Quick Search
Safety
Disproportionate Harm: Women and Children are more Vulnerable.
The Helen Caldicott Foundation: Disproportionate Harm, Initial Talking Points
There has been a lot of discussion about the spent fuel at Fukushima, especially now - about the reactor #4 spent fuel pool. The harm this could cause should it collapse is incalculable. But, the truth is we are getting sick and dying from radiation exposure already, and it is happening in disproportionate numbers. We need to keep referencing that this is happening now in Japan, and everywhere around the world. We are asking for your help in making this widely known. Please join us!
Disproportionate Harm: Women and Children are more Vulnerable.
This year the Helen Caldicott Foundation in partnership with NIRS, and all other groups who want to join us (national and international), will embark on the start of a major education to action campaign on the effects of radiation exposure on the health of all people. But, its particular focus will be the disproportionate risk radiation exposure poses to women and children. Buried in the literature to date is the fact that men are more resistant to radiation. The safety standards, which time has shown protect no one, were designed at the time of the Manhattan Project to protect young, healthy, western, men. Presumably, military men expected to accept a certain degree of risk in exchange for protecting their country.
Insufficient as it is, even the National Academy of Sciences BEIR V11 Report, widely accepted as the industry standard, clearly states:
- There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Any exposure can trigger cancer.
- Although the reasons are not yet clearly understood, women and children are significantly more vulnerable.
- Women are 40-60% more likely to get cancer than men, given the same exposure. They are about 50% (half again) more likely to acquire a fatal cancer from this exposure. This means that for every two men who die of radiation related cancer, three women will die given a similar exposure.
Children between the ages of 0-5 are more vulnerable than all adults, both men and women. But what is almost never discussed, also from the BEIR V11 Report, is that in this age group little girls are twice as vulnerable as boys. This means that for every boy, there will be two girls who will acquire a fatal or non-fatal cancer...
Regulatory Meltdown Reveals Efforts to Improve Nuclear Safety Undermined by Four NRC Commissioners
Office of Congressman Ed Markey 9 December, 2011
| Dec. 9, 2011: New Report Details Conspiracy to Delay, Weaken US Nuclear Safety in Wake of Fukushima |
|
“Regulatory Meltdown” Reveals Efforts to Improve Nuclear Safety Undermined by Four NRC Commissioners WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of his ongoing investigation into U.S. nuclear safety since the Fukushima meltdowns, today Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Congress’s leading voice for nuclear safety, released a blockbuster new report that details how four Commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) colluded to prevent and then delay the work of the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima, the entity tasked with making recommendations for improvement to NRC regulations and processes after the Fukushima meltdowns, the worst nuclear disaster in history. The Near-Term Task Force members comprise more than 135 years of collective experience at the NRC, and with full access to expert NRC staff completed a methodical and comprehensive review of NRC’s regulatory system... “The actions of these four Commissioners since the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused a regulatory meltdown that has left America’s nuclear fleet and the general public at risk,” said Rep. Markey. “Instead of doing what they have been sworn to do, these four Commissioners have attempted a coup on the Chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the American public to assure the safety of America’s nuclear industry. I call on these four Commissioners to stop the obstruction, do their jobs and quickly move to fully implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.” |
What You Need to Know About the Nuclear Explosion in France
Informational article with links.
The Atlantic l Alexis Madrigal 12 September, 2011
An explosion rocked a French nuclear site used to help decommission other facilities. France derives the highest percentage of its electricity from nuclear energy of any country in the world, so problems with its nuclear system pose a very serious threat to the country's productivity. That said, this site is not a large nuclear facility and does not contain electricity-producing reactors. The Marcoule operation has a long history in the French nuclear program, and was hoping to be selected to house one of France's next-generation reactors.
At this moment, it's hard to tell how big this story is. One person was killed in the blast and there have not been reports of any radioactive leaks. The real fallout in the case could come from the lingering feeling that France's nuclear miracle faces a generational challenge it may not overcome. The accident also highlights that nuclear power requires long-term solutions to its waste problems, solutions that in themselves can spawn new fears.
The human element
The failure of nuclear safety assements to take into consideration the human factor.
We become blind to dangers that surround us, and institutions are no different than individuals- they don't always like being reminded of things that can go wrong. But when the thing that can go wrong involves nuclear safety, the institutionalized practice of "killing the messenger" has made potential whistleblowers overly cautious about reporting hazards, knowing that their jobs could be at stake.
