The above is a partial list of radioactive elements that SHOULD be monitored in air and water. However, each has so many isotopes that the NRC list of “standards” stretches 50 pages. TO SEE A LARGE IMAGE, GO <HERE>.
THIS IS ALSO FOUND ON THE GOVERNMENT READING ROOM <HERE>.
YOU MAY READ THE ENTIRE "REPORT" <HERE>.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW WHAT ALL CAN BE AND IS AND WILL BE EMITTED BY THE LIKES OF HANFORD "SUPER" NUCLEAR FACILITY, FUKUSHIMA'S DAIICHI PLANT, AND OTHER OLD, WORN-OUT NUKE PLANTS AND "STORAGE FACILITIES" ACROSS THE GLOBE.
Other than giving a list of isotopes, NRC's "REPORT" is totally worthless as emissions are given as DILUTIONS of microcuries per milliliter, which gives no indication of what is ACTUALLY released into the air or water.
THE MANY TECHNICAL PHRASES USED TO 'REPORT' EMISSIONS IS MEANT FOR ONE PURPOSE...DECEPTION. WHICHEVER TERM SEEMS TO BE LESS IS PREFERABLE, APPARENTLY.
THIS IS ALSO FOUND ON THE GOVERNMENT READING ROOM <HERE>.
YOU MAY READ THE ENTIRE "REPORT" <HERE>.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW WHAT ALL CAN BE AND IS AND WILL BE EMITTED BY THE LIKES OF HANFORD "SUPER" NUCLEAR FACILITY, FUKUSHIMA'S DAIICHI PLANT, AND OTHER OLD, WORN-OUT NUKE PLANTS AND "STORAGE FACILITIES" ACROSS THE GLOBE.
Other than giving a list of isotopes, NRC's "REPORT" is totally worthless as emissions are given as DILUTIONS of microcuries per milliliter, which gives no indication of what is ACTUALLY released into the air or water.
THE MANY TECHNICAL PHRASES USED TO 'REPORT' EMISSIONS IS MEANT FOR ONE PURPOSE...DECEPTION. WHICHEVER TERM SEEMS TO BE LESS IS PREFERABLE, APPARENTLY.
A TECHNIQUE USED BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WHEN "MEASURING" RELEASED RADIATION INTO RIVERS, STREAMS IS TO DO THE DUMP, THEN MEASURE THE DILUTED EFFLUENT FURTHER DOWNSTREAM AND REPORT THAT AS THE "READING"!
SO MUCH FOR OUR COUNTING ON THE NRC FOR "PROTECTION".
The U.S. EPA, on the other hand, only names 2 isotopes for air, plus general gross Alpha emitters.
YES, JUST TWO! Alpha emitters, such as plutonium, are to be limited to a total of 0.55 becquerels per liter for drinking water.
HOWEVER, the NRC rules allow “licensees” to put 7.4 Becquerels per liter, directly into the sewers – not that dilution fixes the problem, it only masks it.
Regulatory Roulette:The NRC’s Inconsistent Oversight of Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants
A MOST INSIGHTFUL LOOK AT HOW THE NRC ALLOWS VIOLATIONS.
"The NRC has breached its contract with the public by repeatedly tolerating unmonitored and uncontrolled leaks of radioactively contaminated water into the ground and nearby waterways.
For years, the NRC sporadically sanctioned plant owners for violations of regulations.
There was little correlation between the severity of the violation and whether a sanction was issued.
But in all 27 cases in which plants accidentally released radioactive materials over the past four years, the NRC has allowed plant owners to violate these regulations with impunity. "
The NRC must become the regulator the public deserves.
The NRC cannot set the safety bar at acceptable levels and then meekly watch as plant owners limbo beneath it.
The NRC must
consistently and aggressively enforce its regulations to protect the public and environment from
radioactive contamination. "
FALSE REPORTING IS COMMON IN THE INDUSTRY.
