Ace Hoffman's Nuclear Failures Reports

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Check out YouTube - IS IODINE-131 KILLING BABIES IN PHILADELPHIA?

Father's day, 2011

Dear Readers,

All around the world, a lot of people who thought they were going to be new fathers by today have instead found out they're not -- not this time around, anyway.

Infant deaths are up alarmingly in a number of cities in AMERICA (and up slightly across the whole U.S.A.) since Fukushima. And we're thousands of miles away, we should be safe, right?

But unfortunately, quite probably, the cause IS Fukushima.

Wherever it rained radioactive crud heavily, pregnant woman breathed polluted air, drank polluted water, ate polluted food, and lost their (polluted) babies. This has occurred in "statistically significant" numbers.

The cause, of course, is especially difficult to prove because the government of Japan has refused to tell the truth about what has been released from the reactors, and because the government of the United States has restricted testing to a a few locations in a few cities.

What a day to be reporting something like this, eh? I feel sick. I despise nuclear power, and this is why! For our own babies to have to be the "canaries in the coal mines" for nuclear power ... how sick is that? We MUST stop this thing! Oh yeah, and coal must go, too. NIRS' campaign: No Nukes, No Coal, No Kidding is a good one. And for those on the West Coast: August 7th, 2011, Shoreline Amphitheater, Mountain View, California, a HUGE No Nukes concert!! Get info from NIRS' web site: www.nirs.org .

We MUST and we WILL shut San Onofre and all the other nukes!

If you have not had a chance to view the recent Fox29 news report on Joe Mangano's research, a link appears below and I don't suggest waiting, since the report was removed from the Fox29 web site already due to "complaints" (from who?) and for all we know, it might be taken down from YT at any moment.

This newsletter is being sent "formatted" instead of my usual "plain text" so that Joe's tables (hopefully) come through.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMV4p6RS1c8
or
http://ow.ly/5lqSS

At 09:11 PM 6/19/2011 -0400, Odiejoe@aol.com wrote:

Dear Friends:
A few days ago, I sent many of you a link to the Fox-Philadelphia story on the rising infant deaths in Philadelphia (up 48% since late March) since the fallout from Japan arrived (Philadelphia had the highest levels in drinking water in the U.S.).

Sorry to say that the link didn't work, as the station took it down due to complaints. But now it's working, so just click on below.

If you want to know more, I've also pasted on a press release and report now getting some coverage, about rising infant deaths in the Pacific Northwest (up 35% since late March), where the highest levels of radiation in precipitation were found.

Of course, there is much more study to be done, but this is the first indication that the Fukushima fallout that entered the air and diet - and human bodies - may have harmed Americans.

With kind regards,

Joe Mangano

Click here: YouTube - IS IODINE-131 KILLING BABIES IN PHILADELPHIA? - INFANT DEATHS UP 48% SINCE REACTOR 3 EXPLOSION

It has been put on You Tube...thankfully.
__,_._,___

INFANT DEATHS SOAR 35% IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ---

AREA HIT HARDEST BY JAPANESE NUCLEAR FALLOUT

Embargoed until 12 p.m. EST, June 9, 2011                                      Contact Joseph Mangano 609-399-4343

June 7, 2011 – Infant deatths rose 35% in the Pacific Northwest since mid-March, when fallout from the meltdowns at Japanese nuclear reactors reached the U.S., according to data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and featured in a new report by health researchers.

Soaring infant deaths occurred in the region where the highest levels of environmental radiation were found in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) samples, raising the possibility that there is a link between Japanese radiation and risk of infant death.

â€œThe fetus and infant are highly susceptible to harm from radiation,â€ says Joseph Mangano MPH MBA. â€œThe Fukushima meltdowns are still releasing radiation, so trends should be monitored further,â€ he adds. Mangano is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a New York-based health research group. He is the author of the new report on Fukushima fallout in the U.S. and infant death trends.

The airborne radioactive plume from Japan reached the West Coast on March 17, six days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns in four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant. EPA data shows that most of the highest levels in the continental U.S. of radioactive Iodine-131 (I-131) in precipitation in late March were found in Idaho, northern California, Washington, and Oregon.

The two highest precipitation levels found by EPA were in Boise ID (390 and 242 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water, hundreds of times greater than the typical level of about 2). Along with Boise, samples from Richmond CA (near San Francisco), Portland OR, and Olympia WA made up 6 of the 10 highest measurements in the U.S. I-131 is one of over 100 radioactive chemicals found only in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs.

Infant deaths reported to the CDC in eight northwestern cities averaged 9.25 per week for the four weeks ending March 19. The average jumped to 12.50, a 35.1% increase, in the following 10 weeks. Cities include Boise ID, Portland OR, and Seattle WA, plus the northern California cities of Pasadena, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Cruz. Total U.S. infant deaths increased 2.3% during this time.

Infant deaths are published in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. They are preliminary (final figures are available in 2014), but are often similar to final data. The CDC data can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html; EPA data is at http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet_sampling_data.html#precip .

RPHP health researchers ( www.radiation.org) have published 27 medical journal articles and 7 books on health hazards of radiation exposure. Their work has been covered by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, and Fox News.

ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION IN THE UNITED STATES

FROM THE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS AT FUKUSHIMA JAPAN

AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON INFANT MORTALITY RATES

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA, Radiation and Public Health Project, June 7, 2011

Purpose. This report will present and analyze data on radioactivity levels in the U.S. from the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, and any changes in health status since this radioactivity entered the U.S. environment and diet.

Background. On March 11, 2011, a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused the Fukushima nuclear plant, with six reactors, to lose cooling water (from loss of electricity). Three reactor cores and two waste pools suffered meltdowns. Explosions caused breaches in containment buildings, and high levels of radioactivity entered the environment. The radioactive plume moved east, reaching the West Coast on March 17.

Japanese radioactivity in the U.S. is being ingested by Americans through breathing and the food chain. This phenomenon has occurred previously, such as above-ground nuclear weapons tests and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown.

This report examines changes in environmental radiation levels in the U.S., along with changes in health status, since the arrival of the plume in March.

EPA System of Measuring Environmental Radiation. The federal government has monitored levels of environmental radioactivity since 1957, during the time of above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Originally managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, this task has been assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1975.

The EPA makes periodic measurements of radioactivity concentrations in air, precipitation, water, and milk. It operates a system known as RADNET, which includes 124 stations in the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Saipan, and Guam.

Historical data beginning in 1978 are available on the EPA web site, and earlier data are also available in hard copy format. After Fukushima, the EPA increased the frequency of their measurements, and on April 5, made 2011 data available in interactive format. However, on May 3 the Agency reverted to its normal schedule of quarterly measurements, claiming recent samples could detect no radioactivity.

For March and April 2011, the EPA has made available online hundreds of radioactivity measurements (Table 1). All individual readings can be accessed by visiting www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip .

Table 1

March-April 2011 EPA Measurements of Radioactivity

Indicator                        Precipitation     Milk   Drinking Water   Air (Filter)   Air (Cartridge)

Number of Sites                         32        36                    72                  21                      12

Number of Samples                  157        67                  153                  79                    150

Samples with                              77          9                    34                  72                    105

Detectable Iodine-131

The EPA made measurements of 10 radioactive chemicals only produced in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations. The vast majority of measurements did not detect radiation, and were marked â€œNDâ€ (not detectable). The one exception to this general inability to detect radiation was Iodine-131 (I-131). This chemical has a short half-life (8 days), which means it originated from a current source – most likeely a nuclear reactor. It is not clear why the EPA detects I-131 more easily than other chemicals.

I-131, like all forms of radioactive iodine, attacks the thyroid gland after ingestion. It can cause cancer and other disorders of the thyroid, which plays a key role in physical and mental development, especially in the fetus and infant.

The greatest number of detectable I-131 samples are in air (cartridge method), air (filter method), and precipitation, with 105, 72, and 77, respectively. Unfortunately, the air cartridge samples cover 12 sites, only 4 in the continental U.S., limiting a national analysis. Air filter samples include 13 sites in the continental U.S., just 6 outside California and Florida. Precipitation has the greatest geographic spread of measurements and will be analyzed as a rough proxy for U.S. levels of radioactivity from Japan.

Patterns of Iodine-131 in Precipitation. Historical EPA data shows the typical level of I-131 in U.S. precipitation is about 2 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water (pCi/l). This number was determined by measurements at 9 U.S. sites on May 1-3, 1986, just before the plume from the Chernobyl accident arrived over the nation. A picocurie is a measure of radioactivity, and is one-trillionth of a curie.

After Fukushima, from March 22-25, samples of I-131 in precipitation at 12 U.S. sites had an average (median) level of 39.6 pCi/l, or about 20 times greater than normal. This figure was roughly half of 1) the peak level after Chernobyl and 2) after a large above-ground atomic bomb test by China in late September 1976 (Table 2):

Table 2

Historical EPA Measurements of I-131 in Precipitation

Event                             Dates                No. of Sites   No. of Samples   Median I-131

Large Chinese              10/ 4/76-                     11                    26                    75.5

Bomb test                     11/ 2/76

Prior to Chernobyl          5/ 1/86-                       7                      9                      2.0

(â€œnormalâ€)                      5/ 3/86

Chernobyl peak              5/14/86-                     36                    45                    99.5

                                      5/16/86

Chernobyl end                5/27/86-                     18                    20                    25.5

                                      5/30/86

Fukushima peak             3/22/11-                     22                    37                    44.5

                                      3/31/11

Concentrations of I-131 in 77 EPA measurements in precipitation with a detectable level varied greatly. Some were quite small, while others were much greater than normal, approximating or exceeding 100 times the normal concentration. Table 3 lists the 10 highest individual U.S. levels of I-131 in March and April.

