nuclear-news

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

The US demanded the closure of five atomic facilities during the Hanoi summit, but Kim offered only two

May 23, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Trump and Kim “in love”, but have few options now that discussions have collapsed

May 21, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | 1 Comment

Illness and death legacy of employment in America’s nuclear weapons business

Government workers were kept in the dark about their toxic workplace
As US modernizes its nuclear weapons, NCR looks at the legacy of one Cold War-era plant, National Catholic Reporter, May 20, 2019 by Claire Schaeffer-Duffy   

Editor’s note: As the government invests in the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while weakening environmental regulations and federal laws protecting worker safety, National Catholic Reporter looks at the toxic legacy of one shuttered weapons plant in Kansas City, Missouri.

In a three-part series about the Kansas City Plant on Bannister Road and its successor 8 miles south, NCR reviews hundreds of pages of government reports and environmental summaries, and interviews more than two dozen sources, including five plant workers and their families, three former federal employees who worked nearby, nuclear industry and government officials, health experts, business sources, state environmental regulators and a former city councilman.

This is Part 1.

“………… Debbie blames Bob’s painful and untimely passing on his worksite. For 27 years, he worked as an engineer at the Kansas City nuclear bomb components plant, a proud and dedicated employee of what is now Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies LLC. Sworn to secrecy, Bob never discussed his work assignments with his wife. And she never asked. She is now convinced that whatever he did out there probably killed him.

During the decades of the Cold War, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies employed hundreds of thousands of Americans in more than 350 secretive, hazardous worksites across the country, according to federal records. Scientists, engineers, machinists and laborers were hired to design, test and construct a stockpile of 70,000 nuclear warheads. Inadequately protected from carcinogens and toxins and often exposed without their knowledge, many nuclear workers became ill and died. They devolved into early dementia, endured high rates of miscarriages, suffered nerve disorders, and succumbed to a host of debilitating respiratory illnesses and cancers.

How many Americans died producing nuclear weapons is not a statistic the government tracks. “Irradiated,” a 2015 investigative series by McClatchy DC, the Washington bureau of the media chain that owns The Kansas City Star, put the total at 33,480, four times the number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In its interpretation of the McClatchy DC data, the Columbia Journalism Review notes 33,480 is the number of American nuclear workers compensated by a government program who have died. “The government has acknowledged 15,000 of those deaths were due to work-related illnesses,” the magazine writes. “The rest only had illnesses linked to their nuclear work and may have died of old age or unrelated causes.”

Wayne Knox, a former industrial hygienist for DOE, thinks the death toll is “much, much higher” than 33,480.

The tally represents a price paid in American lives for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Cities and communities that hosted weapons plants saw other costs: sick workers and their families who felt betrayed by the industry’s indifference, and persistent environmental contamination.

As the government invests in the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while weakening environmental regulations and federal laws protecting worker safety, National Catholic Reporter looks at the toxic legacy of one shuttered weapons plant in Kansas City, Missouri. Continue reading →

May 21, 2019 Posted by | employment, health, Reference, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

“Dark money” bankrolling advertising campaign to keep Ohio nuclear plants open

Ads Flood Airwaves As Debate Continues Over Nuclear Bailout Bill   wksu 89.7

By SARAH TAYLOR  20 May 19, Ohioans are being bombarded with an ad campaign focused on an energy bill—House Bill 6—that’s being debated in the state legislature.

Who’s behind the campaign and just what will HB6 do? Learn more in this conversation with Dayton Daily News reporter Laura Bischoff.

Bischoff said House Bill 6 is a controversial energy bill that would cost consumers about $300 million a year in surcharges. “The money would go into a new fund that probably half, or a little more than that, would likely go to save two aging nuclear power plants that are slated to close: Davis Besse and Perry,” Bishcoff said.

Both plants are owned by FirstEnergy Solutions, which used to be part of Akron-based FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy Solutions is in bankruptcy proceedings and has said it will have to shut down the nuclear plants because of its financial situation.  …..

Bischoff has dug into who’s bankrolling the ad campaign to convince the general public that legilsation to help keep the nuclear plants open is a good idea.

“There is this group called Generation Now,” Bischoff said. “It is a dark money group. They are bankrolling most of ads, a little over $2 million worth of ads have been placed so far.”  Bischoff notes there are groups funding ads against the bill as well. “Americans for Prosperity, Ohioans against nuclear bailouts and some consumer group have spent about $300,000. It’s all over the airwaves. People are hearing it, seeing it, wondering what’s going on with it.”

…….. Bischoff also tabulated that FirstEnergy and its PAC (political action committee), since 2014, have  contributed $1.35 million to Ohio political candidates and FirstEnergy has donated another $1.5 million to political parties.

Bischoff explained that House Bill 6 would remove renewable energy efficiency standards and programs that have been part of state law for the past 10 years………

Bischoff estimated 120 different witnesses have testified about this proposed legislation, including a gentleman from Vermont, whom she later tracked down.

“I wonder why would some guy from Vermont travel all the way to Ohio to give testimony,” Bischoff said. The man shared the story of a nuclear plant closing in the small town where he lives and talked about the devastation the closing caused. Bischoff found out it is the second time he has testified for a nuclear bailout bill in Ohio. Pressing the man further, she discovered that his travel expenses were covered by the Nuclear Energy Institute, of which FirstEnergy is a dues-paying member.

Bischoff said Speaker Householder had hoped to bring House Bill 6 up for a vote the week of May 20th, but at this point he has indicated they are still working on it. https://www.wksu.org/post/ads-flood-airwaves-debate-continues-over-nuclear-bailout-bill#stream/0

May 21, 2019 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | 1 Comment

Ionising radiation as a cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Radiation Model for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Announced by the National CFIDS Foundation,  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/radiation-model-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-announced-national-cfids-195900691.html   NEEDHAM, Mass., May 20, 2019 /PRNewswire/ –The National CFIDS Foundation, of Needham, Massachusetts, has provided details regarding its radiation model for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a disease that affects millions in the United States. According to Alan Cocchetto, Medical Director for the National CFIDS Foundation, “Our latest model has now identified two key compounds, known as hydroperoxides, that appear to result from cellular injury due to radiation exposure. We believe this finding is of critical importance to the disease process that is present in our patients.”

The National CFIDS Foundation identified cardiolipin hydroperoxides as the first key target that acts to disrupt proper functioning of the mitochondria, the energy factory within the cell. The second target, phosphatidylserine hydroperoxides, acts to disrupt red blood cell function resulting in altered tissue oxygenation. Basically, these two hydroperoxides act in concert as cellular toxicants to adversely affect normal cell function.

According to Gail Kansky, National CFIDS Foundation President, “As I understand it, these compounds make for the perfect storm from a disease standpoint since they adversely affect the ability of the body to function properly at many levels. We believe this to be a major tipping point in our understanding of this disease and I truly expect this to have a significant impact on our patients with regards to diagnostic testing and future therapies that will result from these efforts. As such, we are very pleased to be moving full steam ahead on this with our research groups.”

Two decades ago, Chernobyl scientists had identified Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as a characteristic aftermath of radioecological catastrophe establishing the first link between radiation exposure and the development of the disease. In 2010, the National CFIDS Foundation became the first organization to report the presence of internal radiation and chromosome damage in its own patient cohort.

According to the National CFIDS Foundation, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is also known as Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS) as well as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME). Founded in 1997, the goals of the National CFIDS Foundation are to help fund medical research to find a cause and to expedite appropriate treatments for the disease. Since its inception, the National CFIDS Foundation has provided $4 million dollars in self-directed research grants to global scientists. The National CFIDS Foundation, an all volunteer 501(c)(3) federally approved charity, is funded solely by individual contributions. Additional information can be found on the web at www.ncf-net.org or in The National Forum newsletter. The Foundation can be reached at 781-449-3535.

May 21, 2019 Posted by | health, USA | Leave a comment

Eight in Ten Support Nuclear Arms Control with Russia, Disagree with Trump Decision to Withdraw from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

May 21, 2019 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

Donald Trump says he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons

May 21, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman now sees nuclear power as harmful

Washington Post 17th May 2019 , Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009, and as its chairman from 2009 to 2012. Nuclear power was supposed to save the planet. The plants that used this technology could produce enormous amounts of electricity without the pollution caused by burning coal, oil or natural gas, which would help slow the catastrophic changes humans have forced on the Earth’s climate.
As a physicist who studied esoteric properties of subatomic particles, I admired the science and the technological innovation behind the industry. And by the time I started working on nuclear issues on Capitol Hill in 1999 as an aide to Democratic lawmakers, the risks from human-caused global warming seemed to outweigh the dangers of nuclear power, which hadn’t had an accident since Chernobyl, 13 years earlier.
By 2005, my views had begun to shift. I’d spent almost four years working on nuclear policy and witnessed the
influence of the industry on the political process. Now I was serving on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where I saw that nuclear power was more complicated than I knew; it was a powerful business as well as an impressive feat of science. In 2009, President Barack Obama named me the agency’s chairman.
Two years into my term, an earthquake and tsunami destroyed four nuclear reactors in Japan. I spent months reassuring the American public that nuclear energy, and the U.S. nuclear industry in particular, was safe. But by then, I was starting to doubt those claims myself. Before the accident, it was easier to accept the industry’s potential risks, because nuclear power plants had kept many coal and gas plants from spewing air pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air.
Afterward, the falling cost of renewable power changed the calculus.Despite working in the industry for more than a decade, I now believe that nuclear power’s benefits are no longer enough to risk the welfare of people living near these plants. I became so convinced that, years after departing office, I’ve now made alternative energy development my new career, leaving nuclear power behind. The current and potential costs — in lives and dollars — are just too high.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html

May 21, 2019 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES, safety, USA | Leave a comment

Iowa Science Group Launches Effort to Push Presidential Candidates on Nuclear Issues

May 21, 2019 Posted by | election USA 2020 | Leave a comment

US Congress ‘s continued search for nuclear trash dump – but they still let ’em keep making it!

May 21, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

“Denuclearization” has different meanings for North Korea and USA

May 21, 2019 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Proposed nuclear bailout for Ohio

May 21, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

$Billions spent on attempt to clean up USA’s most dangerously toxic nuclear sites, but it’s no getting very far

Soaring costs but limited progress in cleanup of “scariest” nuclear sites    https://www.salon.com/2019/05/18/soaring-costs-but-limited-progress-in-cleanup-of-scariest-nuclear-sites_partner/

The progress to clean up nuclear waste sites appears to be slowing down though still devouring billions of dollars,  PHIL ZAHODIAKIN, MAY 18, 2019   THE PROGRESS OF A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM TO CLEAN UP THE NATION’S MOST DANGEROUS NUCLEAR WASTE SITES APPEARS TO BE SLOWING DOWN EVEN THOUGH IT’S STILL DEVOURING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

That discouraging picture emerges in the latest report by the federal Government Accountability Office on the long-running cleanup effort. Launched in 1989, it was designed to clean up 107 sites engaged in research or production of enriched uranium or plutonium for making nuclear weapons.

Cleanup work at 91 of the Cold War-era sites is finished. But the remaining 16 pose the greatest health risks — especially those with underground storage tanks leaking highly radioactive waste.

Testifying last week before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, a GAO official said that for reasons that are unclear, estimated cleanup costs at the 16 ”biggest and scariest sites” have increased by $214 billion despite the Department of Energy (DOE) spending $48 billion since 2011.

David C. Trimble, the GAO’s director for natural resources and the environment, said the soaring costs ”are getting worse as the growth in cleanup liabilities vastly outpaces [the DOE’s] ability to reduce them.”

DOE officials are trying to pin down the reasons for delays and cost overruns,  Trimble said,  “but they haven’t finished their ‘root cause’ analysis.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) asked Trimble and Ann Marie White, director of the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management how they would “explain to the taxpayers this astonishing cost increase when the number of cleanup sites hasn’t changed.” White replied that the 56 million gallons of radioactive liquids and sludge in the underground tanks at the immense Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington are driving “much of the increase.”

But the GAO has cited other problems, too,  including DOE providing Congress with inconsistent and misleading information. For example, Trimble said, legislation passed in 2011 required DOE to annually report on its funding needs, but the reports have been submitted in only two of the years since.

“So, what are [the taxpayers] buying for all this money?” Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked, observing that the latest estimate to complete the work at all 16 sites has reached $377 billion.

Rep. Ann M. Kuster (D-N.H.) pointed out that, besides costs, the risk of accidents or sabotage at the 16 sites  only increases with time. And Trimble drew an analogy to a type of mortgage popular during the housing bubble of the early 2000s.

By spending billions to contain radioactive soil, water, and nuclear materials at their sites of origin without a path to completing cleanups, “There’s a danger that, at some point, the dynamic starts to look like an interest-only loan that doesn’t require you to pay down the principal amount of the loan,” Trimble said.

Trimble said he was encouraged by DOE’s willingness to accept management improvements recommended by GAO

But Ed Lyman, acting director of the nuclear safety project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Fair Warning that “GAO issues one report after another about DOE’s mismanagement of the nuclear cleanup program but the reports don’t seem to move the ball.”

Pointing out that the experiments to condense and vitrify (or turn into glass) the liquid wastes at Hanford and Savannah River, S.C., “have not been going well,” Lyman added that the long disposal delays leave the safety of the sites in a nether world of “borrowed time.”

Besides Hanford, where cleanup activities are expected to continue at least until 2070,  and the Savannah River Nuclear Reservation, which will keep producing radioactive tritium during its cleanup, some of the other, major sites among the 16 left to clean up include the World War 2-era facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and the gaseous diffusion plants in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Ky.: formerly principal source of enriched uranium.

May 20, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Ohio’s Nuclear Plant Subsidy Proposal, Should Be Rejected – 5 Reasons Why

5 Reason’s Why HB 6, Ohio’s Nuclear Plant Subsidy Proposal, Should Be Rejected, Uniion of Concerned Scientists,  STEVE CLEMMER, DIRECTOR OF ENERGY RESEARCH, CLEAN ENERGY | MAY 16, 2019  Last November, UCS released Nuclear Power Dilemma, which found that more than one-third of existing nuclear plants, representing 22 percent of total US nuclear capacity, are uneconomic or slated to close over the next decade. This included the Davis-Besse and Perry plants in Ohio that are owned by Akron-based FirstEnergy Solutions. Replacing these plants with natural gas would cause emissions to rise at a time when we need to achieve deep cuts in emissions to limit the worst impacts of climate change.

When we released our report, my colleague Jeff Deyette described how a proposal backed by FirstEnergy to subsidize its unprofitable nuclear plants in Ohio was deeply flawed and did not meet the conditions recommended in our report. By providing a blatant handout to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries at the expense of renewable energy and energy efficiency, ironically, the latest proposal to create a “Clean Air Program” in Ohio (House Bill 6) is bad for consumers, the economy and the environment.

Here are five reasons why this proposal is flawed and should be rejected:

1. HB 6 doesn’t protect consumers

…………..HB 6 doesn’t require FirstEnergy Solutions to demonstrate need or limit the amount and duration of the subsidies to protect consumers and avoid windfall profits as recommended in our report. It simply sets the starting price at $9.25/MWh and increases that value annually for inflation.  ……… FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear plants would receive approximately $170 million per year in subsidies, or 55% of the total…..

2. HB 6 is a bait and switch tactic to gut Ohio’s clean energy laws

But here’s the rub. HB 6 would effectively gut the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards to pay for the subsidies for Ohio’s existing nuclear, coal and natural gas plants. It would make the standards voluntary by exempting customers from the charges collected from these affordable and successful programs unless they chose to opt-in to the standards. This could result in a net increase in emissions and a net loss of jobs in Ohio over time.

This political hit job is outrageous, but not at all surprising. It is just another attempt in a long series of efforts by clean energy opponents to rollback Ohio’s renewable and efficiency standards over the past five years …….

the cost of wind and solar has fallen by more than 70 percent over the past decade, making them more affordable for consumers and competitive with natural gas power plants in many parts of the country. ……

Energy efficiency programs are especially important for low-income households. By lowering their energy bills, they have more money to spend on food, health care and other necessities.

3. HB6 creates a false sense of competition

While renewable energy technologies are technically eligible to compete for funding under HB 6, several criteria would effectively exclude them:

  • It excludes any projects that have received tax incentives like the federal production tax credit or investment tax credit, which applies to nearly every renewable energy project.
  • Eligible facilities must be larger than 50 MW, which excludes most solar projects, and wind projects have to be between 5 MW and 50 MW, which is smaller than most existing utility scale wind projects in the state.
  • Eligible projects must receive compensation through organized wholesale energy markets, which excludes smaller customer-owned projects like rooftop solar photovoltaic systems.

When combined with the rollback to the renewable standard, this absurdly stringent criteria would create too much uncertainty for renewable developers to obtain financing to build new projects in Ohio.

4. HB 6 will increase Ohio’s reliance on natural gas

While HB 6 could temporarily prevent the replacement of Ohio’s nuclear plants with natural gas, gutting the renewables and efficiency standards would undermine the state’s pathway to achieving a truly low-carbon future by locking in more gas generation as coal plants retire.  …….

5. HB 6 includes no safety criteria or transition plans

HB 6 does not require FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants to meet strong safety standards as a condition for receiving subsidies, as recommended in our report. While Davis-Besse and Perry are currently meeting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) safety standards–as measured by their reactor oversight process (ROP) action matrix quarterly rating system–both plants have had problems with critical back-up systems during the past two years that put them out of compliance.

The nuclear industry has been trying to weaken the ROP for years………

A better approach

On May 2, House Democrats announced an alternative “Clean Energy Jobs Plan” that would address many of the problems with HB 6. The plan would modify the state’s Alternative Energy Standard (AES) by increasing the contribution from renewable energy from 12.5% by 2027 to 50% by 2050and fix the onerous set-back requirements that have been a major impediment to large scale wind development. It would expand the AES to maintain a 15% baseline for nuclear power. In addition, it would improve the state’s energy efficiency standards, expand weatherization programs for low-income households, and create new clean energy job training programs…….

With more than 112,000 clean energy jobs in 2018, Ohio ranks third in the Midwest and eighth in the country. Ohio added nearly 5,000 new clean energy jobs in 2018.  While most of the clean energy jobs are in the energy efficiency industry, Ohio is also a leading manufacturer of components for the wind and solar industries.

To capitalize on these rapidly growing global industries, lawmakers in Ohio should reject HB 6 and move forward with a real clean air program that ramps-up investments in renewables and efficiency and achieves the deep cuts in emissions that are needed to limit the worst impacts of climate change.  https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/5-reasons-why-hb6-should-be-rejected

May 20, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S Air Force is not Testing an ‘Earth-Penetrating’ Nuclear Bomb

May 20, 2019 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »