Atoms for Peace

When I was a child my father gave me a Disney book called Our Friend the Atom. As I recall, we would have radioactive toasters for our bread in the morning.  It was part of the propaganda about Atoms for Peace.   In 1954 Eisenhower gave a speech about Atoms for Peace, in which he proposed that there were peaceful uses for the atom.   “Operation Candor” was to enlighten the American public on the risks and hopes of a nuclear future.  Although Eisenhower may have been advocating for peace, during his time in office the nuclear holdings of the US rose from 1,005 to 20,000 weapons.  Commercial reactors were designed for the production of electricity, but all these reactors also produced plutonium, which was needed for weapons.

In a Congressional Research Service report Anthony Andrews summarizes:

As part of the World War II effort to develop the atomic bomb, reprocessing technology was developed to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. In the early stage of commercial nuclear power,
reprocessing was thought essential to supplying nuclear fuel….With the development of commercial nuclear power after the war, reprocessing was considered necessary because of a perceived scarcity of uranium. Breeder reactor technology, which transmutes non-fissionable uranium into fissionable plutonium and thus produces more fuel than consumed, was envisioned as a promising solution to extending the nuclear fuel supply. Commercial reprocessing attempts, however, encountered technical, economic, and regulatory  problems. In response to concern that reprocessing contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, President Carter terminated federal support for commercial reprocessing.

Although the US is no longer reprocessing its spent fuel, reprocessing from commercial reactors is being done in other countries.

According the Council on Foreign Relations among the beneficiaries of the Atoms for Peace was  Iran.   Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear energy can be  traced to 1957, in connection with a push from the Eisenhower administration to increase its military, economic, and civilian assistance to Iran. On March 5 of that year, the two countries announced a “proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy” under the auspices of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. The deal was intended to open doors for U.S. investment in Iran’s civilian nuclear industries, such as health care and medicine. The plan also called for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to lease Iran up to 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for research purposes.

 Several countries that received training and technology transfers through Atoms for Peace eventually used that knowledge platform for illicit weapons programs. India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel all received direct or indirect support through Atoms for Peace. Each of these countries later built secret nuclear weapons stockpiles.

There seems to be little distinction  between atoms for peace and atoms for war.

• Atoms for peace: Now what? (kansascity.com)

Radiation on the West Coast found in sea lions

I recently reported the die off of sea lions off of the coast of California.  Hattie Nestle shared with me   Yoichi Shimatsu’s report of  using a Geiger counter near  San Onofre reactor looking at sea life.  Yoichi used a Radex radiation detector, which measures information on a 40 second sample.  It seems to be an end plate design.   Baseline data is about .13 microseverts per hour, which is consistent with the data I have found.   This short sample time can lead to great variabiliity in results.  I have found that averages of 13 can vary from lows of 5 to highs in the 30’s.   Much of what he reported to be high could be variability.   However, he also   reported:

A quick scan with a dosimeter revealed that the sea lion was radioactive. More careful measurements disclosed a shocking 0.48 microsieverts in the heart and liver region.

This quick scan shows a result that is 3.7 times baseline does seem significant and consistent with the hypothesis that the there was radioactivity concentrated in the sea lion.  At this point a longer scan of 5-10 minutes would increase the value of this data.      HIs report that the boat is radioactive at  .13 microseverts is puzzling, as that is consistent with baseline radiation.  His observation of high levels of 1.2 microseverts in Japan is a correct  assessment of high levels.

Some wonder how this could happen, because the ocean is so large.  Part of the answer is that biological tissues avidly take up potassium, because it is so rare, being only 400 parts per million in the ocean, but a major component of intracellular electrolytes  The tissues cannot distinguish potassium and cesium.   Thus, cesium will be actively taken up by tissues, starting with plankton and up the food chain to the sea lions.

Japan Experts: Up to 93 billion becquerels a day may still be leaking into Pacific from Fukushima plant, much in the form of cesium 137.

Radioactivity continues to leak, and life from plankton to sea lions will  be effected.

Related articles

• Fukushima radiation into ocean: is it killing sea lions? (nuclear-news.net)
• Dead sea lions washing on shore in California appear to have died from radiation poisoning (vineoflife.net)
• Dead sea lions washing on shore in California appear to have died from radiation poisoning (dprogram.net)

Hot Fish in Fukushima 4/19/13

The disaster at Fukushima continues to unfold.   Fish have been found with very high levels of cesium.

TEPCO announced that on February 17^th, they captured a Greenling fish which was found to contain 510,000 becquerels per kilogram of Cs-134 and Cs-137, twice the amount of the fish captured on February 12^th.  This is the highest levels of radiation ever detected in fish, and over 5,100 times the safety standards in Japan.

Plutonium is being found outside of the containment area.  A rat  gnawing at the wiring at caused an electrical short, that has lead to failure of the cooling system at Fukushima.

Related articles

• Deadly levels of radiation found in food 225 miles from Fukushima: Media blackout on nuclear fallout continues (sgtreport.com)
• [Sea contamination] 430,000 Bq/Kg measured from greenling and spotbelly rockfish, “4,300 times much as safety limit” (fukushima-diary.com)
• Radiation levels continue to increase in lakes, rivers north of Tokyo. Deadly levels of radiation found in food 225 miles from Fukushima. Media reports nothing. (familysurvivalprotocol.com)

Vermont Yankee has too much waste

A recent report states that “Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, reports that Vermont Yankee has generated more than 600 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste during its 41 years of operation. He urged that it be moved more quickly from the plant’s spent fuel storage pool to dry concrete and steel casks on the plant’s grounds, where he said it would be safer.  Here is his full report.

The pool “contains about nine times more cesium-137 (a radioactive isotope) than was released from the more than 600 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests around the world,” said Alvarez… Alvarez added that the Vermont Yankee pool “contains more than the entire inventory of spent fuel in the four damaged reactors at the Fukushima site” in Japan.

A separate scholar named Alvarez, Luis Alvarez, reported a layer of iridium  marks the KP border,  The boundary marks the end of the Cretaceous period, which is the last period of theMesozoic era, and marks the beginning of the Paleogene period of theCenozoic era. The boundary is associated with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, a mass extinction, thought to be an asteroid that hit in the Yucatan about 60 million years ago and marked one of the major extinctions of the world.  The iridium, from the asteroid, settled in a thin layer found around the world.

Cesium 137, so abundant at Vermont Yankee, is only found as the byproduct of nuclear reactors.  There are now deposits of cesium found around the world, and its presence is used as a dating marker.     It is water soluble and the body identifies it as being like potassium.  Cesium 137 is a significant problem in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

When sentient beings arrive on our plant in a few million years they will see the iridium layer, and say how unfortunate.   When they see the layer of Cesium 137 around the world, they will say, but this is what they did to themselves.  Will we cause our own extinction because of a  failure to  control the nuclear power, which is our civilization’s Pandora’s box.

Related articles

• Shut Down Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and Stop a Looming Disaster (forcechange.com)
• Vt. lawmakers hear from nuclear waste critic (sfgate.com)
• Permanent place sought for nuclear fuel (wwlp.com)

NRC coming to town April 30

In a post yesterday the Safe and Green Campaign reported that the NRC is coming to town,  for a discussion  about safety for the past year at VY.  The meeting is on April 30, at 5:30 Pm  at the Brattleboro Union High School, Fairground Road, Brattleboro (just off Exit 1, I91), in the Multi Purpose Room at the far end of the school.    Their post lists the safety issues for the last year, and also states that other issues, such as former NRC head saying all the nuclear reactors should be shut down, the GAO saying that evacuation plans are inadequate, or that the EPA is changing standards, are not to be discussed.  Come and see democracy in action in the 21 century.

Related articles

• Public Pressure on the Rise Against Nuclear Power (ecowatch.com)
• The State of Nuclear Power in US: Bad and Worse (commondreams.org)

EPA updates standards. Cancer rates to soar

A report on 4/14/13 in the NYT stated that EPA has revised the standards in light of what they have learned at  Fukushima

By reducing the projections for how much radiation exposure is likely in the years after such an episode, the proposal could also reduce the amount of contaminated land that would have to be abandoned…the report prepared for the Department of Homeland Security would allow a sharp increase in the amount of radioactive contamination allowed in food and water, and the allowable doses from irradiation by radioactive particles that would be deposited in an accident.

