– New Harvard study links cancer to living in proximity to nuclear reactors

From Ecological Options Network https://www.eon3.org/

Article: Does Proximity to Nuclear Power Plants Increase Cancer Risk?

The seeds from the release of our film, SOS – The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy, continue to blossom. We are delighted to know it was credited as a key catalyst for the groundbreaking new series of studies by Harvard researcher Dr. Yazan Alwadi.

  • The Findings: The first study in his series reveals a definite increase in rates of fatal cancers for populations living in proximity to nuclear reactors across the entire U.S., providing hard, actionable data for the public and decision-makers.

Dr. Alwadi recently presented these findings at the Samuel Lawrence Foundation Symposium and the Protect Better Webinar Series: “In the Weeds.” (link here)

– Webinar on the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons (VIDEO)

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvWQkP0DyG4

The recent virtual town hall hosted by the Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance (TANFA)ATOMIC TIES: Exploring the Link Between Nuclear Weapons & Nuclear Power—was a tremendous success.

Recorded on July 16, 2026, this discussion explores how governments, corporations, financial institutions, and military programs reinforce one another, and what citizens can do to challenge the expansion of the nuclear industry to advance a safer, renewable future.

Hosts
Mary Beth Brandon — Ecological Options Network
Richard Outram – Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance

Featured speakers:

  • Dr. Philip Johnstone – University of Sussex
  • Alfred Meyer – Physicians for Social Responsibility
  • Susi Snyder – International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
  • Dr. Gordon Edwards – Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)

Topics include:

  • The connections between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons programs
  • Military-industrial interests driving the “nuclear renaissance”
  • The financial institutions investing in the nuclear weapons industry
  • Small modular reactors (SMRs), military applications, and emerging technologies
  • Nuclear waste, plutonium, and proliferation risks
  • Strategies for divestment, public engagement, and grassroots action
  • The Focus: Examining how civilian nuclear infrastructure sustains the global weapons complex, featuring leading experts explaining why nuclear weapons must have commercial nuclear power to survive. Watch the Atomic Ties Recording
  • Mark Your Calendars: Look out for the next TANFA event on Thursday, November 19, focusing on the poisonous reality of reprocessing nuclear waste that nuclear industry proponents fail to admit.

– Comment deadline today, August 31, on NRC radiation protection standards; Coalition to Stop Radioactive Pollution comments

Comments filed by The Coalition to Stop Radioactive Pollution:

Beyond Nuclear
Committee to Bridge the Gap
Ecological Options Network
Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network
Generational Radiation Impact Project
HEAL Utah
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Nuclear Energy Information Service
Nuclear Information Resource Service
Oregon Conservancy Foundation
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Samuel Lawrence Foundation
Texas Nuclear Watchdogs

Opening summary:

30 August 2026
Attn: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Submitted electronically via regulations.gov


Re: Docket NRC-2025-1140 – Reforming and Modernizing the Radiation Protection Framework
On behalf of the Coalition to Stop Radioactive Pollution, we respectfully submit these comments
regarding Docket NRC-2025-1140, Reforming and Modernizing the Radiation Protection
Framework.

As a Coalition, and as individual organizations comprising the Coalition, we are compelled to
place on the record our fundamental opposition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)
proposed rulemaking. If adopted, this rulemaking would constitute a monumental shift in the
current radiation protection guidelines. The NRC’s continued reliance on the assertion that the
proposed revisions will “maintain reasonable assurance of adequate protection” constitutes an
egregious mischaracterization of the scope and significance of the proposed rulemaking. This
formulation minimizes the profound implications of the proposed changes by suggesting that the
existing levels of protection will be preserved, while the rulemaking would in fact eliminate or
substantially alter the fundamental principles and precautionary mechanisms that have
historically governed radiation protection standards in the United States. The proposed rule would
dramatically increase the legal radiation exposures to workers and the public, as well as releases
to air, water, and sewage, through surreptitious means.

This proposed rule change comes at a time when scientific knowledge has made clear
that the health risks of ionizing radiation are more significant than previously understood. It also
comes at a moment when the enduring health, economic, social, and environmental
consequences of past radiation exposures are still being experienced by communities affected by
the nuclear industry. These are not merely historical or individual harms: entire communities
continue to bear the cumulative and intergenerational consequences of radiation exposure and
contamination. With this knowledge, weakening the nation’s radiation protection framework
would move in precisely the wrong direction. What we need is a move toward stronger, science-
based protections and toward greater awareness of the real risks and health consequences that
will be borne by everyone living in the US. The risks should be clear to those who must bear them,
and radiation regulations should be required to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires consultation and freely given prior and
informed consent. This proposed rulemaking is a shameful attempt by the NRC to legally,
unjustifiably, and unnecessarily increase exposure rates to workers and the general public. The
proposed rule aims to significantly weaken US radiation protection standards which are already
insufficient.