SOMETIMES, SUCH FALSIFIED RESULTS ARE DISCOVERED AND MADE PUBLIC, MOSTLY IN NEWS MEDIA OUTSIDE THE USA.
KOREA WAS CAUGHT DOING THIS AS WERE ALMOST ALL NATIONS WHICH HAVE NUCLEAR FACILITIES.
FALSE REPORTING IS COMMON IN THE INDUSTRY.
SOMETIMES, SUCH FALSIFIED RESULTS ARE DISCOVERED AND MADE PUBLIC, MOSTLY IN NEWS MEDIA OUTSIDE THE USA.
KOREA WAS CAUGHT DOING THIS AS WERE ALMOST ALL NATIONS WHICH HAVE NUCLEAR FACILITIES.
SEVERAL NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS IN INDIA HAVE JUST COME FORWARD TO REVEAL THAT THEIR SUPERIORS ORDERED THEM TO BARELY "DILUTE" AND RELEASE RADIOACTIVE WATER FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES THERE THAT WERE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE.
THIS HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE WASTE WAS DUMPED INTO THE OCEAN.
THE DISSENTING SCIENTISTS WERE THREATENED AND HARASSED WHEN THEY SPOKE OUT ABOUT THIS PRACTICE.
ODDLY, FOLLOWING THEIR REVELATIONS IN THE PRESS, AN INVESTIGATION WAS CALLED FOR INTO THE "SUICIDES" OF AT LEAST 10 TOP INDIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS SINCE 2009.
MORE ON THIS LATER IN THIS POST, BUT FIRST, LET'S LOOK AT THE "DILUTION SOLUTION" USED BY THOSE WHO PLAY WITH RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.
WHAT THEY DO AFFECTS ALL OUR LIVES AND WE HAVE A NEED TO KNOW WHO IS DOING THIS, WHERE, AND HOW OFTEN.
"DILUTED" RADIATION IS RELEASED INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THE MYTH THAT "DILUTING" RADIOACTIVE WASTE WITH WATER OR AIR MAKES IT OKAY TO RELEASE IT INTO OUR STREAMS, RIVERS, LAKES, OCEANS OR ATMOSPHERE IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST SCAMS RUNNING IN AMERICA...COMPLIMENTS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE EPA AND "NUCLEAR EXPERTS" WHO SAID, "SURE, GO AHEAD, LET IT FLOW!"
"DILUTE AND RELEASE" IS CHEAP, AND CHEAP IS WHAT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WANTS, NOT THE SAFETY OF HUMAN BEINGS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES, NOT A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, JUST CHEAP.
PROFITS, NOT HEALTHY PEOPLE, IS THEIR MAIN CONCERN ALWAYS.
OF COURSE, THE NRC AND EPA SUCKED RIGHT ON TO THE BACKSIDES OF THE BIG NUKE BOYS AND GAVE THEM A CHEAP WAY OUT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THOSE TWO AGENCIES, ISN'T IT?
TO KISS THE BEHINDS OF BIG NUKE AND SUCK UP TO THEM NONSTOP?
THEY SURE AS HELL ARE NOT "REGULATING" ANYTHING FOR US CITIZENS (EXCEPT THE SHORTENING OF OUR LIVES, PERHAPS) BY WHAT THEY ALLOW THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO GET AWAY WITH!
DIDN'T WE SEE ALL NUCLEAR "REGULATORY" AGENCIES RUSH TO 'TUT-TUT' THE VALID CONCERNS OF SCIENTISTS, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND 'COMMON CITIZENS' WHEN FUKUSHIMA'S DAIICHI FACILITY FIRST BEGAN LEAKING INTO THE AIR, WATER AND SOIL?
"OH, THE BIG PACIFIC WILL DILUTE THAT MASSIVE AMOUNT OF NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION, AND OUR ATMOSPHERE CAN HANDLE THAT MUCH RADIATION," WE WERE TOLD...OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR ALMOST 5 YEARS NOW...NONSTOP.
