Archive for March, 2012

14 nuke disaster evacuation zone residents file 265 million yen suit against TEPCO

March 31, 2012

Fourteen residents of Iitate, Fukushima Prefecture, have filed suit with the Tokyo District Court against Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), demanding some 265 million yen in compensation for what they call mental suffering caused by radiation exposure fears and life in temporary housing.

The suit is believed to be the first class action suit against the operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant over the ongoing nuclear crisis.

The plaintiffs, representing five households and aged 20 to 82, evacuated from Iitate after the village was included in the nuclear disaster evacuation zone and now live in temporary accommodations in Fukushima, Sendai and other locations.

A government panel setting guidelines for financial compensation for victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster says every person experiencing mental suffering should receive 100,000 yen per month for the first six months of the crisis and 50,000 yen per month for the next six months.

The plaintiffs, however, are demanding 300,000 yen per month for two years starting from the beginning of the crisis, plus 10 million yen per head of household, stressing the mental and physical suffering they’ve experienced as their lives have been thrown into disarray by the evacuation, and the constant fear of radioactive contamination.

The plaintiffs say they filed the class action suit against TEPCO because the government’s compensation mediation center has for the most part failed to secure larger amounts than those stipulated under the guidelines, and managed to reach a compromise in only a limited number of cases.

One of the plaintiffs is Shuko Ichizawa, 58, who evacuated to the city of Fukushima soon after realizing a longtime dream to open a coffee shop in the village. “I don’t know what to do because the village where I was born, grew up and achieved my lifelong goal was destroyed. Is only 100,000 yen compensation enough for that?” he said at a news conference before the suit was filed.

Click here for the original Japanese story

(Mainichi Japan) March 31, 2012

end quote . The whole point of US DOE and its experiments via contractor orgs such as Flinders University is to minimise the perceived liability of nuclear industry. The actual liability has not changed. The people involved in the action include farmers who have forever lost their land.

As the onset of radiogenic disease may take decades to occur, fear of disease from increase risk caused by the emission of chemicals which are radioactive by TEPCO (ie the failure to maintain sealed sources) is rational. The desire by nuclear industry to demean and insult its victims has obvious motives, including the desire to save money at the cost of victims.

Calendar of Nuclear Accidents and Events

March 31, 2012

Subject: Calendar of Nuclear Accidents and Events (Updated 21st March)
Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
Below is a calendar that shows the threat that humanity faces from the atom bomb and the nuclear fuel cycle. This calendar gives some examples of the everyday nuclear incidents that have occurred all over the world. It demonstrates how technological failures coupled with human error risk public health and the environment on an almost daily basis.

