– Feds cancel nuclear health study, leaving questions for Tennessee plant’s ailing neighbors

Institute for Southern Studies

September 9, 2015

<p class=
The NRC answers questions from the public at a 2009 meeting in Erwin, Tennessee about the Nuclear Fuel Services facility. (NRC photo via Flickr.)

This week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it was canceling a National Academy of Sciences pilot study of cancer risks near U.S. nuclear facilities, citing budget pressures.

The NRC said that “continuing the work was impractical, given the significant amount of time and resources needed and the agency’s current budget constraints.” The NAS estimated that the study would take 39 months and cost $8 million.

Nuclear watchdogs blasted the NRC’s decision, with Maryland-based Beyond Nuclear calling it “outrageous.”

“Study after study in Europe has shown a clear rise in childhood leukemia around operating nuclear power facilities, yet the NRC has decided to hide this vital information from the American public,” said Cindy Folkers, a radiation and health specialist with the group. “An $8 million price tag for the next phase of this study is a drop in the bucket for an agency with a $1 billion annual operating budget.”

Beyond Nuclear raised concerns about industry manipulation, noting that it had obtained documents showing NRC staff had been approached by the president of the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements offering a cheaper, faster and less sensitive study design, which the NRC has not yet agreed to accept. The Council is funded in part by the nuclear industry and has pro-nuclear ties.

The NAS study was to focus on seven facilities, six of them nuclear power plants: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California, Millstone Power Station and Haddam Neck Plant in Connecticut, Dresden Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant in Michigan, and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey.

The other facility that was to be part of the study is Nuclear Fuel Services in Erwin, Tennessee, which produces nuclear fuel for the U.S. Navy and processes weapons-grade uranium into fuel for nuclear power plants. Originally built in the 1950s by the W.R. Grace chemical conglomerate and now owned by Virginia-based BWX Technologies, the NFS plant in northeast Tennessee’s Unicoi County has a long history of safety problems. They include a 2006 leak of highly enriched uranium, details of which were withheld from the public.

A 2010 report by a university scientist documented uranium contamination downstream from the plant in the Nolichucky River, which provides drinking water for Tennessee communities including Greeneville, and in Davy Crockett Lake, a recreation site maintained by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Besides being radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal that can impair normal functioning of the kidneys, liver, heart, brain and reproductive system. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, long-term chronic intakes of uranium isotopes in food, water, or air can lead to internal irradiation and/or chemical toxicity.

Barbara O’Neal of the Erwin Citizens Awareness Network, a group that’s been critical of NFS, told the Greeneville Sun she suspects the NRC may have pulled the plug on the cancer risk study because the agency didn’t want information it found to be released to the public.

People living near NFS have long raised concerns about cancers and other health problems in their communities. In response, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conducted a public health assessment in 2007. However, it focused only on volatile organic compound pollution from the facility and not radiation, since the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act that gives ATSDR its authority excludes releases of the kinds of radioactive materials NFS handles.

While preparing its report, ATSDR received comments from concerned plant neighbors (commenters’ names are not included in the report):

I grew up in the big green two-story house which I think is now owned by NFS. When W.R. Grace built “the plant” down where Mrs. Home’s frog pond used to be, we had no idea what was in store. The security and regulations then were few and far between. As kids, we would still go down there and walk around the fence to see the stuff that leaked out of the big tanks. The ground was always wet. When we heard the alarm go off, we ran to the upstairs bedroom to watch the men in white suits run up the hill. Orange smoke came out of the smokestacks. My aunt was a secretary there and one night came and took us away from our house because “something” was about to happen “down at the plant”. Never knew what. I know we ate radiation straight from Mama’s garden. Our beloved little dog died of cancer. My dad died at 56 with colon cancer. Our next door neighbor died of colon cancer; I doubt she was 60. A friend and close neighbor had extensive colon cancer in his early 30’s. I had a huge lymphoma removed from my heart at the age of 30. My brother had kidney failure in his early 30’s. My sister and I both have thyroid nodules and weird protein levels in our blood that can lead to multiple myelosis. These all have to be watched closely. At the age of only 64, I also have an autoimmune disease that makes life difficult. People in Erwin are still brainwashed about NFS. Those that know the truth have died or moved away. My mother died of heart failure at 65. I believe her heart was broken.

