WHO Fights Cancer with Expensive Technology, not Prevention

I  came across a press release from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAA) about their fight against cancer. on World Cancer Day, Feb 4, 2014.     

The IAEA is a key actor in efforts to tackle cancer in developing countries. The Agency works with its Member States to improve access to radiotherapy and nuclear medicine, and partners with organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) to strengthen national cancer control programmes.

According to the WHO, seventy percent of cancer deaths now occur in developing countries, where resources to prevent, diagnose and treat the disease are often limited. During the last three decades, the IAEA has delivered more than US $260 million of cancer-related assistance to developing countries, including equipment and training.

Now I understand the position of he World Health Organization, that they have been unable to find evidence of cancer among the people exposed at Fukushima.   They are facilitating the exporters of nuclear technology, probably in collaboration of the World Bank.  Markets are to be developed for corporate interests.  

 

Nuclear Evacuees Forced to Return

There was a recent article in the New York Times about the residents of a town near Fukushima:

MIYAKOJI, Japan — Ever since they were forced to evacuate during the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant three years ago, Kim Eunja and her husband have refused to return to their hilltop home amid the majestic mountains of this rural village for fear of radiation.

But now they say they may have no choice. After a nearly $250 million radiation cleanup here, the central government this month declared Miyakoji the first community within a 12-mile evacuation zone around the plant to be reopened to residents. The decision will bring an end to the monthly stipends from the plant’s operator that have allowed Ms. Kim to relocate to an apartment in a city an hour away.

“The government and the media say the radiation has been cleaned up, but it’s all lies,” said Ms. Kim, 55, who is from South Korea, and who with her Japanese husband runs a small Korean restaurant outside Miyakoji. “I want to run away, but I cannot. We have no more money.”

The nuclear refugees are being told that it is time to go home.  They are given no other choices.   There is collusion between the government and the corporations supporting forces of destruction.   These are crimes against humanity, and  may happen anywhere in the world.

Sea Lion Malnutrition Worst ever this year

Last year there was a discussion on this blog about the high number of sea lions who were malnourished last year.   I was curious as to what would happen this year, and I found a report  on National Geographic that said:

A record number of seals and sea lions for this time of year have been admitted to California treatment facilities. The lead vet working with the animals blames a “perfect storm” of causes, including a toxic algal bloom and seasonal factors.

The nonprofit Marine Mammal Center has taken in 386 animals since January 1, more than during any previous year up to this date, says Shawn Johnson, the group’s top veterinarian. The center’s headquarters is in Sausalito, though it maintains satellite offices in Mendocino, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties.

The article goes on to say that there is an algae bloom and bioaccumulation of domoic acid.   There is no mention of Fukushima and bioaccumulation of radionucleotides.  

US betrays its troops

There was a recent blog about how the US government has treated those who have been injured while serving in the Armed Forces.  The article says:

“You always hurt the one you love, the one you shouldn’t hurt at all”

If there’s any truth to that pop standard’s message, then America must surely love its heroes. Because, much as we lionize those who stare death in the face so that the rest of us may live peacefully, once the spotlight shifts away from the heroes of each war or disaster, as often as not our government officials callously toss those heroes aside.

     The article cites the treatment of the Bonus Army in the 1930’s; they were wounded veterans of World War I, who were forced out of their Washington encampment by the Army using machine guns, under the command of MacArthur, Patten, and Eisenhower.  There continue the stories of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, Gulf War Syndrome after the war in Iraq.  The official story was one of denial on the part of the government, and suffering on the part of the service people.

      Much of the article is focused on the plight of the sailors who were on the USS Ronald Reagan.   The official position is that there was no risk, but many of the sailors had a constellation of symptoms that was characteristic of acute radiation sickness:

Alvarez says that based on the illnesses that Operation Tomodachi participants are reporting, the real radiation doses were likely very large. “We’re hearing the same kinds of complaints that I was hearing from the people exposed to fallout from the bomb testing program—the metallic taste in the mouth, loss of hair, and sudden and unexpected illnesses,” he says.Symptoms like that indicate “tissue-destructive doses.” –

       Many of the sailors have found that their medical records have no documentation of their exposure to radiation while in the US service.   They are joining the list of those who have been betrayed by their government.   Science is being trumped by politics.   The government has “the backs” of the nuclear industry; together they denying the reality of the nuclear age.  This alliance of business with government, coupled with denial and no accountability,  has created a most  destructive force,  that threatens life as we have known it.

– See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/04/21/america-abandoning-bravest-heroes-yet/#sthash.glohH09C.dpuf

Chernobyl Leaf Litter does not Decay

There was a recent post in the Smithsonian about the long term effects on the environment around Chernobyl.

According to a new study published in Oecologia, decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem.