DID THE NRC MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT THOSE URANIUM 'BUCKYBALLS' THAT WERE FORMED WHEN SALT WATER HIT THOSE REACTORS AT DAIICHI?
NO!
NO, THE NRC DID NOT SAY, "WELL, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE NOT DILUTED AND THEY MOVE QUICKLY, UNSTOPPABLE ACROSS THE PACIFIC, SO WE CAN EXPECT SUBSTANTIAL CONTAMINATION FROM THOSE. THOSE WILL NOT BE DILUTED."
SUCH A DANGEROUS THING ARRIVED ON OUR WEST COAST LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER FUKUSHIMA'S TRAGEDY BEGAN. THE ARTICLE JUST LINKED IS A MUST READ ON THE BUCKYBALL SITUATION.
WHEN TEPCO ADMITTED LEAKAGE INTO THE PACIFIC HAD DRAMATICALLY INCREASED, OR WHEN THE RECENT FLOODS WASHED BOTH MEGATONS OF ADDITIONAL CONTAMINATED WATER INTO THE OLD PACIFIC FOR DAYS AND TORRENTIAL RAIN POURING DOWN INTO THE FUEL POOLS WITHOUT ROOFS DID WHO-KNOWS-WHAT TO THE AQUIFER AND SURROUNDING LAND THERE AND ALSO FLOWED INTO THE PACIFIC, DID THE NRC OR EPA BOTHER TO INFORM US IN EVEN ONE TINY ANNOUNCEMENT?
NO!
NO!
NO, THE NRC DID NOT SAY, "WELL, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE NOT DILUTED AND THEY MOVE QUICKLY, UNSTOPPABLE ACROSS THE PACIFIC, SO WE CAN EXPECT SUBSTANTIAL CONTAMINATION FROM THOSE. THOSE WILL NOT BE DILUTED."
SUCH A DANGEROUS THING ARRIVED ON OUR WEST COAST LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER FUKUSHIMA'S TRAGEDY BEGAN. THE ARTICLE JUST LINKED IS A MUST READ ON THE BUCKYBALL SITUATION.
WHEN TEPCO ADMITTED LEAKAGE INTO THE PACIFIC HAD DRAMATICALLY INCREASED, OR WHEN THE RECENT FLOODS WASHED BOTH MEGATONS OF ADDITIONAL CONTAMINATED WATER INTO THE OLD PACIFIC FOR DAYS AND TORRENTIAL RAIN POURING DOWN INTO THE FUEL POOLS WITHOUT ROOFS DID WHO-KNOWS-WHAT TO THE AQUIFER AND SURROUNDING LAND THERE AND ALSO FLOWED INTO THE PACIFIC, DID THE NRC OR EPA BOTHER TO INFORM US IN EVEN ONE TINY ANNOUNCEMENT?
NO!
DILUTION...WHAT A BRAZEN LIE!
WHAT A FANCIFUL DREAM!
WHAT A LOAD OF BS!
WHO COULD EXPLAIN THE DILUTION DECEPTION BETTER THAN MICHAEL COLLINS AT MINING AWARENESS PLUS?
NO ONE I KNOW OF, SO AGAIN, I ACKNOWLEDGE HIS EXPERTISE, GIVING FULL CREDIT FOR THE FOLLOWING TO COLLINS.
YOU CAN READ HIS ENTIRE ARTICLE <HERE>.
HE HAS AN ADDITIONAL ARTICLE HE TITLED "Radiation in Water: Dilute, Deceive, Externalize Costs – US NRC Comment Deadline, Mon 22 June 2015, 11.59 pm (one minute to midnight) NY-DC (ET)".
WHAT A FANCIFUL DREAM!
WHAT A LOAD OF BS!
WHO COULD EXPLAIN THE DILUTION DECEPTION BETTER THAN MICHAEL COLLINS AT MINING AWARENESS PLUS?
NO ONE I KNOW OF, SO AGAIN, I ACKNOWLEDGE HIS EXPERTISE, GIVING FULL CREDIT FOR THE FOLLOWING TO COLLINS.
