– Nov. 18-22; Arne Gundersen speaks in SF Bay area on Fukushima-California connection

Arne Gundersen joins guest speakers at three events in the San Francisco Bay region this week. Details below.

http://nonukesca.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SSUflyer-FNL.pdf —
Sonoma State University 11-18-15

http://nonukesca.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gundersen-7.pdf —
Pt. Reyes, Marin County 11-21-15

http://nonukesca.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gundersen-Berkeley-3.pdf
Berkeley 11-22-15

From No Nukes CA

World in Danger: The Fukushima-California Connection – with Arnie Gundersen

Former nuclear industry executive turned nuclear safety advocate ARNIE GUNDERSEN has over 40-years of nuclear power engineering experience, gave testimony in the investigation of Three Mile Island, and began studying the catastrophic failure at the Dai-lchi Nuclear Power Plant the day of the first explosion. Chief Nuclear Engineer at Fairewinds Energy Education, he has produced expert reports on California nukes & numerous informative videos & articles available at Fairewinds.org

Sonoma State University In Rohnert Park
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 7 pm:

“World in Danger: Fukushima” Arnie Gundersen in conversation with Professor Majia Nadesan, author of “Fukushima and the Privatization of Risk”

Student Union Building – Ballroom D – Sonoma State University – 1801 East Cotati Ave, Rohnert Park, CA $10 donation at the door, no one turned away – students FREE – Campus parking $5.00

A Fukushima Response Public Education Event Co-sponsored by: Sociology Social Justice & Activism Club, Sociology of Media Class, Peace Roots Alliance, Ecological Options Network & Project Censored
DOWNLOAD POSTER PDF

Pt. Reyes Station:
Saturday, November 21, 7 to 9 pm

Arnie Gundersen in conversation with Mary Beth Brangan, Co-Director Ecological Options Network – EON
FREE EVENT – DONATIONS APPRECIATED
Dance Palace (Church Space) 5th & B Streets, Pt. Reyes Station

Co-sponsored by Pt. Reyes Books, Fukushima Response, Cultural Potholes & EON – the Ecological Options Network

Contact Bing Gong binggong@sonic.net 415-663-1380

DOWNLOAD POSTER PDF to post in your community.

BERKELEY
Sunday, November 22, 7:00pm

World in Danger: From Fukushima to California
Featuring Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Energy Education Nuclear Engineer; Joanna Macy, Ecophilospher and Buddhist Scholar; Mary Beth Brangan of EON – the Ecological Options Network; Gar Smith, author of “Nuclear Rouletter”; Vic Sadot, singer-songwriter.

Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, 1924 Cedar St. @ Bonita, Berkeley

Sponsored by Berkeley Fellowship Social Justice Comm., Code Pink: Women for Peace, Fukushima Response Bay Area, Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse, S.F. Occupy Forum, BARC (Barkers Aggitating for Reactor Closure), Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, Sunflower Alliance, NoNukesCa.net

Contact: cynthia_papermaster@yahoo.com, 510-365-1500

DOWNLOAD POSTER PDF

http://nonukesca.net/?p=799

– San Onofre: California Coastal Commission approves nuclear waste storage on the beach

This photo from San Onofre Safety shows where Southern California Edison wants to store nuclear waste. It’s circled in yellow.

Location of Holtec system. SCE

The company making the canisters has already been in trouble.

By the end of 2011 Holtec International had to close its office in Kiev as it had come under harsh criticism worldwide. It is widely believed that the company has lost licenses in some countries because of the poor quality of its containers resulting in radiation leaksWestinghouse and Holtec are members of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/04/us-ukraine-partnership-threatens-new.html

What could go wrong????? This is only located adjacent to millions of Californians and on the ocean.

