Marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear meltdown
Marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear meltdown Los Angeles Times By Louis Sahagun
July 13, 2009Holly Huff, 58, believes her leukemia and thyroid problems are related to the radioactive gases released from the Atomics International laboratory near her home when she was 8 years old.A reactor in Chatsworth began leaking radioactive gas on July 14, 1959. Some area residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated……………………………..A reactor at the Atomics International field laboratory in the Santa Susana Mountains had experienced a power surge the night before and spewed radioactive gases into the atmosphere………………………..the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to spend $40 million in stimulus funds on a comprehensive radioactive survey of the nuclear site.“It’s about time,” said Holly Huff, who was 8 years old when the meltdown occurred a mile from her home.
Standing on a bluff overlooking the 2,850-acre facility, which is now owned by Boeing Co. and NASA, Huff said, “They say it will be cleaned up by 2017 — I doubt it. We’ll wait and see.”………………
………………….For about two weeks, the facility, which employed several thousand people, had been venting colorless and odorless radioactive gas into the environment.
“Radioactivity levels during the accident went off-scale,” said Dan Hirsch, a spokesman for the antinuclear group Committee to Bridge the Gap. “We thus do not know to this day how much radioactivity was released.”
Details of the incident were not disclosed until 1979, when a group of UCLA students discovered documents and photographs that referred to a problem at the site involving a “melted blob.”
Ever since, residents have worried about downstream health risks associated with soil contaminated by years of rocket and nuclear testing.
Radioactive emissions from the accident could have resulted in 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer within 62 miles of the site over a “period of many decades,” according to a study released in 2006…………………………………… Half a century after the accident, nuclear cleanup operations and chemical decontamination remain incomplete.
Marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear meltdown – Los Angeles Times
POWER POLITICS: West Virginia redefines dirty energy as “alternative”
POWER POLITICS: West Virginia redefines dirty energy as “alternative” FACING SOUTH 14 July 09 “………. In the recent legislative session, Gov. Joe Manchin (D) (in photo at right) championed and state lawmakers approved an energy portfolio standard bill requiring 25% of generation to come from “alternative and renewable” sources by 2025. But the new standard, which goes into effect this month, has defined “alternative” to include……………………… nuclear power, which releases radioactive pollution to the environment and also produces dangerous waste products.
The West Virginia Environmental Council head lobbyist Donald S. Garvin Jr. blasted the new standard in an op-ed:
No other state includes natural gas as a source of “alternative” energy. Nuclear energy is included by only a few, and they specify “advanced generation” nuclear facilities.
ISS – POWER POLITICS: West Virginia redefines dirty energy as “alternative”
Utilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee
The New York Times By Matthew L. Wald July 11, 2009, 8:02 amUtilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee
The nuclear industry is contemplating something akin to a rent strike.
Since the early 1980s, utilities have been paying the Energy Department a fee of one tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour generated in reactors, to pay for a nuclear waste repository. In exchange for the payments, the department signed contracts promising to take the wastes beginning in 1997……………………
Now the power-generation industry wants to stop paying the fee — which would amount to about $769 million for 2009. Some $29.6 billion has already been paid though the end of last year, according to a Bloomberg report.
The law requires the energy secretary to determine every year the “adequacy” of the fee, the industry’s trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, pointed out in a letter on Thursday.
It is now well beyond adequate, according to utilities, since the government is spending very little money on the project.
Power companies have already won court decisions that allow them to collect damages, now likely to run well over $20 billion, from the federal government, for their extra costs — including building temporary steel-and-concrete silos, in which old fuel can be stored for decades.
(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also preparing to vote on a new policy for waste that would consider such storage adequate for the next few decades, and would permit new reactors to be built even without a long-term plan for waste disposal.)…………………………..“There is no clearly defined program for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste,’’ wrote Frederick Butler, the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Utilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that the Green Party of Florida and two other environmental groups could challenge Progress Energy’s plan for two new nuclear reactors. | Ocala.com | Star-Banner | Ocala, FL
Legal challenge to nuclear plant advances Environmental groups opposing Progress’ proposed Levy reactors may argue issues in court, board rules. Ocala.com By Fred Hiers
Friday, July 10, 2009Progress Energy’s road to building its proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County northwest of Dunnellon is becoming anything but smooth.