Another commenter, a resident of Erwin, offered this account of health woes:

I live on Washington Street and I have been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I have had several lymph nodes removed due to unexplained fevers, weight loss, lymphadenopathy, etc. My illness developed when I moved to Washington Street. … I worked inside this home doing medical transcription spending all my time there from the time we moved in until approximately a year ago. My health continued to deteriorate during this period of time. I began working outside my home a year ago and I have improved considerably since then. I have been told by many well-educated individuals that there may be something in my home environment that caused by illness. With the continued improvement in my health after getting away from the house during the day … I believe there may be something to this assumption.

And yet another comment from a resident in nearby in North Carolina:

I live in the NC county (Yancey) adjacent to and downwind from Erwin TN. As a (now retired) health care professional, I have observed over many years what appears to be higher than average occurrences per capita of several debilitating diseases here. Multiple sclerosis, various unusual types of cancer, spina bifida, clefting/midline developmental disabilities among others are more prevalent in the local population than would be expected. While nobody is yet able, or willing to point the finger toward the Erwin plant … there is suspicion that airborne products from this facility passing through this area in highest concentration could be a factor in these statistics. Certainly further study is warranted.

In the end, the plant’s neighbors got few answers to questions about their health from ATSDR. It now looks like they won’t be getting answers from the NRC any time soon.


• NRC pulls plug on health study around nuclear power plants

The NRC states that one 25-year old “deeply flawed” study that supports nuclear energy “answers the question well enough.”

“We have no data to support…” says the government on many issues. There is no data when there are no studies or it comes from a flawed, politically-driven government study.

From the Orange County Register
September 13, 2015
By Teri Sforza

After spending five years and $1.5 million planning a nationwide probe into whether living near a nuclear power plant such as San Onofre is truly hazardous to your health, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pulled the plug this week, saying the study would take too long and would be too expensive.

An American study from 1990 – derided by critics as the “don’t worry, be happy” report – concluded that there is no health risk associated with living near a nuclear plant, and answers the question well enough, the NRC said.

More recent studies in Europe, using far more sophisticated techniques, have found that kids living within 3 miles of nuclear power plants had twice the risk of developing acute leukemia as those living farther away. The NRC-ordered study was to probe similar data here, and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was to be one of the initial areas examined.

“I’m disappointed and disbelieving,” San Clemente Councilwoman Lori Donchak said. “Our people within a 30-mile radius of (San Onofre) would’ve benefited directly from learnings about any cancer risks – for ourselves and our kids.”

There are 4,200 children under 5 living in San Clemente, whose southern border is about 3.5 miles from San Onofre. The study was to help determine if children like them are more vulnerable to leukemia than children in, say, Irvine.

French and German probes from 2008 and 2012 found that children living very close to nuclear plants were indeed twice as vulnerable, with the peak impact on kids aged 2 to 4.

Is the 25-year-old U.S. study, using broad data from the 1980s, the best American science can do?

“No, it’s not,” said Ourania Kosti, senior program officer with the National Academies’ Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, and erstwhile director of the NRC-ordered probe. “We could do better today.”


There was rejoicing among scientists and nuclear critics alike in 2010, when the NRC asked the National Academy of Science to do a “state-of-the-art study” on cancer risk for populations surrounding nuclear power facilities.

This probe was to remedy deep flaws in the 1990 study by the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute, which examined more than 900,000 cancer deaths between 1950 and 1984. Using mortality records from counties with nuclear facilities within their borders, it looked at changes in mortality rates for 16 types of cancer, and found no increased risk of death.

Among the study’s many problems, according to scientists who were designing the new probe:

• It tracked mortality rates based on where people died, rather than where they lived before getting cancer. That makes it hard to determine true lifetime exposure.

• It tracked deaths, rather than total cancer cases. That may downplay the full health impact of living near a reactor, since many cancer patients survive.

• It used countywide data to reach conclusions – a blunt instrument that may again downplay the impact on those living closest to a reactor. Residents in La Habra and San Clemente live in the same county – but few would argue that they had the same exposure to San Onofre.

To remedy all that, the NRC asked the NAS to evaluate cancer diagnosis rates, not just cancer deaths; and to explore how to divide the areas around nuclear facilities into geographical units smaller than counties. The NAS made no bones about the effort being difficult and time-consuming, but said it could be done.


San Onofre was one of the seven areas with nuclear facilities that scientists picked to focus on first. [The locations chosen were 6 nuclear power plants — San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (California), Millstone Power Station and Haddam Neck Plant (Connecticut), Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Illinois), Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant (Michigan), and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (New Jersey) — plus Nuclear Fuel Services in Erwin, Tennessee, which produces nuclear fuel for the U.S. Navy and processes weapons-grade uranium into fuel for nuclear power plants.] They would proceed on two fronts, study director Kosti said:

One would examine multiple types of cancer in people of all ages living within 31miles of seven nuclear sites.