From San Onofre Safety

Southern California Edison plans to make another bad decision by unsafely storing over 1600 metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Below is the proposed location for the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX thin “underground” spent fuel canister system at San Onofre. Half under ground, and close to the water table and about 100 feet from the ocean. Edison admits the Sea Wall hasn’t been maintained so can’t be counted on for protection. This plan doesn’t meet Coastal Act requirements, but Coastal Commission staff think there are no other options, but there are.

Holtec Side View

 Request Coastal Commission REVOKE Nuclear Storage Permit (handout)

Excerpt:

Request Coastal Commission REVOKE Nuclear Storage Permit

The California Coastal Commission granted a Coastal permit for the San Onofre Holtec nuclear waste storage facility with “Special Conditions” that are unlikely or impossible to meet.

Special Conditions require a storage system that can be inspected, repaired, maintained, monitored, and transported without cracks but only after 20 years. The Coastal Commission recognizes the Holtec system does not currently meet these requirements, but have been convinced by Edison and others there are no other reasonable options and someday these problems will all be solved. However, there is insufficient evidence to support that and evidence to the contrary.

Reasons to revoke SoCal Edison Coastal Development Permit #9-15-0228

Coastal requirements for nuclear waste storage should be met now, not deferred 20 years.

The Coastal Commission may not have the jurisdiction to choose casks, but can require their special conditions be met now. Thin (1/2” to 5/8” thick) stainless steel canisters can crack, cannot be inspected,

repaired, maintained or adequately monitored. Cracked canisters cannot be transported. The Coastal Commission should require a system that does not have these flaws and not accept promises of future solutions.

Edison can meet Coastal requirements with thick casks. For example, Areva sells thick (over 10” thick) metal casks to the U.S. market, and to most of the rest of the world for storage and transport.

The Areva TN‐32 and TN‐40 are licensed by the NRC. The TN‐24 used at Fukushima survived the massive earthquake and tsunami. Spent fuel must cool in the pools for a few years, so choosing proven thick storage casks will not significantly delay removing fuel from pools.

Canisters cannot be repaired. Holtec President says these canisters cannot be repaired.

Partially cracked canisters cannot be transported. NRC Regulation 10 CFR § 71.85.

Canisters may crack. The NRC states it takes about 16 years for a crack to go through the wall of thin stainless steel canisters and canisters are vulnerable to cracking from marine environments.

A similar component at the Koeberg nuclear plant failed in 17 years with numerous cracks. A Diablo Canyon canister has all the conditions for cracking in a 2‐year old canister.

No funds are available to relocate this system. Once the system is installed, there are no funds to rebuild and move it to a different site, so it is not reasonable to expect it will be relocated (even onsite).

Edison’s $1.3 billion Spent Fuel Management Plan to the California Public Utilities Commission assumes nothing will go wrong and they will not need to pay to move the fuel on‐site or elsewhere.

Edison’ plan assumes the Dept. of Energy will start picking up the fuel in 2024, which Edison admitted to the CPUC is unlikely.

Vaporware is not a solution. The Coastal Commission should not base decisions on “vaporware” – promises of solutions that do not exist with no guarantee they will exist in the future. Even State of California procurement rules do not allow procurement of “vaporware”.

Edison plans to destroy the spent fuel pools. Pools are the only method to replace canisters.

The Commission should add a special condition to not destroy pools unless a better plan is in place.

Existing 51 thin canisters may have cracks. Fuel loading into thin canisters began in 2003, so “special

conditions” for aging management and related issues should be addressed now.

Act now: Email Joseph.Street@coastal.ca.gov More info & references at SanOnofreSafety.org

Click to access revokecoastalpermit2015-11-5.pdf

– California initiatives to shut down nuclear energy, eliminate investor-owned utilities

From California Secretary of State:

NUCLEAR POWER. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Extends statutory preconditions, currently applicable to new operation of any nuclear powerplant, to existing Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Before further electricity production at any plant, requires California Energy Commission to find federal government has approved technology for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste. For nuclear powerplants requiring reprocessing of fuel rods, requires Commission to find federal government has approved technology for nuclear fuel rod reprocessing plants. Both findings are subject to Legislature’s rejection. Further requires Commission to find on case-by-case basis facilities will be available with adequate capacity to reprocess or store powerplant’s fuel rods.

