Thursday, April 16, 2015

newspaper malfunction

FYI: there have been some problems with updating the #OcNukeDaily (and also the #RCDaily). the papers did not update properly on the 14th or 15th. when i checked today there was no content, and the archives for the 13th are blank. sent me a note saying that i have helped them to find a major bug in their scheduling system, and hopes to have the bug is fixed tomorrow the 17th.

i have ran a manual update in the meantime, and the papers should refresh this evening; but, we will have to wait and see what happens! - watch for updates!

please check the archives for regular features which may not be added into the current issue of #OcNukeDaily - see 12 April issue at:

for #RCDaily it would be: 

UPDATE: it has now also happened with the #OcNuke Weekly... a basically blank archive for 8 April edition; and now a new version by manual refresh – what appears now is a working copy. 

thank you for your understanding!

Monday, April 13, 2015

Nuclear Age Impacts Humans

Nuclear Age Impacts Humans: “What is the impact on the Earth from the Nuclear Age?” CCTV Host Margaret Harrington asks Les Kanat PhD, Professor of Geology in the Department of Environmental and Health Sciences at Johnson State College, Vermont during a televised interview, Dr. Kanat, also a science advisor to Fairewinds Energy Education points out that the Earth is less likely to be effected by the Nuclear Age and poses a new question “What impact will the Nuclear Age have on humans?”

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Unsafe site won’t ever be safe for nuclear waste | Las Vegas Review-Journal

U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio and Rep. Cresent Hardy, R-Nev., walk along the train tracks during a congressional tour of the Yucca Mountain exploratory tunnel Thursday, April 9, 2015. (Sam Morris/Las Vegas Review-Journal) Follow Sam Morris on Twitter @sammorrisRJ

Nevada Rep. Cresent Hardy, who joined a pro-Yucca Mountain congressional site visit this past week, recently asked the question, “Is there a scenario in which Nevadans would actually welcome nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain?” (“Time for Nevada to talk Yucca Mountain,” March 22 Review-Journal).
The answer to that question is an emphatic “no” for one simple yet unavoidable reason: Because Yucca Mountain is an unsafe place for storing or disposing deadly nuclear waste and was selected for purely political reasons having nothing to do with science or suitability. There is nothing for state officials to negotiate. In fact, our leaders would be remiss in their duty to protect the public and the environment to entertain the notion that any amount of dollars could possibly compensate for likely grievous and lethal harm from siting a facility in such an unsafe location as Yucca Mountain.
From day one, science with respect to Yucca Mountain has taken a back seat to Washington, D.C., power politics...

more: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Unsafe site won’t ever be safe for nuclear waste | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Judge permits Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon: No Tribal Consult, No Environmental Update; Appeal Expected | Mining Awareness Plus

The nuclear fuel chain destroys the environment and kills from the start, with uranium mining, to the finish, with long-lived, deadly, nuclear waste. Why does the US government refuse to protect America’s National Forests and water supply? Why does it fail to uphold its obligations to the American Indians?Especially at the behest of foreign mining companies? Why must Americans fight foreign companies in court, and even fight Congressmen, to protect the land and water?