The other would examine cancers in children born within that radius, since children are especially vulnerable to the effects of radiation.

In practical terms, that meant gathering decades’ worth of data about births, cancer diagnoses and cancer deaths from six states, and plotting them on maps surrounding the seven nuclear sites.

It also meant gathering decades’ worth of data about the release of radioactive gases and liquids – accidental or otherwise – at all seven sites, and plotting those on the maps as well.

In January, the NAS forwarded its proposal for the pilot study to the NRC.

It would take 39 months and cost $8 million to examine those seven sites. After that was done, the NAS would turn its attention to the other 50-or-so nuclear facilities throughout America.


On Tuesday, the NRC said that continuing work on the NAS study was “impractical, given the significant amount of time and resources needed and the agency’s current budget constraints.”

NRC staffers estimated that it could take NAS eight to 10 years to complete the pilot and the subsequent nationwide studies before NRC has final cancer risk results to share with the public, which was the original intent of the project, said a staff policy paper to NRC commissioners last month.

That would possibly take until 2025, 15 years after the start of the project, the NRC paper noted.

If it cost $8 million to examine seven sites, it could cost $60 million or so to examine the remaining 50. The NRC’s annual budget is about $1 billion.

A simple update of the 1990 study could be done much more quickly and much more cheaply – but it would have the same problems as the original, the NRC noted.

“The NRC continues to find U.S. nuclear power plants comply with strict requirements that limit radiation releases from routine operations,” the agency said in a statement. “The NRC and state agencies regularly analyze environmental samples from near the plants. These analyses show the releases, when they occur, are too small to cause observable increases in cancer risk near the facilities.”

The agency is balancing the desire to provide updated answers on cancer risk with its responsibility to use taxpayer funds as wisely as possible, Brian Sheron, director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, said in a statement.

It might be worth noting that the NRC asked the NAS to do the study in 2010, when Gregory Jaczko was still NRC chairman. Jaczko was a frequent critic of the nuclear industry, who pushed for swifter action in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. He resigned in a hailstorm of controversy in 2012.


“The nuclear energy industry sees the NRC’s decision as a sensible one rooted in the NRC’s judgment about the safe operations of our facilities,” said John Keeley, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

“The nuclear industry has been so successful in keeping radiation in effluents at such a low level that the general scientific community has concluded that this kind of study is scientifically challenged in trying to prove or disprove any cancer risk,” he said. “There are simply too many variables that could influence cancer rates other than very small releases from commercial reactors.”

Ted Quinn, a member of the volunteer panel overseeing the decommissioning of San Onofre and past president of the American Nuclear Society, was a bit surprised by the decision to abandon the effort.

“I think their decision is based on a combination of poor funding availability, recognition that the sample sizes are too small to reveal any justification for changing … and belief that there really is no technical basis for challenging the analysis from the earlier scientific studies,” Quinn said in an email.

Donchak, the San Clemente councilwoman, didn’t find much comfort there. “I’m still frustrated about the recent announcement that San Clemente hospital has been taken out of the new (San Onofre) emergency plan. To have yet another safety aspect removed is unacceptable. This kind of incrementality – gradually removing safety aspects – isn’t good.”

Kosti, the NAS study director, pointed out that the NRC requested a scientifically-sound, epidemiological study, and that those things take time.

The French and German studies did not prove causality between the plants and the childhood leukemias, but they raised many questions, she said.

“Right now we cannot explain the twofold increase,” she said. “These other countries are continuing to probe, trying to understand what is happening.”

Contact the writer: tsforza@ocregister.com

Posted under Fair Use Rules



“The NRC continues to find U.S. nuclear power plants comply with strict requirements that limit radiation releases from routine operations,” the agency said in a statement.

We know that isn’t true, including from the data from Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

“The NRC and state agencies regularly analyze environmental samples from near the plants. These analyses show the releases, when they occur, are too small to cause observable increases in cancer risk near the facilities.”

Nuclear power plants routinely emit radionuclides into the air and water, especially during refueling. These radionuclides can be inhaled and ingested. Nuclear experts repeatedly say there is no safe dose of radiation. Internal exposure, through inhalation and ingestion, causes cancer.

The agency is balancing the desire to provide updated answers on cancer risk with its responsibility to use taxpayer funds as wisely as possible, Brian Sheron, director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, said in a statement.

