Radioactive nuclear waste sits on Great Lakes shores

"Nuclear power is licensed and relicensed for commercial operation without an environmentally-responsible, scientifically-accepted plan for long-term management of the nuclear waste. After more than 70-years of generation, no one knows what to do with the first cupful."– Paul Gunter (on facebook)

Great Lakes nuclear plants - Google My Maps

60,000 tons of dangerous radioactive waste sits on Great Lakes shores

THE EFFECTS OF A WORST-CASE SCENARIO — FROM A NATURAL DISASTER TO TERRORISM — COULD CAUSE UNTHINKABLE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE GREAT LAKES REGION.

… Spent nuclear fuel is so dangerous that, a decade removed from a nuclear reactor, its radioactivity would still be 20 times the level that would kill a person exposed to it. Some radioactive byproducts of nuclear power generation remain a health or environmental hazard for tens of thousands of years. And even typically harmless radioactive isotopes that are easily blocked by skin or clothing can become extremely toxic if even small amounts are breathed in, eaten or drank,  making their potential contamination of the Great Lakes — the drinking water supply to 40 million people — the connected Mississippi River and the prime agricultural areas of the U.S. a potentially frightening prospect…

…the remote possibility of a worst-case scenario release — from a natural disaster, a major accident, or an act of terrorism — could cause unthinkable consequences for the Great Lakes region. 

Scientific research has shown a radioactive cloud from a spent fuel pool fire would span hundreds of miles, and force the evacuation of millions of residents in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto or other population centers, depending on where the accident occurred and wind patterns…

read: Radioactive nuclear waste sits on Great Lakes shores

Radioactivity harms us and no dose is “safe” | Beyond Nuclear International

A “small” dose can do immense damage; our new handbook explains how and why

All nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive gases and water contaminated with radioactive isotopes. When a nuclear plant has a serious accident — as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima — orders of magnitude more radioactivity is released into the environment.

Uranium mining also releases harmful radioactive isotopes and leaves behind radioactive waste. The 1979 uranium tailings pond spill at Church Rock, NM — 90 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste and 1,100 tons of solid mill waste — was the largest accidental release of radioactive waste in US history and permanently contaminated the Puerco River.

Radioactive releases occur all along the uranium fuel chain, beginning with uranium mining and culminating in radioactive waste “management.”

All of these releases — whether large or small (because there is no “safe” dose) — impact human health with varying degrees of severity. And yet most of the time, these impacts are poorly understood, hushed up, or even dismissed. When discoveries are made — such as increased rates of leukemia in populations living near nuclear power or reprocessing plants — there is an immediate effort by industry, often supported by governments, to undermine, challenge or negate such findings.

The fact remains, however, that both the immediate and long-term damage done to human health — which can last for generations — is the single, most compelling reason not to continue with the use of nuclear power and the extractive, polluting industries that must support it.

The Radiation and Harm to Human Health chapter of the Beyond Nuclear anti-nuclear handbook, is available now for download and printing as a standalone booklet. In it, we endeavor to both explain and synthesize the many ways that radioactivity released through the nuclear power sector damages human health, especially the most vulnerable members of our population — women, pregnancy, babies and young children…

more: Radioactivity harms us and no dose is “safe” | Beyond Nuclear International

NEW HANDBOOK: "The Case Against Nuclear Power: Radiation and Harm to Human Health" (PDF)

An A-Z against nuclear power | Beyond Nuclear International

The Overview section of our new Handbook provides simple explanations of the entire nuclear fuel chain

What is the difference between an open pit and an in-situ leach uranium mine? How does a nuclear power plant produce electricity? What happens to reactor fuel once it’s no longer usable? What is the difference between high-level and low-level radioactive waste and where is it stored? Why isn’t reprocessing really “recycling”?

We may know the answers to some or all of these questions. But can we deliver a succinct, clear, accessible answer to explain them to someone not already steeped in the issue?

As any activist engaged in anti-nuclear advocacy knows, nuclear power is a complex topic and describing each phase of the nuclear fuel chain can quickly bog us down in long, technical explanations. And once we go there, eyes glaze and we lose our audience.

Proponents of nuclear energy have taken full advantage of this, downplaying and minimizing the risks and using facile and superficially appealing sound bites, unsupported by facts, to convince people that nuclear power is benign and useful for climate change.