…The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1717 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is 15-0055.

The proponent of the measure, Ben Davis, Jr., must collect the signatures of 365,880 registered voters (five percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the November 2014 general election) in order to qualify it for the November 2016 ballot…

http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2015-news-releases-and-advisories/proposed-initiative-enters-circulation35/

From Utility Dive

Californians fed up with scandals involving the utility sector and its regulators have another option, as of Friday — eliminate the IOUs altogether. 

On Friday, the California Secretary of State approved a ballot petition to establish a statewide public utility to begin gathering signatures. Organizers will have until April 26 to collect 365,880 signatures — 5% of the number who voted in the last gubernatorial election — to get the initiative on the ballot.

Directors of the new statewide public utility would be elected from their wards for four year terms. The public power district would be authorized to “acquire property, construct facilities necessary to supply electricity, set electricity rates, impose taxes and issue bonds,” according to petition language.

…The initiative is led by Ben Davis, an anti-nuclear activist and former SMUD Rate Advisory Board member. He got an identical ballot proposal cleared for signature gathering in March, but did not get enough people to sign on before that proposal’s deadline was reached on Sep. 23.

This spring, Davis told Utility Dive the new entity would lower costs to electricity consumers and create other economic benefits by removing regulatory complexities and eliminating shareholder profit considerations.

…The effort to create a statewide public utility came from Davis’s push for a ballot initiative to close California’s nuclear facilities after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, he said in March. Efforts to obtain information from the California Public Utilities Commission left him suspicious of the state’s energy establishment, including the California Energy Commission and the California Independent System Operator.

Along with the public utility proposal, Davis also got his initiative to close California’s existing nuclear plants approved for signature gathering on Friday. The proposal, which would extend regulations that apply to new nuclear plants in the state to existing ones like Diablo Canyon, needs 365,880 signatures by April 26.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-ballot-initiative-would-eliminate-ious-establish-statewide-publ/408452/

Also City News Service: Lights out for SoCal Edison under plan sought for Nov. 2016 vote

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Japan Times editorial: Cancel 2020 Japan Olympics because of Fukushima

From Japan Times:

Let’s call the whole thing off: The former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland, Mitsuhei Murata, recently suggested that Japan should stage an ‘honorable retreat’ from hosting the 2020 Olympics due to the unpredictable situation at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. | KYODO

Voices | HOTLINE TO NAGATACHO

Time has come for an ‘honorable retreat’ from Tokyo 2020 over Fukushima

  • Nov 4, 2015

Dear Olympics minister Toshiaki Endo,

Let me begin this message by offering you my sincerest condolences. Condolences for what? For the death of the belief that a trouble-free 2020 Tokyo Olympics would serve to showcase Japan’s economic revival.

Up to this point, the exact opposite has been the case, due to the scrapping of plans for a very expensive new National Stadium, the scuttling of the Olympic logo amid charges of plagiarism and newspaper headlines alleging, for example, that “Japan’s Olympics fiascoes point to outmoded, opaque decision-making.” Even more recently, Japan sports minister Hakubun Shimomura offered to resign over the Olympic stadium row.

Among these developments, the charge alleging “outmoded, opaque decision-making” is perhaps the most troubling of all, because it suggests that both of the major setbacks the 2020 Olympics has encountered are systemic in nature, not merely one-off phenomena. If correct, this indicates that similar setbacks are likely to occur in the future. But how many setbacks can the 2020 Olympics endure?

At this point it may be apt to recall the warning of 13th-century Zen master Dogen: “If there is the slightest difference in the beginning, the result will be a distance greater than heaven is from Earth.”