The public isn’t worth $8 million to the NRC. That isn’t a wise expenditure for the NRC when the study’s findings would most assuredly interfere with the NRC and the nuclear industry’s first priority — promoting nuclear energy. Our health and environmental safety are last in their priorities.

If you are outraged by this decision, write your elected officials and tell your community.

More information:

Beyond Nuclear’s press release:

Feds cancel nuclear health study, leaving questions for Tennessee plant’s ailing neighbors, Institute for Southern Studies, 9-9-15

On life near two nuclear power plants in Illinois: an interview with Cindy and Joe Sauer, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Health Concerns and Data Around the Illinois Nuclear Power Plants


• NRC extends comment deadline in “radiation is good for you” (hormesis) proceeding to Nov. 19

The new deadline is
Nov. 19, 2015.

Information on the proceeding is here, including how to file comments on Docket Nos. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, NRC-2015-0057 :

See the Nuclear Resource and Information Service post about the proceeding, with a sample comment letter here: http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5502/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=21118

• PG&E had 29 safety violations at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in 2014

From Mothers for Peace:

Region IV of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held the 2014 annual assessment meeting for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant on June 24, 2015.

29 “gaps in excellence” in 2014
Statement by Jill ZamEk, Board Member of
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.
My name is Jill ZamEk, and I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, the organization which has opposed the operation of Diablo Canyon since 1973.

There were 29 violations documented by the NRC at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 2014.  I have read the 11 Inspection Reports, and I have concerns regarding the number and the significance of these violations.

As stated earlier by Tom Hipschman, all total for 2014, there was one White cited violation and 28 violations rated Green. Green means low safety significance because something dire could have occurred but didn’t. The vast majority of these 28 Green violations were non-cited – meaning that although violations occurred, there were no penalties applied.

The one White violation involved emergency preparedness.  The instructions for protecting those in the ocean within 10 miles of the plant were removed in 2005. It took 9 years for somebody to notice it.

The remaining 28 Green violations involved fire protection, inoperable emergency diesel generators, occupational radiation safety, poor maintenance planning on safety-related equipment, failure to follow procedures, problems with design control, and multiple instances of failure to identify and evaluate system interactions regarding seismically-induced systems.  Eleven of the violations involved security or materials control. One recent finding identified a violation dating back to the original construction welding process from 1974 – over 40 years ago.

Overwhelmingly, the root cause of these violations points to human performance deficiencies.

The violations that give me the greatest feelings of unease are the three involving the corrective action program – identifying and resolving problems.  Apparently there is an enormous backlog of problems involving operable but longstanding, degraded conditions at the plant.  Some problems were simply not identified in a timely manner, some disregarded and not put into the corrective action program, and others inappropriately delayed.

As of August 2014, there were 29 documented degraded conditions affecting safety-related equipment – the oldest dating from June 2008. (That’s over 2,000 days ago.) The median age of the problems was 1,176 days post-identification.  In the words of the NRC from the inspection report, there exists

“a large number of longstanding degraded or non-conforming conditions, some of which had not been appropriately addressed by compensatory measures or interim corrective actions.”

As we have witnessed in Chernobyl and Fukushima, the nuclear reactors and waste facilities at Diablo Canyon have the potential for causing profound devastation.  We as humans and the things we make are not flawless.  Ed Halpin referred to these flaws as “gaps in excellence.”  The 29 documented “gaps” demonstrate the enormous risk we face.


Comment: If the backup generators do not work, then any failure in grid power means that the reactors could become another Fukushima.

I’ve previously written about this with excerpts from Vulture’s Picnic by Greg Palast, including my comments to the NRC — https://healfukushima.org/2015/09/01/comments-to-the-nrc-on-diablo-canyon-relicensing/. The new Smart Grid is extremely vulnerable to hacking, and more so every day with networked devices, including Smart Meters, that connect directly to the grid.

This report is absolutely terrifying. The NRC did nothing about these violations. Few penalties, no one fired. And this is happening at nuclear power plants across the county – this lax management and zero safety culture.

It’s a ticking time bomb. And most of the public have no idea of their extreme danger.

• PG&E fails safety test…again; 19 dry casks loaded improperly

From No Nukes California

PG&E’s aging, ill-managed nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon are an existential threat to California say Mothers for Peace


The utility that brought us the San Bruno Gas Explosion, and is under multiple felony indictments for safety violations, is trying to run a nuclear plant and store deadly radioactive fuel rods in a tsunami and earthquake zone. What could possibly go wrong?

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace calls for immediate additional NRC oversight in the form of two additional inspectors at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for at least the next two years.

  • We call for a public NRC investigation into the root cause of the problem.
  • We call for the immediate inspection of all 34 dry casks to look for cracking, warping and escape of radiation into the environment.
  • And we call for the immediate shutdown of the plant until the problem has been fully and completely correcte

Here’s why:

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace PO Box 3806 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 http://www.mothersforpeace.org

Linda Seeley, Spokesperson San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace lindaseeley@gmail.com 805.234.1769

Jane Swanson, Spokesperson San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace janeslo@icloud.com 805.440.1359

PG&E Admits Mis-handling of Highly Radioactive Fuel Rods Over this past weekend, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace received a bulletin informing us that two spent fuel casks had been loaded improperly at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in Avila Beach, CA. Upon further inspection, we discovered that 19 of the 34 dry casks that have been loaded at the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) have been loaded IMPROPERLY.

What does this mean for those of us who live near the plant? For the past 15 years or so, PG&E has been using high-burnup fuel – fuel that burns longer in the reactor, and so is much hotter (both in temperature and radioactivity) than the “traditional” nuclear fuel. When high-burnup fuel comes out of the reactor core and is placed in the cooling pools, it needs to have space around it, and it must stay in the cooling pools for AT LEAST 7 years. Even after 7 years, it is hotter than other fuel. (PG&E has not revealed how many of the improperly loaded fuel rods were high-burnup.)

The fuel rods are supposed to be spaced far apart when they are loaded into the dry casks. Here’s where the problem lies: PG&E IMPROPERLY LOADED 19 OF THE 34 DRY CASKS AT DIABLO CANYON. Rather than spacing the fuel rods far apart, technicians loaded the fuel into the CENTER of the dry casks, which causes uneven heat distribution – NOT the distribution that the dry casks are designed for. In 56% of the dry casks now stored on a fragile, earthquake-prone coastline at Diablo Canyon, fuel loading has VIOLATED​ ​TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

The heat load caused by improperly loading fuel into dry casks can cause warping of​ the cask lid because of uneven heat distribution inside the cask. Warping can cause exacerbation of cracking around the bolt holes in the cask. If the bolt holes crack, the stainless steel cask (5/8” thick) can crack, the lid can become dislodged, and radiation can escape. If there is sufficient cracking, oxygen can permeate the cask, which has been vacuum-sealed with helium. If oxygen hits the zircaloy cladding on the fuel rods, they can spontaneously ignite, causing an uncontrolled​ ​release of radiation. If that happens, it would be a catastrophe of unprecedented proportion.

What has PG&E done about this? They’ve sharpened up their pencils and shown us that it’s all just “fine.” They report that the “total thermal load has not been exceeded.” No problem!

​Never​ before in the history of US nuclear power has an operator so failed to follow technica​l specifications​​ for spent fuel loading​​. Technical specifications are the nuclear industry’s bible, and they are to be followed precisely. PG&E has CONSISTENTLY ​VIOLATED​ the clear ​instructions that ​they ​​are ordered to adhere to.

Therefore: San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace calls for immediate additional NRC oversight in the form of two additional inspectors at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for at least the next two years.

  • We call for a public NRC investigation into the root cause of the problem.
  • We call for the immediate inspection of all 34 dry casks to look for cracking, warping and escape of radiation into the environment.
  • And we call for the immediate shutdown of the plant until the problem has been fully and completely corrected.


• U.S. gov’t blew up nuclear reactor to expose Los Angeles to radiation; U.S. Public Health Service monitored fallout

Compiled by ENE News

U.S. Gov’t intentionally ‘blew up’ nuclear reactor outside Los Angeles in massive human radiation experiment on public — Southern California covered in radioactive plume — Officials “documented effects of long-range effluent cloud on people downwind” (MAP)


New York Times, Aug 24, 1994 (emphasis added): U.S. Nuclear Accident in 1965 Was Staged, Documents Show — The Atomic Energy Commission staged a nuclear rocket accident in the Nevada desert in 1965 that sent a radioactive cloud more than 200 miles to Los Angeles, documents released today showed… [Details] were discovered in archival documents from the Energy Department, as part of a continuing inquiry into the Government’s secretive human radiation experiments… Jan. 12, 1965, in Jackass Flats, Nev., part of a rocket’s nuclear core was intentionally vaporized so that scientists could study the behavior of the reactor and the environmental effects of the radiation, the documents showed… [C]onsiderably more people were exposed than in other experiments because the cloud traveled so far, [Congressman Edward Markey] said. The cloud was tracked by aircraft, and increased radioactivity… was observed in Barstow, San Bernadino, Los Angeles and San Diego…

U.S. Dept. of Energy (pdf), 1995: Human Radiation Experiments The Kiwi Transient Nuclear Test… involved a controlled nuclear excursion resulting in partial vaporization of the reactor core. This created a radioactive plume that, while low in radioactivity, was detectable far off-site… The U.S. Public Health Service monitored the cloud to beyond 200 miles downwind, which extended to Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean.

