Under Chernobyl’s shadow
Jul 15, 2009 21:20
Under Chernobyl’s shadow
Jpost.com By RUTH EGLASH, REPORTING FROM PRIPYAT, UKRAINE “……………..Just two kilometers from the Chernobyl nuclear power station, Pripyat – once home to some 48,000 people working at the nearby plant – was evacuated forever in less than three hours when Reactor No. 4 exploded, filling the air with deadly radioactive fallout.
Within 24 hours of the explosion on April 26, 1986, the entire city was emptied, with residents being told to take only essentials. No one has returned to live here since.
Although eerily empty, Pripyat still remains a symbol of one of the worst man-made ecological disasters in history and the repercussions of Chernobyl, both medically and environmentally, still resonate strongly not just for former residents but for the Ukrainian people in general.
A report released by Greenpeace on the 20th anniversary of the accident, with new data based on cancer statistics in neighboring Belarus, estimated that approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancers in the area were caused by Chernobyl. Additionally, demographic data from the previous 15 years showed that 60,000 people died in Russia as a result of the fallout and the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000 indirectly.
Radiation from the accident has also had ongoing effects on survivors, including damage to immune and endocrine systems, accelerated aging, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological problems, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in fetal deformities.
Despite these horrific aftereffects and even as many Ukrainians still come to terms with what happened, officials in Kiev are actively seeking to expand the country’s nuclear energy capabilities, even if it comes at the risk of another Chernobyl.
The move to enhance nuclear energy, which can power the country’s large cast iron and steel industries, as well as individual homes, is justified today, say officials, because of the growing tensions between Ukraine and Russia.
Uranium mining and Indian country
Uranium Mining and Indian Country Native America Discovered and Conquered , Robert J. Miller, 6 July 09 For some “strange” reason, over 50% of the uranium mined in the U.S. has been taken from Indian lands. This has led to numerous problems and claims of cancers and deaths, most notably on the Navajo Nation Reservation.A recent story shows that this problem extends to many other reservations.“A report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry warns members of the Spokane Tribe of Washington not to hunt, fish or gather medicinal plants near a defunct uranium mine.The report also said tribal members shouldn’t use water from the Blue Creek due to contamination from the old Midnite Mine. People who go near the site shouldn’t stay more than an houri in order to limit exposure to radiation, the agency said.
Native America, Discovered and Conquered » Blog Archive » Uranium mining and Indian country
A Look at Uranium Mining
A Look at Uranium Mining Texas Vox July 8, 2009 by Public Citizen Texas
“………………………There is one destructive aspect of nuclear power that public discourse tends to be especially silent on. Just as coal industry apologists brush over the enormous damage caused by coal mining, any discussion of nuclear is power is likely to be silent on the damage done by uranium mining.
The damage to human health associated with uranium mining is huge. Historically, uranium miners have had a significantly higher risks of developing small cell Carcinoma, which is a likely product of their exposure to Radon-222 — a cancer causing agent created by decaying uranium. The presence of Radon gas also makes uranium mines a very dangerous work environment.………………………..
Last year the French mining company Areva was nominated for a Public Eye Award (a recognition intended for companies who brought about the most social or ecological damage) by Pro Natura (Switzerland’s branch of Friends of The Earth), and the Berne Declaration development campaign. The nomination came from the company’s perceived failure to adequately disclose the risks associated with uranium mining to its workers in Niger, as well as neglecting to treat patients who are unable to pay at company hospitals. Workers also mentioned deaths caused by radioactive contamination of air and ground water.
Aside from the dangers of uranium exposure, mining projects also cause considerable damage to the local environments and to the health of people who live nearby.
A Look at Uranium Mining « TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas
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.
Inexplicable leukemias rock small German rural region
Inexplicable leukemias rock small German rural region Google News By Arnaud Bouvier – 7 July 09 GEESTHACHT, Germany (AFP) — For 20 years, children from a small rural northern German region — where Alfred Nobel invented dynamite — have been contracting leukemia at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world and no one knows exactly why.Nineteen cases of leukemia among children under 15 have been recorded since 1989 in the region of Elbmarsch, some 30 kilometres (19 miles) from the city of Hamburg, three or four times the average rate.”Such a high rate of leukemia is unique in the world,” according to Hayo Dieckmann, a health official in the nearby town of Lueneburg who is also a medical doctor…………………………………………..
Campaigners, however, point out that within two kilometres of the region lie the Kruemmel nuclear power station and the GKSS scientific research centre, both of which they believe are to blame for the leukemia outbreaks.