On Wednesday, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board – an arm of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission – ruled that the Green Party of Florida and two other environmental groups could challenge the utility company’s plan for two new nuclear reactors and had successfully raised major concerns about the plant’s potential environmental impact.
That means Progress Energy will have to argue its case about those environmental issues during a legal hearing, including in oral arguments
The other two environmental organizations that petitioned to be part of future hearings and had objections were the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Ecology Party of Florida.
The environmental groups had 12 areas of concern. The licensing board dismissed nine. The remaining three had to do with radioactive waste, how construction would affect the aquifer in the area and the plant’s use and disposal of salt water…………………………
The environmental groups also said the proposed plant should make better plans as to what it would do with its spent radioactive waste and have long-term storage strategies. The utility should also better explain its safety and security procedures for the waste.
The licensing board also agreed with the environmental groups that the utility company should better address the environmental impact of building its plant on a flood plain and its effect on the aquifer and wetlands.
Nuke plant blames maintenance problems for leak
Nuke plant blames maintenance problems for leak philly.com Jul. 9, 2009 The Associated PressLACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. – Officials at a New Jersey nuclear power plant say a maintenance problem is to blame for a tritium leak this year.The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a statement explaining what operators of Lacey Township’s Oyster Creek plant say went wrong.A 1991 report indicated two pipes had been recoated. But a new analysis finds they were not completely recoated and were prone to corrosion.
Nuke plant blames maintenance problems for leak | AP | 07/09/2009
Reprocessing is no solution
Reprocessing is no solution
Rutland Herald July 7, 2009 “………………The Bush administration began the new push for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In 1979 a United States naval nuclear engineer and president, Jimmy Carter, ended this dangerous program.Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was supposed to be one alternative to lots and lots of mining forever and forever. The biggest experiment in reprocessing was at Sellafield in Britain. In 2005, after decades of contamination and leaks and general spewing of horrible matter into the ocean, air, and land around the reprocessing plant, Sellafield was shut down because a bigger-than-usual leak of fuel dissolved in nitric acid —some tens of thousands of gallons — was discovered. It contained enough plutonium to make about 20 nuclear bombs.A nuclear dump site just six miles from the famous Champagne vineyards in France is leaking radioactive waste into the groundwater. According to the French nuclear safety authority, the “wall of a storage cell fissured” while concrete was being added to a recent layer of nuclear waste.It showed levels of radioactivity leaking from another dump site run by the same company in Normandy — at up to 90 times above European safety limits.That waste has seeped into underground water used by farmers, with contamination spreading into the countryside and threatening dairy production. The Champagne site will receive a total of 4,000 terabequerels of tritium — more than three times the amount of tritiumwaste as the dump site in Normandy.
Reprocessing is not a new idea. In fact, more than $40 billion has been spent globally on reprocessing technologies that have never become commercially successful. A 1996 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the costs of reprocessing and transmutation of irradiated fuel from waste produced by existing U.S. reactors alone easily could be more than $100 billion, in the addition to the cost of a geologic repository.
Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage
Downwinders still waiting for RECA coverage By Blair Koch Times-News 7 july 09 A common fear among victims of radiation fallout caused by nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and ’60s is that they will not live long enough to see the government take accountability.Ilene Hoisington expressed this sentiment when interviewed by the Times-News in June 2007. At 75, she had seen both her sons die of cancer and had her own larynx removed due to the same disease. Hoisington’s sister also died of cancer.In June 2008, Hoisington lost her battle too, having died before Idaho fallout victims were included in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.”I think (the government) is waiting until we all die and then there won’t be anymore downwinders, problem solved,” Hoisington said in 2007.
Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? |
Diana Hooley: Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? Idaho Statesman ENERGY BY DIANA HOOLEY 07/05/09 “………………. ……………Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson (WSJ Blog, June 12) says that the capital costs for nuclear are currently prohibitive……………………………current problems in the European nuclear industry suggests that new reactors would be “no easier or cheaper to build than the ones a generation ago.” The Times said that construction of two “new” generation reactors in France and Finland have been riddled with problems and are well over budget with no end in sight for the project’s construction phase.
The Times also said that in Florida and Georgia, state laws have been changed to raise electricity rates in order to pass on the costs of the expensive construction of new nuclear plants to consumers. Some states like Missouri have balked at these preconstruction costs and suspended any nuclear plant projects for their state.
The New York Times quotes MIT economist Paul L. Jaskow in acknowledging the cost of nuclear. Jaskow says a number of U.S. companies are looking in trepidation at the magnitude of investment necessary to build a reactor………………….. renewables are working toward baseload capacities, and with smart grids and other new storage technology, researchers can see the potential for baseload.
Wind power is just one of several renewable resources supported by current federal legislature that produces no greenhouse gasses or toxic waste and is believed to have the long-term technical potential to be five times total current global energy production or 40 times current electricity demand (“Global wind map shows best wind farm locations,” Environment News Service, May 17, 2005).
Additionally, renewables do not have to be built to scale like nuclear, requiring massive investments in large electrical transmission infrastructures. Evidently, investors know the market potential of renewables; wind power alone is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually (Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 update).
Exxon still aids denialist lobby
Exxon still aids denialist lobby Sydney Morning Herald David Adam in London July 3, 2009
THE world’s largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question global warming, despite its public pledge to cut support for climate change denial.Company records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to such lobby groups last year. These include the National Centre for Policy Analysis in Dallas, which received $75,000, and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, which received $50,000……………………….According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, the NCPA and Heritage Foundation have published “misleading and inaccurate information about climate change”…………………………The Heritage Foundation’s December “web memo” said: “Growing scientific evidence casts doubt on whether global warming constitutes a threat, including the fact that 2008 is about to go into the books as a cooler year than 2007.”……………………….Mr Ward said: “ExxonMobil has been briefing journalists for three years that they were going to stop funding these groups [but] … they are still doing it. If [it] wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it and not tell people it has stopped.”
No answer on nuclear waste issue
No answer on waste issue Rutland Herald KATHLEEN KREVETSKI 29 June 09 “……………………. the Areva nuclear fuel processing plant — La Hague in France where spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. La Hague acknowledges that it is intentionally dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the ocean while the incidence of childhood cancer is rampant in the area surrounding that plant.
Before George Bush left office, the U.S. EPA had radically increased permissible public exposure to radiation in drinking water, including a nearly 1,000-fold increase in permissible concentrations of strontium-90, 3,000- to 100,000-fold for iodine-131, and a nearly 25,000 increase for nickel-63. The relaxation of these radiation protection regulations had been sought for years by the nuclear industry and its allies in the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
In the most extreme case, the new standards permit radionuclide concentrations seven million times more lax than permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act and would permit public exposure to radiation levels vastly higher than EPA had previously deemed unacceptably dangerous. The public did not get to comment on these changes. What exactly is the radioactive waste that is now being discharged into the Connecticut River. When will our Vermont Department of Public Health start reporting on the trends of cancer incidence rising in Vermont? And Entergy and the NRC thinks its OK to continue to build up the stockpile of the radioactive waste here in Vermont because no one else will accept it
Destroying Indigenous Populations
Destroying Indigenous Populations Atlantic free Press Dahr Jamail Wednesday, 24 June 2009 “……………………….. Most of the Sioux’s land has been taken, and what remains has been laid waste by radioactive pollution.
“Nothing grows in these areas – nothing can grow. They are too radioactive,” White Face said.