Table 3

Iodine-131 in Precipitation, Highest Levels in U.S., March/April 2011

Location                                    Date                  I-131 Level

*   1. Boise ID                          March 22              390

*   2. Boise ID                          March 22              242

     3. Kansas City KS              March 29              200

     4. Salt Lake City UT           March 28              190

     5. Jacksonville FL                March 31              150

*   6. Richmond CA                 March 22              138

*   7. Richmond CA                 March 22              138

*   8. Olympia WA                   March 24              125

     9. Boston MA                     March 22                92

* 10. Portland OR                    March 25                86.8

* Located in the Pacific Northwest

Of the 10 highest samples, 6 were from stations in the Pacific Northwest, including northern California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. A seventh, Salt Lake City, is not technically part of the Pacific Northwest, but is relatively close to the region. Thus, it is prudent to conclude that this region received the greatest amount of fallout from Fukushima, and thus any changes in health status that might be linked to the Japanese meltdowns would occur there.

Trends in Infant Deaths in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) for decades.   Since 1993, each edition of the MMWR includes deaths by age group for each of 122 U.S. cities with a population of over 100,000. The MMWR is available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html.

The MMWR report on deaths has certain limits. It only represents 30% of all U.S. deaths. It lists deaths by place of occurrence, while final statistics are place of residence. It also represents deaths by week a report is filed to the local health department, rather than date of death. Finally, some cities do not submit reports for all weeks.

Despite these limits, patterns of deaths reported in the MMWR are often consistent with final statistics, if a large enough group of cities and/or long enough time period are used. Final data for 2011 deaths are released in 2013 or 2014, and are only available for full years. Thus, MMWR data are helpful to make before-and-after comparisons in a year.

One age category used by the MMWR is under age one (infants). This is the most likely group to detect any link with Japanese fallout. All humans are affected by radiation exposure, but the fetus and infant are much more susceptible, because of their rapid growth and cell division. Damaging a fetal or infant cell makes it more likely that the cell with divide into more damaged cells before it can repair itself, as opposed to a slower-dividing adult cell. Damaging a cellâ€™s DNA code, as radiation does, makes it more likely that a baby will be stillborn, die in infancy, be born prematurely/at low weight, or be born with a birth defect.

There is a precedent for radioactivity linked with higher infant deaths. On May 5, 1986, fallout from Chernobyl reached the U.S., just 9 days after the meltdown. EPA measurements of I-131 in U.S. milk showed that from mid-May to late June, average concentrations were 5-6 times greater than in the same period in 1985. Several years later, a journal article presented official CDC data showing the U.S. infant death rate rose in the four months after Chernobyl compared to a year earlier (+0.43%, compared to a decline of -4.22% for the other 8 months, an excess of 593 deaths). CDC data confirm the magnitude of this four month â€œbumpâ€ was unprecedented, suggesting Chernobyl fallout may have contributed to higher infant death rates in the summer of 1986 (Table 4).

Table 4

Changes in Infant Death Rates, U.S., 1985-1986

                                    Deaths < 1 Yr             Rate/1000 Births          % Change

Date                              1985    1986                 1985    1986                 In Rate

May-August                 12788 12800                9.85     9.90               + 0.43

Other 8 Mos.               27242 26091              11.04   10.58               - 4.22

Note: Chernobyl fallout arrived in the U.S. environment on May 5, 1986. Excess Deaths = [0.43 – (-4.22) ] x 12,800 = 593. Source: Gould JM and Sternglass EJ. Low-level radiation and mortality. CHEMTECH, Jan. 1989, 18-21.

The MMWR 2011 data show that in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout, an average of 181.5 infant deaths were reported (in 111 cities with full reporting for each week). For the 10 weeks following, the number increased to 185.6 deaths per week, a 2.3% increase, which is not statistically significant (Table 5).

Table 5

Infant Deaths, 111 U.S. Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Ending                Infant Deaths

BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES

2/26/11                        173

3/ 5/11                        189

3/12/11                        164

3/19/11                        200

                                                            Number /average 4 weeks        726 (181.5)

AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES

3/26/11                        182

4/ 2/11                        200

4/ 9/11                        187

4/16/11                        154

4/23/11                        167

4/30/11                        190

5/ 7/11                        183

5/14/11                        200

5/21/11                        212

5/28/11                        181

                                                            Number /average 10 weeks      1856 (185.6)

% Change in Average                           +2.3%

Note: Includes all 122 U.S. cities in the MMWR, except for those with at least one week missing data (San Francisco, Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Columbus, Fort Worth, Paterson, New Orleans, Phoenix, Worcester, Tucson).

The MMWR includes 8 cities in the Pacific Northwest, namely Boise ID, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Berkeley CA, Sacramento CA, Santa Cruz CA, San Francisco CA, and San Jose CA. Weekly reported infant deaths in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following are given in Table 6.

Table 6

Infant Deaths, 8 Pacific Northwest Cities, By Week, 2011

Week               Infant Deaths (Deaths < 1 Year)

Ending             Boise    Portland   Seattle   Berk   Sacra   S. Cruz   S. Fran       S. Jose   Total

BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES

2/26/11                2           0              3           0        2              0          4              0           11

3/ 5/11                0           4              1           0        1              0          0              3             9

3/12/11                0           1              2           0        2              0          1              2             8

3/19/11                0           0              2           1        2              0          2              2             9

AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES

3/26/11                1           2              6           1        2              0          2              2           16

4/ 2/11                0           0              3           0        1              1          ---            1             6

4/ 9/11                1           0              0           0        2              1          1              1             6

4/16/11                0           1              2           1        5              0          0              2           11

4/23/11                0           0              4           0        1              0          2              4           11

4/30/11                0           3              5           0        4              0          1              5           18

5/ 7/11                1           0              2           1        4              0          3              7           18

5/14/11                2           2              3           0        3              0          2              1           13

5/21/11                2           1              2           2        5              0          1              2           15

5/28/11                0           2              0           0        1              0          3              5           11

4 Weeks Before Japan Fallout            Total (Average) Weekly Deaths              37 ( 9.25)

10 Weeks After Japan Fallout               Total (Average) Weekly Deaths            125 (12.50)

% Change in Average                                                                              +35.1% (p<.09)

Note: No data reported for San Francisco, week ending April 2

The average weekly infant deaths for the 8 cities rose sharply from 9.25 to 12.50, a jump of 35.1%. Because a large number of deaths are involved (37 and 125 in the two periods), the change approaches statistical significance at p<.09 (p<.05 is significant).

A review of MMWR data shows that the average weekly number of deaths for all other age groups in the Pacific Northwest (and the U.S.) changed little in the periods before and after the arrival of Japanese fallout.

Discussion. The EPA increased the frequency of monitoring environmental radioactivity in the U.S. after the meltdowns at Fukushima. The Agency documented higher concentrations in the U.S., especially in late March. However, most measurements of chemicals other than I-131 did not detect radioactivity, and after observing declining levels, the EPA decided to resume its normal schedule of quarterly measurements.

Despite these limitations, it appears that the Pacific Northwest received the most Japanese fallout in the U.S. While these levels are much lower than near the Fukushima plant, it is still important to review health status data for unusual patterns.

The MMWR is useful for examining very recent mortality data in cities across the nation. A comparison of infant deaths during the four weeks prior to the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following showed a 35.1% rise in 8 Pacific Northwest cities.

The data suggest that the following steps be taken to enhance the research:

1. Review independent measures of U.S. radioactivity to confirm EPA data are consistent

2. Review changes in environmental radioactivity and infant deaths in Japan, as high radioactivity levels and rising infant deaths would be expected

3. Continue to monitor infant deaths in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S., using MMWR

4. Request data from state/local health departments on infant health, even if incomplete

Finally, the data should be shared with the appropriate regulators, namely the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the EPA, and state radiation protection bureaus. Information suggesting that relatively low exposures to radiation from nuclear reactors are linked with infant health problems should be part of the regulatory process.

REFERENCES:

1. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. Environmental Radiation Data. Montgomery AL: Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility. Report 8, April 1977 (hard copy reports with radioactivity in precipitation after China bomb test), and Report 46, September 1986 (radioactivity in precipitation after Chernobyl).

2. Environmental Protection Agency. RadNet, formerly Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk, beginning 1978).

3. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk for March/April 2011).

4. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html (weekly deaths by age for 122 U.S. cities).

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Are We on the Brink of Burying Nuke Power Forever? by Harvey Wasserman (& radio debut)

June 15th, 2011

Dear Readers,

Harvey Wasserman has summed up the current global energy situation very nicely in the article shown below. Both the tragedy of nuclear power and the practically-simple solution to the energy problem (renewables -- duh!) are described with straight-forward logic and fact-based explanations. All that's really missing is the solution to the nuclear waste problem! But it's hardly fair to expect Harvey to solve that, too! However, at least he has solved the WORST aspect of the radioactive waste problem: That it is constantly growing by approximately 50 tons per day -- PER DAY!!! -- worldwide. If there's anyone who can truly solve the waste problem (and it's certainly not Jaczko!) let them speak up! (Note: A real solution would defy the laws of physics...)