The “citizens’ association against leukemia in Elbmarsch” (BI) believes that a nuclear accident took place at the GKSS centre, only six months after the devastating meltdown at Chernobyl.
The campaigners say that a radiation leak occurred at the centre — which operates a small nuclear reactor for research purposes — on September 12, 1986, which was later covered up by the authorities……………………………
Campaigners also point an accusing finger at the Kruemmel nuclear power plant which reopened on June 24 after a fire broke out there two years ago.
The plant hit headlines again at the weekend in the wake of two further malfunctions, one of which plunged part of Hamburg into darkness and knocked out the city’s traffic lights.
At the end of 2007, a national survey of nuclear power stations in Germany showed that the risk of contracting cancer rose dramatically for children living near a power plant.
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.
IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem
AEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem 3 July 2009 | 15:00 | Source: B92 BELGRADE — The head of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) has warned that Serbia must dispose of any remaining atomic fuel as soon as possible. Mohammed ElBaradei and Serbian Science Minister Božidar Đelić today signed an additional protocol on cooperation between Belgrade and the IAEA, after visiting the Vinča Nuclear Science Institute yesterday.
ElBaradei warned that Serbia needed to dispose of its remaining supplies of atomic fuel to prevent any possible incidents.
B92 – News – Society – IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem
‘No’ to nuclear power
SOUTHDOWN STAR Marlene Lang 30 June 09 “……………………Twenty-six plants nationwide showed shortfalls in the funds they are required by federal law to set aside for dismantling the reactors someday and cleaning up after themselves.–
Every year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission checks on the state of so-called “decommissioning funds.”
Most years there are only a handful of plants running short of having those estimated costs laid up, usually four or five one official said. Those billions set aside for close-down and clean-up don’t just pile up under a mattress, of course; the money is invested in the stock market. According to an Associated Press report, some $4.4 billion in decommissioning funds was lost in the downturn, even as the actual costs for shutting down plants has risen by $4.6 billion because of (I love this part) rising energy costs – and labor costs.–
Illinois’ Braidwood Station, Byron Station and LaSalle County Station, each with two nuclear reactors, and the Clinton Power Station are all on the NRC’s shortfall list……………………… Plans for fund-challenged nuclear power plants are to let them sit for about six decades, or however long it takes to accumulate the cash to safely dismantle those reactors and remove those nasty, hot and highly radioactive uranium fuel pellets. Sixty years, idle, is the time-frame estimate the NRC gave media earlier this month.–……………………. I didn’t need to be an engineer to wonder what happens when things get, well, rusty? But immediately I doubted my common sense; I asked if maybe we, the non-technical public, are ill-informed? Maybe even stupid? Maybe magical nuclear power plants don’t actually rust; maybe they can rest safely forever on waterfronts near our homes and always safely contain that high-level radioactive fuel.–
I tried to believe, but I lacked what the nuclear industry and U.S. government policy refer to as: Waste Confidence. This is a doctrine – and I chose that word carefully – which says that the nuclear industry can continue to function and grow even though it has the big gaping problem of what to do with the its own leftovers, being confident that a solution will be found. When common sense fails, there is always faith.– …………………………. What to do? The better question may be, what not to do. How about we listen to common sense and NOT build any more of these reactors until we have solved the great mystery of what to do with the waste, and can afford to pay for that solution?
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/lang/1644764,063009-colLANG.article
Asse nuclear dump contains explosives
Asse nuclear dump contains explosives The Local 26 Jun 09 CETOnline: The controversial salt-mine nuclear waste storage facility in Asse, Lower Saxony is not only crumbling but also contains unknown amounts of explosive, it has emerged………………………………The DDP report said an explosives storage chamber still containing a variety of dynamite-related substances, can be found near the area where the radioactive waste is being kept.
Files from the Research Centre for the Environment and Health (GSF), which used to run the storage facility, show that over the last few years a bog of radioactive salt water has built up by the entrance to the explosive chamber.
NUCLEAR LEGACY
NUCLEAR LEGACY Soviet nuclear tests still haunt Kazakhs canada.com By Maria Golovnina, ReutersJune 25, 2009 “…………………………
Moscow tested about 500 bombs here between 1949 and 1989, exposing 1.5 million people like Abishev to extreme levels of radiation and contaminating an area roughly the size of Germany.
The Soviet Union conducted its last test here in 1989 and the facility was officially closed in 1991 as the Soviet collapse brought the global nuclear arms race to an end.