Human error also plays a role not well accounted for in the regulations, as does human frailty. Regulatory and watchdog agencies gradually become part of the industries they were meant to regulate, changing their purpose from oversight to promotion which very effectively muzzles them. Moreover, nuclear accidents are complex, as we have seen at Fukushima. They don't usually happen according to the "playbook," calling attention to that fact the humans aren't good in emergencies at out of the box thinking.
Nuclear power is not safe to begin with, but when the human factor is taken into account, the safety factor plunges even further. With a technology where one accident can destroy half a country, whose fallout threatens to contaminate the entire planet, whose waste must be stored safely longer than the human mind is capable of imagining let alone executing, safety cannot be assumed ever.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists l Hugh Gusterson 1 September, 2011
The discussions about the safety of nuclear reactors in the new post-Fukushima world have focused on technical questions: Is it possible to make reactors earthquake-proof? What is the best way to ensure that spent fuel remains safe? What is the optimal design for coolant systems? Can reactors be made "inherently safe"?
Sometimes these discussions make it sound as though the reactors operate all by themselves -- both when they run smoothly or during an accident. But that is to omit the human element. Nuclear reactors are operated by fallible human beings, and at least two meltdowns have been caused by poor human decisions: the 1961 meltdown of an experimental military reactor in Idaho, which killed three operators when one of them withdrew a control rod six times as far as he was supposed to (carrying out a high-tech murder-suicide over a love triangle, according to some accounts), and the Chernobyl accident, which was caused by an ill-conceived experiment conducted outside approved protocols.
So, if nuclear safety is a matter of human behavior as well as sound technical infrastructure, we should look to the social sciences in addition to engineering to improve reactor safety. After all, the machines don't run themselves. The social sciences have five lessons for us here:
U.N. Nuclear Safety Proposals Weakened
Fukushima, terrible as it is, offered an opportunity for many national and international organizations and governing bodies to reverse or strengthen dangerously lax standards and proclamations on nuclear safety. It seemed to many that this might be one positive thing that would come out of the devastating accident. Instead, the pro-nuclear push has grown even more strident. As Japanese citizens are forced to monitor their cities and schools because their government will not, international oversight organization IAEA praised Japan for its actions. Now the U.N., claiming a need to review nuclear safety standards, instead of increasing regulatory oversight and vigilence, has actually further lowered their own standards.
We are being forced to wait until "it happens here," wherever "here" may be, before there look to be any real changes. We are being forced to watch Japan succumb to a growing medical catastrophe of unequaled proportions. One that will unfold for generations to come. One that may equal or even surpass the health and environmental damage of Chernobyl. If our leaders will not say enough is enough, then we must say it for them. We cannot just sit back and let this happen to a country, its people, or our planet.
Scientific American l Fredrik Dahl 30 August, 2011
VIENNA (Reuters) - Countries with atomic power plants would be encouraged to host international safety review missions, under a draft U.N. action plan that may disappoint those who had hoped for strong measures to prevent a repeat of Japan's nuclear crisis.
Seeking the middle ground between states advocating more binding global rules and others wanting to keep safety as a strictly national responsibility, the U.N. nuclear agency appears to have gradually watered down its own proposals.
The document from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the third draft presented to IAEA member states over the last few weeks, outlines a series of steps to help improve nuclear safety after the Fukushima accident almost six months ago.
The latest version puts increased emphasis on the voluntary nature of the proposals, highlighting resistance among many countries against any move toward mandatory outside inspections of their nuclear energy installations.
Virginia Earthquake Reports
Today's earthquake in Virginia rattled more than just the ground, shutting down the two reactors at the nearby North Anna Generating Station, and causing evacuations at the Pentagon and elsewhere in Washington. The plant is running on back-up diesel generators, one of which has already failed due to what they believe is loss of coolant. While everything appears to be fine at the moment, the earthquake- originally labelled a 6.0 (and subsequently downgraded twice), at 5.8 in magnitude is alarmingly close to the plant's safety limits. The North Anna Plant was rated safe from 5.9-6.1. It seems VA & the US got lucky today, but that was a little too close for comfort for many.
Dominion’s North Anna Nuclear Plant Loses Power After Quake
Bloomberg l Julie Johnsson and Brian Wingfield August 23, 2011
Dominion Resources Inc.’s North Anna nuclear power plant was operating on backup diesel generators after a 5.8-magnitude earthquake knocked out its offsite power.
North Anna’s twin nuclear reactors automatically shut down during the earthquake, whose epicenter was less than 15 miles (24 kilometers) from the plant, about 85 miles southwest of Washington, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
One of the plant’s four diesel generators, which are powering the reactors’ cooling systems during the blackout, stopped working as a result of a coolant leak, Roger Hanah, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in an interview. Dominion Resources Inc. called a fifth standby generator into service to replace the broken unit, Ryan Frazier, a spokesman for Richmond-based Dominion, said in an e-mail.
Virginia Nuclear Plant Shut Down After Earthquake, Indian Point Hums Along
A nuclear power plant located 27 miles from the epicenter of today's earthquake in Mineral, Virginia has been shut down.Reuters reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pulled the plug after the 5.8 magnitude earthquake, but another nuclear plant in Surry, Virginia, 103 miles from Mineral, remains operational. Indian Point,the nuclear power plant located 35 miles from New York City, "is operating normally" following today's earthquake, Entergyspokesman Jim Steets tells us.
"There hasn't been any impact at all," Steets says, "No damage has been done on site. Minor shaking was felt in some areas…we're double checking all the equipment to ensure there was no damage." Given theongoing nuclear disaster at the Fukishima nuclear plant in Japan following the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami that occurred in March, it's natural to be concerned that Indian Point, which lies on two fault lines, is as safe as it should be.
A spokeswoman for Riverkeeper, a NY clean water advocacy group, Tina Posterli, tells us, "Today's 5.9 earthquake outside of Virginia brings home the urgency of why Indian Point's license should not be renewed." Despite the plant's civil engineer declaring, "We're designed for the worst-case scenario...even at 8.9, I wouldn't expect too much damage," Posterli points out that "Entergy's upcoming licensing hearing in February doesn't even address an earthquake or seismic risk."
And some more unsettling news:
Quake sensors removed around Virginia nuke plant due to budget cuts
The Raw Story l David Edwards 23 August, 2011
A nuclear power plant that was shut down after an earthquake struck central Virginia Tuesday had seismographs removed in 1990s due to budget cuts.
U.S. nuclear officials said that the North Anna Power Station, which has two nuclear reactors, had lost offsite power and was using diesel generators to maintain cooling operations after an 5.9 earthquake hit the region.
The North Anna plant, which was near the epicenter of Tuesday's quake, is reportedly located on a fault line.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rates the plant as theseventh most likely to receive core damage from a quake
What are the odds? US nuke plants ranked by quake risk
In case you missed it the first time around... In the wake of today's 5.8 ( or 5.9, or 6.0- depending on who you listen to) earthquake in Virginia which rattled americans as far away as Vermont it seemed pertinent to republish this article detailing the upgraded US nuclear plant earthquake risk list.
After the evacuation today of the Pentagon, and elsewhere in Washington, perhaps elected officials will take the possibility of earthquakes a bit more seriously than they have in the past.
MSNBC l Bill Dedman 17 March, 2011
What are the odds that a nuclear emergency like the one at Fukushima Dai-ichi could happen in the central or eastern United States? They'd have to be astronomical, right? As a pro-nuclear commenter on msnbc.com put it this weekend, "There's a power plant just like these in Omaha. If it gets hit by a tsunami...."
It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance of an earthquake strong enough to cause damage to the reactor's core, which could expose the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a single ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145.
And it turns out that the nuclear reactor in the United States with the highest risk of an earthquake causing core damage is not the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors tucked between the California coastline and the San Andreas Fault.
Top ten plants at risk of an earthquake that could damge the reactor core:
1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.
2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.
3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.
4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.
5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.
6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.
7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.
8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.
9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.
10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.
Concerns grow over risk of U.S. nuclear projects post-Fukushima
"Federal law does not allow the NRC commissioners to ignore ... warnings in order to accommodate the nuclear industry." Jim Warren, executive director North Carolina energy watchdog group NC WARN
Facing South l Institute for Southern Studies
The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan is still unfolding five months later, with multiple meltdowns and significant radiation releases contaminating communities and farms downwind from the facility. Some nuclear experts are calling it "the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind."
The Fukushima accident is also raising questions about the U.S. nuclear industry's current plans to build new reactors and re-license old ones.
Today, environmental and public-interest advocacy groups filed 19 legal challenges that ask the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to put the brakes on reactor licensing until it fully incorporates into its regulatory process the lessons learned from Fukushima.
A total of 25 groups and several individuals filed the contentions with the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. They cite the recently-released findings [pdf] of an NRC task force appointed to conduct an emergency review of the regulatory implications from the meltdowns and radioactive releases at TEPCO's Fukushima plant. The review identified both systemic and specific problems in how NRC regulations protect the public, pointing to issues including seismic hazards, flooding, fires, station blackouts, hydrogen gas production, the vulnerability of spent-fuel pools, and multi-reactor accidents.