1-1992: Four tons of heavy water spilt at Rajasthan nuclear power plant (India)
2-1993: Leak at Kozloduy nuclear power plant, release of radioactive steam (Bulgaria)
3-1961: Explosion in reactor Idaho Falls (USA); three people killed
4-1965: 6.5 kg plutonium sludge released from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
5-1976: Two workers killed by radioactive carbon dioxide at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
6-1981: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)
7-1974: Explosion at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1975: Release of radioactivity from Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)
9-1993: Radioactive release from leaking fuel rods at Perry nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1987: Nuclear transport accident in the UK
11-1985: In Heilbronn (Germany), a Pershing-II nuclear missile catches fire, three people killed
12-1960: Technicians trying to restart a reactor at Savannah River reprocessing plant almost send it out of control (USA)
13-1964: A B-52 plane crashes with nuclear bombs on board in Maryland (USA)
14-1969: USS Enterprise, nuclear aircraft-carrier, suffers fires and explosions, killing 28 crew members
16-1990: Loss of offsite power with multiple equipment failures at Dresden nuclear power plant (USA)
17-1966: A B-52 plane crashes in Spain causing plutonium contamination
18-1989: Eight workers are contaminated at Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
19-1992: Radioactive leak, reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
20-1993: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident (France)
21-1969: Technical failure at Swiss experimental nuclear reactor causes release of radioactive water
22-1992: Technical failure in shut-down system at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
23- 1978: Radioactive helium released from Colorado reactor (USA)
24-1978: Soviet nuclear-powered satellite Cosmos-954 crashes in Canada
25-1982: Steam generator ruptures at R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant (USA)
26-1988: Dangerous temperature rise in a nuclear reactor on board a British submarine
27-1992: Leak causes a shut-down at Darlington nuclear power plant (Canada)
28-1990: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
29-1961: A B-52 plane carrying nuclear bombs crashes, the bombs do not explode but three of the eight crew members are killed (USA)
31 -1996: Leakage of radiation due to human error and technical failure at Dimitrovgrad nuclear research centre (Russia)
1-1982: Release of 100 cubic metres of radioactive water from Salem nuclear power plant (USA)
2-1993: Breakdown of cooling system for two hours at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1992: Failure of cooling pumps at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
5-1986: “Amber alert” (indicating an emergency in one building and a threat to the rest of the plant)” at Sellafield reprocessing plant, UK
6-1974: Explosion and radiation leak at Leningrad nuclear power plant, three people killed (Russia)
8-1991: Release of radioactivity from Fukui nuclear power plant (Japan)
9-1991: Rupture of steam generator pipe causes release of radioactivity at Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)
10-1992: Technical failure in pump system at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
11-1986: Release of 13 tonnes of radioactive carbon dioxide from Transfynydd nuclear power plant (UK)
12-1968: A B-52 plane with nuclear bombs on board crashes near Toronto (Canada)
13-1960: First French nuclear test
15-1993: Spillage of 18,000 litres of heavy water at Darlington nuclear power plant (Canada)
16-1973: Container filled with Cobalt-60 lost in the North Sea
17-1984: Accident at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
18-1988: Report of core melt in the nuclear reactor of the Soviet Ice-Breaker “Rossiya”
19-1986: Three workers suffer contamination at the Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
20-1990: Eight employees receive radiation exposure at Point Lepreau (Canada)
21-1976: Accident at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
22-1993: High pressure steam accident kills one worker and injures two others at Fukushima nuclear power plant (Japan)
23-1981: Accidental explosion of a Pershing-II missile in Germany
24-1972: Accident on board Soviet nuclear-powered submarine causes vessel to lose all power
25-1983: Failure of automatic shut-down at Salem nuclear power plant (USA)
26-1988: Increased levels of radioactivity at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
27-1983: Nuclear powered satellite falls into the Indian Ocean
28-1992: Software failure in the control computer at Embalse nuclear power plant (Argentina)
1-1954: Fall-out of US nuclear weapons test “Bravo” contaminates the inhabitants of the Pacific island of Rongelap.
2-1994: Breakdown of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1992: Technical failure at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
4-1977: Kozloduy nuclear power plant affected by an earthquake (Bulgaria)
6-1985: Emergency cooling system out of order at the Grohnde nuclear power plant (Germany)
8-1972: Radioactive water has to be pumped out of the Indian Point nuclear power plant (USA)
9-1992: Fire at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
10-1956: A B-47 plane disappears with nuclear weapons on board in the Atlantic Ocean
11-1958: A B-47 plane loses nuclear bomb in South Carolina (USA)
12-1981: Tornado washes nuclear waste from Moruroa into the lagoon (Pacific)
13-1986: US nuclear submarine runs aground and suffers damage
14-1961: A B-52 plane crashes with nuclear bombs on board in California (USA)
15-1989: Technical failure of fuel roads at Pickering nuclear power plant (Canada)
17-1984: Emergency cooling system at San Onofere nuclear power plant fails (USA)
18-1987: Fire and release of radioactivity at Australian nuclear research facility
20-1977: Temperature increase at Rancho Seco nuclear power plant (USA)
21-1984: Soviet nuclear submarine collides with US aircraft carrier “Kitty Hawk”
22-1975: Fire in reactor at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant (USA)
24-1992: Incident with radiation leakage, shut-down of reactor at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
25-1992: Technical failure at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Refuelling accident at Wuergassen nuclear power plant (Germany)
28-1979: Partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant (USA)
29-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
31-1992: Automatic shut-down due to failure of pump system at Kalinin nuclear power plant (Russia)
1-1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
2-1979: Two workers suffer radioactive contamination at Tokaimura nuclear complex (Japan)
3-1960: Melting of fuel elements cause a release of radioactivity at the Test Reactor at Waltz Mills (USA)
6-1993: Explosion at the Tomsk-7 nuclear complex (Russia)
7-1992: Failure of automatic shut-down system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1989: Soviet nuclear submarine “Komsomolets” sinks off Norway
9-1981: US-nuclear submarine “George Washington” crashes against a freighter ship
10-1963: US-nuclear submarine sinks with 123 crew members in the Atlantic
11-1950: A B-29 plane crashes in New Mexico, thirteen people killed.
12-1970: Soviet nuclear submarine sinks in the Atlantic
13-1979: Fire in the generator of the Baersbeck nuclear power plant (Sweden)
14-1970: Soviet nuclear submarine sinks with 52 crew members in Indian ocean
15-1983: Incident at Turkey Point nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1992: Technical failure of reactor shut-down system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
17-1970: Incident involving a vehicle at a French nuclear test site in the South Pacific causes a plutonium spillage into the ocean.
18-1992: Technical failure during refuelling at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
19-1984: Technical failure at Sequoyah nuclear power plant causes spillage of radioactive coolant water. (USA)
20-1973: Thousands of cubic meters of radioactive waste flow out of Hanford nuclear weapons complex (USA)
21-1964: US-satellite disperses plutonium into the atmosphere.
22-1983: Reactor shut-down due to failure of fuel rods at Kursk nuclear power plant (Russia)
23-1991: Lost of offsite power cause technical failure at “Vermont Yankee” nuclear submarine (USA)
25-1990: Flooding of building due to increase of coolant level at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
26-1986: Explosion of reactor 4 at Chernobyl nuclear power plant; the worst civilian nuclear accident to date.
28-1988: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex (France)
29-1986: US-nuclear submarine “Atlanta” hits the ground off Gibralta
30-1992: Breakdown of cooling system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
1-1992: Technical failure at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
2-1979: Technical fault at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant triggers emergency shut-down (USA)
3-1974: Leakage at Hanford nuclear weapons complex (USA)
4-1986: Release of radiation from Hamm-Uentrop nuclear power plant (Germany)
5-1987: Pershing nuclear missile ends up in a ditch after a transport accident at Heilbronn (Germany)
6-1989: Fire of pump equipment at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
7-1992: Failure of emergency system at Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1964: First Chinese nuclear test
9-1992: Technical failure of cooling system at Hatch nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1965: Release of eight cubic metres of cooling water from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
11-1969: Fire at Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant causes plutonium to spontaneously ignite. (USA)
12-1984: Uncontrolled power surge at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
13-1992: Tube leak causes a radioactive release of 12 Curies of radioactivity from Tarapur nuclear power station (India)
14-1986: The power lines to the Palo Verde nuclear power plant are sabotaged (USA)
16-1992: Reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
17-1984: Fire on board the US-nuclear submarine “Guitarro”
18-1968: Accident during launch of US satellite, radioactive materials fall into ocean near Califiornia coast
20-1974: First Indian nuclear test
21-1968: US-nuclear submarine “Scorpion” sinks off the Acores, 99 people die
22-1957: Human error causes a B-36 plane to release a nuclear bomb in New Mexico
23-1958: Accident and release of radioactivity at the Chalk River experimental reactor (Canada)
24-1968: Incident on board of Soviet nuclear submarine “K- 27”, 5 crew members killed by radiation release
26-1990: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant (France)
27-1993: Reactor shut-down due to breakdown of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1970: Collision of the US-nuclear submarine “Daniel Boone”
1-1991: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant (France)
2-1992: Total failure of centralised control system at the Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1980: Computer fault causes full-scale alert for US Military Strategic Command
4-1989: Fire in the cables of the cooling pumps at the Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
6-1994: Fire at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)
7-1960: Fire in a BOMARC-rocket in New Jersey causes plutonium release into the atmosphere (USA)
8-1992: Failure of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
9-1985: Malfunction in the cooling system at Davis Blesse nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1985: Collision of a British nuclear submarine off the coast of Florida (USA)
11-1989: Spent fuel element dropped in the storage pool and damaged at Kruemmel nuclear power plant (Germany)
15-1992: Technical failure at Sizewell nuclear power plant (UK)
16-1988: Technical failure at Zorita nuclear power plant (Spain)
17-1967: First Chinese hydrogen nuclear bomb test
18-1978: Release of two tons of radioactive steam from Brunsbuettel nuclear power plant (Germany)
19-1992: Leak in pipe conducting sea water to cooling system at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
20-1985 Collision of two trucks carrying nuclear bombs in Scotland (UK)
23-1986: Twelve people receive `slight’ plutonium contamination while inspecting a store room at Tokaimura nuclear complex (Japan)
24-1992: Technical failure of control system at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1989: Fire and reactor damage in a Soviet submarine
27-1985: Explosion and steam leakage killed 14 workers at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