Some of the changes are not in the documents but are in other reports that are mentioned in footnotes, said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a California group. The E.P.A., he said, was “trying to bury the bad stuff in footnote references to a whole series of other documents.”

One clear change in the protective action guidelines, which are being updated for the first time since 1991, was to change the assumption of how much radiation people might be exposed to over time in an affected area. That is because after Fukushima, Mr. Edwards said, it became clear that the initial radiation level could be reduced significantly by cleanup.

In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;

• In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
• Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
• Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster.

“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.”

“No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”

Alice in Wonderland.    In light of the success of the cleanup of Fukushima, disasters can be mitigated.   Don’t they know that the disaster is not yet over?

Related articles

• EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• TV: Japan radiation expert says drastic measures are needed – Radioactive contamination now permanently in ecosystem – Fukushima forests must be cut down asap (VIDEO) (enenews.com)
• Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water. Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket (globalresearch.ca)
• White House Approves radical radiation clean up rollback to support Japan? (nuclear-news.net)
• Helen Caldicott: Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water. Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket (womensphilanthropy.typepad.com)
• Obama Approves EPA’s Higher Radiation Exposure Levels for U.S. Population (dprogram.net)
• Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water (thedailysheeple.com)
• Obama OKs HUGE Increase In ‘Safe’ Radiation Levels – Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket… (redflagnews.com)
• Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water (conservativeread.com)
• Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water. Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)

Nuclear reactors do not produce energy

In a lengthy article David Swanson, who worked with Dennis Kucinich on his 2004 campaign, summarizes one of the key findings of the International Forum on Globalization report:

The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy.

Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.

Also not counted is any mitigation of the relatively routine damage done to the environment, including human health, at each stage of the process.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-carbon-source-of-energy.html#hcK6QJ6cgS4OSKex.99

The article reports that one of the primary products of the nuclear reactor is plutonium, the preferred element for weapons.  It all started with Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace Program, in which a civilian cover was developed for the weapons industry.

The United States then launched an “Atoms for Peace” program that supplied equipment and information to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the U.S. and throughout the world. The first nuclear reactors in Iran and Pakistan were built under the program by American Machine and Foundry.

Today some are concerned that Iran is working on nuclear reactors and that Pakistan has developed nuclear reactors.   How many know that it was the US that introduced these countries to this technology?

The nuclear reactors are dirty, expensive, and dangerous.  They are a relic of the cold war.  According to the recent head of the NRC they are not safe and they should be shut down.

What are we waiting for?

Data for March and April 2013, showing rise at the time of refueling

On 3/10/13 at home for 3d, 17h:

Average	High	Low	Total
16	32	4	86K

For 3/8 and 3/9 the wind was coming out of the north.   This is the highest average that I have recorded at my home, and it corresponds to the time that Vernon is down for refueling.  A photo taken 5 days later shows that neither the cooling tower nor the water discharge is being used.   This is consistent with the hypothesis that at times of refueling there is release of radioactive gas release, which will be carried by the wind.   The releases are within “normal range.”

At Vernon on 3/13 for a vigil, walking from town hall to front of plant

Average	High	Low	Total
13	37	5	2301

On 3/15 at home for 4d, 19h

Average	High	Low	Total
13	30	5	91K

On 3/15 drove to Hinsdale with Geiger counter in moon roof for 1h 24m

Average	High	Low	Total
12	21	4	1043

Walking at Hinsdale to the dam south of VY for 1h 2m.  Ice breaking up in the foreground, no water from the outflow, and no activity from the cooling towers.    

Average	High	Low	Total
13		3	850

Driving to Vernon town hall for 34 m

Average	High	Low	Total
13	19	8

At Vernon with moon roof open for 7 min

Average	High	Low	Total
15	22	11

Driving home with moon roof closed for 49 m

Average	High	Low	Total
12	19	5	591

On 3/27/13 at home for 11d,19 h

Average	High	Low	Total
14	32	3	242K

I took another trip on an unknown date. I fixed up the car so that the Geiger counter in the moon roof feed information directly into the computer using GeigerGraph so that I could have minute by minute data rather than averages over time. I drove to Hinsdale, collected data, and pushed a button for the roof. The Geiger counter has a jack that feeds to the computer; the jack was broken off, and the Geiger counter stopped displaying.