YOU CAN READ HIS ENTIRE ARTICLE <HERE>.
HE HAS AN ADDITIONAL ARTICLE HE TITLED "Radiation in Water: Dilute, Deceive, Externalize Costs – US NRC Comment Deadline, Mon 22 June 2015, 11.59 pm (one minute to midnight) NY-DC (ET)".
COLLINS WRITES: "The most strange and deadly scam, which the US NRC is running, is the dilute to deceive scam, where they actually tell the nuclear industry (and labs) that if they dilute the radionuclides with a certain amount of water (or air), then it is ok to put it into the rivers, ocean, air and even into regular sewerage drains!
This is what they call “effluent concentration”.
Even then the amounts allowed exceed amounts allowed under the EPA’s Clean Water Act, though it doesn’t really matter because what matters is how much radionuclide is actually emitted into the environment and how many months, years, decades, centuries, it’s going to stay there.
[ The EPA has a dilute and deceive scam going ALSO: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/radiation-in-water-us-epa-advises-legal-cheating-for-compliance/]
So, now it is easy to see that the following question by the NRC is meaningless BS.
The actual amounts – not concentration – of the various radionuclides must be modelled. And, how long they stay in the environment:
“Q1-3: How should the calculations of effluent concentration, currently in the 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection regulations, be modified to reflect advances in modeling that are now available? In particular, the NRC is interested in preliminary views on the age and gender averaged approach.”
What the F(ukushima Daiichi) would age and gender averaged approach mean?
Assuming they were speaking of actual amounts, then the amounts should be “appropriate” for the most fragile. If you are considering age and gender then the fragile must be considered – period.
There is no average!
Fragility varies according to disease.
But, until they start modeling for actual emissions and actual half-life of the radionuclides, then it is meaningless.
Half-life in the body is also meaningless because at some point the body will enter steady-state with the environment.
And, actually the “appropriate” amount of exposure is none.
The actual amounts – not concentration – of the various radionuclides must be modelled. And, how long they stay in the environment:
“Q1-3: How should the calculations of effluent concentration, currently in the 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection regulations, be modified to reflect advances in modeling that are now available? In particular, the NRC is interested in preliminary views on the age and gender averaged approach.”
What the F(ukushima Daiichi) would age and gender averaged approach mean?
Assuming they were speaking of actual amounts, then the amounts should be “appropriate” for the most fragile. If you are considering age and gender then the fragile must be considered – period.
There is no average!
Fragility varies according to disease.
But, until they start modeling for actual emissions and actual half-life of the radionuclides, then it is meaningless.
Half-life in the body is also meaningless because at some point the body will enter steady-state with the environment.
And, actually the “appropriate” amount of exposure is none.
Here’s another crazy NRC question:
“Q1-4: Should the public dose limit of 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) continue to be the basis for the effluent concentration limits for the radionuclides in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2, Columns 1 and 2?
Should it be reduced or otherwise modified?”
“Q1-4: Should the public dose limit of 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) continue to be the basis for the effluent concentration limits for the radionuclides in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2, Columns 1 and 2?
Should it be reduced or otherwise modified?”
As noted above, effluent concentrations are a dilute to deceive scam.
What matters is the amounts and not the concentration.
10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2 should be modified to reflect actual amounts allowed and not concentrations.
And, really, any short-lived radionuclides should be contained until they are no longer radioactive, and long-lived radionuclides should never be emitted at all.
What matters is the amounts and not the concentration.
10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Table 2 should be modified to reflect actual amounts allowed and not concentrations.
And, really, any short-lived radionuclides should be contained until they are no longer radioactive, and long-lived radionuclides should never be emitted at all.
It’s not clear where they are getting the 0.5 mSv from.
On the NRC web site 1 mSv per year is mentioned. Is this right or wrong?
The US EPA has a standard of 0.25 mSv for the body and 0.75 mSv for the thyroid.
The ICRP 103 (2007), which they pretend to be coming up to speed with, has a dose constraint of less than or equal to 0.1 mSv per year where “prolonged component from long-lived nuclides” (p. 116)
The US EPA has a standard of 0.25 mSv for the body and 0.75 mSv for the thyroid.
The ICRP 103 (2007), which they pretend to be coming up to speed with, has a dose constraint of less than or equal to 0.1 mSv per year where “prolonged component from long-lived nuclides” (p. 116)
How many cancers will there be in a lifetime from the 1 mSv per year proposed by the US NRC?
According to National Academy of Sciences BEIR report, it would be 1 (or more) per 100 people.
According to National Academy of Sciences BEIR report, it would be 1 (or more) per 100 people.
The ICRP has it at about 0.55 which would round up to one.
However, this is assuming that the 1 mSv per year is new, whereas the radionuclides will be building up in the environment and even in the body.
If half of the 1 mSv emitted were short-lived, the next year there would still be 1 mSv emitted plus 0.5 mSv (half) already emitted.
Some of the radionuclides (cesium and strontium) have half-lives of about 30 years; other radionuclides like plutonium-americium in the 100s or 1000s of years:
However, this is assuming that the 1 mSv per year is new, whereas the radionuclides will be building up in the environment and even in the body.
If half of the 1 mSv emitted were short-lived, the next year there would still be 1 mSv emitted plus 0.5 mSv (half) already emitted.
Some of the radionuclides (cesium and strontium) have half-lives of about 30 years; other radionuclides like plutonium-americium in the 100s or 1000s of years:
“The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,065 years. This half-life is short enough that 1 microgram of material will undergo more than 2000 decay events per second, but it is long enough to allow that microgram to decay at an approximately constant rate for thousands of years.
If plutonium had uranium’s half-life of 4 billion years, there would be so few decays over the span of a human’s lifetime that the radiological toxicity of plutonium would be much less severe. [3] However, that is not the case… [3 Uranium is also much more soluble than plutonium and leaves the body rapidly.]” Los Alamos Science Number 26 2000, p. 78 (That’s straight from the heart of the beast – Los Alamos Nuclear Lab – hardly anti-nuclear!)
Plutonium 241 has a half life of 14 years, which is used to trick people since it becomes more dangerous 241 Americium with a half life of around 432 years.
Furthermore, BEIR is based on low-LET external, radiation.
ICRP appears more appropriate for low-LET, as well.
ICRP inappropriately lumps medical radiology and the nuclear industry together.
BEIR is excluding more dangerous high-LET and internal radiation in their calculation. However, they recognize high LET such as alpha and neutrons as more dangerous.
Most of the ICRP research would seem to be based on either external or very short-lived internal low LET radiation. While they are supposed to add weighting factors for high LET and amount of time spent in the body, it’s difficult to see if they can or will add enough weighting factors to thoroughly account for plutonium and americium, which even in a totally clean environment would stay in the body for a lifetime.
It takes 20 to 50 years to excrete one half of them, in a clean environment.
Furthermore, the US gov has at least one so-called expert who has messed up the formula, making more radiation safer and less more dangerous!
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/nuclear-effective-dose-radiation-icrp-vs-us-epa/
(This topic is important for the March 24th deadline too.)
ICRP appears more appropriate for low-LET, as well.
ICRP inappropriately lumps medical radiology and the nuclear industry together.
BEIR is excluding more dangerous high-LET and internal radiation in their calculation. However, they recognize high LET such as alpha and neutrons as more dangerous.
Most of the ICRP research would seem to be based on either external or very short-lived internal low LET radiation. While they are supposed to add weighting factors for high LET and amount of time spent in the body, it’s difficult to see if they can or will add enough weighting factors to thoroughly account for plutonium and americium, which even in a totally clean environment would stay in the body for a lifetime.
It takes 20 to 50 years to excrete one half of them, in a clean environment.