Should this rulemaking move forward, we believe the outcomes will be catastrophic. We
maintain that adoption of the proposed rule, whether in its entirety or through any of its individual
provisions, would undermine essential protections for public health and for safety of atomic
workers and the public from radiological risks in the United States. The NRC’s proposed revisions
are not supported by the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, nor do they reflect
the prevailing scientific understanding of the human health consequences of exposure to ionizing
radiation.

The proposed rulemaking lacks an adequate evidentiary and scientific basis and
represents a significant departure from the precautionary scientific evidence-based approach
that should govern the regulation of radioactive environmental pollution. This deficiency is
particularly evident in the NRC’s assertion that implementation of its proposed rule will result in
“increased public exposure to Ionizing Radiation…with potential stochastic health effects of
unknown magnitude… expected to be minimal” [see US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2026a,
27, Table 4, emphasis added]. Such a conclusion is deeply concerning because it fails to identify
and appears to minimize the potential consequences of increased exposure while simultaneously
failing to demonstrate an adequate scientific basis for determining that the associated risks are
sufficiently small to warrant weakening existing protections. Dropping the regulation of stochastic
impacts is further confirmation that the NRC is abdicating its authority, and therefore its
responsibility, to protect all those living and working in the US from radiological harm. When
stochastic health effects are “out of scope” of the regulations, the level of deregulation no longer
demonstrates compliance with NRC’s statutory obligations.

Furthermore, the full scale revision of one hundred percent of the NRC’s Code of Federal
Regulations in one 18-month period precludes meaningful public engagement. The affected
public, individuals, organizations and state and local governments are flooded with enormously
important revisions comprised of more content and background material than can be taken in,
analyzed, and commented on in this timeframe. Moreover, many of the provisions in the revised
rule NRC 2025-1400 violate the APA, NEPA, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act and its amendments.

We strongly encourage the Commission to give careful and full consideration to the
scientific evidence and analysis presented herein, which demonstrate the need for stronger, not
weaker, protections from the risks of ionizing radiation. The evidence makes clear that this is not
the time to diminish longstanding safeguards or relax the regulatory framework governing
radiological exposures. Rather, the NRC should strengthen its commitment to robust, evidence-
based protections for workers and the public.

We urge the NRC to abandon the proposed rulemaking in its entirety and work instead to
preserve and strengthen the protections necessary to safeguard public health and safety in
the United States. We recommend that the NRC bring civil nuclear regulations into line with
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) longstanding commitment to reducing
exposures to workers and the public and to regulate down to very low risk levels. Current
EPA protections provide seventy times more protection from radiation exposure to neighbors
living next door to Super Fund sites than does NRC to any member of the general public.
There is no justification for the NRC to allow additional harm.

— Act now to stop radioactive pollution; NRC comment deadline August 31

From Committee to Bridge the Gap
July 15

This summer, we need your help, and this page will show you how.

An executive order from May 2025 urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to abandon the well-established radiation science in favor of weakening radiation protection standards. The current U.S. radiation standards are already outdated and fail to offer adequate public health protection; now, the NRC’s proposed rule (NRC-2025-1140) plans to weaken those standards even further. NRC’s radiation protection standards are referenced and utilized widely, so any weakening of these standards would result in system-wide increases in radiation exposure.

Join the campaign at ProtectBetter.org

How can I help?

You can submit a public comment now! Click here and you will be taken to the page where you can submit your comment.

Comments are due 08/31/2026 at 11:59 pm EST.

How do I comment? What do I say?