Facts are what we believe will change people’s minds. But the idea that bombarding someone with a deluge of irrefutable facts about the dangers of nuclear power will automatically win them to our cause has proven to be an illusion. It doesn’t necessarily work.

We do need facts, of course. And that is where our Handbook — The Case Against Nuclear Power: Facts and Arguments from A-Z — comes in. We must be able to accurately describe why nuclear power is dangerous, uneconomical and unjust. But we must do so in succinct, simple lay language. And then, once the basics are understood, we need to move people. And that is why the Beyond Nuclear International website came to be born, providing a natural home for the Handbook and expanding from facts to compelling narratives…

An A-Z against nuclear power | Beyond Nuclear International

Trump's NASA Plans Are a Nuclear Disaster Waiting to Happen | Turthout | Nukes in Space

by Linda Pentz Gunter

Photo: Mat Hampson

Earlier this month, President Trump announced that he wants the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to "lead an innovative space exploration program to send American astronauts back to the moon, and eventually Mars." But while couched in patriotic sound bites and pioneering rhetoric that "Florida and America will lead the way into the stars," the risks such ventures would entail -- and the hidden agenda they conceal -- have scarcely been touched upon.

For those of us who watched Ron Howard's nail-biter of a motion picture, Apollo 13,and for others who remember the real-life drama as it unfolded in April 1970, collective breaths were held that the three-man crew would return safely to Earth. They did.

What hardly anyone remembers now -- and certainly few knew at the time -- was that the greater catastrophe averted was not just the potential loss of three lives, tragic though that would have been. There was a lethal cargo on board that, if the craft had crashed or broken up, might have cost the lives of thousands and affected generations to come.

It is a piece of history so rarely told that NASA has continued to take the same risk over and over again, as well as before Apollo 13. And that risk is to send rockets into space carrying the deadliest substance ever created by humans: plutonium.

Now, with the race on to send people to Mars, NASA is at it again with its Kilopower project, which would use fission power for deep space. It would be the first fission reactor launched into space since the 1960s. Fission, commonly used in commercial nuclear reactors, is the process of splitting the atom to release energy. A by-product of fission is plutonium…

Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat to Our Planet | Karl Grossman | August 1, 1997

…One (and possibly the only) journalist who has been consistently on the "nukes in space" beat for more than 30 years is Karl Grossman. When the Apollo 13 movie came out, he picked up the phone and called the film's production company, Imagine Entertainment, to ask why they had not included the higher drama of the plutonium problem. "It was surprising to see Hollywood not utilizing an Armageddon theme," he told Truthout…

…A war in space might not involve nuclear weapons -- for now. But warring satellites could knock out nuclear weapons early warning systems and set other potential disasters in motion. These cataclysmic risks play strongly into the arguments -- enshrined in the recent UN nuclear weapons ban -- that we should be disarming on Planet Earth, not arming in space…

more: Trump's NASA Plans Are a Nuclear Disaster Waiting to Happen

Don't Waste NM! Don't Waste TX! Don't Waste America! Stop H.R. 3053!

Don't Waste New Mexico! Don't Waste Texas! Don't Waste Nevada! Don't Waste America!

Beyond Nuclear has been honored and privileged to spend the past two weeks in New Mexico, with anti-nuclear colleagues and allies. A member of our staff participated in, and presented at, a largely Native American- and youth-led symposium entitled "Dismantling the Nuclear Beast: Connecting Local Work to the National Movement." It was organized by the Nuclear Issues Study Group at the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque on Dec. 1-3. We also took part in, and presented at, a large grassroots gathering in Roswell, NM focused on stopping the irradiated nuclear fuel "centralized interim storage site" targeted at southeast NM on Dec. 9. As shown by the New Mexico Threats Map, prepared by Sacred Trust NM, the "Land of Enchantment" suffers plenty enough already from dirty, dangerous, and expensive fossil fuel, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power industrial activities. The grand total of 160,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, targeted for "temporary storage" at the NM/TX borderlands -- already heavily polluted communities, with a large percentage of Hispanic residents -- would make these environmental injustices even worse. H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017, would authorize these de facto permanent, surface storage, parking lot dumps. The bill is poised for a U.S. House floor vote. In addition to rallying cries of "Don't Waste NM!" and "Don't Waste TX!", "Don't Waste America!" is also in order: high-risk irradiated nuclear fuel shipments, by truck, train, and/or barge could travel through most states, en route to "centralized interim storage."

What can you do to help stop this?  Both groups and individuals can take action. An environmental coalition of 120+ organizations has sent a letter to the U.S. House, urging opposition to H.R. 3053. The letter will be sent one more time, when the bill moves to the floor for a vote. There is still time to sign your group on if you haven't already. To sign your organization on, please fill out and and submit this Google form, or else directly email Sean Alcorn at NRDC your name, title, organization name, city and state. Please sign on ASAP, as the bill could reach the House floor for a vote at any time now. Please contact your own U.S. Rep., and urge them to oppose H.R. 3053. Sierra Club has a webform you can fill out and submit to your U.S. Rep. SEED Coalition of Texas has launched a CREDO petition you can sign. You can also phone your U.S. Rep.'s D.C. office, via the Capitol Switchboard, at (202) 225-3121, by following the instructions. Or you can look up your U.S. Rep.'s direct contact info. here, by entering your zip code, clicking the FIND YOUR REP BY ZIP button, and following the links. To learn more about why H.R. 3053 is a dangerously bad idea, see Beyond Nuclear's Yucca Mountain burial dump, de facto permanent surface storage "parking lot dump," and radioactive waste transport risk website sections. If you have taken action already, thank you very much.

Please consider spreading the word as widely as possible, given the grave risks and high stakes! 

more: Don't Waste NM! Don't Waste TX! Don't Waste America! Stop H.R. 3053!

Beyond Nuclear - Home - U.S. nuclear companies invited to help launch Saudi Arabia’s dangerous “Atomic Age”

Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih is extending invitations to the U.S. nuclear industry to launch the Gulf Region’s most ambitious nuclear power program.

The Saudi atomic energy plan is to build as many as 17 nuclear power plants by 2032.  The Saudi Arabia government has stated that its atomic power program will be “self-sufficient” in the production of nuclear fuel at 5% enriched uranium-235 and purely directed for civilian power development. The pronouncement comes as Saudi energy officials remain silent on their past refusal to not pursue high-grade uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies as military weapons production facilities. In any case, the introduction of nuclear materials will significantly increase instability and tensions in the region.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry visited the Saudi Arabia capitol in Riyad for talks on the nuclear deal that would include negoitations with the bankrupt Westinghouse Electric Corporation to build two of the nuclear power projects despite the company financially abandoning its AP1000 construction projects for the two reactor units halted in South Carolina and two more units teetering on cancellation in Georgia.

Saudia Arabia is similarly reaching out for nuclear power technology from Russia, South Korea, France and China.

more: Beyond Nuclear - Home - U.S. nuclear companies invited to help launch Saudi Arabia’s dangerous “Atomic Age”

▶ High Level Nuclear Waste: Centralized 'Interim' Storage & Transport Dangers | NIRS & Beyond Nuclear

High Level Nuclear Waste: Centralized 'Interim' Storage & Transport Dangers - YouTube
Published on Feb 7, 2017 by firs
An overview of high level nuclear waste, the proposed "storage solutions," and the resulting dangers and environmental injustices.

Presented Thursday, November 10, 2016 from 8 pm to 9:30pm EST by Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition, TX; Arjun Makhijani, IEER; & Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear.

nonuclearwasteaqui.org

Nuclear Information and Resource Service​
www.NIRS.org
www.facebook.com/nirsnet
www.twitter.com/nirsnet


SEE ALSO: Irradiated ‘Spent’ Nuclear Power Fuel: Characteristics and Storage - YouTube


#BustTheMyth ::  nukes are NOT green, clean, safe, or affordable!
tinyurl.com/BustTheMyth2017

Nuclear Waste “Russian” Roulette SPECIAL – Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear – Nuclear Hotseat #311

LISTEN NOW

This Week’s Featured Interview:

• Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Watchdog/Bulldog for Beyond Nuclear, gives an all-encompassing vision of nuclear waste problems faced by not just the United States, but the world.  Included in his discussion are:
  • Hanford Site
  • Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
  • San Onofre 
  • Yucca Mountain
  • US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement

Numnutz of the Week (for Nuclear Boneheadedness):

Ontario Power Generation has studied every aspect of the problem and – believe it or not! – come to the conclusion that what’s a little desecration of First Nation lands and sacred burial grounds, and putting the safety of the entire Great Lakes water basin in nuclear danger when it’s SO convenient to site the nuclear waste REPOSITORY – NOT “BUNKER” AS THEY’RE TRYING TO RE-LANGUAGE IT!!!!! – on its own property. 

LISTEN NOW: Nuclear Waste “Russian” Roulette SPECIAL – Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear – Nuclear Hotseat #311

EMERGENCY AT HANFORD | Beyond Nuclear press statement on #Hanford tunnel collapse onto train cars storing #radioactive waste. #nuclear http://bit.ly/2qnVJfw (PDF) | NEWS LINKS

PDF OF THIS PRESS RELEASE

NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR
For immediate release
Contact: Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog, Beyond Nuclear, 240-462-3216; Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor Oversight Project, Beyond Nuclear 301-523-0201

Another radioactive waste accident, this time at Hanford, shows nuclear dump sites are not under control

TAKOMA PARK, MD, May 9, 2017 -- A tunnel at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State collapsed today on top of railcars stored there that contain “mixed” radioactive waste, an accident that local watchdog group, Hanford Challenge, describes as a “crisis.”
The tunnel is located next to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX, and contains substances classified as “dangerous waste.” The collapse prompted an initial evacuation of workers in the area that then spread to a “take cover” order for the entire site.

The already embattled Hanford site was originally part of the Manhattan Project, and a major supplier of military plutonium. It houses 177 storage tanks containing liquid radioactive sludges, some of which have been leaking radioactive effluent that could eventually threaten the Columbia River. Cleanup at the site did not begin until 1989. The Hanford tunnel collapse may have been caused by soil subsidence due to vibrations from nearby road works.

"The current unfolding crisis at Hanford, the bursting barrel at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico in 2014, and the exploding radioactive waste dump in Beatty, Nevada in 2015, show that radioactive waste management is out of control," said Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog at Beyond Nuclear.

”That’s why the Yucca Mountain dump in Nevada, the Canadian dump targeted at the Great Lakes shore, and the parking lot dumps in Texas and New Mexico must be blocked, to prevent future disasters," Kamps added.

WIPP, a radioactive waste repository mainly for military waste and situated near Carlsbad, NM, suffered an accident on February 14, 2014. The explosion there released radioactivity that exposed workers who were stationed above ground at the time and forced an almost three-year shutdown of the site. The disaster cost $2 billion and counting. As at Hanford, a relatively minor event — the use of the wrong kitty litter for cleanup — was blamed for the WIPP accident, prompting serious questions about competence and safeguards at such critically dangerous sites.

A leak in a massive nuclear waste storage tank at Hanford in April 2016 was described as "catastrophic" by a former tank farm worker there, even as the U.S. Department of Energy tried to downplay the problem.

Most commercial radioactive waste is currently stored at reactor sites around the country. However, military radioactive waste has continued to pose an on-going storage nightmare. Beyond Nuclear advocates for commercial reactor waste to be stored on-site but in facilities known as Hardened On-Site Storage, or HOSS, and not in the risky pools and inadequate waste casks, as is the current practice.

-30-

Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Info@beyondnuclear.org. www.beyondnuclear.org. 

PDF OF THIS PRESS RELEASE

NEWS ARTICLES:

What we know about the Hanford nuclear emergency

ABC News-1 hour ago

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation site in Washington state went into immediate lockdown mode Tuesday after an 8:26 a.m. alert revealed that a tunnel used to ...

Emergency work starts to fill hole in radioactive waste tunnel at ...
Yakima Herald-Republic-3 hours ago

The Latest: White House says no emergency at nuclear site
Lincoln Journal Star-1 hour ago

No radiation reports after tunnel collapse at Hanford nuclear site
WGNO-1 hour ago

Dept. of Energy Reports No Contamination Release in Tunnel ...
KPQ-5 hours ago

#NuclearFreeCarbonFree contingent at the #ClimateMarch in D.C. on 29 APRIL 2017; photos by Jasmine Bright

Tim Judson of Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Tim Judson of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (left) and Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear

 

Special thanks to Jasmine Bright for permission to use her photos!

via Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent to the People's Climate March (Facebook group)

www.nirs.org
Nuclear Information and Resource Service on Facebook

www.beyondnuclear.org
Beyond Nuclear on Facebook

Sojourner Truth Radio: Six Years Later, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster's Impact Continues by sojournertruthradio | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Today, we commemorate Saturdays' 6th anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the worlds worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. The disaster was triggered by an 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami. Contamination from the accident spread across the Pacific Ocean. Now the Japanese government is sit to lift evacuation orders for the area surrounding Fukushima. Our guests are Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste watchdog at Beyond Nuclear, and Arnie Gunderson, nuclear power expert with Fairewinds

Sojourner Truth Radio: Six Years Later, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster's Impact Continues by sojournertruthradio | Free Listening on SoundCloud

3 MAY: Beyond Nuclear - Chernobyl 30 Fukushima 5

Leading international experts and compelling short films will headline a May 3rd Beyond Nuclear event in Washington, DC to mark the anniversaries of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters.

Beyond Nuclear and the Goethe-Institut, DC will co-host an afternoon and evening program that will mark the 5th anniversary of Fukushima and the 30th anniversary of Chernobyl. The legacy of both nuclear power plant disasters has included a marked increase in radiation-induced diseases and mutations, as found by some of the world’s leading researchers, several of whom will be speaking at the event.  

The event takes place at the Goethe-Institut, DC, 1990 K St. NW (event entrance on 20th St.) The afternoon panel presentations run from 2pm to 5pm. The evening program is 7:30pm to 9pm.  All events are free and open to the public.  No registration required.

more: Beyond Nuclear - Chernobyl 30 Fukushima 5

Gunter: Cheap? Clean? Nuclear power is neither - Roanoke Times: Letters

The audacity of Michael Leigh to describe nuclear energy as cheap, clean and safe was breathtaking ("Want cheap, clean fuel? Go nuclear," Dec. 13 commentary)

Construction costs for a single new nuclear power plant are ballooning to $12 billion. They are so expensive that the owners won’t even pay for them. Those now under construction in Georgia and South Carolina are being subsidized in advance by ratepayers...

Leigh would like to keep Virginia pristine. He presumably favors the continued ban there on uranium mining. But the fuel for his nuclear plants will have to come from somewhere. Mining and processing uranium not only adds to the costs that Leigh omits, these processes release CO2, radiation and heavy metals into the environment, and consume vast quantities of often scarce water supplies.

Costs of decommissioning are also estimated in the billions of dollars. Nuclear power never was and never will be  "too cheap to meter...”

MORE: Gunter: Cheap? Clean? Nuclear power is neither - Roanoke Times: Letters

LINDA PENTZ GUNTER

International Specialist at

Beyond Nuclear www.BeyondNuclear.org

TAKOMA PARK, MD

By another name, NRC Commission blesses Nuclear Waste Confidence | Beyond Nuclear

Environmental coalition members from the Crabshell Alliance, Sierra Club Nuclear-Free Campaign, NIRS, PSR, NEIS, and Public Citizen "just say NO!" at the NRC HQ nuke waste con game public comment meeting on 11/14/13 in Rockville, MD. Photo credit David Martin and Erica Grey.Today, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) four Commissioners blessed the NRC staff's "Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel" Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and Rule, previously called the NRC's "Nuclear Waste Confidence" policy.

The vote went ahead, despite widespread calls for Commissioner William Magwood to resign, or recuse himself, due to conflict of interest, and despite a call for NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane to postpone the vote until after Commissioner Magwood's departure from the agency on Aug. 31st.

The Commissioners' explanations for their votes included a partial objection by NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane, that NRC staff had not adequately considered the "catastrophe" that would unfold over time, if institutional control were to be lost over irradiated nuclear fuel storage. However, even she joined NRC Commissioners Kristine Svinicki, William Ostendorff, and Magwood, in approving finalization of the GEIS and Rule, pending a few, very minor corrections.

She also joined their unanimous Memorandum and Order, that stays on final NRC approvals for some two dozen operating license proceedings -- both at pending old reactor license extensions, as well as in proposed new reactor combined Construction and Operating License Application (COLA) proceedings -- be ended. Thus, licenses can now be approved by NRC licensing boards, 30 days after publication of these decisions in the Federal Register, which is set for next month.

These include the proposed new Fermi 3, MI and Grand Gulf 2, MS COLA proceedings, and several old reactor license extension proceedings (Seabrook, NH; Davis-Besse, OH; Grand Gulf Unit 1, MS; Fermi 2, MI), in which Beyond Nuclear has intervened, opposing NRC's approval of the operating licenses.

Thus, the NRC has ignored many tens of thousands of public comments, including in-depth comments made by Beyond Nuclear, a coalition of three dozen environmental groups, and acoalition of state governments and Native American tribes. The NRC has blessed the continued generation of forever deadly high-level radioactive waste, attempting to take the issue off the table in pending, and future, reactor licensing proceedings. But the big question remains: will NRC's flagrant flouting of federal court orders be allowed to stand?