Although the Black Hills and adjoining areas are sacred to the indigenous peoples and nations of the region, their attempts at reclamation are not based on religious claims but on the provisions of the Constitution. The occupation of indigenous land by the US government is in direct violation of its own law, according to White Face…………………………………The Ogala Sioux are engaged in ongoing legal battles with the pro-uranium state of South Dakota. They are aware of the unequal nature of their battle, but they cannot afford to give up. White Face explains how “… Our last court case was lost before learning that the judge was a former lawyer for one of the mining companies. Also, the governor’s sister and brother-in-law work for mining companies [Powertech] and a professor, hired by the Forest Service to test water run-off for contamination, is on contract with a company that works for the mining company. When I found out the judge was a lawyer for the mining company I knew we would lose, but we went ahead with the case for the publicity, because we have to keep waking people up.”
Other tribes, such as the Navajo and Hopi in New Mexico, have been exposed to radioactive material as well. Furthermore, the July 16, 1979, spill of 100 million gallons of radioactive water containing uranium tailings from a tailing pond into the north arm of the Rio Puerco, near the small town of Church Rock, New Mexico, also affected indigenous peoples in Arizona.
Destroying Indigenous Populations – Progressive Politics and Opinion Opinion
Cheerleaders’ for nuclear energy ignore facts
‘Cheerleaders’ for nuclear energy ignore facts
STAR-TRIBUNE Karen B. Maute
June 24, 2009The Virginia Uranium Inc. oligarchy continues to ignore and minimize the negative impacts of uranium mining and milling.
Equally disturbing is this industry’s ongoing attempts to erode our civil rights and the legislators who are allowing this travesty.
Virginia Uranium has engaged a host of self-serving experts and VUI family members to write letters of support on their behalf.
Their letters speak, in generalities, of nuclear power and avoid mention of the negative impacts of uranium mining and milling on a community, region and state.
The Nuclear Energy Institute has joined the metastasizing Virginia Uranium Inc. supporters.
NEI project manager Suzanne Phelps weighs in with more of the same……………..She neglects to mention the radioactive/hazardous wastes that are generated and stored for thousands of years as a result of mining, milling and nuclear power generation.
She also omits information regarding the cost of building a reactor and the tax dollars that subsidize, monitor and clean up after the industry.
We do not appreciate cheerleaders for nuclear energy. We crave factual information regarding mining and milling of uranium.
National Poll: Americans Split on Safety of Nuclear Energy
— Most Support EPA Designation of Carbon Dioxide as Public Health Threat
— Majorities See Danger in Nuclear Waste
— Wind Energy Perceived as Safest
— One-Third See More Nuclear Weapons as Plants Increase
FAIRFIELD, Conn., June 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new national poll of 800 residents by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute found a nearly even split between those suggesting nuclear energy was very or somewhat safe (46.1%) and those who said somewhat dangerous or very dangerous (44.7%).
“Americans are split about whether nuclear power is safe or not, and many people have specific security concerns about nuclear power. The two dangers that concern a majority of Americans are the problems with radioactive waste storage, a top criticism of nuclear power, and possible plant meltdowns,” says Dr. Josh Klein, assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Sacred Heart University.
A majority of Americans (58.4%), however, indicated that nuclear energy’s radioactive waste is a danger that humans will face for thousands of years to come.
Over one-third of respondents, 36.8%, expect the number of nuclear weapons to increase worldwide as a result of building more nuclear power plants.
Poll respondents did consider other energy sources as significantly more safe than nuclear energy. A large majority, 94.6%, saw wind energy as very or somewhat safe. This was followed by river and tidal energy (80.0%), geothermal energy (68.5%), fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas (56.1%), and biofuels (55.6%).
http://sev.prnewswire.com/oil-energy/20090624/DC3751424062009-1.html
Homeland Contamination: Destroying Indigenous Lands and Populations
Homeland Contamination: Destroying Indigenous Lands and Populations pacific Free Press 20 June 09 “………………..Homeland Contamination
There is uranium all around the Black Hills, South and North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. Mining companies came in and dug large holes through these lands to extract uranium in the 1950’s and 1960’s prior to any prohibitive regulations. Abandoned uranium mines in southwestern South Dakota number 142. In the Cave Hills area, another sacred place in South Dakota used for vision quests and burial sites, there are 89 abandoned uranium mines.
