyon nuclear complex, as it has begun full-scale operation of the experimental light water reactor this summer. Recently, major foreign media outlets covering North Korea have debated and verified the reliability of the thermal infrared analysis of the Yongbyon facility presented in a Daily NK column I published in May. This article summarizes thoughts and opinions on this matter, and also examines what is behind the intermittent night lights observed in Yongbyon through night-time luminosity images.

Recent conditions at the Yongbyon reactor and light water reactor area were examined using Maxar’s GeoEye-1 satellite imagery (40 centimeter resolution). In the June 19 satellite photo, heated cooling water from the reactor and light water reactor operation is clearly identified being discharged into the Kuryong River through two pump stations, accompanied by white foam. This marks the 16th cooling water discharge detected this year. As it continues to appear in satellite images since late April, the experimental light water reactor appears to have entered full-scale operation. The South Korean Ministry of National Defense had previously predicted that the Yongbyon light water reactor would enter normal operation in or around the summer months. 

Below the second pump station, a yellow substance spread out in a rectangular shape can be seen on the ground. This could be wheat or barley being dried after harvest. In North Korea, mid-June is the peak harvest time for wheat and barley in the fields, followed typically by planting corn as the year’s second crop. Soldiers and workers guarding the Yongbyon nuclear facility appear to be engaging in farming activities in empty spaces within the complex as food rations are insufficient.

Analysis of Yongbyon thermal infrared satellite imagery………………………………………………………………………………………..

 Repairs of the boiler room in the Yongbyon thermal power plant ………………………………………………………

Mysterious late night lights at the radiochemical laboratory………………………………………………………….

 influential foreign media outlets recently released an assessment about thermal infrared analysis, which is used to determine the operational status of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. The prominent U.S. North Korea-focused website Beyond Parallel has provided an in-depth analysis of the reliability of thermal infrared data. I read the three articles with great interest. The conclusion of the series of articles evaluated the results of the thermal infrared analysis of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear facilities as generally reliable. The outlet explained that after obtaining and comparing Yongbyon facility operation records for over two years held by the U.N., the results largely matched those of the thermal infrared analysis. When high heat was detected in the thermal infrared data, it corresponded with the operation of the Yongbyon facilities. However, the caveat was that facilities operating at low intensity might not be detected due to weak heat emissions. They also recommended drawing comprehensive conclusions by combining thermal infrared analysis with various other data, as there are still imperfections in the analysis. This is valuable advice worth noting.

Please send any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net.  https://www.dailynk.com/english/yongbyon-nuclear-complex-new-evidence-of-increased-activity/

 –

 July 16, 2024

July 17, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, North Korea | Leave a comment

Plutonium found in Indiana Street air filters near Rocky Flats; Boulder Commissioners reconsider trail project

High winds carry plutonium-laden dirt from former weapons plant to filters on Indiana Street, experts say

ARVADA PRESS, by Rylee Dunn, May 30, 2024

A recent discovery of plutonium in air filters on Indiana Street near Rocky Flats has given Boulder County Commissioners pause as they appear to reconsider involvement in the Rocky Mountain Greenway Project trail system.

The Greenway project began in 2016 as an effort to connect three National Wildlife Refuges — Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Two Ponds and Rocky Flats — through an interconnected trail system. 

The project calls for the installation of an underpass connecting Rocky Flats to Boulder Open Space through the Rock Creek Corridor and an overpass to connect Westminster trails to the Greenway. 

When gale-force winds hit on April 6, chemist and DU Professor Michael Ketterer and retired FBI agent Jon Lipsky — who led the 1989 raid of Rocky Flats that eventually led to the plant being shut down and designated as an EPA Superfund site — set up air filters in three locations nearby to conduct a study on the contaminated soil’s activities in high winds.

Ketterer said he has taken air filter samples near Rocky Flats a handful of times, but that the high wind event of April 6 drew special interest because dirt was visibly moving in the air. 

“We both observed large, rapidly moving suspended dust clouds extending from ground level up to heights of hundreds of feet, originating from areas on the (Central Operating Unit of Rocky Flats) and/or contaminated buffer zone,” Ketterer said in an affidavit written after collecting the samples. 

Two samples were collected along Indiana Street while high winds were blowing from the west. Ketterer sent the samples to the radiochemistry lab at Northern Arizona University, where scientists used mass spectronomy to study the filters.

“Plutonium was unequivocally detected in the two Indiana Street air filters,” a statement from Ketterer said. “With less than 30 minutes sample collection time, quantities ranging from 47 to 128 milligrams of filter ash were recovered from air filters; plutonium was detected in all six of the individual preparations of ash from the two Indiana Street samples.”

The concern surrounding Ketterer’s findings, he says, is that if the Greenway is constructed, increased foot traffic will spread the contaminated soil to neighboring communities.

“The more that people walk on the refuge, and the more land use that is taking place… undisturbed soil is pretty well protected against wind erosion, but once people and animals start walking on the development, then the erodibility, if you will, of the soil surface is going to greatly increase,” Ketterer said.

He added that this could mean more contaminated soil being transported off the refuge toward neighboring properties.

Radioactive plutonium is a material that is produced by nuclear reactors, and has been known to cause lung, bone and liver cancer in people exposed to it, according to the CDC. 

