— Paper: Advanced transmutation process and its application for decontamination of radioactive nuclear wastes, Michrowski and Porringa

Complete paper

Proceedings of Congress 2000

University of Alberta

Edmonton, May 29-30, 2000

Advanced transmutation process

and its application for the decontamination of radioactive nuclear wastes

Andrew Michrowski [1] and Mark Porringa [2]

Abstract: There are deviations to the standard model of radioactive atomic nuclei decay reported in the literature. These include persistent effects of chemical states and physical environment and the natural, low-energy transmutation phenomena associated with the vegetation processes of plants. The theory of neutral currents is proposed by Nobelist O. Costa de Beauregard to account for the observed natural transmutations, also known as the Kervran reaction. “Cold fusion” researchers have also reported anomalies in the formation of new elements in cathodes. This body of knowledge provides the rationale for the observed and successful and developed advanced transmutation processes for the disposal of nuclear waste developed by Yull Brown involving a gas developed by him with a stoichiometric mixture of ionic hydrogen and ionic oxygen compressed up to 0.45 MPa. The radioactivity in samples decreases by up to 97%, rapidly, simply and at low cost.

– – –

[1] President, The Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc, 100 Bronson Avenue, #1001, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8, Canada. (613) 236-6265; fax: (613) 235-5876.

[2] Zeropoint Research, RR#1, Deep River, Ontario K0J 1P0, Canada. (613) 584-2960; fax: (613) 584-4616

For more information: https://pacenetwork.org/


— Alternative nuclear waste treatment and remediation — the way forward

[Note: New website https://pacenetwork.org/]

PDF — Letter and annexes

From Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.
Bronson Avenue, Suite 1001
OTTAWA, Ontario K1R 6G8, Canada
(613) 236-6265 / fax: (613) 235-5876
paceincnet[at]gmail.com / http://www.pacenet.homestead.com
An international collaborative network of advanced scientific thinking NGO in Special Consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC)

May 7, 2018

Greg Fergus, MP, PC
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

Hon. Greg Fergus,

First of all, I wish to thank you for organizing the March 5 Town Hall Meeting, Forum on Chalk River at UQO in your riding. Some of our associates were thus able to exchange with the qualified interveners and to affirm professional observations. This keynote event has led to meeting you with our colleagues on April 5th on the interdisciplinary theme of clean soil, water and responsible waste management, with an emphasis on alternative nuclear waste treatment and remediation. We note from the April 12 Government of Canada announcement of the launching of an Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance to enable clean growth an impetus and opportunity for innovative and remunerative rectification of a costly and hurting long-term state of affairs.

In our group meeting with you, we underlined a priori, based on 50 years of hands-on executive experience with landfills that, even in the cases of well-conceived and engineered designs, contaminants, quite toxic, end up deleteriously in soil and in water.

The very concept of landfill is illogical: it implies that all materials (in this case, aging barrels and containers, instruments, rods, construction debris, etc.) are lumped together, with no certainty nor predictability of what can happen between the contaminants. In this case, as well, one does not see a Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) methodology of considering everything that could possibly go wrong (used in software research). It applies to complex ‘processes’ such as nuclear waste whereby sufficient predictable and explicitly-identified information is available.

Our first suggestion is that nuclear waste be separated and segregated at source, and in sequence of decommissioning. This is also helpful for alternative on-site, real-time decontamination. One treats to radioactive depletion components such as rods as they are assessed and retrieved, at near range – without hazard to workers, with robotics ; one treats liquids, facility equipment items, structural remains, etc. specifically and with appropriate and the most efficacious technology and protocols than are pre-tested first for their ability to reduce as quickly as viable radioactivity levels.

Our second suggestion is to focus on methodologies that are not only much more affordable, with more immediate applicability in terms of timelines but also those than can lead to productivity and rapid returns on capitalization by offering options for stocks of not only commodities but also of rare earth elements.

The interest of PACE goes back to the demands of its co-founder, scientist Senator Chesley W. Carter who aspired that Canada avoid nuclear energy facilities that were imposed as a result of the energy crisis of the 1970s, by embarking instead on less expensive and less uncertain advanced clean energy production technologies that were then being considered, and since peer-reviewed internationally with the participation of our collaborative network, which includes Nobelists. (See the Annexes.)

Retrospectively, a comptroller exercise shows that had the National Research Council of Canada (under pressure from the U.S. Secretary of State) not contradicted the July 1976 initiative by the Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau, prime minister to embark on the clean energy path suggested by Senator Chesley W. Carter as spokesperson for our collaborative network, Canada would have probably remained with a deficit-less national budget, and free of need of GST taxation. This repudiation led to the massive federal subsidy of the nuclear energy programme in Ontario and the expensive maintenance of status quo with regards to oil & gas, several megaprojects in a response to the then energy crisis due to rise in oil prices.