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

FYI: Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA GREEN POWER HOUR
debuts Wednesday, June 15, 8pm EST

Special guests Bob Fitrakis & David Swanson.

Call in at 1-877-932-9766 from 8pm to 9pm EST.
Tune in at www.TalkTainmentRadio.com.

Harvey Wasserman

Are we on the brink of burying nuke power forever?
June 15, 2011

This may be the moment history has turned definitively against atomic energy.

To be sure: we are still required to fight hard to bury reactor loan guarantees in the United States. There are parallel struggles in China, Indian, England, France and South Korea.

The great fear is that until every single reactor on this planet is shut, none of us is really safe from another radioactive horror show.

Thus the moment is clearly marked at Fukushima by three reactors and a radioactive fuel pool still untamed after three months, with the horrific potential to do far more apocalyptic damage than we've seen even to date.

That image includes Japanese school children being issued Geiger counters to carry with them 24/7.

And Fukushima's radiation raining down on the United States, with links to reports of a heightened infant death rate in Seattle.

And by countless other on-going disasters and near-misses at reactors everywhere on the planet. Included is Cooper, in Nebraska, which got zero corporate media coverage as it was nearly flooded and did lose power to its radioactive fuel pool.

From well-reasoned fear, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Israel and other critical players have announced they will build no more reactors. Some will start shutting the ones they have.

Japan and Germany are the third and fourth largest economies on Earth. Japan has long been at the core of the reactor industry. Germany's economy is the largest in Europe. Some European nations are rumbling about an alliance to shut the reactors among their nuclear neighbors.

All this could be happening merely in reaction to yet another Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The corporate media has attempted to induce a coma over Fukushima by simply refusing the cover the on-going disaster.

But the worsening realities are as utterly relentless as they are terrifying. In the age of the internet, there is simply no way to totally suppress the horror of what is happening to our Earth, especially at its lethal, festering wound at Fukushima.

But what truly sets this moment apart is not just the radioactive nightmare. There have been others. There will certainly be more.

What's unique about now is the Solartopian flip side. It is the irrepressible fact that we have finally reached the green-powered tipping point.

For the first time in history, the financial, industrial and trade journals are filled with pithy, number-laden reports declaring the moment has come---and this can not be overemphasized---that solar power is definitively cheaper than nuclear.

It is an epic moment that future economic and technological historians will note as a true turning point.

In real terms, Solartopian technology----wind, solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, bio-fuels, wave, current, tidal, efficiency, conservation---has always been cheaper than nukes.

The "Peaceful Atom" has always been a creature of subsidies, a happy face painted on the Bomb. Its true health, safety and environmental costs can never be reliably calculated.

What, after all, will be the true price tag on Fukushima? How do we begin to calculate the costs in human agony and ecological destruction?

Already Japan is being torn apart by who will pay: the utility (it doesn't have enough assets), the government (it could go bankrupt) or the victims (who else?). The only thing certain is this once-powerful industrial nation will never recover.

It's no accident the reactor industry cannot get private capital for new reactor construction, or private liability insurance of real consequence, and cannot solve its waste problems without the federal government taking responsibility---which, in truth, even it cannot do.

The true installment cost of the US reactor fleet can't even be calculated, as much of the liability was dishonestly wiped off the books in the deregulation scam of 1999-2002.

What we're left with worldwide is 440 uninsured ticking time bombs, potential Chernobyls and Fukushimas, every one of them. There are 104 in the US. The only real question is when the next one will go off and how long it will take to actually hear about it.

Atomic energy also feeds global warming. Who will account for the enormous heat still rising from Fukushima? How much did Chernobyl spew? Carbon emissions come with the mining, milling, enrichment and ultimate disposal of radioactive fuel, not to mention the building and dismantling of the reactors themselves.

For yet another summer, nukes in France, Alabama and elsewhere must close because the infernal machines that "fight global warming" must shut shy of heating the rivers they use for cooling to 90 degrees Farenheit.

What's peaked now, as Fukushima melts and burns and dumps its radioactive poisons into the air and the oceans and the people of this planet, is one financial reality: even with all its subsidies, nuclear power can no longer stand in the market place.

The first option, of course, has become natural gas, whose price has plummeted. But the gas boom is based in large part on fracking, an unsustainable environmental disaster. Its momentum is huge, but so is its threat to the waters we need to survive.

In the long term, the future is with renewables. They are often subsidized as well. But the scale is not comparable, and does not fully compensate for the hidden realities of atomic power's uninsurability and its inability to solve its basic waste, health and eco-impacts.

Were the nuclear industry forced to fully insure itself, or were it charged the true cost of its invested capital, or what it does to the planet and the humans who live on it, not a single reactor owner could afford to keep a reactor running for a single day.

Small wonder Wall Street has long been more anti-nuclear than Main Street.

The numbers are now easy to find. WorldWatch has just issued the definitive END OF NUCLEAR by Mycle Schneider, laden with charts, graphs, tables and all the financial data anyone needs to confirm the case. The Rocky Mountain Institute has long had similar material on file and at the tip of Amory Lovins's tongue.

Now we see Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and the core corporate press conceding the obvious.

In short, the bottom line has now become the bottom line. Reactor costs have doubled and tripled in the past few years even before Fukushima. Green energy costs continue to plummet.

The last barrier is that to understand how a Solartopian economy works, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Base-load power is readily available from geo-thermal, bio-fuels and a broad mix. One does need to balance the various intermittent sources---wind, solar, tidal---to keep the glass full.

But Fukushima has shown that nukes are also intermittent in the worst imaginable way.

Any sane for-profit player with the bucks enough to build a new reactor will now put them into renewables. Witness Google, now investing $280 million in a fund for installing solar panels on home rooftops, and millions more for undersea links to offshore wind farms.

The dream of a Solartopian future has become the capitalist present. Germany and Japan would not be committing to a green-powered future if its large corporations couldn't make a profit. Siemans, Enercon, Mitsubishi, Sharp---their CEOs have run the numbers and decided that nukes are a loser. And that the real profit center for the long-term energy biz is in green power.

What remains for us is to get the government out of the game. The $36 billion in loan guarantees Obama wants in the 2012 budget must come out. We need to call the White House and Congress CONSTANTLY until this happens.

Then we need to find a way to get the Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Brits and French to join Germany, Japan and the rest of us in a post-nuclear world.

How soon this gets done is up to us. Our fervent hope---and greatest incentive---is knowing this MUST be done before the next Fukushima strikes.

Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! GREEN POWER HOUR runs Wednesdays at 8pm EST on www.talktainmentradio.com (877)932-9766. He is senior editor ofwww.FreePress.org and www.solartopia.org.

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company

Friday, June 10, 2011

The scariest thing I've read since 3/11/2011

June 10th, 2011

Dear Readers,

It is now known that women are more susceptible -- approximately twice as susceptible, or worse -- to radiation's harmful effects than men who get the same dose. Young people are more susceptible than old.

Young children are perhaps ten times as susceptible to radiation's dangers as adults are, because their cells are dividing and establishing themselves. The cells of some organs will continue to divide; but cells such as neurons and heart muscle cells stop dividing at adulthood. Cancer can also get established at this early stage. Cancer usually requires a long sequence of cell changes to occur -- often 10 or 12 or more changes in the cell DNA's structure will have to occur, which can take many years.

Starting early is a very bad thing.

Infants are even more susceptible than young children. Newborns, preemies... immune-challenged... even more so.

Since Fukushima, on the west coast of the United States, our babies are dying at a significantly increased rate (see article, below). Across the country deaths are up as well, though not as much (ibid).

And fetuses. Can we even talk about fetuses? As two cells, separated by space - the sperm and the egg -- "it" is utterly vulnerable! One zap from a nuclear buzzsaw and it's over. So much for the next Einstein! Another Da Vinci? Gone! Oh well, there's millions where they came from, right? (If so, I haven't seen them.)

After the cells start to multiply, they begin "specification", becoming hearts, lungs, brains, bones, intestines, and all the other little warts and dimples that make us who we are as individuals and as a species.

Fetuses vary from "infinitely" more susceptible to radiation's dangers, to thousands of times when they are very small, to "merely" hundreds of times as they grow, to whatever they are at birth -- no one knows precisely. Reasonable estimates can be made. If what is reported below is, indeed, caused by Fukushima, it should surprise no one.

The authors of the article shown below are both friends of mine; I've known them for years. I authored an article or two with one of them. They've both written extensively about the scientific data which condemns nuclear power and been involved in all aspects of research into the dangers of radiation, and are both book authors of wonderful scientific books on the subjects, as well.

They research everything they do very carefully and shoot straight when they talk about it.

They are scientists in the best sense of the word.

Nevertheless, let's hope they're wrong.

If what they report below is even half true, we're all in for a whole lot of hurt. Our babies are taking the "hits" now. We all will in one way or another -- by losing loved ones, if nothing else.

If this anomaly has any other explanation, I challenge anyone to find it. And stop it.

Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA (Notes and images added 2025)

From: http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html

Weekend Edition June 10-12, 2011

A 35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown

Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

By JANETTE D. SHERMAN, MD and JOSEPH MANGANO

U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. While the United States spends billions on medical care, as of 2006, the US ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality, more than twice that of the lowest ranked countries. (DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 2010, Table 20, p. 131, February 2011.)

