Wednesday, August 26, 2015

The Myth of Low-Level Radiation | Radiation Truth


All radiation is dangerous, whether it is natural or man-made. There is no “safe”  amount of radioactive material or radiation. “The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks”, reports Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation. (full article *)
Why?

“It takes only one radioactive atom, one cell, and one gene to initiate the cancer or cell mutation cycle.” (Helen Caldicott, Nuclear madness: what you can do). Hence, any exposure increases risk of cancer or genetic damage.

As the U.S. Department of Energy says, our current safety “standards now are based on an underlying model called linear-no-threshold (LNT), which maintains that any exposure to radiation may be harmful and extrapolates low dose effects from known high dose effects.”  It continues, “Scientists disagree about the validity of this LNT model.”

But consider this simple, uncontroversial example, unrelated to nuclear power: radon, a naturally occurring gas that emits alpha particles.  In the U.S., radon causes an estimated 20,000 deaths per year, second only to smoking.  But those victims were not exposed to high levels of radon: there was no radon bomb!  Instead, they inhaled and absorbed low doses (indoor average 1.3 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), outdoor 0.4 pCi/L; over 4 pCi/L in Iowa) over years.  (By the way, the EPA also says that radon and smoking are synergistic; it stands to reason that other sources of alpha particles may be synergistic with other carcinogens.)

Here’s another example: children of workers at the Lawrence Livermore Labs get more cancer. “A 1995 California Department of Health Services’ investigation of childhood cancer incidence among Livermore children and young adults (0-24 years), found two and one-half times the expected number of children with malignant melanoma living in Livermore at the time of diagnosis, more than six times the incidence of malignant melanoma in children and young adults born in Livermore, and elevated levels of brain cancer among children born in Livermore in the 1960’s.” (California Department of Health Services. Environmental Health Investigations Branch. Cancer Incidence Among Children and Young Adults in Livermore, California 1960-1991. September 6, 1995.  Cited in announcement of “Community Health Training, Radiation Risk, and the Community“, December 9, 2000, Livermore, California, by Western States Legal Foundation).

Washington’s Blog, even though it is “not against all nuclear power“, has more examples with citations.

Nuclear power plants routinely emit radiation, at levels the government, the NRC and IAEA tell us are safe. These releases are legally permitted and required for the reactors to run; but they are not safe. When investigators of low-dose ionizing radiation revealed that levels of radiation lower than those permitted were causing cancer, government agencies attempted to suppress their findings.  See Industry & the government.

Although much of the evidence has been suppressed, there are studies that demonstrate increased risk in populations that live close to nuclear power plants.

“There have been several epidemiological studies that claim to demonstrate increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near nuclear facilities. Among recent studies, a widely cited 2007 meta-analysis of 17 research papers was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care. It offered evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain. Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany. These recent results are not consistent with many earlier studies that have tended not to show such associations. But no credible alternate explanations for the recent findings have so far emerged.” (Nuclear-News)

We are in the middle of a terrifying scientific experiment in which we and our children are the subjects. Let’s face the facts that mixing the profit motive with the most dangerous technology is a very bad idea, and that natural forces and human error are reason enough to admit nuclear power is a mistake. It’s time to move on.


* for links please see the original post

source: The Myth of Low-Level Radiation | Radiation Truth



Claims that uranium mining near the Grand Canyon is safe don't hold water | David Kreamer | Comment is free | The Guardian





Science shows we can’t assume that uranium deposits, when disturbed by mining, can’t leak into groundwater. We should be wary of claims to the contrary


It only takes a few Grand Canyon hikes to realize the importance of its springs and other water sources. When refilling a water bottle in the cool depths below multi-colored rock walls, listening to a summer frog symphony at sunset or maybe snapping an icicle from a weeping ledge in winter, it’s clear that the living desert depends on its pockets of water.
That’s why, as a hydrologist and longtime Grand Canyon hiker, boatman and scientist, I am profoundly concerned about continued uranium mining in or near it. It has great potential to irreparably harm Grand Canyon springs and the plants and animals that depend on them.
I am concerned because industry and agency officials are relying on a justification that isn’t supported by past investigations, research or data to promote uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region. Specifically, they claim that mining will have minimal impact on springs, people and ecosystems there.
Instead, the science shows that it is unreasonable to assume that uranium deposits, when disturbed by mining, can’t leak into groundwater. The deposits in the Grand Canyon are typically found in geologic features known as breccia pipes, formed millennia ago when caves in the main groundwater system collapsed, leaving shattered, rock-filled chimneys that extend upwards thousands of feet to the canyon’s rim. These chimneys act as conduits that have allowed groundwater to move vertically through the rock layers over thousands of years. The vertical movement of groundwater combined with low oxygen levels caused the uranium deposits to form over millennia. Inserting a mine shaft into these features disrupts geologic formations, increases the permeability and oxygenation of these vertical pipes and increases the ability of ore deposits to be suddenly dissolved, mobilized and carried with groundwater...

more:
Claims that uranium mining near the Grand Canyon is safe don't hold water | David Kreamer | Comment is free | The Guardian

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

No Nuclear in South Africa! | Greenpeace activists lock down gigantic Trojan horse at the Department of Energy headquarters in anti-nuclear protest




NO NUCLEAR!

South Africans deserve to know the details of a disastrous nuclear deal that will bankrupt the country!

This is why, right now Greenpeace activists are confronting the Minister of Energy by locking themselves down to a four metre high wooden nuclear ‘Trojan Horse’ outside the Department of Energy headquarters in Pretoria. 

The activists are there to publicly protest against the Department’s lack of transparency around proposed investments in nuclear, and to remind the Minister that the nuclear plan is nothing less than a trap - a Trojan horse with a price tag South Africans cannot afford. 
MORE / PETITION: No Nuclear in South Africa!


“Greenpeace strongly believes that nuclear is an expensive dead-end road to nowhere, and that renewable energy is the solution to our current electricity crisis. We have tried repeatedly to engage with the Department of Energy regarding the country’s electricity future, but the Department has continued to pursue an increasingly opaque and baseless process to invest in nuclear. Rosatom and other unscrupulous nuclear companies such as Areva and Westinghouse are vying to develop nuclear for South Africa with complete disregard of what the country’s real and urgent energy needs are. We believe that a process that is so steeped in secrecy presents a ticking time bomb for South Africa. If the Department of Energy has nothing to hide, then full transparency would be the basis of the nuclear deal, and we challenge the Minister to make all nuclear information publicly available”

Pretoria 25 August 2015: Today, Greenpeace activists confronted the Minister of Energy by locking themselves down to a four metre high wooden nuclear ‘Trojan Horse’[1] outside the Department of Energy headquarters in Pretoria. The activists are protesting against the Department’s lack of transparency around proposed investments in nuclear, and to remind the Minister that the nuclear plan is nothing less than a trap - a Trojan horse with a price tag South Africans cannot afford. 
– On the 17th of August a Greenpeace delegation hand-delivered a letter written by Greenpeace Africa’s Executive Director, Michael O’Brien-Onyeka, to the Minister of Energy giving her one week to respond to and address the key issues that the organisation raised[2] and make key nuclear information publicly available. By midnight on the 24th of August no response had been forthcoming from the Minister or her office, leading to the protest action by the Greenpeace activists...

more: Greenpeace activists lock down gigantic Trojan horse at the Department of Energy headquarters in anti-nuclear protest | Greenpeace Press Centre

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Nuclear Power Is a Losing Proposition - Greenpeace USA




Americans know the clean energy economy is here and they are embracing it—and that doesn't include nuclear.


[REPOST] This article was originally published in the Miami Herald and is co-authored by Annie Leonard, Executive Director, Greenpeace USA;  Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club; and Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth. 

More than seven out of ten of us want more emphasis on wind and solar energy, while only about a third favor more nuclear energy, according to the latest research from the Gallup poling organization. Gallup also found that support for nuclear power dropped by 11 percentage points in the United States in the last five years.

Meanwhile, the struggling nuclear industry is trying to pitch its product as a viable low-carbon alternative to clean energy, rather than the dangerous and expensive choice that it is.

As potential climate solutions go, though, nuclear power is a losing proposition that is only getting worse. Developing clean, affordable renewable energy sources and tapping our vast energy efficiency “reserves” is a much smarter bet for America’s future...

more: Nuclear Power Is a Losing Proposition - Greenpeace USA


#BustTheMyth :: NUKES CAN BE NO SOLUTION TO CLIMATE-CHANGE
– they are NOT carbon-free clean safe green or affordable!

Friday, August 14, 2015

#petition :: Stop Nuclear Regulatory Commission From Extending License Period 20 years For California Nuke (Diablo Canyon)


As the Commission members are aware, their mission is to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety of the nation’s nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants, especially old nukes, such as the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, do not belong near densely populated regions, in areas where earthquakes are a dangerous geological reality.

SIGN NOW: MoveOn Petitions - Stop Nuclear Regulatory Commission From Extending License Period 20 years For California Nuke


Thursday, August 13, 2015

ALERT! NRC may RULE RADIATION EXPOSURE IS HEALTHFUL! | Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation


ALERT! NRC may RULE RADIATION EXPOSURE IS HEALTHFUL! ... The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may decide that exposure to ionizing radiation is beneficial – the radiation from nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, depleted uranium, x-rays, and Fukushima. It has opened a proceeding to consider adopting this “radiation is good for you” model.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation. Whereas, the LNT model provides that radiation is always considered harmful, there is no safety threshold, and biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the amount of radiation exposure to the human body (response linearity).

This would be the most significant and alarming change to U.S. federal policy on nuclear radiation.
Comments are due by September 8, 2015.
Is this a joke? NO!
P.S. this ALERT was first emailed by MaryBeth Brangan through Heal Fukushima (http://healfukushima.org/…/alert-nrc-may-rule-radiation-ex…/). And as per Jane Swanson, Mother's for Peace: "The easiest way for people to comment is by email:
•Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.
• Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in the subject line of your comment submission.
The three petitioners who started this effort to lower protective standards are all in the health fields. They claim that there is no valid evidence that low doses are harmful, and find that compliance with current limits is expensive for their professions. Radiation phobia is their favorite new term. Here is a sample of their reasoning:
"Dr. Doss filed this petition on behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, whose mission is to “help prevent unnecessary, radiation-phobia-related deaths, morbidity, and injuries associated with distrust of radio-medical diagnostics/therapies and from nuclear/radiological emergencies through countering phobia-promoting misinformation spread by alarmists via the news and other media including journal publications.”


A Proposed Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 06/23/2015
This document has a comment period that ends in 26 days (09/08/2015)
Federal Register | Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation

thanks to Laura Lynch!

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

8.14 Watertown MA: Harvey Wasserman – nuclear power crisis is as dangerous as the climate crisis




ON BEHALF OF PLANET EARTH and Harvey Wasserman

Harvey will speak on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA, Radioactive Waste, and why the nuclear power crisis is as dangerous as the climate crisis. Followed by Q&A

This event is taking place on Aug 14 — 6:00 PM at The Apartments at the Coolidge School Auditorium 319 Arlington Street, Watertown

Watertown Citizens is proud to co-sponsor with ON BEHALF OF PLANET EARTH a public forum in Watertown by notable long time no nuclear journalist, activist, organizer Harvey Wasserman on Friday, August 14, 6:00 PM – 9:30 PM at The Apartments at the Coolidge School Auditorium 319 Arlington Street, Watertown. It is on bus line from Harvard Square and Watertown Square, plenty of parking and handicap accessible.

6:00 PM Doors open for Potluck dinner

7:30 PM Harvey will speak on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA, Radioactive Waste, and why the nuclear power crisis is as dangerous as the climate crisis. Followed by Q&A

Harvey Wasserman helped coin the phrase “No Nukes” in 1974 and has been fighting atomic reactors around the world ever since. He is author, co-author or introducer of 18 books and hosts the Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show.

His “Solartopian” vision for a totally green-powered Earth was introduced in 2005 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He’s a Voting Member of Greenpeace USA and has spoken to audiences throughout the US, Europe and Asia.

Endorsers to date, list still in formation: Betty Wood, M.D., Richard Moskowitz, M.D., Cornelia Sullivan, R.N., Janis Mancini, R.N., Judy Lynch R.N., Clean Water Action, Jamaica Plain Forum, No Boston 2024, Pax Christi Boston, Reb Leah Campolo, Cape Downwinders, MA Downwinders, Pilgrim Coalition, Cape Cod Bay Watch, and Boston Downwinders.

For questions, contact sheilaruthparks@comcast.net


Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice & the Environment


Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Protests as Tokyo restarts first nuclear plant since Fukushima disaster — RT News





Protesters rallied outside Japan’s Sendai nuclear plant and its company’s headquarters to demonstrate against the planned restarting of operations, over four years after the Fukushima disaster that left the entire world horrified.

Protests as Tokyo restarts first nuclear plant since Fukushima disaster — RT News