One lesson to be learned from Dogen’s words is that in order to understand the mess you are in now, you should reflect on how you got into it in the first place. When this is done, the “beginning” becomes clear, i.e., Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s 2013 statement to the International Olympic Committee that the situation at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was “under control.” The prime minister went on to tell the Diet, “The effect of radioactive substances in the nearby waters is blocked within 0.3 sq. km of the plant’s harbor.”

One needs only to look at recent stories describing the torrential downpours in the Fukushima area to know that this claim, if it were ever true, is clearly no longer valid. Even Tepco stated: “On Sept. 9 and 11, due to typhoon No. 18 (Etau), heavy rain caused Fukushima No. 1 drainage rainwater to overflow to the sea.” This is not to mention the high probability that relatively decontaminated areas have been contaminated once again by the heavy rains carrying radioactive particles lodged in the nearby mountains down onto the plains. Nor does it take into account that no one knows the location or condition of the melted fuel in reactors 1, 2 and 3.

Unfortunately, Zen master Dogen didn’t explain what to do when you find yourself in a spot where heaven is already far removed from Earth — or the truth, in this instance. Fortunately, the former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland, Mitsuhei Murata, recently proposed an eminently reasonable solution. It is time, he says, for Japan to stage an “honorable retreat” from hosting the 2020 Olympics while there is still time to select and prepare an alternative site.

In an article in the September issue of Gekkan Nippon, Murata buttressed his proposal by pointing out another misstatement in Abe’s IOC testimony, namely, “(Fukushima) has never done and will never do any damage to Tokyo.” In response, Murata pointed to a number of incidents showing that Tokyo was affected by Fukushima radioactive fallout, including the discovery on March 23, 2011, that water from the purification plant in the Kanemachi district of Tokyo contained more than 200 becquerels per liter of radioactive iodine, double the recommended limit for young infants stipulated in the Food Sanitation Act.

Murata’s major concern, however, was not about the past but the present and future. He noted the danger still posed by large numbers of spent fuel rods suspended in spent fuel pools in reactors 1, 2 and 3. Unlike the spent fuel rods in reactor building 4 successfully removed by the end of 2014, the remaining rods can’t be removed from the damaged reactor buildings due to the high levels of radioactivity surrounding these reactors, all three of which suffered meltdowns.

Murata’s gravest concern is a number of troubling indications of recurring criticality in one or more of the reactors at Fukushima No. 1. For example, he notes that in December 2014, both radioactive iodine-131 and tellurium-132 were reported as having been detected in Takasaki city, Gunma Prefecture. Given the short half-lives of these radioactive particles, their presence could not be the result of the original meltdowns at Fukushima.

Murata is not opposed to the Tokyo Olympic Games per se, but finds them a major distraction to what needs to be done immediately — namely, gathering the best minds and expertise from around the world and, with the full support of the Japanese government, doing everything humanly possible to bring Fukushima No. 1 truly “under control.” This will help to ensure the Pacific Ocean is no longer used as an open sewer for Fukushima-produced radiation, and also address the ongoing pain and distress of the residents of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond.

As Murata noted in the conclusion of his article, “Heaven and Earth will not long countenance immoral conduct.” Recognizing this, Minister Endo, will you join the call for an “honorable retreat”?

BRIAN VICTORIA Kyoto

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/11/04/voices/time-come-honorable-retreat-tokyo-2020-fukushima/#.VjpOzzgQXIV

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Monterey Peninsula tourists: Stay out of the rain!

It rained on the Monterey Peninsula in central California on Monday, November 2. This is on the West Coast, bordering the Pacific Ocean.

Measurements were taken in the morning in Monterey with an Inspector Alert radiation monitor.

The background air radiation level was approximately 31 CPM.(alpha, beta and gamma radiation)

The radiation monitor was then enclosed in a bag and placed in the rain. Measurements of beta and gamma radiation generally ranged from 70s to 113 CPM (alpha radiation was blocked by the bag). Readings in the 90s were common. Measurements might have been higher if alpha was included.

On Tuesday morning, the day after, a 10-minute timed measurement of air radiation levels. The reading average over 10 minutes was 44 CPM (alpha, beta, gamma) — a 42% increase in air radiation levels from Monday.

This was “hot” rain.

Rainfall and snowfall should be regularly tested for radiation levels. If you get higher than normal readings, alert your family, friends and schools. Children should not be playing in the rain unless low radiation levels are verified. They should also not be playing outdoors when airborne radiation spikes occur. School districts should have good quality radiation monitors, and post the numbers for students and staff to refer to.

When it rains or snows, use umbrellas, and use precautions in storing rain- and snow-contaminated items, such as shoes, inside your home. Dump bird baths and outside pet water after rain, wash out, and fill with fresh water. Frequently dump and refill due to fallout, and if getting high rad readings, do this daily. It won’t eliminate the exposure, but it will reduce their internal intake.

Monterey Bay: “anchovies…some of the last along California’s coast”, plankton levels low, whales searching for food, squid disappearing, starving marine life — ecosystem in collapse

Posted on ENE News:

Monterey Herald, Nov 3, 2015 (emphasis added): Local whale watching tour companies and conservationists claim the anchovy population has “collapsed” due to environmental reasons… Fishing groups disagree, though they note the bay has seen some dramatic environmental changes.

Santa Cruz Sentinel, Oct 30, 2015: Monterey Bay anchovy numbers in decline, groups say… “Since late September, the whale numbers have decreased, their behavior has changed and their food, anchovies, are less abundant,” said Nancy Black, marine biologist… Whale watching tour companies and conservationists claim the anchovy population has “collapsed” due to environmental reasons… The fishing industry says that’s not the case though ocean conditions have been unusual. Some scientists, however, are finding a drastic decline in the forage fish… [Pacific Fishery Management Council staff officer Mike Burner said,] “The council’s definitely concerned with some of the things they’ve heard.”… “The population has truly collapsed,” [said] William Sydeman, president and senior scientist at the Farallon Institute. “There’s no way fishing could have that kind of impact, so it had to be environmental.”… plankton populations are low, affecting their predators up the marine food chain… “When anchovy numbers are low, they crowd at the coast and appear to be abundant,” Sydeman said… At the same time, the lack of anchovies offshore are maybe in part why scores of sea lions and sea birdsare starving up and down the coast. “Right now we’re seeing that the whales are more scattered and seem to be looking harder for food,” said Dorris Welch, marine biologist…

Monterey Herald, Oct 19, 2015: Plenty of anchovies in Monterey Bay, but maybe not elsewhereMarket squid are disappearing, and in their place, fishing boats are reeling in piles of anchovies. But while they appear abundant, conservation groups warn that the forage fish may be at their lowest levels since the 1950s. “It’s an anomalous year,” said Diane Pleschner-Steele, executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association. [Oceana’s Geoff Shester said,] “new information shows that the stock is at such a low level right now, it’s literally in a state of collapse.” Survey cruises conducted by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center detected little to no anchovy eggs from 2010 to 2013… Sit on the docks where anchovies are sorted and you’ll likely see lots of the silvery fish piling up. But it’s a mirage, warns William Sydeman, ecologist of the Farallon Institute, who coauthored the paper that estimated anchovies at low levels. “People think that if they’re in Monterey Bay, they must be everywhere,” Sydeman said. “They’re not. They’re only in Monterey Bay.” Sydeman said anchovies tend to aggregate near shore when their numbers are low…

KION, Oct 21, 2015: California’s last anchovies crowd in the Monterey Bay; Researchers say a massive decline of the fish is throwing off the ecosystem — Several conservation groups and whale watching operators are very concerned about the anchovies in the Monterey Bay… Recently, fishermen have been hauling out 120 tons of anchovies every night, but those anchovies are some of the last along California’s coast… “The anchovy abundance out here, and off the entire state, has gotten to some of the lowest we’ve seen since the 1950s,” [Oceana’s Geoff Shester] said. “Scientists are calling it an actual collapse.”… Anchovies are an important part of the ecosystem. That’s why these groups say if nothing is done, there could be long-term impacts. “We’re really worried that right now we are seeing major die-offs of sea lion pups and pelicans because they’re starving and not able to reproduce,” Shester said. “And that’s because there’s not enough sardines and anchovies out there.” “We’ve noticed the numbers of whales have dropped significantly,” [marine biologist Nancy Black] said.

Watch KION’s broadcast here

http://enenews.com/tv-massive-decline-fish-throwing-ecosystem-along-california-coast-expert-population-collapsed-theyre-gone-virtually-everywhere-whale-numbers-dropped-significantly-squid-disappearing-video

– Obama approved raising permissible levels of nuclear radiation in drinking water. Civilian cancer deaths expected to skyrocket

PEER — Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — is an exceptional organization. It protects whistleblowers and facilitates the release of government agency documents related to the public welfare and safety. They are heroes, operate on a shoestring budget, and are well worth financially supporting.

This information is from 2013 but very timely. Most people don’t know about this decision.

Global Research, September 19, 2014
Peer.org 14 April 2013
Rollback in Nuclear Radiation Cleanup

by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:

In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;

  • In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
  • Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
  • Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster.

“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.”

“No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”

Reportedly, the PAGs had been approved last fall but their publication was held until after the presidential election. The rationale for timing their release right before McCarthy’s confirmation hearing is unclear.

Since the PAGs guide agency decision-making and do not formally set standards or repeal statutory requirements, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund, they will go into full effect following a short public comment period. Nonetheless, the PAGs will likely determine what actions take place on the ground in the days, weeks, months and, in some cases, years following a radiological emergency.

Copyright Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 2014

– On the NRC hormesis proceeding

From the Hemlock Tea Room and Ladies Emporium:

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED THREE PETITIONS TO RAISE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF RADIATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT BY 500%.

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT THINGS COULDN’T GET ANY CRAZIER, I READ THIS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE  FEDERAL REGISTER:

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June, 2015.  For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Annette L. Vietti-Cook,   Secretary of the Commission.      

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/23/2015-15441/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation

“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation.” 

YES, THESE “PETITIONERS” ARE TRYING TO CRAM IT DOWN AMERICANS’ THROATS THAT RADIATION IS GOOD FOR US, JUST LIKE THEY DID IN JAPAN!

WELL, JAPAN ALLOWED IT, EVEN FORCED IT ON THEIR CITIZENS.
JULY 31, 2015

“Nuclear plant workers in Japan will be allowed to be exposed to more than twice the current level of radiation in emergency situations, according to the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s Radiation Council.

The radiation exposure limit will be raised from the current 100 millisieverts to 250 millisieverts in emergencies, the radiation council announced in a report released July 30.

The new cap will be activated from April 2016 after revisions to the nuclear reactor regulatory law and the Industrial Safety and Health Law.”

WHAT A COINCIDENCE, RIGHT?
JAPAN UPS THEIR LEVELS, WE UP OURS, EVERYBODY SEES AN ONCOLOGIST AND INSURANCE COMPANIES CANCEL POLICIES BEFORE THIS IS ENACTED!
WHAT A GREAT IDEA, YES?

NO!

I GUESS THE U.S. WANTS TO HELP OUT ITS BIG “TRADE PARTNER” BY FOLLOWING SUIT?

THIS IS NO JOKE, IT’S FOR REAL!

AND AMERICANS HAVE ONLY UNTIL SEPTEMBER TO LET THE NRC KNOW HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, THIS PETITION.

BACK TO THE NRC AT HOME:“The petitions were submitted by Carol S. Marcus, Mark L. Miller, and Mohan Doss (the petitioners), dated February 9, 2015, February 13, 2015, and February 24, 2015, respectively. 
These petitions were docketed by the NRC on February 20, 2015, February 27, 2015, and March 16, 2015, and have been assigned Docket Numbers. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, respectively. 

[The petitioner suggests that “urgency of action on this petition” is necessary because “any potential future accident involving release of radioactive materials in the USA would likely result in panic evacuation because of the LNT—model-based cancer fears and concerns, resulting in considerable casualties and economic damage such as have occurred in Fukushima.” 

THERE IT IS AGAIN!
IT’S ALL ABOUT ECONOMIC IMPACT!
]

The NRC is examining the issues raised in these petitions to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comments on these petitions for rulemaking.”

BUT THERE IS MUCH MORE YOU SHOULD KNOW!
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

In one of these “petitions” to raise civilian maximum radiation amount to 100 mSv per year, which is 500 percent more radiation than even nuclear workers are allowed, 

NO DIFFERENT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS WILL BE SET FOR CHILDREN OR PREGNANT WOMEN, EVEN THOUGH THE SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT BOTH CHILDREN AND EVERY DEVELOPING EMBRYO/FETUS ARE FAR MORE SENSITIVE TO RADIATION AND MUCH MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ITS DEADLY EFFECTS!

IF ACCEPTED BY THE NRC, ALL HUMANS WILL BE ALLOWED THE SAME HIGHER LEVELS!

These are the 4 changes that petitioner Dr. Carol S. Marcus is recommending:

” (1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are chronic.

(2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The petitioner argues that “it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.”

[NOTE: ALARA is an acronym for As Low As Reasonably Achievable. This is a radiation safety principle for minimizing radiation doses and releases of radioactive materials by employing all reasonable methods.]

(3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner notes that “these low doses may be hormetic.
The petitioner goes on to ask, “why deprive the public of the benefits of low dose radiation?”


(4) End differential doses to pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, and children under 18 years of age. “

THIRD PETITIONER:
The petition for rulemaking was submitted by Dr. Mohan Doss, on behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, and “supports and supplements” petition PRM-20-28. This petitioner provides additional information suggesting that “low-dose radiation reduces cancer risk” (i.e., has a hormetic [beneficial] effect) and suggests that the “LNT model is no longer justifiable.” 

SO WHAT IS THIS DAMNABLE “HORMETIC EFFECT” ?
LUDICROUS WON’T DESCRIBE IT, NOR WILL “BAT-GUANO INSANE”, NOR COUNTER-INTUITIVE…IT’S WAY BEYOND THOSE!


JUST A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF THE PRODUCTS THEY ADVOCATE SHOULD CLUE YOU IN ON HOW WHACKO THEY REALLY ARE.

~ “MAGIC STONES” …ACTUAL RADIOACTIVE ROCKS.
~”Radium-containing “HEALTH ELIXIRS”, touted as magical remedies that promote health and prolong life by rejuvenating effects with a host of widespread benefits.”

~ RADON WATER! BATHE IN IT, THEY SUGGEST!

IF THE NRC ALLOWS THIS, IT FLIES AGAINST ITS OWN PAST STATEMENTS AND MORE STUDIES THAN WE CAN COUNT THAT MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ANY TINY RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE INSIDE A HUMAN (OR ANIMAL OR PLANT) BODY IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CANCER, CELL DAMAGE, DAMAGE TO THE DNA, AND CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS IN THE UNBORN. 

WE’VE KNOWN FOR MANY CENTURIES THAT EVEN THE SUN’S IONIZING RAYS HAVE DAMAGING EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS WHEN ONE IS OUTSIDE FOR LONG PERIODS.
SKIN CANCERS AND DEEP SUNBURNS THAT LEAVE SCARS ARE PRETTY DAMNED OBVIOUS, RIGHT?
BEING REPEATEDLY BAKED BY THE SUN HAS PREMATURELY AGED A LOT OF FOLKS AND WE KNEW THAT, TOO!

Hormesis Theory Claims That If An Acute Dose Of 
Radiation Does Not Kill You Quickly, Then It Is Good For You!