Helpful suggestions at https://committeetobridgethegap.org/2026/act-now-help-stop-radioactive-pollution/

– – –

Effects of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards:

Here are the Facts:

  • Radioactive exposure causes cellular damage. Radioactive exposure can lead to cancer, heart disease, infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth defects, cardiovascular disease, and auto-immune diseases. (Beir VII)
  • Increasing the permitted radiation exposure standards allows the nuclear industry to generate more radioactive pollution —and more profit. This blatant attempt to make industry money by allowing more harmful radiation pollution exposure to the public is outrageous. (EO 14300)
  •  All radioactive exposure is harmful, exposure adds up over your lifetime and across generations. (Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative)
  • The current standards are based on an adult male body—not women, not children, not girls. Girls face higher lifetime cancer risks. Pregnancy exposures can affect three generations at once. (Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation)
  • President Trump signing an EO does not change the science or the risks to the public. The NRC should follow the science, not a political agenda.
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules eliminate the longstanding As Low As Reasonable Achievable standard, also known as ALARA. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43463)
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules allow workers to be exposed to 2 times the current yearly occupational limit, as long as the total exposure over 5 years is under 25 rem. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43472)
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules increase allowable effluent releases from nuclear facilities by 2.5 times automatically, but polluters are allowed to increase releases by 10 times with the only penalty being that the polluter must send monitoring reports to the NRC. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43471)
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules allow polluters to apply for alternative public dose limit that will be approved on a case-by-case basis, with no specified upper bound. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43473)

https://committeetobridgethegap.org/2026/act-now-help-stop-radioactive-pollution/

— Campaign to stop Diablo Canyon

From Mothers for Peace

NOW IS OUR TIME TO STOP DIABLO CANYON!

Decision-makers are moving quickly to extend operation, and so must we. Join our efforts to protect Central Coast Communities for future generations.

URGENT CHALLENGE

Diablo Canyon nuclear plant was scheduled to retire in 2024 and 2025. However, Senate Bill 846 – passed in 2022 – has enabled extended operation. State and federal subsidies have been granted to support this effort. Pacific Gas & Electric Company has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20-year license extension, although SB 846 asks for only 5 years.

WE NEED YOUR HELP

Donations are needed to pay for our attorneys, consultants, and expert witnesses. You can make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation online or mail checks to: San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, PO Box 3608, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403

Tax ID # 95-3080124

Attend meetings and support our efforts. Sign up for our Action Alerts on the Homepage!

WHAT ARE WE DOING?

Mothers for Peace, in collaboration with its partner organizations, is actively opposing extended operation of Diablo Canyon at every opportunity. Our legal team and experts represent us at the:

  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • California Public Utilities Commission
  • California Coastal Commission
  • Regional Water Quality Control Board
  • Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee
  • 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

  • Friends of the Earth
  • Environmental Working Group
  • Samuel Lawrence Foundation
  • Committee to Bridge the Gap
  • Environmental Defense Center

THE ISSUES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) exempted Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) from its Timely Renewal Rule, disregarding its own rules by approving continued operation of the Diablo Canyon reactors past their expiration dates without the required environmental reviews or opportunity for public hearings.

Unit 1’s reactor vessel was built with faulty material so is vulnerable to embrittlement. An embrittled reactor vessel can shatter like glass and cause a catastrophic meltdown. Despite this, PG&E has not tested for embrittlement for over 20 years – and the NRC has approved the exemptions.

The California Public Utilities Commission has approved extended operation without all the information required by SB 846 – and despite evidence that Diablo’s energy is not needed to avoid summer blackouts. There is new seismic evidence to show that the earthquake faults that run directly under the plant are vertical thrust faults, meaning they could cause much more ground motion than formerly estimated.

Diablo’s Once-Through Cooling System is out of compliance with the Clean Water Act. The facility circulates 2.5 billion gallons of seawater each day, releasing it back into the ocean 20º warmer and killing more than one billion fish in early life stages.

Extended operation of Diablo Canyon means the generation and onsite storage of even more high-level radioactive waste in an active seismic area.

Join our efforts to STOP DIABLO!

More information, brochures, and links at https://mothersforpeace.org/campaign-to-stop-diablo/

— Fukushima prognosis and how radioactivity affects the body: Medical facts from Dr. Helen Caldicott

With specific information on Tritium, Strontium 90, Cesium 137, radioactive Iodine 131, and Plutonium.

By Helen Caldicott, Volume 4, Issue 2 2014, Australian Medical Student Journal

…Fukushima is now described as the greatest industrial accident in history.

The Japanese government was so concerned that they were considering plans to evacuate 35 million people from Tokyo, as other reactors including Fukushima Daiini on the east coast were also at risk. Thousands of people fleeing from the smoldering reactors were not notified where the radioactive plumes were travelling, despite the fact that there was a system in place to track the plumes. As a result, people fled directly into regions with the highest radiation concentrations, where they were exposed to high levels of whole-body external gamma radiation being emitted by the radioactive elements, inhaling radioactive air and swallowing radioactive elements. [2] Unfortunately, inert potassium iodide was not supplied, which would have blocked the uptake of radioactive iodine by their thyroid glands, except in the town of Miharu. Prophylactic iodine was eventually distributed to the staff of Fukushima Medical University in the days after the accident, after extremely high levels of radioactive iodine – 1.9 million becquerels/kg were found in leafy vegetables near the University. [3] Iodine contamination was widespread in leafy vegetables and milk, whilst other isotopic contamination from substances such as caesium is widespread in vegetables, fruit, meat, milk, rice and tea in many areas of Japan. [4]

The Fukushima meltdown disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swathes of Japan and will never be “cleaned up.” It will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever. I predict that the three reactors which experienced total meltdowns will never be dissembled or decommissioned. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) – says it will take at least 30 to 40 years and the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts at least 40 years before they can make any progress because of the extremely high levels of radiation at these damaged reactors.

This accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive food and drink radioactive beverages. In 1986, a single meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl covered 40% of the European land mass with radioactive elements. Already, according to a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences, over one million people have already perished as a direct result of this catastrophe. This is just the tip of the iceberg, because large parts of Europe and the food grown there will remain radioactive for hundreds of years. [5]

Medical Implications of Radiation

Fact number one

No dose of radiation is safe. Each dose received by the body is cumulative and adds to the risk of developing malignancy or genetic disease.

Fact number two

Children are ten to twenty times more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Females tend to be more sensitive compared to males, whilst foetuses and immuno-compromised patients are also extremely sensitive.

Fact number three

High doses of radiation received from a nuclear meltdown or from a nuclear weapon explosion can cause acute radiation sickness, with alopecia, severe nausea, diarrhea and thrombocytopenia. Reports of such illnesses, particularly in children, appeared within the first few months after the Fukushima accident.

Fact number four

Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements and radiation emitted from X-ray machines and CT scanners can be carcinogenic. The latent period of carcinogenesis for leukemia is 5-10 years and solid cancers 15-80 years. It has been shown that all modes of cancer can be induced by radiation, as well as over 6000 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.

But, as we increase the level of background radiation in our environment from medical procedures, X-ray scanning machines at airports, or radioactive materials continually escaping from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps, we will inevitably increase the incidence of cancer as well as the incidence of genetic disease in future generations.

Types of ionizing radiation

  1. X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body.
  2. Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.
  3. Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known.
  4. Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic.
  5. Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.

So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain and the human body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  1. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen H3 and there is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water as it combines with oxygen to form H3O. There is no material that can prevent the escape of tritium except gold, so all reactors continuously emit tritium into the air and cooling water as they operate. It concentrates in aquatic organisms, including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish, and also in terrestrial food. Like all radioactive elements, it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, and will therefore inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, for many decades. It passes unhindered through the skin if a person is immersed in fog containing tritiated water near a reactor, and also enters the body via inhalation and ingestion. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities and cancers of many organs.
  2. Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for over 300 years. Cesium, like all radioactive elements, bio-concentrates at each level of the food chain. The human body stands atop the food chain. As an analogue of potassium, cesium becomes ubiquitous in all cells. It concentrates in the myocardium where it induces cardiac irregularities, and in the endocrine organs where it can cause diabetes, hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. It can also induce brain cancer, rhabdomyosarcomas, ovarian or testicular cancer and genetic disease.
  3. Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter with a half-life of 28 years. As a calcium analogue, it is a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body. It can lead to carcinomas of the bone and leukaemia.
  4. Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter. It has a half-life of eight days and is hazardous for ten weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, then in the the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen, inducing thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer. It is important to note that of 174,376 children under the age of 18 that have been examined by thyroid ultrasound in the Fukushima Prefecture, 12 have been definitively diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 more are suspected to have the disease. Almost 200,000 more children are yet to be examined. Of these 174,367 children, 43.2% have either thyroid cysts and/or nodules.In Chernobyl, thyroid cancers were not diagnosed until four years post-accident. This early presentation indicates that these Japanese children almost certainly received a high dose of radioactive iodine. High doses of other radioactive elements released during the meltdowns were received by the exposed population so the rate of cancer is almost certain to rise.
  5. Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine.The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time.

    Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth.

Conclusion

In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will have medical ramifications that will never cease, because the food will continue to concentrate the radioactive elements for hundreds to thousands of years. This will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease. Already we are seeing such pathology and abnormalities in birds and insects, and because they reproduce very fast it is possible to observe disease caused by radiation over many generations within a relatively short space of time.

Pioneering research conducted by Dr Tim Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist, has demonstrated high rates of tumors, cataracts, genetic mutations, sterility and reduced brain size amongst birds in the exclusion zones of both Chernobyl and Fukushima. What happens to animals will happen to human beings. [7]

The Japanese government is desperately trying to “clean up” radioactive contamination. But in reality all that can be done is collect it, place it in containers and transfer it to another location. It cannot be made neutral and it cannot be prevented from spreading in the future. Some contractors have allowed their workers to empty radioactive debris, soil and leaves into streams and other illegal places. The main question becomes: Where can they place the contaminated material to be stored safely away from the environment for thousands of years? There is no safe place in Japan for this to happen, let alone to store thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste which rests precariously at the 54 Japanese nuclear reactors.

Last but not least, Australian uranium fuelled the Fukushima reactors. Australia exports uranium for use in nuclear power plants to 12 countries, including the US, Japan, France, Britain, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, China, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Taiwan. 270,000 metric tons of deadly radioactive waste exists in the world today, with 12,000 metric tons being added yearly. (Each reactor manufactures 30 tons per year and there are over 400 reactors globally.)

This high-level waste must be isolated from the environment for one million years – but no container lasts longer than 100 years. The isotopes will inevitably leak, contaminating the food chain, inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities and genetic diseases for the rest of time.

This, then, is the legacy we leave to future generations so that we can turn on our lights and computers or make nuclear weapons. It was Einstein who said “the splitting of the atom changed everything save mans’ mode of thinking, thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”

The question now is: Have we, the human species, the ability to mature psychologically in time to avert these catastrophes, or, is it in fact, too late?

Disclaimer: The views, opinions and perspectives presented in this article are those of the author alone and does not reflect the views of the Australian Medical Student Journal. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors or omissions.

References

[1] Caldicott H. Helen Caldicott Foundation’s Fukushima Symposium. 2013; Available from: http://www.helencaldicott.com/2012/12/helen-caldicott-foundations-fukushima-symposium/.

[2] Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis. The Japan Times. 2012.

[3] Bagge E, Bjelle A, Eden S, Svanborg A. Osteoarthritis in the elderly: clinical and radiological findings in 79 and 85 year olds. Ann Rheum Dis. 1991;50(8):535-9. Epub 1991/08/01.

[4] Tests find cesium 172 times the limit in Miyagi Yacon tea. The Asahi Shimbun. 2012.

[5] Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV, Sherman-Nevinger JD. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment: Wiley. com; 2010.

[6] Fukushima Health Management. Proceedings of the 11th Prefectural Oversight Committee Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey. Fukushima, Japan2013.

[7] Møller AP, Mousseau TA. The effects of low-dose radiation: Soviet science, the nuclear industry – and independence? Significance. 2013;10(1):14-9.
Originally published: http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487

The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health

— Ukraine in full-blown collapse: 19 nuclear reactors at risk

The mainstream news claims Russian aggression caused the crisis in Ukraine. The same mainstream news also claims that the Fukushima disaster was a short-lived incident, and neither the Pacific Ocean nor the public have ever been in danger. 
Global Research has a section on Ukraine with extensive documentation on what happened and is still happening. 
Global Research, December 27, 2016
ClubOrlov 22 December 2016

With all the action in Syria, the Ukraine is no longer a subject for discussion in the West. In Russia, where the Ukraine is still a major problem looming on the horizon, and where some 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees are settling in, with no intentions of going back to what’s left of the Ukraine, it is still actively discussed. But for the US, and for the EU, it is now yet another major foreign policy embarrassment, and the less said about it the better.

In the meantime, the Ukraine is in full-blown collapse—all five glorious stages of it—setting the stage for a Ukrainian Nightmare Before Christmas, or shortly after.
Phase 1. Financially, the Ukrainian government is in sovereign default as of a couple of days ago. The IMF was forced to break its own rules in order to keep it on life support even though it is clearly a deadbeat. In the process, the IMF stiffed Russia, which happens to be one of its major shareholders; what gives?