29-1991: Power limited due to error between actual and indicated power at Pickering nuclear power plant(Canada).
30-1983: Total loss of coolant at Embalse nuclear power plant (Argentina)
1-1983: Technical failure causes release of Iodine-131 from Phillipsburg nuclear power plant (Germany)
2-1966: French nuclear testing in the South Pacific begins 3-1981: Fire at North Anna nuclear power plant (USA)
4-1961: Incident on board of Soviet nuclear submarine “K- 19”, radiation release kills 9 crew members
6-1959: US plane carrying nuclear weapons crashes and catches on fire
9-1991: Flaw in cooling system at Wurgassen nuclear power plant (Russia)
10-1991: Leakage of radiation at Bilibino nuclear power plant (Russia)
12-1993: Failure of control system at Susquehanna nuclear power plant (USA)
14-1992: Reactor shut-down due to failure of cooling system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
16-1945: First explosion of a nuclear bomb (“Trinity”) in New Mexico (USA)
17-1991: Reactor shut-down due to break of control system at Sendai nuclear power plant (Japan)
18-1991: Steam leakage causes reactor shut-down at Paks nuclear power plant (Hungary)
20-1992: Leakage of radiation due to breakdown of cooling system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
22-1992: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant (France)
24-1989: Refuelling accident at Isar nuclear power plant (Germany)
25-1946: US nuclear test “Baker” causes unexpected plutonium contamination on target vessels
26-1992: Temperature rise in storage pool at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
27-1956: US plane crashes into nuclear ammunition storage in the UK
28-1957: US plane loses two nuclear bombs in the Atlantic
30-1986: Human error causes the nuclear warhead to be knocked off a Pershing rocket (Germany)
31-1993: Refuelling machine malfunctions at the Wylfa nuclear power plant (UK)
1-1983: An engineer receives a fatal radiation dose at a research reactor in Argentina
2-1987: Elevated radiation level after Soviet nuclear test
3-1983: Argentinean engineer dies from radiation dose received two days earlier
5-1950: B-29 plane with nuclear weapons on board crashes; 19 people killed (USA)
6-1945: Nuclear bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima
9-1945: Nuclear bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki
10-1985: Explosion on board a Soviet nuclear submarine
11-1988: Damage detected at Atucha nuclear power plant (Argentina)
14-1989: Instrumentation and control failure at Grand Gulf nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1991: Eight control rods show delays in emergency shut- down insertion time at Millstone Point nuclear power plant (USA)
17-1991: Automatic shut-down due to technical problems at Sendai nuclear power plant (Japan)
18-1953: First explosion of Soviet hydrogen bomb
19-1986: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant (France)
20-1974 Incident at Beznau nuclear power plant (Switzerland)
21-1980: Accident on board Soviet nuclear submarine, believed to kill at least nine crew members
22-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
25-1984: French freighter sinks in the English Channel with 375 tonnes of uraniumhexafluoride on board
26-1989: Technical failure at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
27-1990: Cable fire causes loss of control of the position of control rods at Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
28-1992: Fire in electro-generator at St.Alban nuclear power plant (France)
29-1949: First explosion of Soviet atomic bomb
30-1985: Fire in a barrel of radioactive waste at Karlsruhe nuclear complex (Germany)
31-1985: Fire at Fukushima nuclear power plant during routine shut-down (Japan)
1-1993: Fire at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1974: Release of radioactive water at Los Alamos nuclear weapons Laboratory (USA)
4-1988: Fire at Perry nuclear power plant (USA)
5-1988: Fire at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
6-1991: Incident and steam leak during refueling at Barsebeck nuclear power plant (Sweden)
9-1989: Control rod failure at Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (Finland)
11-1957: 15 kgs of plutonium catch fire at Rocky Flats nuclear weapons complex (USA)
12-1992: Leakage of radioactive water at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
13-1987: 249 people are contaminated in Brazil, due to handling discarded nuclear medical equipment, four people subsequently die
14-1991: Leakage at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
15-1986: Fire on board a US plane carrying nuclear weapons
16-1990: Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor is closed down due to technical failures (France)
17-1988: Nuclear weapons convoy road accident kills one person (UK)
18-1988: Technical failure at Stade nuclear power plant (Germany)
19-1984: Collision of a Soviet nuclear submarine
20-1977: US-nuclear submarine “Ray” hits the sea-bed, three crew members are injured
21-1989: Manual shut-down of WNP nuclear power plant (USA)
22-1980: Pump failure causes accidental release of radioactive water at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)
23-1969: Radioactive contamination of atmosphere during the unsuccessful launch of a Soviet spaceship.
24-1973: 35 workers at the Sellafield reprocessing plant are contaminated following a technical failure (UK)
25-1955: First Soviet underwater nuclear explosion near Novaya Zemlya (Arctic Ocean)
27-1974: Soviet nuclear-capable destroyer sinks in the Black Sea
28-1990: Cables for reactor control and protection system supply overheat at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
29-1957: Thousands of square miles contaminated by accident at the Chelyabinsk nuclear complex (Russia)
30-1990: Failure of reactor core cooling system at Palisades nuclear power plant (USA)
1-1983: Technical failure and human error cause accident at Blayas nuclear power plant(France)
2-1968: Leakage at La Hague reprocessing plant (France) 3-1952: First UK nuclear test
4-1981: Release of 300-times the normal discharge level of Iodine-131 at Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
5-1966: Partial core meltdown at the Fermi fast breeder reactor (USA)
6-1986: Soviet nuclear submarine sinks off the coast of Bermuda
7-1984: Emergency shut-down of Paks nuclear power plant (Hungary)
8-1985: Accidental radioactive release into the sea from Hinkley Point nuclear power station (UK)
9-1991: Technical failure at Yugno-Ukrainskaya nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
10-1957: Three tonnes of uranium catch fire at the Windscale reprocessing plant (now Sellafield UK)
11-1957: US nuclear bomber crashes in Florida and catches fire
13-1977: Sea water runs into the cooling circuit of Hunterston nuclear power plant (UK)
14-1953: Fall-out from British nuclear test “Totem” contaminates Aborigines in the Australian desert
15-1988: French officials carry out an experiment to test the effects of releasing 7000 Curies of radioactivity
16-1964: First Chinese nuclear test
17-1969: Fuel elements melt at St Laurent des Eaux nuclear power plant (France)
18-1991: Technical failure at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
19-1991: Offsite power failure at Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
21-1991: Fire on board “Sceptre” nuclear submarine in Scotland
22-1993: Instrumentation and Control failure at Saint Alban nuclear power plant (France)
23-1989: Failure of core cooling system at Dresdan nuclear power plant (USA)
25-1991: Failure of shut-down system during refuelling at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Incident during refueling at Vogtle nuclear power plant (USA)
27-1991: Technical failure of shut-down system at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
29-1991: Technical failure causes automatic shut-down at Kalinin nuclear power plant (Russia)
31-1986: US-nuclear submarine “Augusta” involved in collision
1-1992: Cracks in cooling system equipment at Brunsbuttel nuclear power plant (Germany)
2-1982: Nuclear missile transporter crashes killing one person and injuring two others (Germany)
3-1990: Failure of core cooling equipment at Doel nuclear power plant (Belgium)
4-1970: Explosion on board a nuclear-capable US-destroyer kills two sailors
5-1967: UK nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine `HMS Repulse’ runs aground 30 minutes after its launch
7-1967: Release of radioactivity at Grenoble nuclear power plant (France)
9-1955: Core meltdown at EBR fast breeder reactor (USA)
11-1988: Accident during refueling on board of Soviet nuclear powered ice-breaker “Lenin”
12-1993: London Convention bans the dumping of nuclear waste into the sea
13-1974: Karen Silkwood, a worker at a US nuclear plant, dies mysteriously on her way to hand important documents to a Trade Union Official and a journalist
14-1989: Breakdown of fuel rod control system at Oconee nuclear power plant (USA)
15-1989: Fire on board US-nuclear submarine “Finback”
16-1983: Sellafield reprocessing plant discharges highly radioactive wastes directly into the sea (UK)
18-1991: Reactor shut-down due to technical failure at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
19-1980: US nuclear-missile almost launched during a drill exercise.
20-1989: Fire in turbine equipment at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
23-1991: Leak of 190,000 litres of water from cooling system, reactor shut-down at Oconee nuclear power plant (USA)
24-1989: Technical failure nearly causes core meltdown at Greifswald nuclear power plant (Germany)
25-1991: Failure of cooling system causes automatic reactor shut-down at Kursk nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1958: B-47 plane catches fire, destroying one nuclear weapon (USA)
27-1991: Disfunction of automatic shut-down system at Bilibino nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1991: Failure of control system causes reactor shut- down at Kursk nuclear power plant (Russia)
29-1982: US nuclear submarine collides with US-destroyer
30-1975: 1.5 million Curies released from Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
1-1991: Technical failure at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)
2-1949: US experiment “Green Run” contaminates communities up to 70 miles away from the Hanford nuclear weapons complex (USA)
3-1988: Explosion at the Burghfield Atomic Weapons Establishment (UK)
4-1990: 2 workers irradiated during refuelling at Blayais nuclear power plant (France)
5-1965: Plane crashes with nuclear bombs on board off the coast of Japan
6-1991: Failure of control system during refuelling causes reactor shut-down at Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
7-1991: Failure of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1995: Fire due to leakage of sodium coolant from Monju fast breeder reactor, Japanese nuclear industry attempts to cover up full extent of accident, reactor shut-down
9-1986: Explosion at Surry nuclear power plant, four people killed (USA).
10-1991: Failure of turbo-generator causes reactor shut- down at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
11-1991: Human error causes failure of automatic reactor shut-down equipment at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
12-1952: World’s first major nuclear reactor disaster, Chalk River experimental reactor (Canada)
13-1988: Four of the eight emergency installations discovered out of order at Brokdorf nuclear power plant (Germany)
14-1991: Technical failure causes automatic shut-down at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
15-1991: Technical failure at Kalinin nuclear power plant (Russia)
16-1991: Technical failure at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
17-1987: Severe incident at Biblis nuclear power plant (Germany)
18-1984: Fire at Kalinin nuclear power plant (Russia)
19-1980: Plutonium transport accident in the USA
20-1990: Control element discovered damaged at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
21-1991: Radiation leakage at Kolskaya nuclear power plant (Russia)
22-1987: Accidental release of 50 tonnes of water from Atucha nuclear power plant (Argentina)
23-1988: Two control rods jammed at Blayais nuclear power plant (France)
24-1991: Reactor shut-down due to technical failure at Kalinin nuclear power plant (Russia)
25-1992: Radioactive water leakage at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)
27-1991: Automatic shut-down Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1990: Incident and radiation leakage at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
30-1988: Reactor shut-down due to failure of control equipment at Pilgrim nuclear power plant (USA)
31-1978: Fire and loss of reactor control, 8 workers irradiated at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)