We propose that an initiative been undertaken to develop a matrix, on the basis of a full testing in appropriate nuclear licensed facility in Canada to determine which currently described and, additionally other promising and peer-reviewed accelerated and radioactivity-depleting nuclear waste remediation systems and protocols are most adapted and optimised for their logistical decontamination with due regard to the environmental and hazards issues.

We do hope that this communication enables risk-free and enhanced-economic viability for Canada.

Dr. Andrew Michrowski, President
Joseph Kennedy, P.Eng. , Director

Full document with annexes

Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.

— Alert: H.R. 1 would gut environmental laws — Earthjustice

Provisions in the bill includie would waiving nuclear waste restrictions. Oppose H.R. 1


From Earthjustice

The House of Representatives is bringing H.R. 1, the Polluters over People Act, to the floor next week. Join this community sign on letter opposing this polluter giveaway that would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. economic and national security by prolonging reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act prioritize polluter profits over the public health and exhibits an astonishing disregard for government accountability and the voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal decisions.



Community Sign On: Oppose HR 1


The House of Representatives is bringing H.R. 1, the Polluters over People Act, to the floor. Join this community sign on letter opposing this polluter giveaway that would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. economic and national security by prolonging reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act prioritize polluter profits over the public health and exhibits an astonishing disregard for government accountability and the voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal decisions.

Organization Sign on Deadline: Monday, March 27, 12 PM Eastern. We will only display organization name, not individual staff names.

March 27, 2023

Re: Vote Recommendation on H.R. 1, the “Lower Energy Costs Act”

Dear Representative,

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned organizations write to express our strong opposition and to urge you to vote NO on H.R. 1, the so-called “Lower Energy Costs Act,” which the House will take up next week.

This legislation would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. economic and national security by prolonging reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act prioritize polluter profits over public health and exhibit an astonishing disregard for government accountability and the voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal decisions.

Division A

Division A would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, despite the scientific consensus that there is no room for investment in new fossil fuel production if we are to keep the world on a 1.5°C compatible pathway. It would also undermine bedrock environmental laws, including NEPA, by short-circuiting permitting processes and limiting public input. NEPA is a critical environmental law and an important tool for frontline and environmental justice communities to influence federal infrastructure projects that will impact them the most.

Division A’s most egregious provisions:

  • Repeal the Methane Emissions Reduction Program created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This critical program supports efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, improve methane monitoring, fund environmental restoration, and help communities reduce the health impacts of pollution.
  • Undercut public transparency and input from communities by arbitrarily limiting the time for environmental reviews. The bill alters the approval process for gas pipelines by requiring all other federal and state agencies to defer to FERC.
  • Strip away the federal government’s responsibility to examine the full impacts of LNG expansion on US energy markets, the environment, and local communities. It would make it easier to approve LNG exports by removing the first three sections of the Natural Gas Act, which require a public interest determination for LNG exports to non-FTA countries and by mandating that FERC deem gas exports in the public interest. LNG exports negatively impact Americans by exacerbating climate change, raising domestic energy prices, and perpetuating environmental injustices, and these factors need to be taken into account when deciding whether to approve additional LNG export terminals.
  • Authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) requirements for waste produced by certain energy facilities. Exempting energy waste potentially including everything from fracking wastewater to mine processing facilities and tailing sites to nuclear facilities from these laws threatens the health of people in frontline communities, as well as our air and water. The waste from energy production are some of the most threatening products and sites, and often they exist for hundreds of years, even in perpetuity, which is part of the reason why the Superfund program is overwhelmed.
  • Undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short circuiting the review and approval process for new chemicals used in the energy sector, whether that is for fracking, petrochemicals, mining or dozens of other products. This rushed and weak assessment, which would lead to default approvals, would result in the blind rubber-stamping of chemicals for use in energy that have deleterious impacts on human health and the environment. Virtually any chemical that plays a role in the production, refining, distribution, and use of energy could be designated as “critical” by the Department of Energy.
  • Allow the EPA Administrator to circumvent the scientific process of approving or denying flexible air permitting at the agency. Doing so could potentially allow the EPA Administrator to increase air pollution from so-called “critical energy resource facilities,” subsequently harming environmental and public health. A broad spectrum of facilities that emit toxic air pollution could evade scrutiny for health impacts, including processing and refining products of oil, gas, coal, minerals, and fertilizers.
  • Modify the organization of the Department of Energy, taking the authority on many issues and processes that are vital for the protection of communities, air, lands, and water away from those who have the expertise in understanding the potential impacts of extraction and production, whether that is the Department of Interior (DOI) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In doing so it makes the only metric for consideration economic, which would mean that communities, lands, and waters would be sacrificed.

This Division also contains a provision purporting to support domestic supplies of  “critical minerals,” but in reality creates a new legislated term–“critical energy resources–which the majority has defined to mean virtually anything related to the energy sector, whether that is oil and gas, coal, petrochemicals or nuclear production, mineral processing, and refining. 