Phase 2. Industry and commerce are approaching a standstill and the country is rapidly deindustrializing. Formerly, most of the trade was with Russia; this is now over. The Ukraine does not make anything that the EU might want, except maybe prostitutes. Recently, the Ukraine has been selling off its dirt. This is illegal, but, given what’s been happening there, the term “illegal” has become the stuff of comedy.

Phase 3. Politically, the Ukrainian government is a total farce. Much of it has been turned over to fly-by-night foreigners, such as the former Georgian president Saakashvili, who is a wanted criminal in his own country, which has recently stripped him of his citizenship. The parliament is stocked with criminals who bought their seat to gain immunity from prosecution, and who spend their time brawling with each other. Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was recently hauled off the podium by his crotch; how dignified is that? He seemed unfazed. Where are his testicles? Perhaps Victoria Nuland over at the US State Dept. is keeping them in a jar. This sort of action may be fun to watch on Youtube, but the reality is quite sad: those who “run” the Ukraine (if the term still applies) are only interested in one thing: stealing whatever is left.

Phase 4. Ukrainian society (if the term still applies) has been split into a number of warring factions. This was, to some extent, inevitable. What happens if you take bits of Poland, Hungary, Romania and Russia, and stick them together willy-nilly? Well, results may vary; but if you also spend $5 billion US (as the Americans did) turning the Ukrainians against Russia (and, since they are mostly Russian, against themselves), then you get a complete disaster.

Phase 5. Cultural collapse is quite advanced. The Ukraine once had the same world-class educational system as Russia, but since independence they switched to teaching in Ukrainian (a made-up language) using nonexistent textbooks. The kids have been taught a bogus history hallucinated by rabid Ukrainian nationalists. They’ve been told that Russia is backward and keeping them back, and that they deserve to be happy in the EU. (Just like the Greeks? Yeah…) But now the population has been reduced to levels of poverty not commonly seen outside of Africa, and young people are fleeing, or turning to gangsterism and prostitution, to merely survive. This doesn’t make for a happy cultural narrative. What does it mean to be “a Ukrainian” now? Expletives deleted. Sorry I asked.

Now, here’s what it all really means. With so much going wrong, the Ukraine has been unable to secure enough natural gas or coal supplies to provide a supply cushion in case of a cold snap this winter. A few weeks of frosty weather will deplete the supply, and then pipes will freeze, rendering much of the urban areas unlivable from then on (because, recall, there is no longer any money, or any industry to speak of, to repair the damage). That seems bad enough, but we aren’t quite there yet.

You see, the Ukraine produces over half of its electricity using nuclear power plants. 19 nuclear reactors are in operation, with 2 more supposedly under construction. And this is in a country whose economy is in free-fall and is set to approach that of Mali or Burundi! The nuclear fuel for these reactors was being supplied by Russia. An effort to replace the Russian supplier with Westinghouse failed because of quality issues leading to an accident. What is a bankrupt Ukraine, which just stiffed Russia on billions of sovereign debt, going to do when the time comes to refuel those 19 reactors? Good question!

But an even better question is, Will they even make it that far? You see, it has become known that these nuclear installations have been skimping on preventive maintenance, due to lack of funds. Now, you are probably already aware of this, but let me spell it out just in case: a nuclear reactor is not one of those things that you run until it breaks, and then call a mechanic once it does. It’s not a “if it ain’t broke, I can’t fix it” sort of scenario. It’s more of a “you missed a tune-up so I ain’t going near it” scenario. And the way to keep it from breaking is to replace all the bits that are listed on the replacement schedule no later than the dates indicated on that schedule. It’s either that or the thing goes “Ka-boom!” and everyone’s hair falls out.

How close is Ukraine to a major nuclear accident? Well, it turns out, very close: just recently one was narrowly avoided when some Ukro-Nazis blew up electric transmission lines supplying Crimea, triggering a blackout that lasted many days. The Russians scrambled and ran a transmission line from the Russian mainland, so now Crimea is lit up again. But while that was happening, the Southern Ukrainian, with its 4 energy blocks, lost its connection to the grid, and it was only the very swift, expert actions taken by the staff there that averted a nuclear accident.

I hope that you know this already, but, just in case, let me spell it out again. One of the worst things that can happen to a nuclear reactor is loss of electricity supply. Yes, nuclear power stations make electricity—some of the time—but they must be supplied with electricity all the time to avoid a meltdown. This is what happened at Fukushima Daiichi, which dusted the ground with radionuclides as far as Tokyo and is still leaking radioactive juice into the Pacific.