The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week) 10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.

Spewing from the Fukushima reactor are radioactive isotopes including those of iodine (I-131), strontium (Sr-90) and cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) all of which are taken up in food and water. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, Sr-90 in bones and teeth and Cs-134 and Cs-137 in soft tissues, including the heart. The unborn and babies are more vulnerable because the cells are rapidly dividing and the delivered dose is proportionally larger than that delivered to an adult.

Data from Chernobyl, which exploded 25 years ago, clearly shows increased numbers of sick and weak newborns and increased numbers of deaths in the unborn and newborns, especially soon after the meltdown. These occurred in Europe as well as the former Soviet Union. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife living in areas with increased radioactive fallout levels. (Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Alexeiy V. Yablokov, Vasily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. Consulting Editor: Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger. New York Academy of Sciences, 2009.) [Note: Although the book was withdrawn by the NYAS, it is still filled with an overwhelming amount of data - Ace]

Levels of radioisotopes were measured in children who had died in the Minsk area that had received Chernobyl fallout. The cardiac findings were the same as those seen in test animals that had been administered Cs-137. Bandashevsky, Y. I, Pathology of Incorporated Ionizing Radiation, Belarus Technical University, Minsk. 136 pp., 1999. For his pioneering work, Prof. Bandashevsky was arrested in 2001 and imprisoned for five years of an eight year sentence.

The national low-weight (under 2500 grams, or 5.5 lbs) rate has risen 23% from 1984 to 2006. Nearly 400,000 infants are born under 2500g each year in the U.S. Most of the increase in infant mortality is due specifically to infants born weighing less than 750 grams (1 lb 10 1/2 oz). Multiple births commonly result in underweight babies, but most of the increase in births at less than 750 grams occurred among singletons and among mothers 20-34 years of age. (CDC, National Vital Statistics Report, 52 (12): 1-24, 2005.)

From an obstetrical point of view, women in the age bracket 20 to 34 are those most physically able to deliver a healthy child. So what has gone wrong? Clues to causation are often revealed when there is a change in incidence, a suspicious geographical distribution, and/or an increase in hazards known to adversely affect health and development.

The risk of having a baby with birth defects is estimated at three to four of every 100 babies born. As of 2005, the Institute of medicine estimated the cost of pre-term births in the US at more than $2.6 billion, or $51,600 for each infant.

Low birth weight babies, born too soon and too small, face a lifetime of health problems, including cerebral palsy, and behavioral and learning problems placing an enormous physical, emotional and economic burdens on society as a whole and on those caring for them. Death of a young child is devastating to a family.

As of June 5, 2011, The Japan Times reported that radiation in the No. 1 plant was measured at 4,000 milliseverts per hour. To put that in perspective, a worker would receive a maximal "permissible" dose in 4 minutes. In addition there are over 40,000 tons of radioactive water under that reactor with more radioactivity escaping into the air and sea. Fuel rods are believed to have melted and sunk to the bottom of reactors 1, 2, and 3.

Tepco, the corporate owner took more than two months to confirm the meltdowns and admitted lying about the levels of destruction and subsequent contamination, resulting in "Public Distrust." Over 100,000 tons of radioactive waste are on the site.

Why should we care if there may be is a link between Fukushima and the death of children? Because we need to measure the actual levels of isotopes in the environment and in the bodies of people exposed to determine if the fallout is killing our most vulnerable. The research is not technically difficult the political and economic barriers may be greater. Bandshevsky and others did it and confirmed the connection. The information is available in the Chernobyl book. (Previously cited.)

The biological findings of Chernobyl cannot be ignored: isotope incorporation will determine the future of all life on earth animal, fish, bird, plant and human. It is crucial to know this information if we are to avoid further catastrophic damage.

Janette D. Sherman, M. D. is the author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease, and is a specialist in internal medicine and toxicology. She edited the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. Her primary interest is the prevention of illness through public education. She can be reached at:[RIP]; her web site is still available: www.janettesherman.com

Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group. He is the author of several books, including Radiooactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link.

It's shutdown or meltdown. Take our pick.

June 10th, 2011

Dear Readers,

Nuclear power is losing ground everywhere in the world. Literally and figuratively.

Nuclear accidents have permanently poisoned large swaths of northern Japan, having similarly poisoned Ukraine and Belarus 25 years ago, and not to mention Hanford, Washington, the Nevada Test Site, the Savannah River Site, and THOUSANDS of other places around the globe.

The latest poll by the uber-pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association indicates less than half the 34,000 people polled in 47 countries favor nuclear power -- a drop of 8 percent since before the accident, by their own admission. And that poll was conducted in late-March to early-April! Undoubtedly, disfavor has continued to increase sharply, as the revelations about the lies are uncovered, and as the reactors continue to smoulder and poison the earth, wind, and water.

The World Nuclear News report about their poll adds, with the happiest spin possible that a pro-nuker could put on the situation: "Unsurprisingly, Japan saw the biggest drop in support for nuclear energy, with the number of people in favour dropping from 62% before the accident to 39% afterwards. Meanwhile, those saying they were opposed to nuclear increased from 28% to 47%."

Clearly, nuclear power's "popularity" is at an all-time low (along with TEPCO's stock price).

It's strange that those of us in America, who have the most freedom to speak out and stop nuclear power, a relatively high education level, and were the birthplace of this global mistake and have more proof that it was a mistake than anyone, actually seem to have the most apathy.

But that lack-of-attitude IS changing! Even in -- and in many ways especially in -- the hometowns of nuclear power plants (where all the workers live and the nuclear power corporations have been pouring funds into the community for decades) the nuclear reactors are suddenly being reviled as the tools of death they really are.

With this new awakening, it may NOT take a meltdown in America to stop nuclear power dead in its tracks after all! I sure hope it doesn't "require" a trillion-dollar accident, with its hundreds of thousands of deaths over the coming years, and the nuclear industry's hollow talk about "lessons learned" while slipping you the bill for the damage and laughing all the way to the bank.

No: Let's not let it come to that. But it's shut down or meltdown. One or the other is inevitable.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

Today's items:

(1) Letter to FT (by Ace Hoffman)
(2) The lie that closing the nukes is expensive continues
(3) Is Yucca Mountain the solution? Not bloody likely!
(4) Palo Verde's power lines threatened! But with what?
(5) Why are you against music?
(6) Contact information for the author of this newsletter

(1) Letter to FT (by Ace Hoffman):

To: ean@ft.com Subject: Nope, they can't fix it...

June 7th, 2011

Dear Financial Times,

Crook's and Pfeifer's commentary yesterday (6/6/11) about nuclear power missed the boat. Nuclear power is a dying industry because it has to die. If it doesn't, the human race will die -- of stupidity.

And please: Don't bother dismissing this letter as the words of a crackpot. Perhaps I am, but they are the words of scientists -- merely parroted, paraphrased, and presented by your humble and obedient servant.

Nowhere in your article were the medical issues addressed -- because they can't be. It's the true Achilless' heal of the industry. Every radiation release can kill -- no exceptions. Trillions of lethal doses of radiation have been released at Fukushima. Incomprehensibly-large numbers for a poison which knows no threshold (BIER VII, and many other references confirm the LNT theory, okay?).

Some groups of scientists have studied the effects of Chernobyl more carefully than the nuclear industry wanted to. The death toll from Fukushima will be either the largest from an industrial accident in history -- worse than Chernobyl -- or it will be nearly as bad. But either way, the two are in a class by themselves, and this scar won't be healing in Japan, or in Germany which has realized how dangerous their reactors are, or in many other countries that are rethinking their past mistakes.

Furthermore, besides causing cancers, leukemia, heart disease, a host of degenerative diseases, and perhaps a thousand other things, radiation -- worst of all -- lowers IQs (hence the final word of my opening retort to yesterday's commentary).

Throughout that commentary we are told that what the nuclear industry needs and intends to do in order to gain the public trust is to become more open about everything. Fat chance! And besides, that's what they ALWAYS say! But look at what's happened at Fukushima: Governments and industry colluded to keep from the public the fact that three meltdowns had occurred virtually simultaneously! And you want to build WHAT from that not-humble rebirth (or death) of an industry? A flowering, growing, loved industry? Ain't gonna happen. TEPCO's shares' new low is the wave of the future for nuclear power companies. When viewed from history, the industry IS just one disaster after another, and WILL be stopped eventually. Will it take another Fukushima? Then there will be another -- and another. Such accidents are inevitable (as a careful, jaundiced reading of the Surry tornado event proves, by the way -- or the TVA event shortly before it (I could go on...)).

From the still-smoldering (and for another 30 years or so, probably...) ashes of Fukushima does ANYONE really think a nuclear renaissance has a chance? Look at how bad the "renaissance" was to begin with: AREVA, or Toshiba, or whoever, would claim they had sold a reactor in one place, having pushed it through a relatively small first step, just so they can go to another place, another country, and say "look, so-and-so bought one, you should too!" And with bribes under tables and fast talking in back rooms, the deal is made. That's the "renaissance" that melted down at Fukushima -- not a real one. One propped up by donating millions of dollars to candidates who would back the nuclear agenda. One propped up by lies. One propped up by claims the waste problem has been solved, or can be (which would defy the laws of physics). One propped up by billions of dollars in loan guarantees and trillions in insurance fraud (Price-Anderson, and every other country's equivalent Acts (they all have one) is nothing but a fraud perpetrated on the people that their homes are safely insured against a nuclear accident at their local (within 50 miles, even though evacuation plans only go out to 10 and aren't used in the event) nuclear reactor.