Other notably problematic provisions in the remainder of Division A would:

  • Prohibit the President from issuing a moratorium on fracking unless authorized by Congress. Fracking releases massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, driving approximately one quarter of the warming our planet has experienced to date. Fracking also harms local communities and ecosystems by releasing air pollutants and contaminating water sources
  • Exempt certain energy facilities from requirements to secure an interim permit before operating, instead allowing the facilities to operate before securing such a permit. The result could be the release of harmful pollutants into our air and water, threatening the environment and health of people in frontline communities. The facilities that could receive a permit without an accurate assessment of their impact include everything from radioactive waste to petrochemicals to fertilizer to mining waste, all extremely toxic industries.
  • Express disapproval of President Biden revoking the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL pipeline. If built, Keystone XL would have carried 830,000 barrels per day of the dirtiest oil on the planet, threatening our climate, farmland, critical water resources, and wildlife habitat along the pipeline’s path.

Express the sense of Congress that the federal government should not restrict the export of crude oil or other petroleum products. Increased oil drilling and exports have enormous climate repercussions and pollute communities and ecosystems. They also open U.S. consumers to the whipsaw effects of geopolitical tensions and conflicts, creating energy instability and often driving significant increases in energy pricesThe federal government must ensure that these exports do not compromise US climate and environmental justice goals or undermine our global climate leadership.

Division B

Title I would take us in the wrong direction on onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing. It would lock in decades’ worth of fossil fuel infrastructure, preclude protections for millions more acres of public lands, split estates, and offshore waters, and handcuff the Biden Administration’s ability to address the climate crisis through thoughtful management of our shared public resources. Like many recent proposals from the present House majority, it attempts to further prop up the federal fossil fuel program despite rising (and record) production, and industry’s existing access to tens of millions of acres of our shared public spaces and thousands of approved and unused permits to drill on federal lands and in offshore waters.

To start, Title I:

  • Mandates leasing onshore and offshore, eviscerating long-standing precedent that defers leasing decisions to the President and the Secretary of the Interior
  • Rushes oil and gas drilling permits through the environmental review process with zero regard for community input, effects on endangered species, or emissions consequences
  • Exempts as many permitting decisions from the federal review process as possible
  • Severely restricts the President’s authority to protect specific lands with natural, cultural, or scientific significance
  • Repeals the hard-fought common-sense reforms to the outdated oil and gas leasing program that were enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that industry pays a fairer share when reaping—and profiting from —shared, public resources

Title II, which incorporates the BUILDER Act, would eviscerate NEPA and fundamentally gut the review of environmental, health, and economic impacts of decisions by over 80 agencies in the federal government. If passed, local community voices would be silenced, the public would be essentially unable to hold the federal government accountable, and polluting industries would be allowed to steer a review process designed to be in the public, not private, interest.

The ways this bill would radically undermine informed government decision-making and accountability are too numerous to detail here, but a few merit particular attention:

  • Dramatically Narrows Application of NEPA and Limits the Scope of Reviews – The bill would radically limit the application of NEPA by redefining the threshold consideration of what is a “major federal action” for the purposes of NEPA. Further, the bill excludes oil and gas gathering lines, federal loans, projects not occurring on federal lands, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance from NEPA, which could potentially allow projects such as offshore oil and gas development, coal fired generating facilities, LNG projects, nuclear facilities, roads, bridges, highways, and concentrated animal feeding operations to evade any review or public scrutiny. For reviews that do occur, it relieves agencies of any responsibility to undertake any new research necessary for informed decision making and potentially prevents the consideration of upstream and downstream impacts of decisions, thus codifying climate denial into federal decisions.
  • Essentially Eliminates Judicial Review – In addition to reducing the statute of limitations to a mere 120 days, the bill would bar legal challenges to categorical exclusions as well as many environmental assessments. For the few remaining projects subject to judicial review, injunctive relief would be prohibited, thus ensuring that projects move forward regardless of how egregiously deficient a review or harmful the impacts of a project on a community or the environment.
  • Allows Inherent Conflicts of Interests In Review – The bill would allow project sponsors to prepare their own environmental reviews, thus eliminating objective analyses about the environmental and related social and economic effects of federal actions and institutionalizing bias in the review process. This potentially undermines the entire purpose of NEPA to have federal agencies make informed, unbiased decisions in the public interest.
  • Prioritizes Project Sponsors Over the Public Interest – The legislation not only would impose arbitrary timelines on reviews but would also prohibit an agency from extending the time if needed to do essential scientific work or to accommodate public comment, unless the project sponsor agrees. Further, the bill would severely narrow what has long been considered the “heart” of the NEPA process, by prioritizing consideration of alternatives that meet the project sponsor goals.

Finally, Title III would exacerbate deficiencies in the existing 151-year-old mining law, result in an unnecessary increase in mining on federal public lands, and put at risk irreplaceable protected lands, special places, endangered and sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites, and culturally significant sites.