The two isotopes of plutonium Ketterer found near Rocky Flats are 239 and 240, which have a “fingerprint” that confirms they originated at the former nuclear weapons plant. 

Now, Ketterer’s findings are giving some governmental agencies pause about the construction of the Greenway Project, which calls for the Federal Highway Administration to install the underpass and overpass. 

At an April 4 Boulder County Commissioners meeting, Lipsky warned county leaders of the dangers of building such structures on the site, referencing the Colorado State construction standard that forbids building when more than 0.9 picocuries per gram are found in soil.

Ketterer’s recent samples ranged from 0.15 to 1.19 picocuries of plutonium per gram of soil.

“I have a couple concerns: there is going to be digging, and the standard at Rocky Flats changes dramatically, exponentially, when it goes below three feet,” Lipsky said. “If it goes below six feet, there is no standard, and there’s no consideration for the workers, no consideration for the residents, like Superior, that will be receiving contaminants from this digging.”

Ketterer also gave comment at the April 4 meeting and did not mince words in his caution to commissioners.

“Commissioners, it’s not a marvelous idea to dig up and disturb plutonium-contaminated soils,” Ketterer said. “It’s all very unsettling to me. Not only do the soils near Rocky Flats and the Indiana Street corridor have plutonium in them, but a lot of it is in these discreet particles… I think this whole area is generously sprinkled with that.

“Commissioners,” Ketterer continued, “Rocky Flats is just one of the unsettling places in the U.S. and the world that we should worry about plutonium at — there’s a whole mess of uncontained plutonium at the central operating unit (of Rocky Flats) buried under… and we’re seeing a few breadcrumbs on the surface.”

………………………………………………………. legal action was brought in January when the advocacy group Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado filed a lawsuit that seeks to block construction of trails in and around Rocky Flats. That litigation is ongoing as of press time………………………………….  https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/2024/05/30/plutonium-found-in-indiana-street-air-filters-near-rocky-flats-boulder-commissioners-reconsider-trail-project/

June 3, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

  ALL reactor-produced plutonium is usable in nuclear weapons.

Gordon Edwards 19 May 4

Whenever plutonium is created in a nuclear reactor, it is always mostly plutonium-239. The higher isotopes – plutonium-240, plutonium-241, plutonium-242 – are always present in diminishing order of importance. 

A lighter “burnup” (a shorter residence time in the reactor) will reduce the opportunity for the heavier isotopes to be created (by repeated neutron captures), and so the relative percentage of plutonium-239 will be that much greater. 

The important thing to know is that ALL reactor-produced plutonium is usable in nuclear weapons, including the even-numbered isotopes.

See www.ccnr.org/plute_for_bombs_GE_2024.pdf 

Plutonium-238 is only a very small fraction of the plutonium in used reactor fuel. By itself, plutonium-238 is the only isotope of plutonium that probably cannot be used for bomb-making, simply because it generates too much spontaneous heat for the bomb to be stable (i.e. the concentniopnal explosive=s needed for detonation will likely melt.)

However the presence of very small amounts of plutonium-238, as in any plutonium extracted from used nuclear fuel, is not a serious problem..

May 20, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference | Leave a comment

NNSA Delays Urgent Research on Plutonium “Pit” Aging But Spends Billions on Nuclear Weapons Bomb Cores

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, 28 Apr 24 http://nuclearactive.org/

This week, CCNS highlights portions of a recent press release by Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (Tri-Valley CARES), and the Savannah River Site Watch about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).  Their piece suggests NNSA does not have its priorities straight in neither producing up-to-date information on the way plutonium appears to age nor providing this information in a timely manner to the public.  The entire press release is posted at  http://nuclearactive.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/240417-NWNM-SRSW-TVC-Plutonium-Aging-PR.pdf

The press release reads:  “Nearly three years after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, the public interest group Savannah River Site Watch has finally received [] the congressionally required Research Program Plan for Plutonium and Pit Aging.

However, the document is 40% blacked out, including references and acronyms.

Plutonium ‘pits’ are the radioactive cores of all U.S. nuclear weapons.  The NNSA claims that potential aging effects are justification for a ~$60 billion program to expand production.  However, the Plan fails to show that aging is a current problem.  To the contrary, it demonstrates that NNSA is delaying urgently needed updated plutonium pit aging research.

“In 2006 independent scientific experts known as the JASONs concluded that plutonium pits last at least 85 years without specifying an end date.  The average pit age is now around 40 years.  A 2012 follow-on study by the Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab concluded:

’This continuing work shows that no unexpected aging issues are appearing in plutonium that has been accelerated to an equivalent of [approximately] 150 years of age.  The results of this work are consistent with, and further reinforce, the Department of Energy Record of Decision to pursue a limited pit manufacturing capability in existing and planned facilities at Los Alamos instead of constructing a new, very large pit manufacturing facility…’

“Since then NNSA has reversed itself.  In 2018 the agency decided to pursue the simultaneous production of at least 30 pits per year at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in northern New Mexico and at least 50 pits per year at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina.  Upgrades to plutonium facilities at LANL are slated to cost $8 billion over the next five years.  The redundant Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility in South Carolina will cost up to $25 billion, making it the second most expensive building in human history.

“Hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars and future international nuclear weapons policies are at stake.  …

April 30, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »