How the USA govt covered up a nuclear meltdown, and radiation pollution in Southern California
Six weeks after the meltdown, the Atomic Energy Commission issued a press release saying that there had been a minor “fuel element failure” at Area Four’s largest reactor in July. But they said there had been “no release of radioactive materials” to the environment………
In 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed a $40 million soil test of the site and found 423 hot spots — places contaminated with high levels of man-made radiation.
LA’s Nuclear Secret: Part 1 Tucked away in the hills above the San Fernando and Simi valleys was a 2,800-acre laboratory with a mission that was a mystery to the thousands of people who lived in its shadow 4 Southern California By Joel Grover and Matthew Glasser, 22 Sep 15 The U.S. government secretly allowed radiation from a damaged reactor to be released into air over the San Fernando and Simi valleys in the wake of a major nuclear meltdown in Southern California more than 50 years ago — fallout that nearby residents contend continues to cause serious health consequences and, in some cases, death.
LA’s Nuclear Secret: Timelines, Documents, FAQ
Those are the findings of a yearlong NBC4 I-Team investigation into “Area Four,” which is part of the once-secret Santa Susana Field Lab. Founded in 1947 to test experimental nuclear reactors and rocket systems, the research facility was built in the hills above the two valleys. In 1959, Area Four was the site of one of the worst nuclear accidents in U.S. history. But the federal government still hasn’t told the public that radiation was released into the atmosphere as a result of the partial nuclear meltdown.
Now, whistleblowers interviewed on camera by NBC4 have recounted how during and after that accident they were ordered to release dangerous radioactive gases into the air above Los Angeles and Ventura counties, often under cover of night, and how their bosses swore them to secrecy.
In addition, the I-Team reviewed over 15,000 pages of studies and government documents, and interviewed other insiders, uncovering that for years starting in 1959, workers at Area Four were routinely instructed to release radioactive materials into the air above neighboring communities , through the exhaust stacks of nuclear reactors , open doors, and by burning radioactive waste.
How It Began Continue reading
Pentagon Preparing War Plans for Baltic Battle Against Russia
The Sum of All Fears: Pentagon Preparing War Plans for Baltic Battle Against Russia SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 BY STUART HOOPER 21st Century Wire says… This truly is the sum of all fears.
In an exclusive report, Foreign Policy is breaking the alarming news that the Pentagon is preparing new war plans for battles with Russia in the Baltic. Plans for war with Russia were reportedly shelved after 1991, as the collapse of the Soviet Union pushed Russia into the globalized world where they had no option other than trying to make things work with the West.
Consequently those plans are having to be updated, with a senior defence official saying that “given the security environment, given the actions of Russia, it has become apparent that we need to make sure to update the plans that we have in response to any potential aggression against any NATO allies“……….
The most positive aspect of this report are the words of a State Department official:
“A lot of people at the Pentagon are unhappy about the confrontation. They were very happy with the military-to-military cooperation with Russia. We would like to be partners with Russia. We think that is the preferred course — that it benefits us, it benefits Russia, and it benefits the rest of the world.”
Any and all action that can prevent the outbreak of World War Three, the conclusion of the sum of all fears, will be remembered as a world historic event of the utmost importance. http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/22/the-sum-of-all-fears-pentagon-preparing-war-plans-for-baltic-battle-against-russia/
America’s nuclear lobbyists
Meet the Private Corporations Building Our Nuclear Arsenal, Privatizing our nuclear arsenal development is not only dangerous, but incredibly inefficient, The Nation By Richard Krushnic andJonathan Alan King, 22 Sept 15 “……..THE NUCLEAR LOBBYISTS Federal tax dollars expended on nuclear weapons maintenance and development are a significant component of the federal budget. Although difficult to pin down precisely, the sums run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported that even the Pentagon had no firm numbers when it came to how much the nuclear mission costs, nor is there a standalone nuclear weapons budget of any sort, so overall costs must be estimated. Analyzing the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as information gleaned from Congressional testimony, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies suggests that, from 2010-2018, the United States will spend at least $179 billion to maintain the current nuclear triad of missiles, bombers, and submarines, with their associated nuclear weaponry, while beginning the process of developing their next-generation replacements. The Congressional Budget Office projects the cost of nuclear forces for 2015-2024 at $348 billion, or $35 billion annually, of which the Pentagon will spend $227 billion and the Department of Energy $121 billion.
In fact, the price for maintaining and developing the nuclear arsenal is actually far greater than either of those estimates. While those numbers include most of the direct costs of nuclear weapons and strategic launching systems like missiles and submarines, as well as the majority of the costs for the military personnel responsible for maintaining, operating, and executing the missions, they don’t include many other expenses, including the decommissioning process and nuclear-waste disposal issues involved in “retiring” weapons. Nor do they include the pensions and healthcare costs that will go with retiring their human operators.
In 2012, a report from a high-level committee chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright concluded that “no sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face [including] threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics, or climate change. In fact, nuclear weapons have on balance arguably become more a part of the problem than any solution.”
Not surprisingly, for the roster of corporations involved in the US nuclear programs, this matters little. They, in fact, maintain elaborate lobbying operations in support of their continuing nuclear weapons contracts. In a 2012 study for the Center for International Policy, “Bombs vs. Budgets: Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby,” William Hartung and Christine Anderson reported that, for the elections of that year, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million directly to Congressional legislators. Not surprisingly, half that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that oversee spending for nuclear arms.
In 2015, the defense industry mobilized a small army of at least 718 lobbyists and doled out more than $67 million dollars pressuring Congress for increased weapons spending generally. Among the largest contributors were corporationswith significant nuclear weapons contracts, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics. Such pro-nuclear lobbying is augmented by contributions and pressure from missile and aircraft companies that are primarily non-nuclear. Some of the systems they produce, however, are potentially dual-use (conventional and nuclear), which means that a robust nuclear weapons program increases their potential market.
The continuing pressure of Congressional Republicans for cuts in domestic social programs are a crucial mechanism that ensures federal tax dollars will be available for lucrative military contracts. In terms of quality of life (and death), this means that underestimating the influence of the nuclear weapons industry is singularly dangerous. For the $35 billion or more the US taxpayer will put into such weaponry annually to support the narrow interests of a modest number of companies, the payback is fear of an apocalyptic future. After all, unlike almost all other corporate lobbies, the nuclear weapons lobby (and so your tax dollars) put life on Earth at risk of rapid extinction, either following the direct destruction of a nuclear holocaust or a radical reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface that would come from the sort of nuclear winter that would follow almost any nuclear exchange. At the moment, the corporate-nuclear complex is hidden in our midst, its budgets and funds shielded from public scrutiny, its project hardly noticed. It’s a formula for disaster. http://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-private-corporations-building-our-nuclear-arsenal/
USA to bring new nuclear B61, Mod 12 bomb to Germany
US to bring in new advanced nuclear bombs to Germany – report, Rt.com 22 Sep, 2015 Starting third quarter 2015, the US Air Force is starting preparations to bring in new B61 nuclear bombs to Luftwaffe’s Büchel Air Base, according to ZDF TV channel. German parliament previously called for American nukes to be removed.
The base in Rhineland-Palatinate in western Germany hosts German Panavia Tornado multipurpose aircraft that are capable to deploy the USAF nuclear bombs stored there under a nuclear sharing deal. The base is the only location in Germany that has nuclear weapons since 2007 and has 20 of them, according to the Royal United Services Institute.
The US is currently working on a new variant of the B61, Mod 12, which would be more accurate and have smaller yield than modifications 3 and 4 currently deployed in Europe…….https://www.rt.com/news/316186-germany-us-nukes-upgrade/
San Onofre High radiation levels endangered employees
Explosive report on radioactive waste handling at San Onofre High radiation levels endangered employees San Diego’s NBC affiliate is unleashing a story on nuclear waste deposited by Southern California Edison Corporation that may explain why the pristine State Beach is referred to in internal memos as
“Jap Mesa.”
Apparently the Geiger counter readings at some locations are so high that the site is reminiscent of Ground Zero at Hiroshima andNagasaki.
Key findings include…
– Attempts to keep documents on toxic radiation a secret.
According to the NBC report, SCE is attempting to keep radioactive
pollution a secret by forcing parties who are involved in negotiations
about the future of the property to sign non-disclosure agreements.
– Radioactive debris left on Beach and “Jap Mesa.”
“Hundreds of pieces” of contaminated radioactive equipment was
stored on both sides of the I-5, the heavily traveled freeway that
bisects the San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump that is currently
under construction,
– Radiation levels at the beach-front property so alarming,
that in places inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
refused to to perform routine radiation surveys.
– Southern California Edison controlled NRC radiation inspections
According to a former SCE Safety Officer, Edison’s cozy relationship
with inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission prevented
proper inspections. The former employee revealed that NRC inspectors
rarely conducted inspections outside areas that were identified by SEC.
– Trailers housing SCE employees had elevated readings
In an apparently rare incident where an NRC inspector conducted
radioactive testing without SCE’s supervision, a trailer housing
security guards had elevated readings.
– Calls for Third-Party Investigations
Former San Onofre employee and Safety Officer Vinod Arora is
calling on an independent third-party to thoroughly inspect the
tainted 25-acre parcel at San Onofre.
Get the full report and the confidential documents here.
Russia rattled by USA adding to its nuclear weapons stockpile in Germanay
US Nuclear Weapons In Germany: Russia Concerned By American Plans To Add To Stockpile http://www.ibtimes.com/us-nuclear-weapons-germany-russia-concerned-american-plans-add-stockpile-2108265 By Christopher Harress @Charress c.harress@ibtimes.com on September 22 2015 Russia is concerned about U.S. plans to modernize and station additional nuclear weapons in Germany, according to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who spoke with a German TV channel Tuesday. The channel had reported earlier in the day that the U.S. planned to station 20 nuclear weapons in the European country, as per a line in the 2015 U.S. defense budget.
“We are concerned that these states actually have nuclear weapons as part of the framework of NATO’s nuclear sharing program,” said Zakharova in an interview with Germany’s ZDF television, according to Russian news site Sputnik. Zakharova also said that the move would contravene the Treaty of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was ratified by 191 nations in 1970 to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
“At the same time in Europe — not just in Germany, but also in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey — U.S. tactical nuclear armaments remain deployed,” said Zakharova, who also claimed that Russia had reduced its own stockpiles fourfold since the 1990s, despite the U.S. keeping its arsenal at strength. “The Americans are modernizing their aerial bombs, and the NATO European members are modernizing their aircraft that carry these weapons,” he said.
The U.S. continues to maintain nuclear carrying facilities in the countries mentioned by Zakharova through a NATO sharing program. As part of nuclear sharing, host countries carry out consultations, make decisions on weapons policy and maintain equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons, including warplanes capable of delivering them. The United Kingdom and France are the only countries in Europe that maintain state-owned nuclear arsenals.
As part of the renewed hostilities between the U.S.-led NATO and Russia, who are clashing over Moscow’s military actions in Ukraine, Russia has threatened to place short- to medium-range nuclear capable missiles in Kaliningrad, an enclave on the Baltic coast controlled by Russia, according to a BBC report. The missiles would have the ability to reach nearly all areas of Europe.
Anti-radiation pills coming in the mail to residents near Pickering nuclear plant
Residents near Pickering nuclear plant to receive anti-radiation pills by mail http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/residents-near-pickering-nuclear-plant-to-receive-anti-radiation-pills-by-mail-1.2574427 TV Toronto , September 22, 2015 Residents living near the nuclear power plant in Pickering, Ont., will soon start receiving anti-radiation pills in the mail to protect them in the event of a radiation leak at the facility.
Starting in October, anyone living within a 10-kilometre radius of the Pickering Nuclear Plant will receive a pack of potassium iodide (KI) pills that help prevent thyroid cancer caused by exposure to radioactivity.
“It fills up your thyroid with iodine and therefore, if you ever get exposed to radioactive iodine, it can’t get into your thyroid and it prevents thyroid cancer,” said Ken Gorman, Durham region’s director of environmental health. More than 200,000 homes and businesses near the plant will receive kits containing the pills and a brochure explaining how to administer the treatment. Each package contains enough pills for one family.
Until now, potassium iodide pills have been available at local pharmacies to anyone who wanted to stock up. But in October 2014, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ordered that the pill be distributed to all Canadians living or working within 10 kilometres of a nuclear facility.
In the event of a leak at a nuclear plant, residents are asked to evacuate the area as quickly as possible. If this isn’t possible, the provincial emergency authority recommends that people stay indoors and wait for instruction from authorities. With a report from CTV Toronto’s Austin Delaney
Clusters of Cancer – the shameful nuclear secret of Santa Susana Field Lab’s “Area Four,”
LA’s Nuclear Secret: Part 1 Tucked away in the hills above the San Fernando and Simi valleys was a 2,800-acre laboratory with a mission that was a mystery to the thousands of people who lived in its shadow 4 Southern California By Joel Grover and Matthew Glasser, 22 Sep 15
“………..Researchers inside and out of government have contended that the radiation and toxic chemicals from Santa Susana might have caused many cancer cases. “The radiation that was released in 1959 and thereafter from Santa Susana is still a danger today,” Dr.Dodge said. “There is absolutely a link between radiation and cancer.”
The I-Team tracked down dozens of people diagnosed with cancer and other illnesses who grew up in the shadow of Santa Susana — in Canoga Park, West Hills, Chatsworth, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley. Many of them believeh their cancers were caused by radiation and chemicals from the field lab.
Kathryn Seltzer Carlson, 56, and her sisters, Judy and Jennifer, all grew up in Canoga Park around the time of the nuclear meltdown and for years after, and all have battled cancer. “I played in the water, I swam in the water, I drank the water” that ran off the Santa Susana Field Lab, said Carlson, who finished treatment for ovarian cancer earlier this year and is now undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma. “I’ve had, I don’t know how many cancers.”
Bonnie Klea, a former Santa Susana employee who has lived in West Hills since the 60s, also battled bladder cancer, which is frequently linked to radiation exposure. “Every single house on my street had cancer,” Klea said. A 2007 Centers for Disease Control study found that people living within two miles of the Santa Susana site had a 60 percent higher rate of some cancers.
“There’s some provocative evidence,” said Dr. Hal Morgenstern, an epidemiologist who oversaw the study. “It’s like circumstantial evidence, suggesting there’s a link” between the contamination from Santa Susana and the higher cancer rates.
Silence From the Government
For more than two months, the I-Team asked to speak with someone from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the federal agency that’s responsible for all nuclear testing, to ask why workers were ordered to release dangerous radiation over Los Angeles, why the DOE has never publicly admitted this happened, and what it plans to do to help get the site cleaned up.
The DOE emailed the I-Team, “We will not have anyone available for this segment.”
So the I-Team showed up at a public meeting this month about Santa Susana and asked the DOE’s project manager for the site, Jon Jones, to speak with us. He walked away and wouldn’t speak.
Will the Contamination Ever Be Cleaned Up?
Community residents, many stricken with cancer and other radiation-related illnesses, have been fighting for years to get the government and the private owners of the Santa Susana Field Lab to clean up the contamination that remains on the site.
But efforts in the state legislature and state agencies that oversee toxic sites have, so far, stalled. But residents, with the support of some lawmakers, continue to fight for a full cleanup. “People are continuing to breathe that (radiation) in and to die,” Chatsworth resident Arline Mathews said.”See that this is done immediately, before more lives are lost.” http://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/LA-Nuclear-Secret-327896591.html
Privatisation of USA’s nuclear arsenal – wasteful, inefficient, irresponsible
the production, maintenance, and modernization of nuclear weapons are sources of super profits for what is, in essence, a cartel.
Many Americans are unaware that much of the responsibility for nuclear weapons development, production, and maintenance lies not with the Pentagon but the Department of Energy (DOE), which spends more on nuclear weapons than it does on developing sustainable energy sources.
Through contracts with URS, Babcock & Wilcox, the University of California, and Bechtel, the nuclear weapons labs are to a significant extent privatized. The LANL contract alone is on the order of $14 billion. Similarly, the Savannah River Nuclear Facility, in Aiken, South Carolina, where nuclear warheads are manufactured, is jointly run by Flour, Honeywell International, and Huntington Ingalls Industries.
One of the reasons nuclear weapons profitability is extremely high is that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Department of Energy, responsible for the development and operations of the DOE’s nuclear weapons facilities, does not monitor subcontractors, which makes it difficult to monitor prime contractors as well.
Meet the Private Corporations Building Our Nuclear Arsenal, Privatizing our nuclear arsenal development is not only dangerous, but incredibly inefficient, The Nation By Richard Krushnic andJonathan Alan King, 22 Sept 15
Imagine for a moment a genuine absurdity: Somewhere in the United States, the highly profitable operations of a set of corporations were based on the possibility that sooner or later your neighborhood would be destroyed and you and all your neighbors annihilated. And not just you and your neighbors, but others and their neighbors across the planet. What would we think of such companies, of such a project, of the mega-profits made off it?
In fact, such companies do exist. They service the American nuclear weapons industry and the Pentagon’s vast arsenal of potentially world-destroying weaponry. They make massive profits doing so, live comfortable lives in our neighborhoods, and play an active role in Washington politics. Most Americans know little or nothing about their activities and the media seldom bother to report on them or their profits, even though the work they do is in the service of an apocalyptic future almost beyond imagining.
Sloppy management of San Onofre’ s nuclear waste
Documents Detail How Nuclear Material Was Handled at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Expert tells NBC 7 Investigates handling of nuclear material was “sloppy” NBC, By JW August and Lynn Walsh Documents newly obtained by NBC 7 Investigates during secret talks about the condition of the land where the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) sits detail how nuclear material was handled at the plant since the 1980s.
The documents were released to individuals involved with the secret negotiations about the current condition and future handling of the 25-acre property. According to a source familiar with the negotiations, the secret meetings have been going on for about 20 months and involve all the players with a stake in the prime coastal property.
Those players include the U.S. Navy, which owns the property; the U.S. Marines, whose base surrounds the property; and Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), both of which hold the lease to the property.
The current lease was signed on April 2011, and according to the agreement, ends on May 12, 2023.
A source close to the lease negotiations told NBC 7 Investigates that SCE and SDG&E want out of the lease as soon as possible. According to the source, the team representing the utilities has told all involved they want nondisclosure agreements signed so no one can go public with any information disclosed during the negotiations.
So far, one or more of the parties involved in the talks are refusing to sign the nondisclosure agreements. Continue reading
Department of Transportation rules violated in shipment of Y-12 uranium
Y-12 uranium shipment reportedly violated DOT rules, Knoxville News Sentinel, Frank Munger, Sep 22, 2015 OAK RIDGE — A federal spokesman at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant confirmed that a July shipment did not comply with some Department of Transportation regulations for transporting hazardous materials, and he said Y-12 officials have been in contact with DOT and “are cooperating with their findings.”
Steven Wyatt of the National Nuclear Security Administration also confirmed that the “special nuclear material” shipped from Y-12 to a commercial facility was uranium, although he refused to say if it was highly enriched or weapons-grade uranium and would not specify how much uranium was sent to the unnamed facility.
The NNSA, a semi-independent part of the U.S. Department of Energy that oversees the nuclear weapons complex, last week said Y-12 inadvertently shipped more nuclear material than intended to a private facility. After the mistake was discovered, a special team from Y-12 reportedly went to the site and secured the material for return to Oak Ridge…….http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/y12-uranium-shipment-reportedly-violated-dot-rules_22839052
South Carolina to review law that allows nuclear utilities to charge rate-payers in advance
| South Carolina to conduct analysis of Base Load Review Act |
Enformatble 22 Sep 15 Officials from the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff will conduct a review of the Base Load Review Act, the legal mechanism which allowed South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) to increase rate-payers bills by 27.7% through a series of annual rate increases to collect funds to pay for the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer nuclear power plant. The construction of the new reactors has been continually hindered by cost overruns and construction delays and is currently at least three years behind the original construction schedule.
The review will consider whether the Base Load Review Act is the best method for utilities to collect funds for large projects like the construction of nuclear power plants. The Base Load Review Act allows utilities to charge ratepayers for certain costs while the project is under construction, as opposed to the utilities using their own resources or loans to pay for construction costs and recovering fees from consumers only after the facility is producing power.
As a part of the review, the Office of Regulatory Staff will compare the costs of building the new nuclear reactors under the Base Load Review Act against the costs of building them under traditional financing methods. When completed the review will be presented to the Public Service Commission, but no timetable for its completion has been released yet.
Consumers and organizations like the AARP and the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce have been calling for a review saying that the rate increases are putting an unfair burden on rate payers with the greatest impacts being on the low-income families and the elderly. Critics of the Base Load Review Act say that it shifts the risk for the project onto consumers, who are forced to pay for a facility even if it never is put into operation….. http://enformable.com/2015/09/south-carolina-to-conduct-analysis-of-base-load-review-act/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Enformable+%28Enformable%29
Radioactivity In Our Ocean: Fukushima & Its Impact On The Pacific
Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Sep 14, 2015:
- 1:02:15 — Buesseler: “There have been ongoing releases… being maintained at higher levels… The groundwater is almost impossible to stop, so that will continue for decades… very hard to contain. Ice dams, things you can engineer to stop them, have never been done on this scale before, so it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen.”
- 1:09:30 — Audience Q&A: “Can anyone — scientists, physicists, anyone — really estimate the levels that are coming out of Fukushima on a daily basis? This rain event… how could anyone possibly estimate what is going… it’s disingenuous … to make these kind of assumptions — that it ‘probably’ won’t be a problem in the future. How can anyone say that? It’s never happened before… I don’t know where these predictions can really be nailed down, and was wondering your opinion on that as a couple of ‘good scientists’ (laughs).”
- 1:11:00 — Buesseler: “Fair points. It’s never happened before, it’s somewhat unpredictable and dynamic… There’s certainly not enough information. I was very frustrated after the rain event to find almost no information about the amount and levels that were in the ocean… There are some monitoring sites right in the harbor, and you can actually see the level of cesium go up from 1,000 of my units to 3,000 — so there was an impact. How long that’s going to continue? I can’t tell you… How it’s going to change in the future? We hope it gets back down to the levels that were near zero, but it never will be. It’s going to be — for decades, anyway — a site of continuous release… that’s what keeps me up at night, are continuous leaks that could happen at that site.”
The real reason the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cancelled its cancer research
Nuclear power kills! The real reason the NRC cancelled its nuclear site 
cancerstudy http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985492/nuclear_power_kills_the_real_reason_the_nrc_cancelled_its_nuclear_site_cancer_study.html Chris Busby 19th September 2015
The US’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission just cancelled its study into cancer near nuclear plants citing the ‘excessive cost’ of $8 million, writes Chris Busby. Of course that’s rubbish – similar studies in the UK have been carried out for as little as £600 per site, and in any case $8 million is small change for the NRC. The real reason is to suppress the unavoidable conclusion: nuclear power kills.
After spending some $1.5 million and more than five years on developing strategies to answer the question of increases of cancer near nuclear facilities, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last week reported that they would not continue with the process. They would knock it on the head [1].
This poisoned chalice has been passed between the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC since 2009 when public and political pressure was brought to bear on the USNRC to update a 1990 study of the issue, a study which was widely seen by the public to be a whitewash.
Dr Chris Busby at the Royal Society on Scientific Dishonesty
The NCR quickly passed the unwelcome task up to the NAS. It requested that the NAS provide an assessment of cancer risks in populations living ‘near’ the NRC-licenced nuclear facilities that utilize and process Uranium. This included 104 operating nuclear reactors in 31 States and 13 fuel cycle facilities in operation in 10 States.
The NRC request was to be carried out by NAS in two phases. Phase 1 was a scoping study to inform design of the study to be begun in Phase 2 and to recommend the best organisation to carry out the work.
The Phase 1 report was finished in May 2012. The best ‘state of the art’ methods were listed and the job of carrying out the actual study, a pilot study, was sent to: Guess who? The NRC. The poisoned chalice was back home. The NRC was now in a corner: what could they do?
If you don’t like the truth … suppress it Continue reading
UK and USA tried to develop nuclear land mines
The Ultimate Weapon of War: Nuclear Land Mines? National Interest, Matthew Gault, 20 Sept 15 Land mines and nukes are two of the most terrifying weapons of war — for two very different reasons. Nuclear weapons can wipe out entire cities, and land mines wait buried in the earth, ready to harm anyone who wanders too close.
In the 1950s, Britain tried to combine the two into a nuclear mine … with chickens as a heating source. Yes, this was actually proposed. But we’ll get to the chickens in a moment. The Blue Peacock would have been one of the worst kinds of Cold War weapons — a nuke the enemy doesn’t know you have. The United Kingdom sought to develop and deploy 10 nuclear mines. Once completed, it would ship the nightmare weapons to the British Army of the Rhine — the U.K.’s occupation force in Germany.
The BAOR would then plant the landmines along the East German border in the north and detonate them should the Soviets ever try to cross the Iron Curtain. The project’s primary goal wasn’t to kill Soviet soldiers — though the blasts certainly could — but to irradiate and contaminate the North German Plain so Moscow’s troops couldn’t occupy it.
“A skillfully sited atomic mine would not only destroy facilities and installations over a large area, but would deny occupation of the area to an enemy for an appreciable time due to contamination,” explained a Cold War era policy paper unearthed by Discovery.
Scientists based the Blue Peacock’s design on Britain’s first atomic weapon — the Blue Danube. The Danubes were 10 to 12 kiloton bombs designed to free fall from planes. They looked cartoonish, like a bomb Wile E. Coyote might drop on the roadrunner.
The Blue Danubes packed less of a punch than Fat Man and Little Boy, so in 1954, the British Army decided to adapt that tiny nuclear punch into a land mine.
The War Office ordered development and the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment set to work converting the Danube into the Peacock. In a few years, the researchers had a prototype. The nuclear land mine used a plutonium core surrounded by conventional explosives with twin firing pins. Steel encased the entire contraption.
The project had several problems.
First, compared to a conventional land mine, the Blue Peacock was massive………
The U.S. Army developed and deployed nuclear bazookas — the Davy Crockett — in the ‘60s, but the tiny nuke was still a nuke. It takes miles for the fallout from even a small nuclear blast to dissipate. The Pentagon thought better and shelved the project.
Britain had a similar problem with its Blue Peacock. How could it detonate a nuclear land mine without being anywhere near the device? It came up with two solutions, one ingenious and the other bizarre……….
The British Army shelved the project. One of the prototype Blue Peacocks is currently on display at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Historical Collection in England.
Britain’s attempts to develop a nuclear land mine were crazy, but it wasn’t the only time a nuclear power attempted to develop mines and smaller, more tactical nuclear munitions. It was just one reflection of the mad logic that was 1950s atomic war planning.
This piece first appeared in WarIsBoring here. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-weapon-war-nuclear-land-mines-13890
1 This Month
15 October. Joint Appeal for Nuclear Abolition Day -presentation to the UN on October 15 will be live on UNWebTV
Endorse the Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conference
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (139)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