Los Alamos National Laboratory of the University of California (pdf), 1968: Environmental Effects of the Kiwi-TNT Effluent — The Kiwi Transient Nuclear Test (Kiwi-TNT) was a controlled excursion… to vaporize a significant portion of the reactor core. The test studied… environmental effects of the radioactive materials released… The U.S. Public Health Service [USPHS] monitored the neighborhood and collected milk samples in southern… California to beyond 200 miles downwind. The course of the effluent cloud was tracked by aircraft… From 5 to 20% of the reactor core was vaporized with approximately 67% of the products from about 3 x 10^20 fissions released to the effluent cloud… USPHS provided offsite radiation surveillance by aerial tracking of the effluent cloud, monitoring radiation dosage of the off-site population, and collecting environmental samples in southern Nevada and California… Following the test… milk samples were collected… 14 locations in southern California. The milk sampling program continued for approximately a week. Vegetation samples were obtained… [Aircraft] tracked the effluent cloud from Death Valley over the Los Angeles area and terminated contact over the Pacific Ocean… The weather at the time of the test fulfilled the desired conditions… The winds were northeasterly [blowing to southwest] at all levels, ranging from 14 to 27 knots… The Kiwi-TNT reactor was “exploded” in the sense that it was a violent disruption and dispersion of an originally intact object. It blew up in an unusual fashion… Because the Kiwi-TNT was a unique, controlled simulation of a phenomenon frequently called a maximum credible reactor accident, there was great interest in the radiological characteristics and effects of the effluent many miles from the test point… The USPHS documented the effects of the long-range effluent cloud on the people and agriculture downwind. [Personnel] observed the radioactive cloud shortly after it reached California and again as it reached the Pacific Ocean… At 11 hours 20 minutes after the Kiwi-TNT event… aircraft again attempted to locate the effluent cloud… Positive signals were received over the ocean from Los Angeles to near Santa Barbara… [Several hours later] it returned to the previous search area and again detected weak, but positive signals… A few days afterofficials observed increased radioactivity in routine air samples from the Barstow, San Bernardino. Los Angeles, and San Diego, California, areas…

See also: Los Angeles-area Meltdown: Cesium-137 still up to 1,000 times higher than standard — Plutonium also detected — Located between Chatsworth and Simi Valley



• The NRC’s policy of deception on Fukushima

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a primary party to the biggest cover-up in modern history – the extent of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster and the growing catastrophic impacts that endanger all life on Earth.

It issued a report – “Japan Lessons Learned: Fukushima Water Contamination – Impacts on the U.S. West Coast” – just updated in January 2015. The report is a blatant lie. It fails to mention major contamination issues. It cherry picks the science. It ignores U.S. government findings.

The authors are Jessica Kratchman, Chuck Norton, and Robert Bernardo.

Here is the report link http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1502/ML15021A530.pdf

You can also access this short report here.

Here are the opening paragraphs:


Jessica Kratchman and Chuck Norton
Updated January 2015 – Robert Bernardo
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The NRC continues to see public interest in low concentrations of radioactive material detected off the U.S. West Coast. The material comes from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station’s catastrophic and unprecedented accident following the Great Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March 2011.

While the NRC has created this background discussion, more up to date information is available through the links (such as to Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Authority (JNRA)) at the end of this report. While the NRC continues to examine information on this situation, many other Federal and State agencies carry out the environmental monitoring needed to determine any health and safety effects from the Fukushima-based contamination.


The available evidence continues to lead the NRC and other Federal, State and local governments to conclude the low levels of radiation leaking into the ocean from Fukushima Daiichi fall well short of posing any U.S. health or environmental risk…

This is the official U.S. government stance. Please read it.

Then let others know.

This must not stand.

Break through this wall of silence. Debunk this damn report and the government that supports it.

For the Earth’s sake, for the children’s sake, and for all of our sake.