Nuclear Janitors Risk Health and Safety
"The statistics illustrate that as the industry grows older it relies more and more on the willingness of temporary and sometimes desperate workers to risk their health to keep ailing power plants on line...
...Another serious problem is the increasing number of jumpers working at several plants in one year. This increases the worker's total exposure to radiation and the possibility of birth defects, cancer, and leukemia. NRC records indicate that some jumpers worked at as many as five nuclear plants during one calendar year. At the present time the responsibility for reporting past radiation exposure rests solely with the jumpers."
A lot has been written post-Fukushima about Japan's "disposable workers." This is a terrible thing, where men desperate for work take on the worst, most dangerous nuclear jobs; virtually insuring a dangerous level of radiation exposure. The truth is, this has been going on as long as the nuclear industry. Warnings have been issued, suggestions have been made, but the industry couldn't function without them. So, nothing has been done. Laws exist to protect them, but they are not enforced. Records could be kept, but they are not. In a tragic version of "don't ask, don't tell"- few questions are raised by the utilities, and the workers, in dire need of money, have no incentive to come forward. If they did, they would probably bear the brunt of any consequences.
To illustrate just how long this has been a serious issue, here is an excellent piece from 1984. It is still, sadly, quite topical. Almost everything discussed in it is still happening. And it still inspires horror, outrage, and great sadness. Even worse, despite the intervening years, there is almost nothing (accessible) out there that has been written about it. Even this was difficult to find.
MultinationalMonitor.org l Veta Christy February 1984 V5, No 3
They are known as glow-boys or jumpers in the nuclear industry. Since the early 1970s, thousands of temporary workers have been recruited to perform a number of high-risk maintenance and repair tasks, such as detecting leaks, welding and refueling, and waste cleanup and removal. But while federal standards permit jumpers to absorb about ten times the amount of radiation that the general public is exposed to, concerned scientists and industry critics are questioning whether these levels are necessary or socially justifiable.
The jumpers are hired by contractors like Atlantic Nuclear Services of Norfolk, Virginia (an estimated 23,000 have passed through their door since 1974) or directly by reactor manufacturers like Babcock and Wilcox or Westinghouse, which contract repair and maintenance services to more than half of the nation's utilities. Estimates of the number of jumpers this year are as high as 40,000.
"We've had people from a variety of backgrounds, from college professors to bartenders, work for us," says Melvin Miller, a spokesman for Nuclear Services. "They do it because it pays well. Maybe they make a jump and then have some extra money for a vacation that year, or maybe it helps them through rough times in between jobs."
Other jumpers are recruited from the ranks of the construction unions who build the plants when construction work is slow. But the majority are typically people with few job skills and little or no prospects for jobs elsewhere.
Two more recent posts with references to this issue:
Gamma sponges, glow boys, suicide squads, jumpers, bio-robots and liquidators: It's all the same...
N.R.C. Lowers Estimate of How Many Would Die in Meltdown
Unsurprising news from the NRC report given to the NYTimes by The Union of Concerned Scientists. Despite findings of cesium from Fukushima at far greater levels and distances than claimed, the NRC report has determined that cesium would likely not leave the plant grounds, even in the case of a full station blackout, should an accident happen in the US. Earlier studies showed 60% of the reactor core's cesium could escape during a meltdown. The new study claims only 1-2% would escape. It doesn't seem the researchers were listening during the "Lessons Learned" meetings which sparked so much concern about reactor safety in the US. It doesn't seem they are interested in learning lessons from history or Fukushima at all. Denying the evidence of real life consequences, instead opting for rosy PR for a US nuclear future. Regardless of the danger.
NYTimes l Matthew Wald 29 July, 2011
ROCKVILLE, Md. — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is approaching completion of an ambitious study that concludes that a meltdown at a typical American reactor would lead to far fewer deaths than previously assumed.
The conclusion, to be published in April after six years of work, is based largely on a radical revision of projections of how much and how quickly cesium 137, a radioactive material that is created when uranium is split, could escape from a nuclear plant after a core meltdown. In past studies, researchers estimated that 60 percent of a reactor core’s cesium inventory could escape; the new estimate is only 1 to 2 percent.
A draft version of the report was provided to The New York Times by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear watchdog group that has long been critical of the commission’s risk assessments and obtained it through a Freedom of Information Act request. Since the recent triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, such groups have been arguing that the commission urgently needs to tighten safeguards for new and aging plants in the United States.