In an essay called “Native North America: The Political Economy of Radioactive Colonialism,” political activists Ward Churchill and Winona LaDuke state that former US President Richard Nixon declared the 1868 Treaty Territory a “National Sacrifice Area,” implying that the territory, and its people, were being sacrificed to uranium and nuclear radiation.
The worst part, according to White Face, is that, “None of these abandoned mines have been marked. They never filled them up, they never capped them. There are no warning signs … nothing. The Forest Service even advertises the Picnic Springs Campground as a tourist place. It’s about a mile away from the Cave Hills uranium mines.”
The region is honeycombed with exploratory wells that have been dug as far down as six to eight hundred feet. In the southwestern Black Hills area, there are more than 4,000 uranium exploratory wells. On the Wyoming side of the Black Hills, there are 3,000 wells. Further north into North Dakota, there are more than a thousand wells.
The Black Hills and its surroundings are the recharge area for several major aquifers in the South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming regions. The crisis can be gauged from the simple description that White Face gives: “When the winds come, they pick up the [uranium] dust and carry it; when it rains or snows, it washes it down into the aquifers and groundwater. Much of this radioactive contamination then finds its way into the Missouri River.”…………………………….The Ogala Sioux are engaged in ongoing legal battles with the pro-uranium state of South Dakota. They are aware of the unequal nature of their battle, but they cannot afford to give up. White Face explains how “… Our last court case was lost before learning that the judge was a former lawyer for one of the mining companies. Also, the governor’s sister and brother-in-law work for mining companies [Powertech] and a professor, hired by the Forest Service to test water run-off for contamination, is on contract with a company that works for the mining company. When I found out the judge was a lawyer for the mining company I knew we would lose, but we went ahead with the case for the publicity, because we have to keep waking people up.”
Other tribes, such as the Navajo and Hopi in New Mexico, have been exposed to radioactive material as well. Furthermore, the July 16, 1979, spill of 100 million gallons of radioactive water containing uranium tailings from a tailing pond into the north arm of the Rio Puerco, near the small town of Church Rock, New Mexico, also affected indigenous peoples in Arizona.
Her rage and grief are evident as White Face laments, “When we have our prayer gatherings we ask that no young people come to attend. If you want to have children don’t come to Cave Hills because it’s too radioactive.”
The exploitative approach to the planet’s resources and peoples that led to these environmental and health disasters collides with White Face’s values: “I always say that you have to learn to live with the earth, and not in domination of the earth.”
Homeland Contamination: Destroying Indigenous Lands and Populations
New power-plant drain on rivers sparks debate
New power-plant drain on rivers sparks debate Ny san Antonio 21 June 09 by Antonio Caputo
New power plants planned along the lower Colorado River could use the same water supply that was denied San Antonio for future growth.
The driving force is simple. Power shortages are forecast for Texas’ future — shortages that power companies are rushing to meet with new plants.
But experts, environmental groups and others are beginning to question whether there is enough water available to serve the massive facilities.
The issue pits two fundamental resources critical to the fast-growing state against each other — water and power.
In an indirect way, it even puts San Antonio’s two largest utilities in competition for water from the lower Colorado River, some 200 miles away……………………
Nukes’ take
The lower Colorado River is a microcosm of an issue exploding statewide.
The South Texas Project, which supplies San Antonio with about a third of its energy, wants to build two more nuclear reactors and use the Colorado River water for cooling.
-
Archives
- November 2026 (64)
- October 2026 (302)
- 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)
-
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
No answer on waste issue Rutland Herald KATHLEEN KREVETSKI 29 June 09 “……………………. the Areva nuclear fuel processing plant — La Hague in France where spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. La Hague acknowledges that it is intentionally dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the ocean while the incidence of childhood cancer is rampant in the area surrounding that plant.