The team decided to investigate this question in part because of a peculiar field observation. “We have conducted research in Chernobyl since 1991 and have noticed a significant accumulation of litter over time,” the write. Moreover, trees in the infamous Red Forest—an area where all of the pine trees turned a reddish color and then died shortly after the accident—did not seem to be decaying, even 15 to 20 years after the meltdown.

“The gist of our results was that the radiation inhibited microbial decomposition of the leaf litter on the top layer of the soil,” Mousseau says. This means that nutrients aren’t being efficiently returned to the soil, he adds, which could be one of the causes behind the slower rates of tree growth surrounding Chernobyl.

the Chernobyl area is at risk of fire, and 27 years’ worth of leaf litter, Mousseau and his colleagues think, would likely make a good fuel source for such a forest fire. This poses a more worrying problem than just environmental destruction: Fires can potentially redistribute radioactive contaminants to places outside of the exclusion zone, Mousseau says. “There is growing concern that there could be a catastrophic fire in the coming years,” he says.

For some disasters, most of  the damage has been done at the time of the event: think of a flood or a forest fire.   What seems to be different about nuclear catastrophes is that they have no end.   Damage accumulates over time and is often unforeseeable.  Who would have imagined that the disaster at Chernobyl could literally be re-ignited decades later if there happened to be a forest fire in the exclusion zone?  There no longer is an infra-structure to provide the fire fighting equipment.

Sea lion sickness recurs this Spring

Last year there were reports of sea lion deaths on the West Coast of California.  The authorities were baffled.    I have wondered what will happen this year, and I came across the following post:

Seals and sea lions in California are turning up sick or injured at a record pace this year.Sausalito’s Marine Mammal Center has more animals in its care right now than ever before in its 39-year history.

Last year there was no clear answers, and this year is the same.  There is talk of the red tide.   There is no talk that the Pacific Ocean may have become an environmental disaster because of the accident at Fukushima; some ideas are unmentionable.

Nuclear Power Can’t Be a Solution to Global Warming Precisely because of Global Warming

Large storms like Sandy show the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to weather events.   With global warming nuclear reactors are having trouble staying cool.  They continue to cause significant thermal pollution.

nuclear-news

Nuclear Power Can’t Be a Solution to Global Warming Precisely because of Global Warming DISSIDENT VOICE Extreme Weather Events Multiply Existing Risks and Vulnerabilities of Nuclear Power: From Natural Disasters to Nuclear Disasters?by Jo-Shing Yang / February 7th, 2009 A new dawn is coming for nuclear power.

This week, America found out that President Obama’s economic stimulus plan includes a $50 billion loan guarantee for nuclear power plants in the Senate version. Nuclear power is about to be revived from its political and public-opinion grave to enjoy a “green renaissance,” now with 35 new nuclear reactors being planned. This lethally radioactive zombie is about to get an extreme makeover with the cosmetics of combating global warming, achieving environmental stewardship, deepening economic prosperity, and attaining energy independence..

Then it will get a new name: the new green energy. The irony is that while nuclear proponents cite global warming as the key…

View original post 335 more words

Corporate Support for Nuclear Reactors

There was a recent story by US News on the AP wire service about the new head of the Nuclear Energy Agency, talking about the promise of new nuclear technologies.   The story goes on to discuss  Bill Gates:

Gates is a major investor in the reactor development firm TerraPower, which is among a small number of U.S. companies trying to make major changes in nuclear power. The company, which primarily deals with large-scale reactors that would make and consume their own fuel, is also developing steel alloys that could apply to the modular technology.

“If you could make nuclear really, really safe, and deal with the economics, deal with waste, then it becomes the nirvana you want: a cheaper solution with very little CO2 emissions,” Gates told Rolling Stone magazine in an interview last month.

The article goes on to say:

one of the problems in turning theory into reality: Countries most able to make the investment have less incentive to do so. Both France and the U.S. are likely to extend the life of their aging plants to 60 or even 80 years.

“The fact that they are old doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not safe,” said Magwood, whose new post falls under the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “The analogy I often use is it’s kind of like a car. You can replace many of the components in a car to keep it operating as long as you want.”

There  are powerful forces that continue to push for new forms of nuclear power.   Jim Hanson has joined others in promoting new nuclear technologies.   There has been a movie, Pandora’s Promise.  Bill Gates has become a powerful person with money to invest.    Do we want a new nuclear technology developed by the people who have developed MicroSoft and Windows?   Can you imagine?   Litigation would trump cooperation.   Secrecy would prevail with endless errors in code.

Senior Management at Entergy: Selling their Stocks.

There was a recent report about the senior executives of Entergy, who own the nuclear reactor at Vermont Yankee.