And so the nightmare scenario for the Ukraine is a simple one. Temperature drops below freezing and stays there for a couple of weeks. Coal and natural gas supplies run down; thermal power plants shut down; the electric grid fails; circulator pumps at the 19 nuclear reactors (which, by the way, probably haven’t been overhauled as recently as they should have been) stop pumping; meltdown!

If this winter stays very, very warm, then the “19 Fukushimas” scenario just may be averted. This is not impossible: we’ve been seeing one freakishly warm winter after another, and each passing month is setting new records. The future is looking hot—as in very warm. Let us pray that it doesn’t also turn out to be hot—as in radioactive.

— Frauds: Friends of the Earth and NRDC abandon immediate closure of Diablo Canyon, claim victory despite nine more dangerous years

“Diablo Canyon should never have been constructed in the first place, and now it is clear it should not be allowed to operate another day. Diablo Canyon must be shut down now, and there should be both state and federal investigations into PG&E’s negligence.”

Damon Moglen, Senior Strategic Advisor, Friends of the Earth, March 9, 2015

On June 21, 2016, Friends of the Earth sent out an email entitled “BREAKING: Huge victory for renewable energy” and congratulating themselves for closing Diablo Canyon. The problem is, it wasn’t true.

With no link in the email for more information, an internet search finally located the press release from FOE with the details and agreement documents.[i] They reveal a different picture.

Yes, Friends of the Earth, in partnership with NRDC and other groups, negotiated a closure of Diablo Canyon, but it won’t happen for 9 years – in 2025.

That is a catastrophe, not a victory.

The group is now lobbying the CPUC to accept this agreement and lobbying the California Lands Commission to give a “short-term” extension of PG&E’s lease of the land until that time.

Well-known names are missing from this agreement, names such as Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Committee to Bridge the Gap, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Beyond Nuclear, Ecological Options Network, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Nuclear Hotseat, Public Citizen, Food and Water Watch, Tri-Valley CAREs, even Union of Concerned Scientists, and Sierra Club. They’re not there for one reason: this agreement lacks integrity and realism.

The only parties to the agreement are Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, PG&E, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 (IBEW), Coalition of California Utility Employees, and Environment California It’s worth noting that Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is also supporting SB 968, Sen. Bill Monning’s bill.

Those of us who applauded the lawsuit by Friends of the Earth, after the NRC staff revelations about Diablo Canyon safety issues and all the longstanding safety problems at the plant, expected a real lawsuit, with real solutions proposed. When FOE called for an immediate shutdown in March 2015, Damon Moglen, Senior Strategic Adviser, said:

“It’s terrifying to think that for 30 years PG&E used the wrong numbers for vital equipment at the U.S. reactors most at risk from earthquakes. No one would dream of putting nuclear reactors in that location today. Diablo Canyon should never have been constructed in the first place, and now it is clear it should not be allowed to operate another day. Diablo Canyon must be shut down now, and there should be both state and federal investigations into PG&E’s negligence.” [ii]

Where did that go? This is not just a 180 degree turn. This is betrayal.

Their letter to the California Lands Commission called Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant a “GHG free generation resource” and states it doesn’t generate any greenhouse gas emissions—incredibly inaccurate but characteristic of nuclear industry propaganda.

PG&E Corporation Chairman, CEO and President Tony Earley …”Importantly, this proposal recognizes the value of GHG-free nuclear power as an important bridge strategy to help ensure that power remains affordable and reliable and that we do not increase the use of fossil fuels while supporting California’s vision for the future.”

…PG&E plans to operate the two units at Diablo Canyon to the end of their current NRC operating licenses, which expire on Nov. 2, 2024, and Aug. 26, [iii]

The letter says granting an extension to the lease would “directly promote California’s GHG emission reduction,” ignoring the danger of its continued operation every day which could destroy any future for California. IBEW got a guarantee in the agreement of $350 million for Diablo Canyon employees’ severance, retention, and retraining. Wow! What an amazing per-employee expenditure. Further, any approval by the CPUC has a condition that the approval cannot be appealed.

This is appalling, and the reasons behind this derailment can only be guessed. The organizations that refused to participate in this charade, that are opposing SB 968 in Sacramento, and that continue to fight to close Diablo Canyon should be applauded and supported.