Nobody reads the fine print. That's the nuclear industry's only hope.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

The author, a computer programmer and award-winning educational software developer, has been studying computers for more than 30 years and nuclear technology for more than 40. His book on the nuclear industry, THE CODE KILLERS, is available as a free download from his web site: www.acehoffman.org

Nuclear power: Atomised approach
By Ed Crooks and Sylvia Pfeifer
Financial Times - June 6 2011 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27e83c54-9074-11e0-9227-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1OYUJqBfC

On Saturday April 16, a tornado hit the Surry nuclear plant in Virginia, cutting off the supply of power from the grid to the US site's two reactors.

...

###

(2) The lie that closing the nukes is expensive continues:

If Reuters really thinks shut-down is expensive, they should balance it against meltdown...

www.reuters.com Japan may have no nuclear reactors running by next April

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-japan-nuclear-reactors-idUSTRE7572P920110608

TOKYO (Reuters) - All 54 of Japan's nuclear reactors may be shut by next April, adding more than $30 billion a year to the country's energy costs, if communities object to plant operating plans due to

Comment on FB:
All over the world people are protesting against nuclear power, getting arrested, demanding their rights. This isn't NIMBYism, it's survival, and the public can see that now. The hordes of people who have lost their homes, and now may die of cancer because of Fukushima, will be very vocal in the coming years, you can count on it. They all know how to use the Internet, and they are very VERY upset. I do believe they will drive nukes out of Japan, and quickly. Not just "No New Nukes" which is a placebo to the people for the nuke industry, with 440 nuke operating "comfortably" around the world. We need the old ones shut down most of all! And we can't just talk about what to do with the waste, we have to really do something effective. But before shutdown, the waste will always be an afterthought. As Mary Olson (NIRS) puts it: "When you have a plumbing problem, you don't go for the mop first. You go for the wrench." Turn the wrench. Shut off the spigot. Close the spent fuel production facilities -- shut the reactors. By the way only one or two reactors in the whole world are set up to produce medical isotopes because THAT'S ALL YOU NEED and in fact, if no reactors were operating, you could probably get the isotopes other ways or use other LESS DANGEROUS methods like MRIs for CT scans and so forth, which are often medically more useful anyway. Never believe a word a pro-nuker tells you. If Fukushima didn't teach the world that, the world need only look at the timeline, it will always be there for all to see. Governments lie. Nuclear power companies lie. People die.

###

(3) Is Yucca Mountain the solution? Not bloody likely!

From: Nikoli McCracken
To: stephen.power@wsj.com
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:59 PM
Subject: About Yucca Mountain

Hello:

I read your article about Yucca Mountain. I have a rather unique point of view about it; I was raised in Nevada until age 13. My father worked at both of the Nevada Test sites, and when I grew up, I married a Navy submariner who, within a few short years, was transferred from diesel electric submarines to nuclear boats. I also worked outside the home, and was for 34 years, a technical illustrator, graphic artist, electronics drafter and oil, gas and nuclear power worker. Twice in that 34 years I worked for companies which built nuclear power plants. At first, I was Pro - nuke. Was proud of my Navy husband and his service, and of the work I did both in aerospace and nuclear power. Worked on many space programs, aircraft, you name it, I probably worked on it. Here's the problem with Yucca Mountain: Beneath it, there is a huge earthquake fault, and below that, a water table. It is only 95 miles from Las Vegas. And it simply is not safe, and cannot be MADE safe. There is also strong evidence of vulcanism at the site. Ancient, but then, so was Pompeii! Further, it belongs to the Shoshone People, from whom it was taken without compensation, and for whom it is held as sacred. Is there ANY treaty with Native Americans we have NOT broken? Besides that, the trains and/or trucks could be sabotaged. Or just sheer dumb luck could come into play: In LA, people died because a train engineer was TEXTING! There are 22,000 train vs. car accidents in the US every year. Some of them are train vs. Semi. One drunken driver, one inattentive engineer - and the consequences are too horrible to contemplate. Further, our railroads are in such terrible shape, it would be foolish to use them to transport the waste. One accident - oh, yes, and we are not insured! Look at YOUR personal insurance policy. You are NOT insured against 'radiation.' And the industry is not well-enough insured against catastrophe. We have come closer to a core meltdown more times in the US, than you could believe possible. I can furnish proof if you want it. Finally, after Fukushima-Daiichi, how much proof do we need that nature can screw us over, anytime? I've never been an 'activist.' But the US will open Yucca Mountain over my dead body! I have ten living descendants for whom I want to leave a clean Earth. Six of them are children under age 10.

Very truly yours,
Nikoli A."Penny" McCracken
Fallon NV

###

(4) Palo Verde's power lines threatened! But with what?

BTW, it was a fire...

At 05:34 PM 6/9/2011 -0700, Penny wrote:

Hi: News reports on NBC are stating that the power lines to Palo Verde are threatened.

Threatened with what? High winds? Earthquakes? Fires? Terrorism? Rust? Airplane strikes? Tension poorly adjusted? Laser weapon from space? Overheated? Transformers exploded? Switchyard overrun by rodents? Sandstorm? Fleas? Fuel fleas? Metal-eating microbes? Drunken operators?

(5) Why are you against music?

From Gene Stone, regarding San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (known locally as SONGS):

So I am out putting up signs yesterday "Stop SONGS" and a lady walks up to me in San Clemente and says why are you against music? So we had a great talk about the nuclear power plant that she did not know was here.

(6) Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Shut San Onofre video: 5/17/11 public hearing in San Clemente, California

May 26th, 2011

Dear Readers,

My new video is about 13 minutes long and called: Shut San Onofre Public Hearing San Clemente CA May 17, 2011:

This event was organized and arranged by Gary Headrick, San Clemente Green. Gary had asked the city council for the time because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a few weeks earlier, had only let about half the public speak at their last hearing -- their first post-Fukushima hearing on San Onofre -- which was a complete whitewash of the dangers and risks we face.

The council was surprised by how many people wanted to speak, but ultimately accommodated everyone -- unlike the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which cherry-picked the speakers, controlled the order, and wasted everyone's time allowing SanO employees to denigrate the opposition and give mindless pep-rally presentations best left for small groups at company breakfasts, if they really feel such cheerleading should happen at all.

I recorded both hearings (my video from the NRC hearing is available at my You-Tube channel and called "You Call This A Tsunami Wall?"). Here, I have presented a portion of every speaker on the issue, in order, except two: An employee who tried to explain to the council a very dangerous technical problem at San Onofre, and a former plant worker (yawn...) who told us that the daily releases of poisons into the air from a coal plant are more dangerous -- and more visible -- than the daily radiation releases from a nuclear plant (presumably true, and very old news, and not relevant since wind turbines, solar panels, and energy conservation -- the obvious alternatives to nuclear power -- don't have those problems, and coal plants can't melt down).

Although we don't hear him here, the San Onofre employee does appear in one quadrant of the opening scene. His complaint, about a "technicality," a cabling issue, should, ALONE, SHUT THAT PLANT DOWN and would, if we had a working, effective Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He has made his exact same complaint in front of the NRC several times already, to no avail. The results, as usual, could be tragic.

Of course, if we had an effective NRC, they would shut down ALL the nuclear power plants, not just ours.

Meanwhile, in Japan, things are getting worse and worse. TEPCO admits to meltdowns in three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site, and thus, admits they were lying for two months about how bad things really are, since they must have known this, because of the spectrum and quantities of radionuclides being released. American "experts" must have known it, too. I just don't see how they couldn't have.

The air and oceans of the world continue to be terribly poisoned, and we are all at risk of things getting MUCH worse than they already are at Fukushima.

This was precisely the horrific accident people like myself have (accurately) predicted for decades. It is the accident the nuclear industry assured you would never happen.

The next task -- besides whatever cleanup is possible at Fukushima Daiichi -- is to prevent it happening again. This video speaks to THAT task.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman

-----------------------------------------

Ace Hoffman
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Carlsbad, CA
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org

-----------------------------------------

Thursday, May 19, 2011

New video: 9-year-old Ella says: "Please shut down the nuclear power plant."

May 18th, 2011

Dear Readers,

Yesterday I videotaped the San Clemente (California) Common Council meeting, where activists were seeking support from the city for a resolution asking for the immediate closure and decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, in light of all we've learned from the ongoing tragedy in Japan at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The entire city of San Clemente lies within a few miles of San Onofre. It has few egresses. In a nuclear emergency, its people are toast and they know it. But the plant does generate a substantial amount of revenue for the city.

Several dozen people spoke, including myself. Nothing was accomplished, unless the city common council deciding to write a letter to our Senators and various officials in Washington, D.C., asking them to remove the spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible counts as accomplishing something in your book (it doesn't in mine).

Oh and, of course, they are going to ask the federal and state governments for hundreds of millions of dollars. Not to build up the tsunami wall at San Onofre, nor to reinforce the spent fuel areas, nor to add extra backup generators or batteries. No: To finish a planned secondary escape route!

They do not seem to understand that evacuation, even with a hundred escape routes, will probably be impossible -- as it was in Japan -- because it will be too late by the time you hear there's an accident already in progress. Duct tape the windows and doors, run HEPA filters if you have electricity, and pray the cloud passes over you and on to the next house. And every road will be jammed, even if they succeed in getting funding for an alternate route out of the area.

Many of the citizens who spoke were very good -- one even rode her bike some 75 miles just to get there. Only one person spoke in favor of the plant, a retired worker.

Unfortunately, cameras were only allowed where they could film the backs of people's heads. However, speaking for less than a minute, nine-year-old Ella, whom I had the pleasure of meeting the day before, brought the house down. Fortunately, she happened to be the only person who faced the audience, and I had a good camera angle on this precious little angel:

Ella was a welcome alternative to the photographs of deformed Chernobyl babies which the activists felt obliged to present. If we wish to avoid that fate, we MUST shut these (and all) nuclear reactors down forever!

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, CA

The author has been blogging about nuclear issues for decades.

-----------------------------------------

Monday, May 16, 2011

SHUT DOWN SAN ONOFRE NOW! Petition, debate, video, hearing...

May 16th, 2011

Dear Readers,

The San Clemente Common Council has placed the issue of the dangers presented by San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station on its agenda for tomorrow night (May 17th, 2011). San Clemente is the nearest city to the power plant. Citizens will be given about 8 minutes to make a formal presentation, then additional time for comments. Below is a link to a proposed resolution.

I've created a video of the April 28th, 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing in San Juan Capistrano, California. The URL is below.

Also shown below is a debate between myself and a 25-year former employee of San Onofre, a whistleblower who has appeared at several public hearings (and in my videos of those hearings).

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

Today's items:

(1) Video of NRC hearing April 28th, 2011 in San Juan Capistrano, CA (URL)
(2) A debate between a 25-year SONGS employee/whistleblower and Ace Hoffman...
(3) A proposed Resolution by the people of San Clemente (URL)
(4) UCBerkeley Dept. of Nuclear Engineering food chain sampling in California (URL)
(5) Contact information for the author of this newsletter

(1) Video of NRC hearing April 28th, 2011 in San Juan Capistrano, California:

This video, which I posted today, runs a little under 20 minutes and shows how a civilized country discusses nuclear power -- and accomplishes nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SL4crKwBdI

Those appearing include representatives from the plant's regulators and operators, as well as local citizens Gary Headrick, Steve Netherby, Gene Stone, Nancy Nolan, myself and others.

Both my books about nuclear power, which I mention in the video and one of which I handed out for the first time at the hearing, are available for free download from my web site:

www.acehoffman.org

(2) A debate between a 25-year SONGS employee/whistleblower and Ace Hoffman...

Subject: Re: Estimate of total amount of spent fuel at SONGS...

May 15, 2011

Rick, all,

It's good that we agree on the essential outcome -- that San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station should be shut down.

It seems that the crux of our disagreement is whether SONGS should remain open until all of the spent fuel is removed from the site -- but to where, no one knows.

If we do as you suggest -- keep San Onofre running -- I better not be right about the dangers.

So, we better ignore the numerous similarities between San Onofre and Fukushima, ignore the dangers you yourself described in public hearings, and ignore everything anyone else has ever written condemning nuclear power in general or San Onofre in particular.

We must ignore long lists of infractions and falsifications in the decades before the current debacle, in order to pretend that once the NRC cleans things up THIS TIME at San Onofre, Southern California Edison won't become complacent or dishonest again.

San Onofre has had its share of near-misses. Everyone ignored them. Now we know what might have really happened, but we must continue to ignore them anyway.

We have already ignored Chernobyl, always saying that couldn't happen with "Western" style light water reactors. Oops. But let's ignore that, too.

We must ignore the recent estimate that, if we actually had the nuclear-powered energy-based economy nuclear enthusiasts envision, we would be experiencing multiple Fukushima tragedies every year.

If we keep the old plants running, we will be very lucky indeed to go 25 years -- as we almost did (but not quite) between Chernobyl and Fukushima -- without another meltdown, or cascade of meltdowns.

TEPCO lied. People died. SCE lied. They got their wrists slapped by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and were told to keep lying to the public -- we'll even help you with that -- but don't lie to us. At least, not so often. Please. But we love you, you're as safe as a baby in baby carriage. Quoth the NRC to SCE. I don't happen to believe it.

If we do it my way instead of yours, we turn to renewable energy regardless of whether nuclear power might have been marginally better economically -- which you would be very hard-pressed to prove -- and magically safe, which I contend is impossible for you to prove.

In other words, if we choose renewable energy and could have chosen nuclear power instead, oh well. Little damage is done. The truth can always be told. We don't need annual or semi-annual public hearings about the safety of our energy source, with permanent on-site federal inspectors who can't even maintain control after 14,000 hours of inspections last year alone -- 366% above normal and still the place rots from within. We don't need any of that.

If we switch to renewables, but you were right and I was wrong, we might some day realize we could have saved a little money achieving the same thing -- energy independence -- with "clean, safe nuclear power", which never had another accident anywhere, especially not at an American reactor, ever, after Cherno-- sorry, after Fukushima -- and we would regret spending a little more on energy and/or conservation than the absolute minimum we could have spent, which, you are telling me, is achievable only by continuing to run San Onofre which, you are telling me, is perfectly safe because it's run by humans who can fix everything that goes wrong when the earthquake, tsunami, faulty wiring and come-out-of-the-closet employee-based terrorism all happen at once.

I don't believe it.

Nevertheless, it is precisely because of your experience inside the industry that your concerns about the potential impact of a natural disaster or a careless worker are so chilling.

It's also true that you would not have reached out to the public, would not have attempted to rectify your issues with San Onofre through the legal system, would not even have contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if you thought San Onofre's management were capable of solving the problems you brought to their attention first.

They've failed four different ways to solve your issues, yet I'm to trust your assertion that San Onofre can, and will, fix EVERY issue? Every whistleblower's warning? Every expert's assessment of 100-foot and 200-foot tsunami wave's can be ignored? Every allegation I've made is inconsequential, never mind that it's been proven right already, and that can't be debated anymore?

I'm to trust San Onofre, when I've seen no evidence of anything positive -- they are right that the sea wall it high enough. That a previously-unknown fault doesn't run right under the plant. That no nearby fault can produce an earthquake larger than the "design basis" earthquake. That every part has not rusted away or embrittled (hardened) over the decades of use, to where a little extra shaking -- not a lot -- will break it, and in truth, the plant can't even survive a design-basis event?

I'm to believe that unlike TEPCO, Edison International is an honest conglomerate, and wouldn't suffer a meltdown or two, and then not tell anyone for two months.

You are not the first, the last, or the only whistleblower from San Onofre, let alone from the nuclear industry, to come forward. Nor are your stories the most chilling we've ever heard, chilling though they are.

Other 25+ year San Onofre veteran employees have also -- like you -- talked to us. Have also, like you, come out of the U.S. military nuclear programs (Los Alamos, for example) before working at San Onofre for several decades.

In making my own judgement that San Onofre should be shut immediately, your voice is one in a din of voices everyone should listen to, including yourself. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tries to silence the dissenters, placate them, calm them, and then ignore them. I wish to amplify, investigate, remember and honor them. And act on what they say.

This story is BIG. This is NOT merely reasonable people agreeing to disagree about how a fly ball was caught. San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station has its jackboot on our throats as we speak.

It is killing us, as well as our neighbors, our friends, our families. Our pets, our livestock, our fauna, our flora. It is threatening mass devastation.

Around Fukushima, fetuses will be spontaneously aborted, infants will be born deformed, cancer rates will zoom, mothers will cry, children in pain will ask why. Fathers will head off to work at the plant, to die. All this is already happening.

Right now they are culling the livestock around Fukushima. Hundreds of thousands of horses, cows, pigs, goats, and sheep, and millions of chickens and turkeys. They are "destroying" all those that haven't died already of starvation, dehydration, radiation or exhaustion. None of the animals know to run from radiation. Thanks to TEPCO's lies, the people didn't know, either.

Daily nuclear releases from commercial reactors DO kill, and they ARE large. Such releases are dwarfed only by things like nuclear weapons testing, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and, most of all (we now know...) by Fukushima.

San Onofre is highly vulnerable to mother nature, human frailty, terrorism, and errors in judgement. Fukushima is a tragedy for all of northern Japan and the whole world, not just a 10-mile area. The spectrum of isotopes being released have half-lives from fractions of a second to thousands of millennia. All are highly carcinogenic in minute amounts, and all are being released continuously in massive quantities. Criticality events may still be occurring or might occur again at any time. Radioactive steam and water continues to be released. The groundwater, the sewage system, the seas... everything is being poisoned as we speak.

Worse than that, if there's an expert here who can help them, they shouldn't be talking to me! So I assume you feel helpless as to what to do next. Make a note of that in your arguments for continuing to operate SONGS. That all you could do in Fukushima if you were there now is to suit up, run in, turn a valve a few revolutions or attach a pipe or something, absorb your maximum permissible dose, and run out.

In Japan they are carefully keeping the workers at around 150 mSv and suddenly are allowing a lifetime exposure of 250 mSv, 150 mSv higher than the previous Japanese worker's limit (which was twice our own) just so that those workers can continue to work in the nuclear industry afterwards.