Current mining law has allowed for the pollution of America’s environment and waterways, placing additional unjust burdens on communities who have already borne the brunt of our nation’s toxic mining legacy. The GAO estimates America is littered with hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates hardrock mines have polluted 40% of the headwaters of western U.S. watersheds and will cost taxpayers more than $50 billion to clean up. Under current law, taxpayers are potentially liable for billions more in cleanup costs at currently operating mines because the legal requirements for mining companies to remediate lands and waters remain inadequate. This legislation does nothing to address the legacy of abandoned mines or promote remediation of American lands and waters.

Of particular concern, this title upends more than a century of practice by validating mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral discovery. Currently, mining claims do not become valid just because the claimant says so: mining rights fully vest only after the miner discovers valuable minerals. Yet, under Section 20307, a claimant would no longer need to actually prove they discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person could “claim” mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands merely by grounding a stake, paying a fee, and filing some paperwork. This section would effectively lock out most other uses of public lands, prioritizing mining instead regardless of whether those lands had any value for mineral development.

Title III also continues the current majority’s constant attempts to unnecessarily prop up the domestic uranium industry. Under Section 20308, the U.S. Geological Survey is once again directed to reevaluate its list of critical minerals. However, under this bill, “fuel minerals” are now defined to specifically exclude uranium, making it an automatic candidate for consideration despite its dominant use as a fuel mineral.

Division C

Division C (as well as section 10008(e) of Division A) would weaken state and tribal authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, one of the law’s most important provisions empowering states. Native, rural, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have been fighting to stem the marginalization accompanying resource extraction for decades and Section 401 enables those communities to work through states and tribes to protect their waters.

States and authorized tribes depend on the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process to ensure that projects requiring federal licenses and permits will not harm the waters within their borders—projects like dams, river alterations, wetland fills, and interstate pipelines. If this bill is enacted, state and tribal experts would lose a key oversight tool for activities that can threaten state and tribal investments in pollution control programs, fish recovery programs, temperature control mechanisms, minimum-flow requirements, and other essential activities. 

The bill seeks to limit states’ longstanding authority under Section 401 to broadly consider the impact of a project or activity on water quality. It would significantly curb Section 401’s express authority enabling states to make certification decisions based on requirements of state law, which would severely hamstring states’ and tribes’ ability to comply with laws they have adopted to maintain and improve the condition of their water bodies. As tribes often do not receive the required government-to-government consultation, they depend on Section 401 certification to ensure their waters remain protected. Rollbacks in this proposed legislation would severely restrict the usage of this tool, leaving tribes without one of the few tools they have to ensure their waters are healthy enough to support tribal rights and traditions.


H.R. 1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, locking us into increased extraction, high and volatile energy prices, and even greater profits for fossil fuel companies. It would undermine bedrock environmental laws through its short circuiting of government accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would put the interests of industry ahead of the public. We urge all Members to vote NO on H.R. 1, and to instead prioritize efforts to meet the challenge of the climate crisis, secure our clean energy future, and protect public health, community voices, public lands, waters, and oceans.


— Ward Valley: Remembering a People Power Victory in California

From NoNukesCalifornia/ Ecological Options Network

This week people from around the state and the entire country will gather in Ward Valley, California to remember and celebrate the 25th anniversary of an historic people’s victory – the shutdown of a proposed nuclear waste dump project that would have endangered the water supply of Arizona, Southern California and Northern Mexico.

It was a victory of over a decade of persistent non-violent resistance by a coalition of Native American tribes and numerous other activist organizations who joined forces in an inspiring example of the impact united people power can have. That power was again shown in the successful campaign leading to the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in 2013.

In his book Doing Democracy – The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements, the late social movement theorist Bill Moyer [not the TV guy] stressed the importance for activists to remember and celebrate their victories.

In honor of the Ward Valley Win celebration we are issuing an updated version of our 1992 film Choicepoint: California’s Water and Radioactive Waste.

In 1989, a small group of Californians –including Phil Klasky, Ward Young, Rachel Johnson, Pam Dake and EON Co-Director Mary Beth Brangan – joined the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and a few residents of Needles, California to help begin a movement to stop a planned nuclear waste dump at Ward Valley in the Mojave Desert near the Colorado River.  Diane D’Arrigo of NIRS gave expert organizing assistance and Dan Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap and Roger Herried of Abalone Alliance provided technical and procedural help.

Considered by many a hopeless cause at the beginning, over time the movement grew to include scientists, environmentalists and the region’s many Native American tribes. After a ten-year battle, an peaceful occupation at the proposed site and the powerful involvement of Native American tribal organizers, a judge’s ruling in 1999 brought an end to the planned dump.

This film – produced in thirty years ago and re-mastered from an archival copy – tells the story of that successful movement’s beginning.  It portrays many of the now-fallen peaceful warriors who played important roles in the successful campaign and whose memories will be honored at the Ward Valley gathering.

The film’s analysis of radioactive waste issues is as relevant today as when it was first released.

Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle Co-Direct EON, the Ecological Options Network.. The EON feature documentary S.O.S. – The San Onofre Syndrome will be released this Spring.


— Reminder: January 10, Remote access public hearing on San Onofre decommissioning, A.22-02-016

This Public Participation Hearing will be remote access only and is for taking public comment by phone only.

Call in early to get in line. Phone comments will be taken in order

From the California Public Utilities Commission

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will hold a remote public forum to provide an opportunity to offer comment about Southern California Edison’s (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric’s (SDG&E) requests related to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), as follows:

WHEN: January 10, 2023, 5 p.m PT

WHERE: Remote access via webcast or phone:

  • Listen and comment English Phone: 800-857-1917, passcode: 1767567#
    • Participants will have audio in English and will be able to make comments. (To make a comment, after entering the passcode, when prompted press *1, unmute your phone (*6), and record your name.)
    • Wait times depend on the number of speakers in the public comment queue. During times of high call volumes, wait times will be longer. The operator will call on you when it is your turn to speak.
  • View only — Live video broadcast with English or Spanish captions via webcast: www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc
    • Participants who choose to participate via webcast will only have audio and video capabilities but will not be able to make verbal comments. If you would like to make a comment during the meeting, the phone-in information is below.
    • For captions, after clicking on the name of the workshop, click the green button at the bottom of the video for captions. Then select captions by clicking on the white icon next to the word “live” at the bottom of the video.
    • The forums will also be recorded and archived for future viewing.

You can also make your voice heard in this proceeding, and read the comments of others, on our online Docket Card comment section for the proceeding at apps.cpuc.ca.gov/c/A2202016.

The public forum (also formally known as a Public Participation Hearing) will not have in-person attendance. Members of the public can view the public forum via the Internet or listen. Those who would like to make public comment must participate by telephone and make comment through the toll-free phone line.

WHAT: The public forum will begin with a brief overview by SCE and SDG&E explaining its updated nuclear decommissioning cost activities for the Palo Verde and SONGS nuclear power plants. Public comments will be taken live by phone. At least one representative from SCE and SDG&E will be present throughout the forum to answer questions.

BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2022, SCE and SDG&E submitted an application for their Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial review to the CPUC requesting approval for cost recovery related to Palo Verde and SONGS nuclear power plants that were completed during January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, and for undistributed decommissioning expenditures incurred during the same period. SDG&E owns a minority share of SONGS.

The CPUC welcomes attendance and comments on SCE and SDG&E’s request at the public forum, as public comments help the CPUC reach an informed decision. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to the proceeding is scheduled to issue a Proposed Decision in the case for consideration by the Commission within a year.

While a quorum of Commissioners and/or their staff may attend the remote public forum, no official action will be taken on this matter.

If special accommodations are needed to attend, such as non-English or sign language interpreters, please contact the CPUC’s Public Advisor’s Office at public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov or toll-free at 866-849-8390 at least three business days in advance of the public forum.

Further information on public forum is available at www.cpuc.ca.gov/pph.

Documents related to this proceeding are available at apps.cpuc.ca.gov/p/A2202016.

— The nuclear fuel chain

From Mothers for Peace

The nuclear fuel chain encompasses the various activities associated with the production of electricity from nuclear reactors. All steps in the chain generate radioactive waste.

#1 Mining and Milling

Uranium mining scars the landscape and devastates the environment. It is commonly done on indigenous and tribal peoples’ lands, destroying their communities.

The byproduct of uranium mining is dangerous dirt called “tailings”, a sandy waste containing heavy metals and radium, which is radioactive. Often the tailings are simply dumped on the land near the mine and left to  the elements. A tailings pile may be a large trench or a former mine pit. Wind carries radon gas and radioactive dust from these tailings for many miles. Contaminated rainwater enters the soil, the watershed, and eventually the food chain, endangering health.

The uranium ore is delivered to the mill where it is crushed into smaller particles before being extracted with strong acids or bases. The uranium ore is concentrated into a solid substance called “yellowcake.”

#2 Enrichment

 A nuclear reactor requires a higher concentration of the U235 isotope than that which exists in natural uranium ore. So the yellowcake must be “enriched” at large industrial chemical conversion plants. The uranium in yellowcake is converted to uranium hexafluoride (UF6 ), a compound that can be made into nuclear fuel. This conversion process is carbon intensive. It involves large amounts of water and electricity as well as a number of volatile chemicals, creating risks associated with inhalation if a release occurred. In addition, the conversion process uses hydrogen gas which is flammable and could create an explosion hazard. 

#3 Fabrication of Fuel 

Fuel fabrication is the last step in the process of turning uranium into nuclear fuel rods. The enriched uranium is converted into fuel “pellets” and placed into thin metal rods. Each rod joins hundreds of others in a bundle called a fuel “assembly” to be loaded into the reactor core of the nuclear power plant.  