Twenty years on, the Semipalatinsk test range is silent, a steppe wind blowing gently through the abandoned site dotted by ruined concrete buildings and giant hunks of rusty metal.
But hundreds of thousands of residents, subjected to the equivalent of 20,000 Hiroshima bombs during 40 years of Russian experiments, are still sickened by the legacy of their past.
The incidence of cancer, mental illness and fertility problems in this region is among the highest in Kazakhstan, a vast Central Asian nation west of China, and infant mortality is five times higher than in other regions………………………………scientists say more needs to be done to study the effect of 40 years of tests on the people. It is an issue still little understood by science, and researchers say mutations are already being passed down from parents to their children.
“The biggest issue is not so much those who experienced the explosions directly but the impact on their children and grandchildren,” said Mikhail Panin, an environmental scientist who is researching the matter in the Semipalatinsk area.
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
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.
So-called “CLEAN” nuclear energy
Ohio Governor, Duke Power, UniStar, USEC, and France merge to build “clean energy park” at DOE site
Beyond Nuclear 20 June 09 Background: An alliance involving Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Duke Power company, United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), UniStar Nuclear Energy, and France’s troubled nuclear power giant AREVA is being forged to build a new 1600 megawatt Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) at the now closed atomic bomb and nuclear fuel enrichment factory site in Piketon, Ohio. The proposed site is at the U.S. Department of Energy’s old Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant which was leased to USEC for the enrichment of uranium. USEC ceased operations in May 2001. The Piketon site is also the USEC pilot project for new uranium enrichment technology with the construction of the American Centrifuge Demonstration Facility.
Our View: There is nothing “clean” about this proposed first-of-a-kind nuclear energy park for the enrichment of nuclear fuel alongside a new nuclear power plant including the secret dumping of radioactive contamination from the Cold War Piketon bomb factory. The Piketon facility is still the focus of more than $100 million in long overdue cleanup money from industrial contamination dating back to the bomb factory’s opening in 1952. The construction of a new uranium enrichment and now a new power reactor will likely result in widening contamination and divert vital resources from truly clean renewable energy resources and energy efficiency.
Nuclear waste cargo sailing the Barents Sea –
Nuclear waste cargo sailing the Barents Sea barents Observer 19 June 09
40 year old rusty spent nuclear fuel containers from Russia’s abounded submarine base Gremikha were shipped to Murmansk this week.The voyage from Gremikha to Murmansk normally takes one day. This is the same route as the Russian retired submarine K-159 took when it sank northeast of the inlet to the Kola Bay in August 2003. The vessel which is sailing with the highly radioactive spent fuel this week is the 35 year old Serebryanka.
The rusty spent nuclear fuel containers have been stored outdoor at Gremikha for 40 years, posing a grave radiation threat. They contain uranium fuel from some of the Soviet Union’s first nuclear powered submarines, which at that time were based at Gremikha. The submarines reloaded their deadly radioactive spent fuel to the onshore open-air storage site.
Nuclear waste cargo sailing the Barents Sea – BarentsObserver
A potential nuclear mess
A potential nuclear mess LAS VEGAS SUN 19 June 09 Many companies are not setting aside enough money for closing of nuclear plants The companies that own most of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors are not putting aside an adequate amount of money to properly close them when the time comes, an Associated Press review of financial records found……………………..
Instead of planning for closure, plant owners are delaying the inevitable, with the help of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has given 19 plants permission to mothball their reactors for as many as 60 years before closing them. The commission has also granted 20-year license extensions for 54 reactors, more than half of the nation’s plants, which could mean closure would come in 80 years.
The hope, apparently, is that the plant owners will be able to afford closure several decades down the road, and that is dangerous. The plants could become a safety and security risk if the owners don’t have the money to properly maintain and close them. Nuclear power critics wonder whether the companies that plan to mothball their plants will even be around in 60 years.
“Our concern is that they’ll just walk away from it,” said Jim Riccio of Greenpeace. “It’s like a sitting time bomb. The notion that you can just walk away from these sites and everything will be hunky-dory is just not true.”
Supporters of nuclear power like to portray it as a clean, environmentally friendly source of power, but that is not true. Nuclear power has created tremendous environmental and health hazards and the contamination the plants have created will be around, in some cases, for tens of thousands of years. These issues must be adequately addressed, yet the NRC appears to be letting the nuclear plant operators push off the problems to the next generation.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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
nuclear-news 