“British nuclear energy policy in tatters” – glow in the dark economics.

March 31, 2012

The Telegraph UK

UK energy plans in ‘tatters’ after Npower and E. ON nuclear plant withdrawal
Britain’s long-term energy policy lay “in tatters” on Thursday after two of the ”big six” energy companies pulled out of multi-billion pound plans to develop new nuclear plants.

11:30AM BST 29 Mar 2012

Comments263 Comments

In a ”devastating blow” for the Government’s energy policy, RWE npower and E. ON announced they would end their joint venture to build nuclear power plants in Britain.

Critics claimed the decision meant that the £15 billion ”Horizon” project, which would develop reactors at Wylfa in North Wales and Oldbury-on-Severn, Glos, was now effectively dead.

But the German-owned companies, which operate fossil fuel and renewable generation in Britain, said they were looking for a new owner for the Horizon Nuclear Power.

The utilities had planned to build up to 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear plants in Britain by 2025 and had been due shortly to announce a reactor design choice for Wylfa, the first new plant.

The decision was made amid the global economic crisis and significant costs of the project, they added.

end quote. When car companies near financial ruin, the put out of heaps of crap – Nissan Pintara, VW Golf Mk1.

When nuke industry causes economic chaos (as it must, for it earns no income – it costs more to store the waste than a bill of a million bucks per kilowatt could pay for) will the lemon reactors become more like lemons, run on the cheap, riskier and riskier ? Which British plant will go down second (after Windscale). Not counting all the lapses, leaks, and plutonium in British chidrens’ teeth.

Cuthbert’s Blog, CO2 and a list of the ten most radioactive sites on earth. Take yer pick. Boat or Rad suite.

March 31, 2012

I can’t agree with everything Cuthbert says, but he has some very interesting points.

(I strongly believe that solar could power Australia, and that had alternatives and radical “new” (actually old) ideas not been suppressed and denied funding due to the Dollar sucking nuke parasite, nukes would be seen for what they are: filthy, highly emitting, non-profit making, resource wasting, life killing and gene changing monsters that they are.)

Anyway, this post is about Cuthbert.


“With governments still going on about Global Warming and the dangers of Carbon Dioxide?!?!? (you know the gas we humans breathe out and plants breathe in) you would think other environmental pollutants would also be a high priority. Pollutants like Genetically Modified plants and animals and terminator genes , chemical fertilisers ,and industrial and military toxic waste. BUT according to our government none of this is as dangerous as CO2!!” end quote.

Yep. If there is going to be carbon tax in Australia, there needs to be strontium tax, a cesium tax, an I131 tax etc.

Quote “The United Kingdom’s response to critics of the Sellafield MOX Plant, aging nuclear reactors and plans for new reactors is becoming apparent. Following revelations that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) is technically bankrupt, the government announced that a new Liabilities Management Authority is to take over its liabilities, including the Sellafield and the Magnox reactors. Critics who divulge details of nuclear security, nuclear transports or uranium enrichment will risk up to 7 years in jail under a new law. In short, it is full steam ahead for this Titanic of the industry, and the question is, which iceberg will it hit first…
Faced with revelations that one of its leading players is bankrupt, with installations described as the most dangerous in Western Europe which enable terrorists to hold the world to ransom, any normal industry would be on its knees. However, the UK’s nuclear industry is not a normal industry.” end quote.


And having been responsible for it for many, many years, I learned from experience, it wasn’t cheap, with the cost of storage of nuclear waste and the research; it isn’t safe, because Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and Windscale and so on; and it wasn’t peaceful. But all the time it was motivated by the desire to build nuclear weapons.
“Nor are Britain’s civil nuclear power stations peaceful as for many years, and still possibly today, the plutonium they produce was sent to fuel the American nuclear weapons programme, making them into – what were in effect – bomb factories.
At no stage, as a minister, could I rely on being told the truth either by the Industry itself, or by my own civil servants“
Tony Benn ex-UK Technology Minister”

Call for Chris Huhne to resign over Fukushima emails
Former party chief executive in Scotland says Huhne must go over ‘conspiracy’ to protect nuclear industry
Rob Edwards, written for, Friday 1 July 2011 22.03 BST
A prominent Liberal Democrat has called for Chris Huhne to resign immediately as energy and climate change secretary after emails were released detailing his officials’ efforts toco-ordinate a PR response to the Fukushima disaster with the nuclear industry. Civil servants in the energy and business departments were apparently trying to minimise the impact of the disaster on public support for nuclear power.
Andy Myles, the party’s former chief executive in Scotland, said: “This deliberate and (sadly) very effective attempt to ‘calm’ the reporting of the true story of Fukushima is a terrible betrayal of liberal values. In my view it is not acceptable that a Liberal Democrat cabinet minister presides over a department deeply involved in a blatant conspiracy designed to manipulate the truth in order to protect corporate interests”.

“These emails corroborate my own impression that there has been a strange silence in the UK following the Fukushima disaster … in the UK, new nuclear sites have been announced before the results of the Europe-wide review of nuclear safety has been completed. Today’s news strengthens the case for the government to halt new nuclear plans until an independent and transparent review has been conducted.”

Revealed: British government’s plan to play down Fukushima
Internal emails seen by Guardian show PR campaign was launched to protect UK nuclear plans after tsunami in Japan
Rob Edwards, written for, Thursday 30 June 2011 21.36 BST

British government officials approached nuclear companies to draw up a co-ordinated public relations strategy to play down the Fukushima nuclear accident just two days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and before the extent of the radiation leak was known.
Internal emails seen by the Guardian show how the business and energy departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational companies EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in the UK.
“This has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally,” wrote one official at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose name has been redacted. “We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear.”
Officials stressed the importance of preventing the incident from undermining public support for nuclear power.


Interesting stuff Cuthbert.

Here’s the top 10 list Cuthbert found:

While the 2011 earthquake and worries surrounding Fukushima have brought the threat of radioactivity back into the public consciousness, many people still don’t realize that radioactive contamination is a worldwide danger. Radionuclides are in the top six toxic threats as listed in the 2010 report by The Blacksmith Institute, an NGO dedicated to tackling pollution. You might be surprised by the locations of some of the world’s most radioactive places — and thus the number of people living in fear of the effects radiation could have on them and their children.

10. Hanford, USA

The Hanford Site, in Washington, was an integral part of the US atomic bomb project, manufacturing plutonium for the first nuclear bomb and “Fat Man,” used at Nagasaki. As the Cold War waged on, it ramped up production, supplying plutonium for most of America’s 60,000 nuclear weapons. Although decommissioned, it still holds two thirds of the volume of the country’s high-level radioactive waste — about 53 million gallons of liquid waste, 25 million cubic feet of solid waste and 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater underneath the area, making it the most contaminated site in the US. The environmental devastation of this area makes it clear that the threat of radioactivity is not simply something that will arrive in a missile attack, but could be lurking in the heart of your own country.

9. The Mediterranean

For years, there have been allegations that the ‘Ndrangheta syndicate of the Italian mafia has been using the seas as a convenient location in which to dump hazardous waste — including radioactive waste — charging for the service and pocketing the profits. An Italian NGO, Legambiente, suspects that about 40 ships loaded with toxic and radioactive waste have disappeared in Mediterranean waters since 1994. If true, these allegations paint a worrying picture of an unknown amount of nuclear waste in the Mediterranean whose true danger will only become clear when the hundreds of barrels degrade or somehow otherwise break open. The beauty of the Mediterranean Sea may well be concealing an environmental catastrophe in the making.

8. The Somalian Coast

The Italian mafia organization just mentioned has not just stayed in its own region when it comes to this sinister business. There are also allegations that Somalian waters and soil, unprotected by government, have been used for the sinking or burial of nuclear waste and toxic metals — including 600 barrels of toxic and nuclear waste, as well as radioactive hospital waste. Indeed, the United Nations’ Environment Program believes that the rusting barrels of waste washed up on the Somalian coastline during the 2004 Tsunami were dumped as far back as the 1990s. The country is already an anarchic wasteland, and the effects of this waste on the impoverished population could be as bad if not worse than what they have already experienced.

7. Mayak, Russia

The industrial complex of Mayak, in Russia’s north-east, has had a nuclear plant for decades, and in 1957 was the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. Up to 100 tons of radioactive waste were released by an explosion, contaminating a massive area. The explosion was kept under wraps until the 1980s. Starting in the 1950s, waste from the plant was dumped in the surrounding area and into Lake Karachay. This has led to contamination of the water supply that thousands rely on daily. Experts believe that Karachay may be the most radioactive place in the world, and over 400,000 people have been exposed to radiation from the plant as a result of the various serious incidents that have occurred — including fires and deadly dust storms. The natural beauty of Lake Karachay belies its deadly pollutants, with the radiation levels where radioactive waste flows into its waters enough to give a man a fatal dose within an hour.

6. Sellafield, UK

Located on the west coast of England, Sellafield was originally a plutonium production facility for nuclear bombs, but then moved into commercial territory. Since the start of its operation, hundreds of accidents have occurred at the plant, and around two thirds of the buildings themselves are now classified as nuclear waste. The plant releases some 8 million liters of contaminated waste into the sea on a daily basis, making the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world. England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes, but nestled in the heart of this industrialized nation is a toxic, accident-prone facility, spewing dangerous waste into the oceans of the world.

5. Siberian Chemical Combine, Russia

Mayak is not the only contaminated site in Russia; Siberia is home to a chemical facility that contains over four decades’ worth of nuclear waste. Liquid waste is stored in uncovered pools and poorly maintained containers hold over 125,000 tons of solid waste, while underground storage has the potential to leak to groundwater. Wind and rain have spread the contamination to wildlife and the surrounding area. And various minor accidents have led to plutonium going missing and explosions spreading radiation. While the snowy landscape may look pristine and immaculate, the facts make clear the true level of pollution to be found here.

4. The Polygon, Kazakhstan

Once the location for the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons testing, this area is now part of modern-day Kazakhstan. The site was earmarked for the Soviet atomic bomb project due to its “uninhabited” status — despite the fact that 700,000 people lived in the area. The facility was where the USSR detonated its first nuclear bomb and is the record-holder for the place with the largest concentration of nuclear explosions in the world: 456 tests over 40 years from 1949 to 1989. While the testing carried out at the facility — and its impact in terms of radiation exposure — were kept under wraps by the Soviets until the facility closed in 1991, scientists estimate that 200,000 people have had their health directly affected by the radiation. The desire to destroy foreign nations has led to the specter of nuclear contamination hanging over the heads of those who were once citizens of the USSR.

3. Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan

Considered one of the top ten most polluted sites on Earth by the 2006 Blacksmith Institute report, the radiation at Mailuu-Suu comes not from nuclear bombs or power plants, but from mining for the materials needed in the processes they entail. The area was home to a uranium mining and processing facility and is now left with 36 dumps of uranium waste — over 1.96 million cubic meters. The region is also prone to seismic activity, and any disruption of the containment could expose the material or cause some of the waste to fall into rivers, contaminating water used by hundreds of thousands of people. These people may not ever suffer the perils of nuclear attack, but nonetheless they have good reason to live in fear of radioactive fallout every time the earth shakes.

2. Chernobyl, Ukraine

Home to one of the world’s worst and most infamous nuclear accidents, Chernobyl is still heavily contaminated, despite the fact that a small number of people are now allowed into the area for a limited amount of time. The notorious accident caused over 6 million people to be exposed to radiation, and estimates as to the number of deaths that will eventually occur due to the Chernobyl accident range from 4,000 to as high as 93,000. The accident released 100 times more radiation than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs. Belarus absorbed 70 percent of the radiation, and its citizens have been dealing with increased cancer incidence ever since. Even today, the word Chernobyl conjures up horrifying images of human suffering.

1. Fukushima, Japan

The 2011 earthquake and tsunami was a tragedy that destroyed homes and lives, but the effects of the Fukushima nuclear power plant may be the most long-lasting danger. The worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the incident caused meltdown of three of the six reactors, leaking radiation into the surrounding area and the sea, such that radiative material has been detected as far as 200 miles from the plant. As the incident and its ramifications are still unfolding, the true scale of the environmental impact is still unknown. The world may still be feeling the effects of this disaster for generations to come. ” end quote.

Olympic Dam, Roxby Downs, Beverley, the Great Artesian Basion, bits of Lucas Heights. The old Amdel Site near the brewery in Adelaide, the old tailings ponds in Pt Pirie. Rum Jungle. The ballast on the Trans-Australia Railway (ex the Rum Jungle uranium slag heap).

The Congo. on an on an on.

Another look at Windscale/Sellafield. (Now bankrupt, “owing” tens of billion pounds to the British taxpayer

March 31, 2012

We sent them the uranium, they sent it back to us in atomic bombs and hundreds of Pu dispersing dust creating experiments in the desert.

The Windscale fire was a bigger disaster that Britain ever admitted, and so are its nuclear power plants.

Mail Online, UK, 19 March 2011

Britain’s nuclear inferno: How our own Government covered up Windscale reactor blaze that’s caused dozens of deaths and hundreds of cancer cases

By Sue Reid
As Japan’s radiation disaster appals the world, this disturbing dispatch from the Lake District investigates a lethal legacy closer to home…

Down a long country lane at Newbiggin, past the Brown Cow pub and a shop that sells sausages which proudly sport the royal warrant, you finally get to reach the Irish Sea.

The water laps near a weathered wooden signpost pointing out the pleasant walk to the Roman port of Ravensglass. The edge of the estuary is an expanse of sticky mud covered with greenish moss and rotting seaweed.

However, this brown sediment is contaminated with radioactivity from the nearby Sellafield power station.

When anti-nuclear protesters tried to highlight the health dangers by taking a dustbin full of mud to Whitehall a few years ago, men in white protective suits were scrambled to take it away.

Sellafield, the world’s first commercial nuclear station, stockpiles more spent plutonium than any other similar plant — a huge store that has been built up over half a century.

‘We test the mud at Newbiggin regularly and it always contains low-level nuclear waste,’ said Martin Forwood, the co-ordinator of the lobby group Cumbrians Opposed To A Radioactive Environment.

‘There are no warning signs anywhere along the coast. People walk on this shoreline with their dogs and children. The dogs take the contaminated mud back home on their hair. The children carry it on their shoes. It then dries and can be breathed in. Don’t tell me this is not a danger to human beings.’

A Geiger counter measurement in the muddy area taken by Martin gives a reading of around 15 counts of radioactive particles a second. That is double the amount of radiation normally found in the atmosphere in Britain. Tests from some other parts of the shoreline shoot up to 50.
Sellafield now sells reprocessed nuclear waste

The world’s plutonium capital: Sellafield now sells reprocessed nuclear waste

Anti-nuclear campaigners blame these high levels on traces of plutonium (as well as other dangerous elements such as caesium and americium, which are used in the production of nuclear fuel) in the mud.

This is because waste water from Sellafield has been discharged for decades through a pipe just two miles off the coast.

The former World War II munitions factory became Britain’s first nuclear complex in the late Forties.

The giant facility opened under the name of Windscale to produce plutonium for Britain’s H-bomb.

In 1956 Calder Hall nuclear power station was opened alongside it to produce low-cost electricity for millions of homes. Back then, the long, sandy beach at the nearest town of Seascale was popular with swimmers.

But families are now too afraid to go there because radioactive contamination has been traced in shellfish, seaweed and the sand.

The levels of radioactivity recorded by Martin Forwood are so high that they would not be permitted under safety regulations for the inside of the huge nuclear plant itself. Indeed, they are higher than those taken within the 20-mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl, scene of the world’s worst nuclear disaster in 1986.

The deeper you dig down into the mud, the more poisonous the levels become because of the accumulation of waste over the years.

This week, as the world looked on in horror at the frantic attempts to try to make safe the out-of-control nuclear power station hit by the tsunami in Japan, it is not surprising that questions are being asked about the safety of Britain’s 19 nuclear reactors.

The Government has asked Mike Weightman, chief nuclear inspector, for a full report on the implications of the Fukushima disaster before a decision is made on the future of nuclear power in this country.

A series of new plants is being planned by the Government, and advocates of nuclear power argue that (although they have to be built next to the sea because they need vast amounts of water as part of the cooling process) they will be safe and will not be at risk from damage by coastal erosion, storms, earthquakes or tsunamis.

One of the new plants is pencilled in for Sellafield.

Of course, Britain does not experience earthquakes the size that hit Japan — the largest to strike (off the coast at Great Yarmouth in 1931) was 130,000 times smaller than the one that set off the cataclysmic events in Japan.

But anti-nuclear campaigners are not so convinced about safety guarantees and point to the troubled history of Sellafield.

In 1957, a fire broke out in No 1 of the twin ‘piles’ or reactors. It was only discovered 50 hours later, and took three days to bring under control.

The blaze was caused by heat building up in the reactor after a series of safety blunders. As the fire raged, workers at the plant used hoses to try to cool the reactor.

However, contaminated air escaped through the 400ft-high chimney and rose over the Lake District in a long grey plume. Eventually, radioactive particles fell on to the local countryside or were caught in a changing wind, which blew them further inland towards Wales and over the sea to Ireland.

Marjorie Higham, now in her 70s, remembers the accident well. As a young local woman, her job was to monitor data in the scientific laboratory at the site and, like all employees, she had signed the Official Secrets Act, which prevented her from talking about her work.

Only now is she prepared to discuss what happened. She says: ‘I arrived one morning and was told I couldn’t leave the site. We had to stay in the laboratory and not say anything.

‘It was rumoured that an operation was under way to pump water into the reactor to extinguish a fire.

‘When some men phoned their wives to explain why they would be late home, they got into terrible trouble from the bosses.’

Marjorie went home late that night too and never mentioned a word. The hope of the authorities was that the full extent of the accident would never be made public.

But there were reports from government scientists in subsequent days that cows across the Lake District had been contaminated by eating grass that had become covered with radioactive dust.

For the next six weeks, milk collected over a 30-mile radius was discreetly removed from dairies so it would not be distributed for human consumption.

When a delivery from Grasmere in the Lake District mistakenly got into the supply system, the truth was kept secret by Harold Macmillan’s government to avoid ‘unnecessarily alarming’ the local population.

My godmother Peggy, holidaying in the area at the time, looked out of her hotel window and saw sheep dead in the fields. She told my parents what had happened, but since she was unaware there had been a fire at Sellafield (or Windscale, as it was then called), made no link between the dead animals and the accident at the nuclear plant.

The truth is that Macmillan ordered an official cover-up — fearing the British people would reject the idea of nuclear energy if they found out about the accident or its potential danger to human health.

The Government decreed that the official report into the fire should blame operator negligence and failed instrument readings. What’s more, ministers made sure the document would be kept secret by sealing it for 30 years.

After the fire, the twin reactors at Windscale were permanently closed and their function to produce plutonium was moved to an expanded Calder Hall.

Eventually, locals realised that the fire which they all knew about via the grapevine had, in fact, been a serious nuclear incident. But it took a whole generation to pass before its impact on the health of local inhabitants was revealed.

In 1982, the British National Radiological Protection Board issued a report estimating that 32 deaths and at least 260 cases of cancer could be attributed to the fire. But there are widespread concerns that this figure was much too low.

In 1993, the Government’s Health and Safety Executive confirmed that in nearby Seascale, the incidence of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (both linked with people being exposed to radioactive material) was 14 times the national average and twice that found in other areas of the western Lake District.

My godmother died of cancer in her fifties. It was never established whether the disease was linked to her exposure to radiation, but our family certainly suspect she was one of Windscale’s many silent victims.

John Urquhart, an epidemiologist at Newcastle University, said in the Eighties that he believed the chances of getting cancer in Seascale was one in 60, compared with a national average of one in 600.

Anti-nuclear campaigner Janine Allis-Smith’s son was diagnosed with leukaemia in 1983. She is convinced he was exposed to radiation during family trips to the Cumbrian seaside.

‘He put handfuls of mud and sand on his head and face. I’m sure Sellafield has something to do with it,’ she says.

‘I know lots of children who’ve died and whose fathers worked at Sellafield. The graveyard at a church near Newbiggin has lots of graves of children who died in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.

‘It was not just leukaemia, but other cancers. Some were stillborn, while other suffered unexplained deaths at a very young age.’

Another campaigner, Greenpeace’s nuclear adviser Jean McSorley, was born in the area. She describes herself as one of the ‘Windscale generation’. Her mother was pregnant with her when the fire happened in 1957.

She says: ‘Growing up, I watched children and adults go for cancer treatment at The Christie Hospital in Manchester. It is impossible to prove that the illnesses were caused by the fall-out from the fire, but we just knew.

At the time, people didn’t make a big fuss because the local community was very dependent for employment on the nuclear industry. Free speech was impossible because workers had signed the Official Secrets Act.’

But what is the truth?

In October, 1993, 36 years after the Windscale fire, two leukaemia victims lost their four-year battle for damages from the nuclear authorities. Although a judge did not rule out a connection between the radioactive emissions and the disease, he said there was a lack of supporting evidence for the theory.

Of course, worries remain.

A few years ago, complaints were made by neighbours against two women in Seascale who were feeding large numbers of pigeons. The estimated 2,000 birds were roosting in buildings at the nuclear plant and flying all over town causing a nuisance.

A cull was carried out by the RSPCA. Analysis of six of the dead birds, carried out by Greenpeace at an independent French laboratory, revealed high levels of radiation in their bodies.

As a result, the Ministry of Agriculture warned that ‘any pigeons found within a ten-mile radius of Sellafield should not be handled, slaughtered or consumed’.

Government scientists said eating the breast meat of the birds would give a radiation dose equivalent to the safe limit for an adult for a whole year.

The culled pigeons were placed in lead-lined canisters and buried at a dump for low-level nuclear waste which is patrolled by guards 24 hours a day.

Today, the entire Sellafield site no longer produces nuclear power because its equipment has reached the end of its lifespan. But it remains the world’s leading centre for reprocessing nuclear waste — taking waste from power stations all over the globe (including Japan) to extract the spent plutonium.

From this, a fuel called MOX (mixed oxide) is manufactured and sold back to power stations, again including those in Japan, as a means of burning weapons-grade plutonium to produce electricity.

The result is that Britain has the dubious distinction of being the world’s plutonium capital, with 112 tons of the element (about half the global total) stored at Sellafield.

No wonder Martin Forwood’s Geiger readings are so high when he tests levels of radioactivity over the Newbiggin mud.

And there is a small, sad postscript to all this. Last Christmas Eve, the Cumberland sausage, hams and bacon maker with a royal warrant was forced to sell up because of ill-health. He no longer sells his prize bangers to prestigious stores across the country.

Now only his little shop near Newbiggin remains.

Colin Woodall, who is in his early 50s, said that after generations of his family making traditional sausages, he had contracted leukaemia.

One can only speculate, of course. But has this proud Cumbrian become another victim of Sellafield and its very poisonous legacy?

Also, a futher recap:

Mail Online, UK

Sellafield becoming clean-up plant

Comments (0)

Sellafield nuclear power station is switching from reprocessing to clean-up, it has been reported.

The British Nuclear Fuels-owned plant will be converted into a waste-handling operation, the man in charge of Sellafield told The Guardian.

There are two reprocessing plants at Sellafield – the Magnox, for fuel from the first generation of British reactors, and the Thorp, that reprocesses fuel from the latest reactors for British and overseas customers.

Brian Watson, director of the site in Cumbria, said: “There is £30bn worth of clean-up work here. We are switching from reprocessing to clean up. We hope that will be seen in a more positive light.

“This site is like a supertanker that takes some turning. I have had to let people go who would not make the change, and go they have.”

Mr Watson said that he would like to build a plutonium burning reactor and use the MOX plant, built last year, to make the fuel.

“The rest of the site could then be devoted to cleaning up the mess of the Cold War. But these are political decisions,” he added.

BNFL will cease to become the owner of Sellafield when the Government creates a nuclear decommissioning authority in the coming years. The company became technically bankrupt two years ago with liabilities running into tens of billions of pounds.

end quote.

If this is the way to hold back the tide, I’ll take my chances with a VW Schwimm wagen and a few fishing rods thanks.

British Reactor Failure Evacuation Zones. An interactive web page for when the worst happens in UK

March 31, 2012

In the event of WW3, well they are sitting ducks. Arent they?