#4 Storage of Used or “Spent” Nuclear Fuel:  High Level Radioactive Waste

Nuclear fuel is typically used in the reactor for 3-6 years and then must be removed. The rods are highly radioactive and must be stored under water for cooling and radiation shielding. After years in the over-crowded pools, the spent fuel assemblies are moved into dry storage casks which will deteriorate over time.

There is no permanent solution for its disposal or storage which makes this issue particularly dangerous. Short-term solutions do not address the grave health and environmental effects of nuclear waste that last for a million years.







– Crimes against humanity – ‘After 900 nuclear tests on our land, US wants to ethnically cleanse us’ – interview with Shoshone Nation

Although the nuclear testing went underground in 1962, even that wasn’t safe.

As Zabarte explained, “Even though it went underground, venting took place and we don’t know where that fallout went.”

That’s borne out by the Mighty Oak incident, a botched test that destroyed $32-million-worth of equipment in April 1986. It was weeks before Chernobyl and experts claim the US government vented the radiation under the cover that everyone would assume it was from the Soviet catastrophe.

From RT
January 8, 2022

VIDEO interview at link

Native-American nation’s land was turned into a nuclear test site. Now, they suffer from illnesses

‘The most nuclear bombed nation on the planet’ is the unwanted accolade claimed by the Shoshone Native American tribe. This has had devastating effects for the community, and RT spoke with one campaigner fighting for justice.

“They are occupying our country, they are stealing our opportunities and we are expected to die because of that. We are still trying to grapple with and understand what happened to us, and find ways to stop it, correct it and prevent it happening in the future.”

Ian Zabarte’s voice is angry but does not falter as he describes the stark fate of his people, Native Americans who for decades have been – by any measure – subjected to the most unimaginable horrors, all perpetrated by their government in Washington. 

Zabarte, 57, is the Principal Man of the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation and he is spearheading a campaign to expose what he describes as the “ethnic cleansing” of his tribe.

Shoshone land stretches from Death Valley in the Mojave Desert in eastern California to Yellowstone Park in Wyoming. But in 1951 the US started nuclear weapons testing on Western Shoshone territory, at the Nevada Proving Grounds (now known as the Nevada National Security Site). The Shoshone can now lay claim to be the most nuclear-bombed nation on the planet.

Over a period of just over 40 years, there were 928 tests conducted there – around 100 in the atmosphere and more than 800 underground – resulting in nuclear fallout of around 620 kilotons, according to a 2009 study. In comparison, there were 13 kilotons of fallout when Hiroshima was bombed in 1945.

This is obviously a massive health risk and Zabarte, who lives in Las Vegas but runs a healing center at Death Valley, is understandably angry. Although he’s engaging and friendly, a sense of rage regularly creeps into his voice as he becomes more animated about the injustices his people have endured. But he never lapses into self-pity; there’s always a steely aura of defiance.

The Shoshone signed the Treaty of Ruby Valley in 1863, which handed certain rights to the United States. But they did not give up their land. “We wouldn’t have signed a treaty that would end in our ultimate destruction,” Zabarte told RT.

According to the tribe, Washington’s testing programme has killed thousands of people, with many since developing a range of cancers and illnesses.

Zabarte’s grandfather’s skin fell off due to an autoimmune deficiency, and he died soon after from a heart attack. Other family members have had pacemakers fitted at very young ages, while his cousin’s twins died aged 11.

“My family have a high incidence of thyroid cancer, but we’re not following those individuals – we don’t have the capacity,” he explained.

“The United States doesn’t want to study our own adverse health consequences. [It] would be no different to Nazi Germany studying the health consequences of their testing on Jewish people. That is so far from right. We have to do it ourselves and we need help.”

The Shoshone have no medical equipment or computer databases to track their people. So deaths from suspicious conditions are generally not recorded. In addition, the Shoshone are, by tradition, proud people, so not all of them speak out about their health issues.

Although the nuclear testing went underground in 1962, even that wasn’t safe.

As Zabarte explained, “Even though it went underground, venting took place and we don’t know where that fallout went.”

That’s borne out by the Mighty Oak incident, a botched test that destroyed $32-million-worth of equipment in April 1986. It was weeks before Chernobyl and experts claim the US government vented the radiation under the cover that everyone would assume it was from the Soviet catastrophe.

“The Department of Energy doesn’t consider that an accident because they manually released the gas inside the underground chamber where the weapon detonated. It went around the world and beat the Chernobyl radiation back to the United States,” Zabarte claimed.

Of course, the US is not the only country to have conducted nuclear testing. The United Kingdom also used Western Shoshone land, in 24 tests that were joint operations with the US.France completed 210 nuclear tests in Algeria and the South Pacific from 1960 to 1996. And the Soviet Union used the Semipalatinsk site in Kazakhstan until 1989 to perform its testing.