I called Vince Mazur, the manufacturer, and told him the problem. The 1 year warranty had expired. He told me that he would fix it for free! I noted on their Web site that they were now making a pancake style Geiger counter, which was 3 times more sensitive and could be used for screening of food. He offered it for a $100 discount for the second purchase of his product. I was so happy they would fix the first for free that I decided to buy a second.

I now have two different Mazur models, end plate model 8000 and pancake style model 9000. I will refer to them as Geiger Counter A, GCA, and Geiger Counter B, GCB.

On 4/7/13 for 3d, 16h with GCB

Average	High	Low	Total
33	58	12	191K

On 4/11/13 I drove to Hinsdale with both Geiger counters in the closed moon roof:

for GCA for 1h 35m

Average	High	Low	Total
13	22	4

For the GCB

Average	High	Low	Total
30	44	19	3292

With the moon roof open at Hindsdale, there being a 8 mph north wind,

for the GCA for 13 m

Average	High	Low	Total
11	19	8	159

For the GCB for 12 m

Average	High	Low	Total
34	45	25	464

With the moon roof closed, driving to Vernon town hall

for the GCA for 22 m

Average	High	Low	Total
11	22	5	263

For the GCB for 22 m

Average	High	Low	Total
33	43	26	826

At the Vernon town hall, with the wind blowing south toward the school

for GCA for 12 m

Average	High	Low	Total
12	23	7	179

For GCB for 12 m

Average	High	Low	Total
29	39	22	450

At the Vernon public school, with the Geiger counters on the ground, now down wind

for GCAfor 14 m

Average	High	Low	Total
15	22	10	214

For GCB for 14 m

Average	High	Low	Total
35	44	22	544

On the drive home for 52 minutes, with the roof of the moon roof closed:

For GCA

Average	High	Low	Total
12	19	4	644

For GCB

Average	High	Low	Total
31	40	20	1779

Perhaps the most significant finding was the high average of 16 for three days in early March, at a time when VY was being shut down. I was not keeping track of the wind at that time. Subsequently, I looked at the data from the WeatherUnderground, and found that there was a light wind directly from the north during the days of the sampling.   Another notable finding was that the highest counts of all were at the school when the wind was blowing from the north toward the school, when the plant was up and running again.

The results with the moon roof closed remain slightly lower than when open. I will do a study with the two Geiger counters in both situations.

I did find a slight increase in the radioactive counts during the time there was refueling.   The increase was small, but the sample size was large.   I would have liked to have data collected closer to the nuclear reactor at Vernon.   This would be possible if there were more sampling sites.

Evacuation plans are inadequate

In a report the GAO stated that current evacuation plans are flawed.

“For more than 30 years, community readiness has been based on the belief that evacuation planning isn’t needed beyond 10 miles from nuclear sites. But the Government Accountability Office report  found that regulators have never properly studied how many people beyond 10 miles would make their own decisions to take flight, prompting what is called a “shadow evacuation.”

As a result, the GAO report says, “evacuation time estimates may not accurately consider the impact of shadow evacuations.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency in charge of nuclear safety, disputed the findings.”

If a disaster were to occur at Vermont Yankee, where would people go?  The current disaster plan has them going to local centers.   What then?

Related articles

• Alert to Congress: Nuclear evacuation may bog down (cnsnews.com)

Former head of NRC speaks out.

In a story in the New York Times the former head of the NRC declared all of the 104 nuclear reactors in the US are flawed.

“The position of the former chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, is not unusual in that various anti-nuclear groups take the same stance. But it is highly unusual for a former head of the nuclear commission to so bluntly criticize an industry whose safety he was previously in charge of ensuring.

Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.”

“I was just thinking about the issues more, and watching as the industry and the regulators and the whole nuclear safety community continues to try to figure out how to address these very, very difficult problems,” which were made more evident by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, he said. “Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem.”

I remember when he was forced to resign from the NRC, and I wondered what the story really was.   Now it is coming out.