Furthermore, the US gov has at least one so-called expert who has messed up the formula, making more radiation safer and less more dangerous!
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/nuclear-effective-dose-radiation-icrp-vs-us-epa/
(This topic is important for the March 24th deadline too.)
To err is human, but there is no room for blunders with something so dangerous as radiation, especially not gross blunders.
The disgusting truth is that research on ionizing radiation has been ongoing since 1895. At the beginning of the nuclear age, focus was on how dangerous radiation was. Many animal and even human experiments have been done.
The human experiments were both official experiments and unofficial making the population at large act as guinea pigs.
They have known from the beginning the dangers.
Somewhere along the way they seem to have switched from doing experiments to see how dangerous it was to doing endless experiments in an attempt at proving that it is safe.
Somewhere along the way they seem to have switched from doing experiments to see how dangerous it was to doing endless experiments in an attempt at proving that it is safe.
Despite their efforts to prove the contrary, they have only succeeded in proving that ionizing radiation is even more dangerous than their early results showed.
As the National Academy of Science has stated endlessly in their BEIR reports, there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Increased dose is increased risk. This is even more true for high-LET internal alpha radiation and high LET neutrons.
The US EPA has a “clean water standard” for drinking water, though it has none for water emissions from nuclear facilities – which makes no sense.
Who, if anyone, pays to clean up the difference between radionuclides emitted by nuclear facilities and that allowed in drinking water?US EPA allows 740 Bq/liter of tritium in drinking water.
The Canadian nuclear lobby was reportedly satisfied with a 20 Bq/liter standard for tritium in drinking water, recommended by the Ontario Water Advisory Commission (OWAC), even though Canadian CANDU reactors produce more tritium than other reactors. .http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/reports/052109_ODWAC_Tritium_Report.pdfhttp://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/reports/052109_Tritium_Report_Cover_Letter.pdf
Notice the number was chosen based on cancer morbidity (illness), not just mortality (death).
[UNLIKE HERE IN THE USA, BTW.]
To show just how farcical NRC, EPA and ICRP “standards” are for public radiation exposure, Unit 1 of JM Farley Nuclear Power Plant, which appears an average old plant, built in 1977, located in Alabama, reported to the NRC, for 2012, for gas and water effluents, a public exposure of 0.3594 mrem (0.003594 mSv) for all organs and the balance of the body, with a 0.0162 mrem (0.000162 mSv) thyroid exposure.
The ICRP recommendation per facility is 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) maximum and the NRC is apparently 100 mrem (1 mSv) per facility.
As can be seen, this older nuclear reactor, probably leaking because of age, is significantly under what is allowed, meaning that people should be asking for 0.0036 mSv or less exposure for the public (with all organs and balance of body combined).
As can be seen, this older nuclear reactor, probably leaking because of age, is significantly under what is allowed, meaning that people should be asking for 0.0036 mSv or less exposure for the public (with all organs and balance of body combined).
The EPA, NRC, and ICRP are limiting nothing and these do not constitute protective “standards” at all!
Do you think that 740 radioactive emissions is clean water?
The NRC wants to manipulate the mrem (mSv) now to say that it should be well over 2,000 becquerels for tritium.
How that can be when it is now believed that tritium is more dangerous than previously thought, and may require a weighting factor, cannot be fathomed.
The NRC sets air and water emission limits of radionuclides at micro-curies per milliter, which is utterly deceitful. This is an old trick reportedly used by workers in the petrochemical industry in “cancer alley”, USA – to emit pollution and let it go downstream, down the Mississippi River; wait a few minutes and then measure.
The several nuclear power facilities, which we have examined, actually give the real emissions and then appear forced to report it as a dilution at the behest of the NRC! The radionuclides are going someplace.
The several nuclear power facilities, which we have examined, actually give the real emissions and then appear forced to report it as a dilution at the behest of the NRC! The radionuclides are going someplace.
Dilution is not a solution for the longer lived radionuclides nor for simultaneous and ongoing emissions."