Explaining how the NRC could, yet again, bless the "nuke waste con game," despite the inherent environmental and safety risks, Mother Jones quoted Beyond Nuclear's Radioactive Waste Watchdog, Kevin Kamps: "The industry crawls all over that place in terms of lobbying. They own that place."

Beyond Nuclear - Home - By another name, NRC Commission blesses Nuclear Waste Confidence

EPA: Should 1977 radiation standards be revised? Comments needed

EPA: Should 1977 radiation standards be revised? Comments needed

The EPA is considering revising its limits for radiation releases and doses to the public from normal operation of nuclear power and other uranium facilities. In the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), EPA makes clear that it is not proposing any changes currently but is gathering information and comments. It is hosting a series of informational webinars (scroll to bottom), the next of which is March 19, 2014 at 1pm EST (click to register). Scroll down for full webinar announcement from EPA. Watch this page for reminders, updates, and comments as they become available.

COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY WEDNESDAY JUNE 4, 2014 on this ANPR

From EPA: "'Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations' (40 CFR 190). limit radiation releases and doses to the public from the normal operations of nuclear power plants and other uranium fuel cycle facilities, the facilities involved in the manufacture and use of uranium fuel for generating electrical power. Advancements in the scientific understanding of radiation risk and new nuclear technologies and practices have ledEPA to consider whether to revise the standards. EPA has issued this ANPR to request information to support our review. No changes to the current standards are being proposed at this time."

more at BEYOND NUCLEAR > http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radiation-health-whats-new/2014/3/7/epa-should-1977-radiation-standards-be-revised-comments-need.html

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations

regulations.gov

---- This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) requests public comment and information on potential approaches to updating the Environmental Protection Agency's “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations” (40 CFR part 190). These standards, originally issued in 1977, limit radiation releases and doses to the public from normal operation of nuclear power plants and other uranium fuel cycle facilities—that is, facilities involved in the milling, conversion, fabrication, use and reprocessing of uranium fuel for generating commercial electrical power. These standards were the earliest radiation rules developed by EPA and are based on nuclear power technology and the understanding of radiation biology current at that time. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for implementing and enforcing these standards.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2014.

Additional Public Input. In addition to this ANPR, the Agency anticipates providing additional opportunities for public input. Please see the Web site for more information at: www.epa.gov/radiation/laws/190.

Regulations.gov - Proposed Rule Document

Nuclear Hotseat #122: Puncturing Pandora's Propaganda w/Beyond Nuclear's Linda Gunter | Nuclear Hotseat

Japan’s PM Abe-Baby (center) and friends chow down on Fukushima seafood

INTERVIEW: Beyond Nuclear’s Linda Gunter, Physicians for Social Responsibility’s John W. Rachow and nuclear physicist Dr. M.V. Ramana give us the facts to counter CNN’s November airings of the pro-nuclear propaganda film “Pandora’s Promise.” Listen to learn how you can be ready to counter the lies, distortions, omissions and pro-nuclear spin-speak by using the information they provide for your op-eds, letters to the editor and more.

LISTEN NOW > Nuclear Hotseat #122: Puncturing Pandora's Propaganda w/Beyond Nuclear's Linda Gunter | Nuclear Hotseat

LINK TO BEYOND NUCLEAR’S “PANDORA’S FALSE PROMISES” DOCUMENTS – 2-page hand-out and full report:

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/

PLUS:

• Fukushima‘s radiation releases continue to spike;
• Highly radioactive rainwater overflows TEPCO‘s Fukushima dams after rainfall as TWO typhoons bear down on Japan promising more of the same;
• The world’s voices rise demanding that Fukushima be managed by an international coalition of experts instead of just TEPCO;
• Pink salmon turns canary yellow in British Columbia;
• Koodankulam NPP starts up despite six years of community protests;
• and Japan’s capitalists set to make a killing by selling lead-lined underwear and wetsuits.

LINKS: “The Ocean is Broken” – http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/10/21/environment-ocean-broken/

• Sign Harvey Wasserman’s PETITION FOR GLOBAL INTERVENTION AT FUKUSHIMA:  http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-world-community-must
• 
  

• Full article:  FDA Refuses to Test Fish for radioactivity: http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.com/2013/08/fda-refuses-to-test-fish-for.html