Smart thinking? No: It's purely criminal!

But you say we merely respectfully disagree. I say the playing field in not level. San Onofre remains open.

Many of the workers who will be needed at Fukushima will die from their exposures, assuming the "LNT" (Linear, No Threshold) dose model is correct.

But perhaps they have received a healthful dose of "sunshine vitamins" if Bernard Cohen and anyone else who believes in "Hormesis" (that a little radiation, no matter how much you have received previously in your life, is always good for you) is correct! I don't know where you stand on that, but I do confess, I have become curious...

As long as any nuclear power plant is running, it is especially vulnerable to consequences not unlike Fukushima, and perhaps far worse. A jetliner smashing through the dry cask field at San Onofre would probably be worse than Fukushima, for instance.

A jetliner smashing into the containment domes would be devastating -- they aren't nearly as strong as they look to most people. After all, they were built specifically to withstand hydrogen explosions from within non unlike the ones we've been seeing at Fukushima (especially Unit 3's explosion), and they probably can't even do that very well. At any rate, they certainly were NOT designed to withstand an airplane strike, and CANNOT do that very well. This was firmly established and admitted soon after 9-11. The "solution" was that the newly-formed Transportation Safety Agency would be perfect all the time. In case you wonder why TSA is so intrusive...

The greatest levels of vulnerability can be reduced substantially and instantly by shutting the reactors down. Nothing else can remove that much risk so easily.

It was the running reactors that caused virtually ALL the problems at Fukushima, with the exception of the spent fuel pool at unit four, which appears to have been neglected, and then damaged by the explosion at unit three. And Unit 4's main problem was that the fuel was still extremely "hot" having been removed from the reactor fairly recently when the reactor was shut down for maintenance.

The devastation from Fukushima probably wouldn't have happened if the reactors had been shut down for even a few months prior to March 11th, 2011. But they weren't. We have the chance to do that here, and, perhaps, thus save SoCal.

Removing all of the spent fuel from the site BEFORE shutting down the reactors, as you suggest we should do -- aside from being impossible -- is putting the cart before the horse. It substantially increases the risk to all seven+ million of us who live and breath in SoCal, and millions more around the world.

After all: Are you saying Fukushima did not have wonderful engineers and builders and designers also? Were they good enough or weren't they? Were they your equals or weren't they? Are you claiming to be super-human, as they thought they were? As everyone in the nuclear industry MUST think? The rest of us make mistakes. We also accept overwhelming evidence as fact.

Fukushima does not just show us that nuclear accidents can and will happen -- triggered one way or another. It also shows us that besides the meltdown itself, many other things are tragically inadequate about nuclear power:

I'm referring to evacuation plans. They only go out to 10 miles, or sometimes 12. It would be more appropriate if they went out 50 or 100 miles, or maybe 500 miles.

I'm referring to the ignorance of the media, the public, our government employees, and the so-called "experts".

I'm referring to honesty from management after the accident starts (let alone, today). It looks like Fukushima Unit 1 was a core-meltdown from the get-go. No wonder Americans 50 miles out were told to evacuate, and the Ronald Reagan high-tailed it away as fast as its jobs-training-program-for-SONGS-reactors could haul it (which, in reality, is no faster than a conventional carrier can go. One should note, during war, for protection, the carriers must stay deep within the fleet, which can only travel at the speed of the slowest vessel).

SONGS-era technology has sunk Japan. Surely you are not claiming that Fukushima's Boiling Water Reactors are the problem since they are not Pressurized Water Reactors? Surely that's not what makes ours safe instead? Do you think the public would buy that excuse, especially considering the higher pressures a PWR operates at, and thus, the extra stresses involved throughout the system in the name of "efficiency"? I can't think of any significant difference, really.

After rereading your letters, I ask: What do we really disagree on? Is it the statistical chance of an airplane landing on a dry cask? Is it the total havoc such an event would create? Is it the epidemiological reasons to think such catastrophic events would kill X number of people, versus Y? I'm not sure.

As far as I can tell, the only thing we actually disagree on is the order of events for shut down. In my opinion, shutting down the plants immediately would hardly mean getting rid of the workforce. True, some would become wind turbine installers and so on, but many people would have to remain at the site for years or decades, at least until all the spent fuel is removed (somewhere!?!).

Shutting down the plant gives the fuel a chance to cool and stops the ever-growing collection of used nuclear "piles".

We are more than 65 years into nuclear technology. There's a perfectly sound reason the nuclear waste problem hasn't been solved yet: Ionizing radiation destroys its containers. Shipping the radioactive waste anywhere on earth doesn't really solve the problem. Certainly putting it in an earthquake-prone hole, as you suggest, doesn't solve the problem, either. Magic materials, let alone cost-effective magic materials don't exist. With your experience, you should know prohibitive costs constantly prevent you from using all sorts of materials that would actually work a lot better than steel and cement for containment of radionuclides -- gold, for instance, though I hear iridium would be even better (and vastly more expensive).

Society thinks its nuclear engineers have actually engineered real solutions to the problems associated with nuclear energy. It's simply not true. What we are really doing is playing Russian Roulette with everyone's lives.

Fukushima changed everything except, I suppose, the nuclear industry's thinking.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

At 08:25 PM 5/14/2011 -0700, "Rick Busnardo" rbusnardo wrote:

Ace

Thank you for your response. Reasonable people can agree to disagree . Please don't belittle my time actually working in a nuclear power plant . By the way I worked for Diablo , Canyon Nuclear Power plant for PG&E and Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories in 1973 for the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) . Please do not presume that I do not know what I am talking about we can respectfully disagree. I have been to Yucca Mountain and there is no other viable solution at this time. I WISH THERE WAS. As I have said the ship has sailed (SONGS) I understand why you wish it was never there but it is and in the interests of the community it is simple. I my expert opinion it is safer having a fully staffed nuclear power plant as long as there is spent fuel on the site. Make the plant as safe as possible , get rid of the fuel then close down the plant.

Rick Busnardo

From: Ace Hoffman
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:52 PM
To: rbusnardo
Cc: Gary Headrick ; Ace Hoffman ; Mike Mason
Subject: Re: Estimate of total amount of spent fuel at SONGS...

5/14/11

Hi Rick,

For at least ten years longer than you've worked at SONGS, I've been studying nuclear issues, too. Please don't belittle my time buried in technical books, talking to experts, reading, reading, reading. And being out in the real world, visiting scores of factories of all types, large and small, and working with technical people all my life... Not to mention interviewing doctors and writing articles with them about radiation damage...

Yucca Mountain is full of problems, it should never open, and almost surely won't. Yes, the waste should be moved to a less populated area (name a place you'd like to poison forever...) but as long as the plants remain open, at least five years' worth of fuel would have to remain on site as it would not be cool enough for transport until then. Plus the loads in the reactors.

Plus ANY waste solution is decades in the future at best. And merely a pipe dream, at best. I've studied Yucca Mountain, looked over half a foot of documentation on it, and every other proposal for decades.... if you think that's the solution, well, good luck with that. It isn't.

And lastly, my accusation of what an airplane, terrorist, earthquake etc. could do to the dry casks (or spent fuel pools) remains....

I'll admit that I wish it were possible for there to be a way to make nuclear power safe. After all, that would solve everything! And I'll even admit that San Onofre tried -- many of the employees tried. 95% perhaps. But that wasn't good enough and never will be. You said it yourself: One dropped wrench that one guy doesn't say anything about. 99.9% honest workers would be nice, but not enough, and not attainable.

Best wishes,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
www.acehoffman.org

At 07:23 PM 5/14/2011 -0700, rbusnardo wrote:

Gary

Below is a very good article from the NYT I am sending you . In answer to your other questions ;

1 ) The canisters that are built at SONGS are built to the highest standards possible. When the project was designed we self imposed an ASME Ã¢Â€ÂœNÃ¢Â€Â and Ã¢Â€ÂœNPTÃ¢Â€Â Stamp on the fabrication and design of the canisters. This was done at great extra expense but gave us an independent inspector to oversee the project (ANI & ANIS ) . I can tell you with 100% confidence that canisters 1 thru 36 were built to the highest standards in the world. I can also attest to the quality of these casks which are / were the best in the world. I can not speak for any canisters that were built after I left. There was NEVER a welding issue that had anything to do with canister quality. This issue was an isolated case of one individual that willfully choose not to follow a specific parameter called out in a procedure. The activity that he choose not to follow had no affect to quality of fabrication or welding. This was strictly a case of willfully violating a procedure. That is a serious and in-excusable offense in the nuclear industry as it should be.

I know you fellas think that SONGS should be closed. I am not a civil engineer , seismologist or geologist. I do have 25 years at SCE and have been in every nook and corner of all three Units at SONGS. Speaking from my experience and as a private (retired) citizen I would much rather have both power plants fully operational with a full crew in the control room , maintenance , health physics , engineering ect. on site overseeing both spent fuel pools and the dry cask stored fuel. Our fight is with the Federal Government for not opening a depository on the West and East coast as was agreed upon prior to building any of these 104 nuclear plants.