Diablo Canyon is a ticking time bomb that endangers all life in Central California (and beyond) every day. This agreement gives Diablo Canyon and PG&E a pass for 9 long years. That isn’t progress. That is dangerous, fool-hardy denial, playing with nuclear catastrophe. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Friend or FOE? The answer is clear.

[i] http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2016-06-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-to-be-shut-down
Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to be shut down, power replaced by renewables, efficiency, storage

Letter to California Lands Commission
Joint proposal to California Public Utilities Commission

[ii] http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2015-03-diablo-pge-secretly-used-wrong-data-for-safety-equipment
Diablo Canyon: PG&E secretly used wrong design data for key safety equipment for 30 years

[iii] http://www.smartgridnews.com/story/proposal-would-phase-out-nuclear-power-california-support-state-energy-poli/2016-06-21?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
Proposal would phase out nuclear power in California to support state energy policies

 

 

— Upcoming Dept. of Energy hearings on national nuclear waste dumps will be held in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Arizona, Idaho, Minnesota

DOE wants to dump their nuclear waste in your state. They are looking for “stakeholders” who will “consent.”

These are the remaining meetings, starting with Tuesday, April 26, in Sacramento, California.

  • Sacramento, California on April 26, 2016 at the Holiday Inn Capitol Plaza – Sacramento
  • Denver, Colorado on May 24, 2016 at the Embassy Suites Denver – Stapleton.
  • Boston, Massachusetts on June 2, 2016 at the Hyatt Regency Boston.
  • Tempe, AZ n June 23, 2016 at the Marriott Phoenix Tempe at the Buttes.
  • Boise, ID on July 14, 2016 at Boise Centre.
  • Minneapolis, MN on July 21, 2016 at the Hilton Minneapolis.

DOE is controlling the commenting, only allowing a 45-minute Q&A following the panel, and a 30 minute public comment period after a break. Even the California Public Utilities Commission allows a longer comment period during its local public hearings for matters of relatively minor import. This is a matter of great public and national importance. DOE plans to break up the audience and spend 1 hour, 45 minutes in small groups. This is a divide and conquer approach, where opposition can be fragmented. Demand that all industry leaders make comments in open meeting, and that all comments and questions from the audience be made in the open meeting to be heard by everyone. No small groups.

The meetings are listed here, together with links to register and to view the meetings online. They are requesting registration, but it is unknown whether this is a requirement.

Please copy and paste these links into your browser rather than going directly from the links.

http://www.energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting

California April 26 meeting information: http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/Pages%20from%20CBS%20Public%20Meeting-Sacramento-%20Updated%20Agenda.pdf — agenda

 
http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/meeting-materials-consent-based-siting-public-meeting-sacramento-april-26-2016

MEETING MATERIALS: CONSENT-BASED SITING PUBLIC MEETING IN SACRAMENTO (APRIL 26, 2016)

Meeting Materials: Consent-Based Siting Public Meeting in Sacramento (April 26, 2016)

The Department will host a public meeting on consent-based siting on April 26th in Sacramento at the Holiday Inn Capitol Plaza. The purpose of the consent-based siting public meeting is to hear from the public and interested stakeholders on what matters to you as the Department of Energy moves forward in developing a consent-based process for siting the facilities needed to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The agenda includes a presentation from the Department of Energy’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, John Kotek. Mr. Kotek will discuss the nuclear energy activities that have brought us to this point, as well as describe the Department’s vision for an integrated waste management system and the need for a consent-based approach to siting. This presentation will be followed by a panel session with several experts providing diverse perspectives on the primary issues that need to be resolved in the design and implementation of a consent-based process. Participants will then have the opportunity to comment or ask questions to the Department and the panelists.

Following this session, there will be facilitated small group discussions on a variety of topics related to consent-based siting and integrated waste management. These small group discussions will provide the opportunity for participants to engage more closely on topics of interest to them. The Department intends for these small group discussions to be frank and open sessions on key topics that will inform the design of a consent-based process. The consent-based process will in turn serve as a framework for working with potential host communities in the future.

The agenda also includes a public comment period and two open houses with poster sessions before and after the formal meeting. The open house sessions provide participants with an opportunity to engage in less formal discussions with the Department and other meeting attendees.

The consent-based siting public meeting will also be webcast. We look forward to your participation!

Federal Register notice:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/23/2015-32346/invitation-for-public-comment-to-inform-the-design-of-a-consent-based-siting-process-for-nuclear

– 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.