But, even to this day, lots of secret activities continue on Shoshone land, as proven by JANET flights regularly flying from Las Vegas to the classified Area 51. (The call sign stands for Just Another Non-Existent Terminal).

There’s also the contentious issue of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, first planned in 1987 and later approved by the Obama administration, which the Shoshone have stalled. It’s intended to store high-level radioactive waste.

Zabarte has a US Department of Energy study for the project which he says refers to “cultural triage” defined as “a forced choice situation in which an ethnic group is faced with the decision to rank in importance equally valued cultural resources that could be affected by a proposed development project.”

It goes on to state that this triage could be “emotionally taxing for the Indian person.” The United Nations backed these claims in a 2006 report, and Zabarte believes they perfectly encapsulate the problems faced by his people.

“We have a deliberate act by the United States government to dismantle the living life ways of my people, my family, in relation to our property, our sacred land.

“The United States has developed a systematic process to ethnically cleanse us from that land, so that they take all the profits and give them to other Americans,” he said. “In order to prove genocide we need to consider, what is the intent? It is the culture of secrecy, that is the intent.”

A prime example of how the Shoshone’s life has been eradicated came in 1971 with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses Act. As Zabarte explained: “Politicians in Washington DC defined our Indian horses as wild and started coming after our ranchers, who have a guaranteed right as hunters or herdsmen under the treaty to have livestock.

“The United States Bureau of Land Management determined our horses, our cows, our livestock were destroying the land. But the land was destroyed by nuclear weapons testing fallout and the United States government blamed the Shoshone people.”

There is no economy or sustainable lifestyle, and the nearest town is 80 miles away. “I have nothing on my reservation to go back to,” said Zabarte, who can trace his direct descendants to the Kawich region, which houses Area 51. “They stole my horses, they stole my livelihood. There are no jobs, there are no opportunities; the United States has stolen our economy, our hunting, our fishing… and made us trespassers in our own country.”

But the reservation only makes up a tiny part of the entire Shoshone land. The rest is used by the American government and population, sometimes unwittingly. People are buying houses and living on land that the Shoshone feel they should control – but all tax from economic activity goes to the US. The Shoshone have no claim over it.

“The United States cannot prove ownership to it but they come into our country and they provide tax money to the state of Nevada, and the state of Nevada takes that money and provides it to every other non-Shoshone unit of local government, and we get nothing. That is taxation without representation,” Zabarte said.

Despite the obvious sense of injustice, he feels an obligation to warn Americans who live in or go through the Shoshone nation of the danger it presents.

“My grandfather always said, ‘don’t kick up dust’ because of the radioactive fallout. I care for these people because of that treaty of peace and friendship, and have an obligation to provide aid and comfort to other Americans passing through. But I watch them kick up dust in their off-road vehicles and they are quite likely exposing themselves. There is plutonium in a lot of the roofs of their houses, too.”

The key for Zabarte is awareness. The more people know the history of the land and understand the issue, there greater the chance of meaningful action. That could involve providing medical surveillance and advising the next generation how to protect themselves.

Zabarte is also keen to build momentum so the Shoshone, including his own son, can have access to all of their land and create a functioning economy that fits with their traditions.

“We need to continue to make our people aware the next generation don’t have a safe place to live; we have these tiny reservations and they are colonies created by the United States. They exist only to the extent that the United States provides the funding. We don’t have ways to survive on our own land.”

He is a man on a mission and has sacrificed his life to shoulder this burden. “I have dignity and my family has dignity and that’s what I’m fighting for. These a**holes aren’t going to get away with it.”

Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Record, along with several international-selling magazines. Follow him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney


— Japan plans undersea tunnel to dump nuclear waste

seeing the wastewater flushed away by Ocean currents” —
and it magically disappears….

From ZeroHedge

August 27, 2021
Tyler Durden

In a world where the UN is pressuring the west (but oddly not China) to drastically lower emissions to save the world from global warming, where ESG investing is the hottest new trend in the investment universe, it’s remarkable that the government of Japan would do something so retrograde as to dump treated wastewater from the ruined Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant off shore.

TEPCO has finally settled on a plan to get rid of the nuclear wastewater that has been building up in the ruined reactors of the nuclear power plant at Fukushima Daiichi. The utility will construct an underwater pipeline 1 kilometer long to dump the water directly from the ruins of reactor No. 1 into the Pacific Ocean, where experts believe currents will quickly dilute it and carry it away.

The undersea tunnel will be constructed by hollowing out bedrock on the seabed near the No. 5 reactor at the Fukushima plant, and will stretch 1km east to the sea, according to the Japan Times.

According to Nikkei, TEPCO is planning to officially announce the decision Wednesday. The final plan will then be presented to Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority next month for review. The fishing industry in the area is understandably opposed to the measure, but few analysts expect their resistance to scuttle the plan, given the lack of alternatives for disposing of the radioactive wastewater.