Serious contamination permanent in many areas of Fukushima Prefecture.

March 31, 2012

Fukushima town seeks long-term designation as no-go zone

A Fukushima Prefecture town affected by the ongoing nuclear crisis is set to ask the national government to designate the whole town as a zone where residents will unlikely be able to return in the foreseeable future.

Okuma Mayor Toshitsuna Watanabe announced the plan during a session of the municipal assembly held at the temporary town office in Aizuwakamatsu, Fukushima Prefecture, on March 28. Okuma will be the first municipality in nuclear disaster-hit areas to ask that its entire area be designated as such.

After listening to the opinions of assembly members as well as local residents, the town will consult with the central government. “We’d like to coordinate views within the town by the end of April,” the mayor said.

The national government is considering re-designating evacuation zones in 11 cities, towns and villages in the prefecture. Specifically, it plans to reorganize affected areas into three levels — seriously contaminated zones where residents are highly unlikely to be allowed to return in the foreseeable future, restricted zones where residents can temporarily return and zones where residents are likely to return once decontamination has been done and the living environment improved.

Over 90 percent of Okuma residents live in areas that the national government plans to designate as zones where they are unlikely to be able to return in the near future.

Therefore, Mayor Watanabe wants the entire town to be designated as such a zone because he does not want the town’s community to be divided.

He also said all residents should receive compensation for the nuclear crisis under the same standards.

In a related development, the Futaba Municipal Government in Fukushima Prefecture is poised to refuse any re-designation of evacuation zones in the town.

A national government official visited the municipal government’s temporary office in Kazo, Saitama Prefecture, on March 28 and met with Mayor Katsutaka Idogawa, but stopped short of offering any specific redesignation plan.

Click here for the original Japanese story

(Mainichi Japan) March 29, 2012

“Canopy-Forming Kelps as California’s Coastal Dosimeter: 131I from Damaged Japanese Reactor Measured in Macrocystis pyrifera”

March 31, 2012

Steven L. Manley*† and Christopher G. Lowe†
† Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, California 90840 United States
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es203598r
Publication Date (Web): March 6, 2012
Copyright © 2012 American Chemical Society

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant, damaged by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 released large amounts of 131I into the atmosphere, which was assimilated into canopy blades of Macrocystis pyrifera sampled from coastal California. The specific activity calculated to the estimated date of deposition/assimilation ranged from 0.6 to 2.5 Bq gdwt–1, levels greater than those measured from kelps from Japan and Canada prior to the release. These 131I levels represent a significant input into the kelp forest ecosystem. Canopy-forming kelps are a natural coastal dosimeter that can measure the exposure of the coastal environment to 131I and perhaps other radioisotopes released from nuclear accidents. An organizational mechanism should be in place to ensure that they are sampled immediately and continuously after such releases. end quote.

Full text available at above link ($35)

The Journal Environmental Science and Technology reports in a new study that the Fukushima radiation plume contacted North America at California “with greatest exposure in central and southern California”, and that Southern California’s seaweed tested over 500% higher for radioactive iodine-131 than anywhere else in the U.S. and Canada:

Projected paths of the radioactive atmospheric plume emanating from the Fukushima reactors, best described as airborne particles or aerosols for 131I, 137Cs, and 35S, and subsequent atmospheric monitoring showed it coming in contact with the North American continent at California, with greatest exposure in central and southern California. Government monitoring sites in Anaheim (southern California) recorded peak airborne concentrations of 131I at 1.9 pCi m−3

Anaheim is where Disneyland is located.

EneNews summarizes the data:

Corona Del Mar (Highest in Southern California)

2.5 Bq/gdwt (gram dry weight)= 2,500 Bq/kg of dry seaweed

Santa Cruz (Highest in Central California)

2.0 Bq/gdwt = 2,000 Bq/kg of dry seaweed

Simon Fraser University in Canada also tested North American seaweed after Fukushima:

“In samples of dehydrated seaweed taken on March 15 near the North Vancouver SeaBus terminal, the count was zero; on March 22 it was 310 Bq per kilogram; and by March 28 it was 380 Bq/kg.” -Vancouver Sun
Seaweed in Seattle also tested positive for iodine-131; levels were not reported -KIRO
No results after March 28 were reported


See also

Instead of doing much to try to protect their citizens from Fukushima, Japan, the U.S. and the EU all just raised the radiation levels they deem “safe”.

Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says that high-level friends in the State Department told him that Hillary Clinton signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing that the U.S. will continue buying seafood from Japan, despite that food not being tested for radioactive materials [see this].

And the Department of Energy is trying to replace the scientifically accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science. Specifically, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation…. end quote.

Its 1925 again folks.

Cigarette Smoke Radioactivity and Lung Cancer Risk. (Bye Bye Hormesis)

March 30, 2012

Oxford Journals
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Advance Access

Cigarette Smoke Radioactivity and Lung Cancer Risk

Hrayr S. Karagueuzian, Ph.D.1,
Celia White, MLS2,
James Sayre, Ph.D.3 and
Amos Norman, Ph.D.4

+ Author Affiliations

1Translational Arrhythmia Research Section, Cardiovascular Research Laboratories, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
2Buffalo, NY
3Departments of Biostatistics and Radiological Sciences, University of California Los angeles, Los Angeles, CA
4Departments of Radiation Oncology and Radiological Sciences, University of California Los angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Corresponding Author: Hrayr S. Karagueuzian, Ph.D., Translational Arrhythmia Research Section, Cardiovascular Research Laboratories, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los angeles, 675 Charles E. Young Dr. South, MRL 1630, Mail Code: 176022, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Telephone: 310-825-9360; Fax: 310-206-5777; E-mail:

Received March 3, 2011.
Accepted June 9, 2011.


Introduction: To determine the tobacco industry’s policy and action with respect to radioactive polonium 210 (210Po) in cigarette smoke and to assess the long-term risk of lung cancer caused by alpha particle deposits in the lungs of regular smokers.

Methods: Analysis of major tobacco industries’ internal secret documents on cigarette radioactivity made available online by the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998.

Results: The documents show that the industry was well aware of the presence of a radioactive substance in tobacco as early as 1959. Furthermore, the industry was not only cognizant of the potential “cancerous growth” in the lungs of regular smokers but also did quantitative radiobiological calculations to estimate the long-term (25 years) lung radiation absorption dose (rad) of ionizing alpha particles emitted from the cigarette smoke. Our own calculations of lung rad of alpha particles match closely the rad estimated by the industry. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the industry’s and our estimate of long-term lung rad of alpha particles causes 120–138 lung cancer deaths per year per 1,000 regular smokers. Acid wash was discovered in 1980 to be highly effectively in removing 210Po from the tobacco leaves; however, the industry avoided its use for concerns that acid media would ionize nicotine converting it into a poorly absorbable form into the brain of smokers thus depriving them of the much sought after instant “nicotine kick” sensation.

Conclusions: The evidence of lung cancer risk caused by cigarette smoke radioactivity is compelling enough to warrant its removal.

Published abstract only.

Nuclear insiders and Big Tobacco No.1

March 30, 2012

University of California Health System, Health and Medicine,
Big Tobacco knew radioactive particles in cigarettes posed cancer risk but kept quiet
Date: 09/28/2011
Contact: Kim Irwin

Tobacco companies knew that cigarette smoke contained radioactive alpha particles for more than four decades and developed “deep and intimate” knowledge of these particles’ cancer-causing potential, but they deliberately kept their findings from the public, according to a new study by UCLA researchers.

The analysis of dozens of previously unexamined internal tobacco industry documents, made available in 1998 as the result of a legal settlement, reveals that the industry was aware of cigarette radioactivity some five years earlier than previously thought and that tobacco companies, concerned about the potential lung cancer risk, began in-depth investigations into the possible effects of radioactivity on smokers as early as the 1960s.

“The documents show that the industry was well aware of the presence of a radioactive substance in tobacco as early as 1959,” the authors write. “Furthermore, the industry was not only cognizant of the potential ‘cancerous growth’ in the lungs of regular smokers, but also did quantitative radiobiological calculations to estimate the long-term lung radiation absorption dose of ionizing alpha particles emitted from cigarette smoke.”