Over the last few months, there has been a bit of a selling spree of Entergy stock. But this sell-off isn’t coming from just anybody: these sales are by some of the corporation’s top executives. Between December and early April, five Entergy execs sold off large portions of stock they hold in their employer. On December 3, 2013, Entergy CEO Leo Denault sold more than half of his Entergy stock (55.7%, or 33,949 shares valued at $2,103,480). On February 20,the Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Marsh, sold 20.7% of his stock (2,808 shares valued at $181,902). On February 27, Senior Vice President for Federal Government, Regulatory, and Policy Affairs Kimberly Despeaux sold 20.8% of her stock (3,024 shares valued at $193,113). And most recently, on April 9, Chief Accounting Officer Alyson Mount sold 45.9% of her stock (4,929 shares valued at $347,495). Also, on December 16 and October 16, Senior VP of Human Resources and Chief Diversity Officer Donald Vinci twice sold more than 16% of his Entergy holdings.

I believe that people sell stocks when they believe that the value will go down.  Perhaps they are in a position to see the future of nuclear energy.

Beware of Deals with Entergy and Vermont Yankee

To the editor of the Northampton Gazette

      We have several concerns with your recent editorial, in which you supported the process of SAFSTOR  for the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor at Vernon, VT.

      SAFSTOR puts  dealing with the reactor into the future for up to 60 years. Now, there are workers who are familiar with the functioning of the reactor.  Sixty years from now the experienced work force will be dead.  

       Entergy’s plan is to invest the current $620 million decommissioning fund into some unspecified financial scheme  so that at some far time in the future there is enough money for decommissioning  This scheme depends upon   the hope that the growth of the fund will rise more rapidly than the cost of  the decommissioning.    Otherwise, the project is underfunded.

        Vermont Yankee is a Limited Liability Corporation owned by  Entergy.   If, as your editorial says, Entergy will make decisions purely on economic basis, then they are warning that as soon as the money runs out they will declare bankruptcy and leave Vermont with the bill.   Senior executives at Entergy are now selling off their stocks.   Perhaps they have insider knowledge of what the financial future of Entergy is. 1   There seems to be little hope that the federal government is prepared to foot the bill.

       Entergy plans to take $200 million from the decommissioning fund and spend it on storing the fuel rods in dry caskets for indefinite storage.  During the time that Entergy has owned the plant, they have taken the profits and have made no investment into the cleanup fund. This should have been part of routine maintenance.   Some of the fuel rods have been in wet storage for 40 years. 

       The editorial says that Vermont should hold Entergy’s feet to the fire.    This is the crux of the issue.   Entergy has not been a good corporate citizen.  The state has sued them multiple times.  According to David Deen, Connecticut River Steward, “filings with the Vermont Public Service Board showed that Yankee’s thermal discharge exceeded its permit 75 percent of the time during critical spring and fall American shad migration.”   The courts have consistently sided with the corporations.   The federal government’s regulatory agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,   has consistently sided with  industry when given a conflict between the public good and corporate goals. 

       There are early warning signs of what the NRC will allow.  “Sixteen months after shutdown of the reactor at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, offsite emergency planning will no longer be needed, according to documents  filed by Entergy with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Therefore, offsite emergency response plans will no longer be needed for protection of the public …”  Their computer models say that there is no way that there is  danger with the  wet storage pools,  holding more than enough toxic radiation to ruin the environment for  many miles around.   By now we should be suspicious of computer models that say there should be no cause for alarm.  After all, we were told that the disaster at Fukushima could not occur, until it happened.  There remain some deniers, who say that Fukushima was a    “ Japanese” problem.  

         The reactors that failed at Fukushima were GE Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors, the same model as the one at Vernon.   The nuclear technology and corporate culture was exported from the US to Japan.  These cultures were developed in the secrecy of the cold war.  US corporations were the models for the Japanese nuclear industry. There are 23 such Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors on the East Coast of the United States.   They have the same vulnerabilities as the ones in Japan.   The diesel engines for back up are placed in the basement, where they are vulnerable to  flooding.  The spent fuel rods are stored in a pool 30 feet up in the air.   The reactor at Vernon, built on a flood plain,  is one that has been identified by the NRC as being vulnerable to flooding, if a dam upstream  on the Connecticut River were to fail.  There are no solutions to the problems of Fukushima.   The US is lucky and not wise that a similar disaster has not occurred in the US.   

  There should be time to let the reactor fuel to cool on its own.   There are  reasonable concerns for the workers to avoid early exposure.  But we also believe that there is a need for urgency on this matter.   To allow a time table of decades, for a company that has not been a good corporate citizen, seems to be an invitation for disaster.   If enough time is given, unlikely events WILL occur.   

1.  https://vernonradiationsafety.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/senior-management-at-entergy-selling-their-stocks/

2.http://www.timesargus.com/article/20140410/NEWS03/704109922

3 http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_25525362/vy-emergency-planning-zone-be-eliminated