Since the Japanese government first approved the plan in April, TEPCO has explored whether it should release the water along the shore, or further out at sea.

The plan to dump it further from shore eventually won out, as experts decided that this strategy had a better chance of seeing the wastewater flushed away by Ocean currents (apparently, the flow of the currents can greatly complicate the dumping).

Innkeepers and other business operators in Fukushima were also in favor of discharging the wastewater far enough away to prevent reputational damage (or any potential blowback). Before releasing the wastewater, TEPCO plans to remove as much radioactive material as it can, then dilute what remains with at least 100 parts of seawater.

Before dumping the water, TEPCO says it will remove as much radioactive material as it can, then dilute whatever is left with 100 parts of seawater.

To be sure, Japan’s fishermen aren’t the only party opposed to the plan. Back in April, China slammed Japan’s plans to dump the wastewater in the Pacific, even going so far as to threaten retaliation.

Pumping the water out of (at least one) the [reactors] is an important step toward cleaning up Fukushima Daiichi, but the effort remains a long way from finished. Last year, TEPCO outlined a 44-year plan to decommission reactor No. 2.

It all but guarantees that Japan will be dealing with the cleanup of the disaster at Fukushima for some time. It might not even be finished by the time Japan hosts its next Olympics.


Posted under Fair Use Rules.

– Buffet and Gates plan Wyoming nuclear reactor with claims of ‘clean’; Gov. Gordon ignores waste and emissions

The candidate reactor sites are the Wyodak plant near Gillette in coal-rich northeastern Wyoming, the Naughton plant near Kemmerer in southwestern Wyoming, the Jim Bridger plant outside Rock Springs in southwestern Wyoming and the Dave Johnston plant near Glenrock in uranium-rich east-central Wyoming.

…Wyoming is the top uranium-mining state, and the reactor would use uranium from “in situ” mines that extract the heavy metal from networks of water wells on the high plains, officials said.

…Proposals to store nuclear waste in Wyoming have failed to pass the state Legislature in recent decades. While some waste would need to be stored on site, the plant isn’t going to be a way to “solve the nation’s waste problems,” Gordon said.

From the Associated Press,

From RT
6 June, 2021

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have chosen a top U.S. coal-producing state as the location for a new kind of nuclear reactor, using Natrium as its power source.

The natrium power plant, with an anticipated cost of $1 billion, will repurpose a coal plant for its operations in Wyoming, with the exact location to be announced by the end of 2021. The partners hope this will help the U.S. on its way to a carbon-zero future. 

The development consists of a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system’s power output to 500MW during peak power demand. This would provide enough energy to power as many as 400,000 homes.

he project will be overseen by TerraPower and Pacificorp, founded by Gates and Buffett respectively. TerraPower has been key in exploring the potential of Natrium power as the US energy department awarded the company $80 million in funding last year to demonstrate the potential power of this chemical.

We think Natrium will be a game-changer for the energy industry,” Gates stated of the project.  

President and CEO of TerraPower, Chris Levesque, adds “We need this kind of clean energy on the grid in the 2030s.”

Some experts are critiquing the plans, warning that advanced reactors may present a higher risk than their conventional counterparts. Reactor fuel needs to be enriched at a higher rate than conventional fuel, making the supply chain a potential target for groups trying to build a crude nuclear weapon.

However, advanced nuclear reactors have simpler designs than typical reactors, making them easier to build, more fuel-efficient, cheaper, and safer. 

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon believes “This is our fastest and clearest course to becoming carbon negative,” stating, “Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy.”

The project is expected to provide on-demand, no-carbon energy, as well as providing hundreds of short and long-term jobs in construction and plant operations. This will give a much-needed boost to Wyoming’s job sector following two decades of coal plant closures. 

While two out of every three nuclear power reactors globally are scheduled for retirement in the near future, the U.S. is still investing heavily in nuclear power. For example, the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia is expected to commence commercial operation in November 2021, at an estimated cost of $28 billion. It seems that despite a movement away from nuclear power in recent years we cannot overlook its potential as a global energy leader. 

Following a decade of decline after major disasters such as Fukushima in 2011, which obliterated Japan’s nuclear power program, two countries, Belarus and the United Arab Emirates have recently commissioned new nuclear power plants. In addition, Japan is aiming to reintroduce nuclear capacities, with at least 5 safety-upgraded reactors expected to be recommissioned by 2025. 

The Middle East and South Asia are expected to boost their nuclear power production by the end of the decade, with Turkey, Egypt, Bangladesh, China, and India all investing in nuclear reactors. This has sent uranium stocks up since late 2020, with two leading US-listed uranium miners, Uranium Energy Corp. and Cameco Corporation, both experiencing a steady climb.

Despite the recent decline in nuclear power, plans to invest in the recommissioning of existing reactors and develop new ones suggest that nuclear energy is not yet dead. Further, if Gates and Buffett are successful in developing their Natrium advanced reactor is could lead the way for future projects.