Our focus should be on making SCE more transparent , ensuring they allow folks to speak up without fear of retaliation , demand an open and collaborative work environment and hold the NRC along with SCE accountable. We should ensure there is every possible contingency covered in case of a Japan-like event. We should assume that is possible not have a seismic study to prove it is not. I have never seen any seismic studies that can determine what Mother Nature has in store for us. If we need a better and higher tsunami wall it should be built. Back-up emergency diesel generators could be built on higher ground on the other side of I-5. We need to have some way to remove hydrogen from the spent fuel buildings in the event of an uncovering of the fuel. We could use a reservoir with ample borated water supply to fill and refill 100 spent fuel pools. It never what we do know it's what we don't know.

The bottom line is our energy should be put into removing the SPENT FUEL which is not going to happen for several (20? ) years. The community has a responsibility to ensure the Site is run safely. I would be willing to help in this effort . Shutting the Plant down makes the problem even more dangerous that ship has sailed. REMOVE THE SPENT FUEL , work with the Utilities to get the DOE , DOT , NRC and Congress to open Yucca Mountain as soon as possible. We all want what is best for the community as do folks working at SONGS. There must be a way where we can work together to do what is best for all.

Rick Busnardo

Greater Danger Lies in Spent Fuel Than in Reactors

By KEITH BRADSHER and HIROKO TABUCHI

Published: March 17, 2011

RECOMMEND

Years of procrastination in deciding on long-term disposal of highly radioactive fuel rods from nuclear reactors are now coming back to haunt Japanese authorities as they try to control fires and explosions at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg News

A pre-earthquake view of fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

1 of 7
Status of the Nuclear Reactors
A daily tracker of the damage at the two imperiled nuclear plants.
How a Reactor Shuts Down and What Happens in a Meltdown
Related
Radiation Spread Seen; Frantic Repairs Go On (March 18, 2011)
Easy Fixes at Reactors in Long Run Are Elusive (March 18, 2011)
Japan Offers Little Response to U.S. Assessment (March 18, 2011)
Radiation Fears and Distrust Push Thousands From Homes(March 18, 2011)

Andrea Salazar, Airman 1st Class/U.S. Navy

Loading high-capacity pumps from the United States Navy for use in the effort to cool Reactor No. 3.

Some countries have tried to limit the number of spent fuel rods that accumulate at nuclear power plants: Germany stores them in costly casks, for example, while China sends them to a desert storage compound in the western province of Gansu. But Japan , like the United States, has kept ever-larger numbers of spent fuel rods in temporary storage pools at the power plants, where they can be guarded with the same security provided for the plants.

Figures provided by Tokyo Electric Power on Thursday show that most of the dangerous uranium at the power plant is actually in the spent fuel rods, not the reactor cores themselves.

The electric utility said that a total of 11,125 spent fuel rod assemblies were stored at the site. That is about four times as much radioactive material as in the reactor cores combined.

Now those temporary pools are proving the power plant's Achilles' heel, with the water in the pools either boiling away or leaking out of their containments, and efforts to add more water having gone awry. While spent fuel rods generate significantly less heat than newer ones do, there are strong indications that some fuel rods have begun to melt and release extremely high levels of radiation. Japanese workers struggled on Thursday to add more water to the storage pool at Reactor No. 3.

Helicopters dropped water, only to have it scattered by strong breezes. Water cannons mounted on police trucks Â— equipment designed to disperse rioters Â— were then deployed to spray water on the pools. It is unclear if that effort worked.

Richard T. Lahey Jr., a retired nuclear engineer who oversaw General Electric's safety research in the early 1970s for the kind of nuclear reactors used in Fukushima, said that the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods could burst into flames if exposed to air for hours when a storage pool lost its water.

Zirconium, once ignited, burns extremely hot and is difficult to extinguish, added Mr. Lahey, who helped write a classified report for the United States government several years ago on the vulnerabilities of storage pools at American nuclear reactors.

Very high levels of radiation above the storage pools suggest that the water has drained in the 39-foot-deep pools to the point that the 13-foot-high fuel rod assemblies have been exposed to air for hours and are starting to melt, said Robert Albrecht, a longtime nuclear engineer who worked as a consultant to the Japanese nuclear reactor manufacturing industry in the 1980s. Under normal conditions, the rods are kept covered with 26 feet of water that is circulated to prevent it from growing too warm.

Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, made the startling assertion on Wednesday that there was little or no water left in another storage pool, the one on top of Reactor No. 4, and expressed grave concern about the radiation that would be released as a result.

The 1,479 spent fuel rod assemblies there include 548 that were removed from the reactor only in November and December to prepare the reactor for maintenance, and these may be emitting more heat than the older assemblies in other storage pools.

Even without recirculating water, it should take many days for the water in a storage pool to evaporate, nuclear engineers said. So the rapid evaporation and even boiling of water in the storage pools now is a mystery, raising the question of whether the pools may also be leaking.

Michael Friedlander, a former senior nuclear power plant operator who worked 13 years at three American reactors, said that storage pools typically had a liner of stainless steel three-eighths of an inch thick, and that they rested on reinforced concrete bases. So even if the liner ruptured, "unless the concrete was torn apart, there's no place for the water to go," he said.

Mr. Lahey said that much of the water may have sloshed out during the earthquake. Much smaller earthquakes in California have produced heavy water losses from sloshing at storage pools there, partly because the pools are located high in reactor buildings.

Its like being at the top of a flagpole, and once you start ground motion, you can easily slosh it, he said.

A version of this article appeared in print on March 18, 2011, on page A12 of the New York edition.

From: Ace Hoffman
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:48 AM
To: Gary Headrick
Cc: rbusnardo ; Mike Mason
Subject: Re: Fwd: Estimate of total amount of spent fuel at SONGS...

5/14/11

Hi all,

Thanks for this information.

Items #2 and #6 are particularly scary; they show there's an awful lot of fuel on site!

Dry casks are like a spent fuel pool with the water already missing... anything can set them off, especially a tsunami, terrorist act, airplane strike, explosion on the tracks nearby, etc. etc. etc. Heck, a marlinspike or a tamping rod dropped from a freakin hot air balloon could start a disaster... not your typical terrorist's tools, but they would work...

5328 * 1500 = 7,992,000 lbs...

Yours,

Ace

Note (added 2025 with image): In the email below, the phrase "fuel rod" is also commonly referred to as a "fuel assembly" as in the strip of images shown here:

At 10:38 AM 5/14/2011 -0700, Gary Headrick wrote:
Thanks Rick. Any idea how much capacity (number of years) this can continue? Are you satisfied that the welding procedures you had to call them out on have been done correctly now?

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:32 AM, rbusnardo wrote:
Gary
below are estimates within plus or minus 10%
1 ) Spent fuel rod is 9" square x 15 feet long and weighs 1500lbs
2 ) the spent fuel pools were modified in the early 90's to double their capacity
3 ) There are 291 fuel rods in each reactor = 582 total
4 ) Every 12 to 18 months we remove app one third of the fuel rods and store them in the spent fuel pool . We've been doing this since 1984 in both Units
conservatively 26 years x .7 = 18.2 cycles x 2 Units = 36.4 cycles x 100 fuel rods = 3640 fuel rods
5 ) We need to remove app 100 fuel rods in each pool every outage to ensure we have the room to refuel
6 ) There are 46 canisters with 24 fuel rods each stored in spent fuel dry canisters to date 46 x 24 = 1106 fuel rods stored in dry canisters removed from the pools
7 ) Of the above stored canisters 17 of them are fuel from Unit 1
Total
1106 fuel rods stored in dry canisters
582 active fuel in both reactors
3640 spent fuel rods in pools (est)
5328 TOTAL FUEL RODS AT SONGS
From: Gary Headrick
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 6:54 AM
To: rbusnardo ; Mike Mason
Subject: Fwd: Estimate of total amount of spent fuel at SONGS...
Hi Guys,
Any chance you can answer how much spent fuel we've accumulated? How much capacity do we have? Any concerns about what is already in storage, like bad welding?
Gary
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ace Hoffman <mailto:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Subject: Estimate of total amount of spent fuel at SONGS...
To: Jerry Collamer <jcollamer@att.net>
Cc: Gary Headrick <mailto:gary@sanclementegreen.org>, Darin McClure <darin@rtgit.com>, Gene Stone <genston@sbcglobal.net >
5/13/11
Hi Jerry, all,
I believe the correct figure is at least 3,000,000 and maybe 4,000,000 pounds of spent fuel -- or more!
--------------
From my own nuke plant list:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm#CA
794 tons as of 1995.
--------------
So that's one firm number I got somewhere...
I seem to recall crossing about 1000 tons around 2001, and I'm pretty sure I heard someone from the plant say they have 2000 tons now, which is quite an increase but maybe it was 1500? I can't remember exactly.... 1500 would be 3,000,000 pounds. It's got to be at least that much...
I tried calculating by adding 250 pounds per day to the 794 figure for 16 years -- that's another 3,000,000 pounds or so right there, but I think I heard 3 or 4 million pounds total... but maybe it's 5,000,000. Maybe it depends on if you include the fuel rod assemblies, or just the pellets, or what?
It's a lot, that's for certain!
Yours,
Ace

(3) A proposed Resolution by the people of San Clemente:

Written by Gary Headrick, San Clemente Green:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-save-so-cal/

(4) UCBerkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering food chain sampling in California:

"Radionuclides, once deposited by rainwater or air onto the ground, will find their way through the ecosystem."

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2525

(5) Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Important Pages

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Friday, June 10, 2011

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Monday, May 16, 2011