Press Release from the Center for Biological Diversity:
April 8, 2015
Federal Judge OKs Uranium Mining Next to Grand Canyon National Park
Decision Allows Mining Without Tribal Consultation or Update Decades-old Environmental Review
PHOENIX, Ariz.— U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell denied a request to halt new uranium mining at the Canyon uranium mine, located only six miles from Grand Canyon National Park’s South Rim. The Havasupai tribe and a coalition of conservation groups had challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to allow Energy Fuels Inc. to reopen the mine without initiating or completing formal tribal consultations and without updating an obsolete federal environmental review dating to 1986. At stake are tribal cultural values, wildlife and endangered species, and the risk of toxic uranium mining waste contaminating the aquifers and streams that sustain the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.
“We are very disappointed with the ruling by Judge Campbell in the Canyon Mine case,” said Havasupai Chairman Rex Tilousi. “We believe that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Forest Service to consult with us and the other affiliated tribes before they let the mining company damage Red Butte, one of our most sacred traditional cultural properties. The Havasupai Tribal Council will meet this week to talk about appealing this ruling.”
The decision fails to protect “Red Butte Traditional Cultural Property,” which the Forest Service designated in 2010 for its critical religious and cultural importance to several tribes, especially Havasupai. As a “traditional cultural property,” Red Butte is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Havasupai tribe and conservation groups argued that the Forest Service violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to consult with tribes to determine how the adverse impacts of the Canyon Mine on Red Butte could be avoided or mitigated prior to approving mining.
“This is bad news for protecting Grand Canyon and tribal sacred sites,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust. “Over the last two decades, we’ve learned how uranium mining can pollute aquifers that feed canyon springs and Havasu Falls. But the Forest Service has ignored that information and failed to require Energy Fuels to take reasonable steps to prevent contamination of water, sacred sites and public lands.”
The Forest Service first approved the Canyon mining plan in 1986, despite a challenge from the Havasupai tribe. Uranium prices plummeted shortly thereafter and the mine closed in 1990 before producing any uranium. The Forest Service allowed the Canyon Mine to reopen in 2012 without a plan update or environmental assessment to reflect the extensive changed circumstances since the original review and approval. These changes include the 2010 designation of the Red Butte traditional cultural property, reintroduction of the endangered California condor in the vicinity of the Canyon Mine, and the 2012 decision to ban new uranium mining across 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon.
“This uranium project could haunt the Grand Canyon region for decades to come,” said Katie Davis with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Uranium mining leaves a highly toxic legacy that endangers human health, wildlife and the streams and aquifers that feed the Grand Canyon. It’s disappointing to see the Forest Service prioritizing the extraction industry over the long-term protection of a place as iconic as the Grand Canyon.”
“We will continue to fight to protect Grand Canyon, its waters and its watershed,” said Sandy Bahr, director of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “The Forest Service should consider the harm this mine could cause to the groundwater and ultimately the waters in Grand Canyon National Park. We are extremely disappointed in the judge’s failure to recognize that.”
Geologists have warned that uranium mining could deplete and contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand Canyon and that cleaning them up would be next to impossible. A 2010 U.S. Geological Survey study found elevated uranium levels in soil and water sources associated with past uranium mining. Groundwater connectivity studies of the Grand Canyon that were published subsequent to the Canyon Mine’s 1986 approval indicate the potential for uranium contamination to infiltrate perched and deep aquifers and regional creeks and springs, including Havasu Falls. Energy Fuels plans to start mining uranium at the Canyon Mine in mid-June of 2015. 

Plaintiffs in the suit include the Havasupai tribe, Grand Canyon Trust, Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club. The coalition has 60 days to appeal Judge Campbell’s decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
more: Judge permits Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon: No Tribal Consult, No Environmental Update; Appeal Expected | Mining Awareness Plus

Thursday, April 9, 2015

4.11 SF Rally/Speakout at Japanese Consulate To Defend People Of Fukushima & Stop Release Of Radioactive Water | No Nukes Action Committee

Saturday April 11, 2015 3:00 PM
Japanese Consulate in San Francisco
275 Battery St. Near California
Activists and people of Northern California  working to defend the families and children of Fukushima and those opposed to the continued release of radioactive water from the Fukushima plant will be rallying and speak out at the Japanese consulate in San Francisco. The Abe government continues the effort to restart Japan’s remaining plants which number over 40 and are on earthquake fault lines. Even the former Prime Minister Koizumi is shocked by the false statements by current Prime Minister Abe.
The government also continues to argue that people can overcome radiation and that the Fukushima plant area can be decontaminated. There is a growing rise in cancer thyroid cases  particularly among children.
The government has also passed a secrecy law that will prevent people in Japan and around the world from getting information about the affects of the continuing nuclear environmental and human crisis.
The monthly event is sponsored by
No Nukes Action Committee
For more information contact
(510) 495-5952
Fukushima Residents Sue Japan Government Over Plans To Push Them Back On Contaminated Land
Fukushima residents suing government for lifting evacuation advisories
April 01, 2015
MINAMI-SOMA, Fukushima Prefecture–Hundreds of residents here plan to sue the central government for lifting evacuation advisories near the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, saying the decision endangered their lives because radiation levels remained high around their homes.
In the lawsuit that will be filed with the Tokyo District Court, the 535 plaintiffs from 132 households in the city just north of the nuclear plant will demand that the government retract its decision to lift the advisories and pay 100,000 yen ($837) in compensation to each plaintiff.
According to the plaintiffs, the government’s cancellation of the advisories goes against the Law on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, which states that its purpose is to “protect the lives, bodies and properties of citizens from a nuclear disaster.”
After the crisis started at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011, the government issued evacuation orders for areas within 20 kilometers of the plant. The plaintiffs’ homes are in areas that were issued evacuation advisories and surrounding neighborhoods.
During the decontamination process for areas around the plant, the government initially wanted to lower annual radiation exposure doses to 1 millisievert. After that goal proved impossible, the target became 20 millisieverts.
“The government has selfishly raised the limit on annual public radiation exposure from 1 millisievert set before the nuclear crisis to 20 millisieverts, having residents return to their homes still exposed to high doses of radiation,” said Kenji Fukuda, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “This is an illegal act that violates the residents’ right to a healthy environment guaranteed by the Constitution and international human rights laws.”
A public relations official at the government’s nuclear disaster response headquarters denied the government had put residents in danger.
“Annual radiation exposure levels in all areas that were previously issued the advisories have fallen below 20 millisieverts following decontamination procedures,” the official said. “With the radiation levels unlikely to have a significant effect on the residents’ health, we have called off the advisories by going through legal procedures.”
The government issued the advisories to households starting in June 2011, urging pregnant women and children in particular to evacuate their homes.
The advisories, issued to 281 households in Fukushima Prefecture, were all lifted by the end of last year. But many of the 152 households that were issued advisories in Minami-Soma opposed the government’s decision.
“The woodlands and farmlands of the surrounding areas are still contaminated, leaving many of the radiation levels unreduced,” said Shuichi Kanno, the 74-year-old chief of a ward in Minami-Soma who heads the plaintiffs. “Radiation levels have even increased in some areas. There is no way our children and grandchildren will be returning to their homes like this.”
Japan Former PM Koizumi Shocked By The Lies Of Japan PM Abe On Fukushima  & Nuclear Dangers
Koizumi blasts Abe’s nuclear policy, remark about Fukushima crisis
March 12, 2015
KITAKATA, Fukushima Prefecture–Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said he was “dumbfounded” by his protege’s push to restart nuclear reactors and his claim that the situation at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was “under control.”
In his strongest tone so far, Koizumi repeated his anti-nuclear arguments at a lecture here on March 11, the fourth anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami that led to the meltdowns at the Fukushima power plant.
Persistent leaks and the accumulation of radioactive water at the nuclear plant have long hampered efforts to decommission the reactors there.
But in front of an international audience in September 2013, during the final presentation in Tokyo’s bid to host the 2020 Olympics, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the water problem was “under control.”
“It is not under control at all,” Koizumi said of Abe’s comment. “I cannot believe he could ever say something like that.”
Koizumi also questioned the rationale behind the Abe government’s plans to restart reactors whose operations were suspended after the 2011 disaster.
“The chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority has said that even if nuclear power plants meet the NRA’s new regulation standards, that itself does not guarantee their safety,” the former prime minister said.
He added that nuclear power is the “least cost-effective method of power generation.”
Koizumi also criticized the government’s plan to unilaterally select the location for the final repository of spent nuclear fuel, which has been piling up at nuclear plants around the nation.
“It is irresponsible for the government to make the decision and force other parties to obey it when the resumption of idled nuclear power plants is set to produce even more spent fuel,” he said.
Koizumi said a political decision is needed to end the nation’s dependence on nuclear energy.
“If the government shifts to a policy of having no nuclear power plants, then the nation can see economic growth through natural sources of energy,” he said.
- written by NNA member Steve Zeltzer 

April 11 Rally/Speakout at San Francisco Japanese Consulate To Defend People Of Fukushima & Stop Release Of Radioactive Water | No Nukes Action Committee

Monday, April 6, 2015

Fukushima Contamination Hits US & Canada, Readings Near Peak Estimate Range | SimplyInfo

Woods Hole announced some recent findings of Fukushima identified radioactive contamination found offshore in the US and Canada. The test samples were collected seven months ago, with the exception of sample CS109 that remains undated. The press release provided no actual data except the undated CS109 sample, but insisted it was “trace” amounts. and “well below internationally established levels of concern to humans and marine life” but did not cite any sources for this claim. 
Pacific contamination levels during 1960′s atomic bomb testing in the Pacific reached 30 bq/m3.
Various studies have indicated radiation levels off the US/Canadian Pacific coast could reach 10-30 bq/m3 after Fukushima based on early understanding of the radiation releases from Daiichi. Those ocean releases were admitted to be much longer in duration by TEPCO in late 2013 and again in 2014. There is also a wide variance in estimated total releases to the sea, making projections more complicated.
Combined cesium readings off the northern California coast were at 8.1 bq/m3 in August of 2014. This reading is already close to the lower end of the projected peaks of contamination. There also appears to be some difference between contamination and the depth the reading is taken at. More of the cesium 134 findings were at shallower depths. Most of these readings were also from July and August of 2014.
The phase of 2014-2015 is considered the early onset of the contamination plume reaching the US west coast. Compounding the issues with the data sets is that locations are not being testing repeatedly over the years in many cases. Locations north of Hawaii that had detected Fukushima related contamination in 2013 were not re-tested in 2014 or 2015. There is also the problem that cesium 134 has a short half life and may decay below detection while cesium 137 would continue to show increases. If cesium 134 is being used as the only “proof” of a problem, it would be an over all inaccurate assumption. Some early 2014 readings taken off the North American coastlines may prove useful if follow up testing is done later at those locations...

more: Fukushima Contamination Hits US & Canada, Readings Near Peak Estimate Range | SimplyInfo