The study, published online Sept. 27 in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, adds to a growing body of research detailing the industry’s knowledge of cigarette smoke radioactivity and its efforts to suppress that information.

“They knew that the cigarette smoke was radioactive way back then and that it could potentially result in cancer, and they deliberately kept that information under wraps,” said the study’s first author, Hrayr S. Karagueuzian, an adjunct professor of cardiology who conducts research at UCLA’s Cardiovascular Research Laboratory, part of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “Specifically, we show here that the industry used misleading statements to obfuscate the hazard of ionizing alpha particles to the lungs of smokers and, more importantly, banned any and all publication on tobacco smoke radioactivity.”

The radioactive substance — which the UCLA study shows was first brought to the attention of the tobacco industry in 1959 — was identified in 1964 as the isotope polonium-210, which emits carcinogenic alpha radiation. Polonium-210 can be found in all commercially available domestic and foreign cigarette brands, Karagueuzian said, and is absorbed by tobacco leaves through naturally occurring radon gas in the atmosphere and through high-phosphate chemical fertilizers used by tobacco growers. The substance is eventually inhaled by smokers into the lungs.

The study outlines the industry’s growing concerns about the cancer risk posed by polonium-210 inhalation and the research that industry scientists conducted over the decades to assess the radioactive isotope’s potential effect on smokers — including one study that quantitatively measured the potential lung burden from radiation exposure in a two-pack-a-day smoker over a two-decade period.

Karagueuzian and his colleagues made independent calculations using industry and academic data and arrived at results that very closely mirrored those of that industry study, which was conducted nearly a quarter-century ago. They then compared those results to rates used by the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate lung cancer risk among individuals exposed to similar amounts of alpha particle–emitting radon gas in their homes.

“The gathered data from the documents on the relevant radiobiological parameters of the alpha particles — such as dose, distribution and retention time — permitted us to duplicate the industry’s secretly estimated radiation absorbed dose by regular smokers over a 20- or 25-year period, which equaled 40 to 50 rads,” he said. “These levels of rads, according to the EPA’s estimate of lung cancer risk in residents exposed to radon gas, equal 120 to 138 deaths per 1,000 regular smokers over a 25-year period.”

Despite the potential risk of lung cancer, tobacco companies declined to adopt a technique discovered in 1959, and another discovered 1980, that could have helped eliminate polonium-210 from tobacco, the researchers said. The technique, known as an acid-wash, was found to be highly effective in removing the radioisotope from tobacco plants, where it forms a water-insoluble complex with the sticky, hair-like structures called trichomes that cover the leaves.

And while the industry frequently cited concerns over the cost and the possible environmental impact as rationales for not using the acid wash, UCLA researchers uncovered documents that they say indicate the reason may have been far different.

“The industry was concerned that the acid media would ionize the nicotine, making it more difficult to be absorbed into the brains of smokers and depriving them of that instant nicotine rush that fuels their addiction,” Karagueuzian said. “The industry also were well aware that the curing of the tobacco leaves for more than a one-year period also would not eliminate the polonium-210, which has a half-life of 135 days, from the tobacco leaves because it was derived from its parent, lead-210, which has a half-life of 22 years.”

Karagueuzian said the insoluble alpha particles bind with resins in the cigarette smoke and get stuck and accumulate at the bronchial bifurcations of the lungs, forming “hot spots,” instead of dispersing throughout the lungs. In fact, previous research on lung autopsies in smokers who died of lung cancer showed that malignant growths were primarily located at the same bronchial bifurcations where these hot spots reside.

“We used to think that only the chemicals in the cigarettes were causing lung cancer,” Karagueuzian said. “But the case of the these hot spots, acknowledged by the industry and academia alike, makes a strong case for an increased probability of long-term development of malignancies caused by the alpha particles. If we’re lucky, the alpha particle–irradiated cell dies. If it doesn’t, it could mutate and become cancerous.”

Karagueuzian said the findings are very timely in light of the June 2009 passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which grants the U.S. Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate and remove harmful substances — with the exception of nicotine — from tobacco products. The UCLA research, he said, makes a strong case that the FDA ought to consider making the removal of alpha particles from tobacco products a top priority.

“Such a move could have a considerable public health impact, due to the public’s graphic perception of radiation hazards,” he said.

To uncover the information, Karagueuzian and his team combed through the internal tobacco industry documents made available online as part of the landmark 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Documents from Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Brown I Williamson, the American Tobacco Company, the Tobacco Institutes and the Council for Tobacco Research, as well as the Bliley documents, were examined, Karagueuzian said.

The team searched for key terms such as “polonium-210,” “atmospheric fallout,” “bronchial epithelium,” “hot particle” and “lung cancer,” among others.

Karagueuzian said the earliest causal link between alpha particles and cancer was made around 1920, when alpha particle–emitting radium paint was used to paint luminescent numbers on watch dials. The painting was done by hand, and the workers commonly used their lips to produce a point on the tip of the paint brush. Many workers accumulated significant burdens of alpha particles through ingestion and absorption of radium-226 into the bones and subsequently developed jaw and mouth cancers. The practice was eventually discontinued.

Another example involves liver cancer in patients exposed to chronic low-dose internal alpha particles emitted from the poorly soluble deposits of thorium dioxide after receiving the contrast agent Thorotrast. It has been suggested that the liver cancers resulted from point mutations of the tumor suppressor gene p53 by the accumulated alpha particles present in the contrast media. The use of Thorotrast as contrast agent was stopped in the 1950s.

In addition to Karagueuzian, authors of the study include the late Amos Norman, professor emeritus in the departments of radiation oncology and radiological sciences at UCLA; James Sayre, of the departments of biostatistics and radiological sciences at UCLA; and Celia White, who served from 1999 to 2002 as director of content and services at the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, which contains more than 13 million documents created by major tobacco companies related to their advertising, manufacturing, marketing, sales and scientific research activities.

The study was funded by the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, established by the passage of California’s SB1613 in 1989 to fund a comprehensive University of California grant program to support research into the prevention, causes and treatment of tobacco-related diseases.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

end quote.

The above statement : “Karagueuzian said the insoluble alpha particles bind with resins in the cigarette smoke and get stuck and accumulate at the bronchial bifurcations of the lungs, forming “hot spots,” instead of dispersing throughout the lungs. In fact, previous research on lung autopsies in smokers who died of lung cancer showed that malignant growths were primarily located at the same bronchial bifurcations where these hot spots reside.” clearly undercuts nuclear industry assertions that hot particle radiation dosage must be distributed throughout the whole organ, not just the cells irradiated as per the Union Carbide document contesting Tamplin and Gofman I presented at : citing the document at

Cancer located at the site of the primary Polonium deposit is clearly an indication that the dose affects of alpha tracks emitted by polonium in the lungs are NOT to be averaged (diluted) over the whole organ but rather should be seen as vectors of harm to the cells actually irradiated. And if that is the case, current assumptions regarding safety are wrong, as demonstrated and suppressed by the tobacco industry decades ago.

I am now off to search of what else Karagueuzian found, for there is a mutual interest in these facts and no doubt both nuclear industry and big tobacco would rather that the truth not emerge. There is conflict of interest and common interest. The findings therefore may point to collusion between the major peddlers of alpha emitters in the market place.

It is interesting to see a mutual interest clearly present in the issue of the effect on lung tissue from Polonium in cigarette smoke and the methods of suppression of scientific and medical knowledge. The mutual interest concerns the defining of the harm and the resultant suppression of the facts by big tobacco in relation to polonium as an alpha emitter, and by nuclear industry in relation to nuclear fuels, which are also alpha emitters.

Also of interest is the lack of radiation warnings on cigarette packets, the lack of government warnings on this tobacco hazard and the historical facts, as revealed, which stand in direct contradiction to today’s peddlers of the cult of radiation hormesis. There is no such thing as a beneficial rate of cigarettes smoked per day. And in actuality, despite DOE, Los Alamos and contractor propaganda statements to the contrary, there is no beneficial dose of radiation.