“The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure” says Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.”      

SOURCE: Vines, Vanee; Petty, Megan (2005-06-29). “Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm”

 “Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation.  At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted.”      

SOURCE: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academies Press. 2006. ISBN 978-0-309-09156-5.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that any amount of exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful. BUT THEY ALLOW MORE OF IT NOW IN OUR DRINKING WATER!

ADD THE ABOVE TO THE HUNDREDS OF STUDIES AND EVIDENCE WE’VE LINKED TO HERE IN THE TEA ROOM AND ANYONE CAN SEE THE “HORMETIC EFFECTS” OF ANY RADIATION ARE NEVER GOOD.

AS A RADIOLOGIST SAID TO ME A FEW YEARS BACK:
“WE CAN KILL THESE CANCER CELLS WITH RADIATION, BUT A FEW MONTHS OR YEARS FROM NOW, WHAT WE DO TODAY WILL BRING YOU BACK HERE FOR US TO TREAT THE MONSTER WE CREATE TODAY. IT’S THE RISK PATIENTS TAKE TO LIVE.”


HE WAS AN HONEST FELLOW.

HOW DUMB, HOW GULLIBLE DO THESE PETITIONERS AND THE NRC THINK AMERICANS ARE?

WELL, WE’RE ABOUT TO FIND OUT.
TIME IS SHORT FOR COMMENTS ON THIS, CITIZENS, SO HERE’S HOW TO GO LEAVE A FEW:
[http://tinyurl.com/NRCradiationrule]

YOUR CHOICE, AMERICA…ACCEPT NEW HIGHER LEVELS OR DON’T.

THE TEA ROOM WILL NOT, NO MATTER WHAT THE NRC DECIDES.

NONE OF US HAVE TO LIVE IN AMERICA, AFTER ALL.

– Alert: NRC “radiation is good for you” proceeding — Nov. 19 comment deadline,

Comment now. Government websites can get jammed with traffic during the last day. The deadline is November 19, 11:59 PM EST.

Search terms like NRC, hormesis, radiation exposure, rule, to find out what scientists and experts say about this.

“The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure”
Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

There are also industry sites mocking health impacts and the need for safety rules.

The revised instructions on how to submit comments are below, together with information on the docket and links to additional documents.

To comment, there is a quick link on the page linked below http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0086. You can also emailfax, and mail comments per the instructions below.

If you comment through the website, you can create an overview or summary document (5000 character limit), and attach a detailed letter and additional documentation in PDF format.

Include “Docket ID NRC-2015-0057” in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0086

or
http://tinyurl.com/NRCradiationrule

Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period
ID: NRC-2015-0057-0086

This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Agency

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Action

Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment; extension of comment period.

Summary

On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested public comment on three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on September 8, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

Dates

The comment period for the document published on June 23, 2015, at 80 FR 35870, is extended. Comments should be filed no later than November 19, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

Addresses

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in your comment submission.

  • Federal Rulemaking Web site:
    Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
    Docket ID NRC-2015-0057.
    (Address questions about NRC dockets to
    Carol Gallagher;  telephone: 301-415-3463;
    email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov)
    (For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.)
  • Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.
    If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us
    at 301-415-1677.
  • Fax comments to:
    Secretary,
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    at 301-415-1101.
  • Mail comments to:
    Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
    ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
  • Hand deliver comments to:
    11555 Rockville Pike,
    Rockville, Maryland 20852,
    between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
    telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

For Further Information Contact

Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781, email: Solomon.Sahle@nrc.gov.

Supplementary Information

  1. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
  2. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

  • Federal Rulemaking Web site:
    Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0057.
  • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
  • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
  1. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

  1. Discussion

On June 23, 2015, the NRC requested public comment on three PRMs, PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The NRC is examining the issues raised in these PRMs to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.

The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on September 8, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period on this document until November 19, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2015-20722 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P