AND IN INDIA...
"As India celebrates its 69th year of Independence, several scientists from the country’s premier nuclear research lab Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) have alleged harassment and victimisation by their supervisors. They have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, seeking his immediate intervention. Modi is the supreme head of the Department of Atomic Energy, which controls nuclear research and development centres, including BARC in Mumbai.
Suicide Saga
■ In January, a PIL was filed in Bombay High Court seeking a probe into suicides and unnatural deaths of scientists. The PIL said, “Scientific community has been plagued by suicides, unexplained deaths and sabotage [that] have gone underreported.”
■ In July 2014, the government told Parliament that nine nuclear scientists committed suicide in 2009-2013 in atomic power stations and other research centres; three suicides were reported from Nuclear Power Corporation during the same period.
OF MUCH IMPORTANCE IS THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT, RELATIVE TO THIS TOPIC:
~ "Management of Discharge of
Low Level Liquid Radioactive
Waste Generated in Medical,
Educational, Research and Industrial Facilities"
"Countries typically fit into one of the four following categories with respect to the status of their arrangements for the management of radioactive liquid effluents:
(1) The country does not have sufficient technical, regulatory and organizational infrastructure to effectively manage its radioactive liquid effluents;
(2) The country’s technical infrastructure for effectively managing its radioactive liquid effluents is almost sufficient, but it is not supported by an acceptable level of regulatory and organizational capacity (e.g. legal infrastructure, administrative infrastructure);
(3) The country has sufficient technical, regulatory and organizational capacity, but it is known that the application of the requirements for proper management of radioactive liquid effluents is, in many cases, not being carried out to the standard indicated by official reports;
(4) The country has well developed and established regulatory and organizational capacity, which is complemented by an acceptable level of relevant technical infrastructure such that the radioactive liquid effluents can be properly managed.
IN SHORT, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCIES ALLOW NATIONS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO PROPERLY MANAGE RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND THEN OPERATE THEM OUTSIDE THE RULES!
WE MAY NEVER KNOW HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS BEING RELEASED DAILY INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT, PUTTING US ALL AT HIGH RISK.
WE CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND KEEP ALLOWING THIS.
IN "The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014", WE CAN SEE THAT EUROPEAN NATIONS, CHINA AND INDEED MOST NATIONS ARE TURNING MORE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LIKE SOLAR AND WIND.
SPAIN, FRANCE, GERMANY, SO MANY HAVE SEEN THAT NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNNECESSARY.
SOLAR AND WIND POWER TRULY ARE THE FUTURE OF CHEAPER, BETTER ENERGY.
NUCLEAR WASTE ALONE SHOULD RULE OUT EVEN ONE NUCLEAR PLANT ON PLANET EARTH.
IN THAT SAME REPORT, WE CAN SEE THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF OUR SURVIVAL IF WE HAVE ANOTHER FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI INCIDENT.
IT LISTS THE APPARENTLY INSURMOUNTABLE TASKS THAT TEPCO AND THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT HAVE YET TO FIND WAYS TO PERFORM IN ORDER TO EVER STOP IRRADIATING ALL OF US.
THE MORE WE READ AND UNCOVER AND UNDERSTAND, THE MORE POWERFUL WILL BE OUR COLLECTIVE VOICE WHEN WE DEMAND AN END TO DAMNABLE, MURDEROUS NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES.
IT LISTS THE APPARENTLY INSURMOUNTABLE TASKS THAT TEPCO AND THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT HAVE YET TO FIND WAYS TO PERFORM IN ORDER TO EVER STOP IRRADIATING ALL OF US.
THE MORE WE READ AND UNCOVER AND UNDERSTAND, THE MORE POWERFUL WILL BE OUR COLLECTIVE VOICE WHEN WE DEMAND AN END TO DAMNABLE, MURDEROUS NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES.
WE REALLY MUST MAKE NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCIES AND THE EPA RESPONSIBLE TO US, TO THE HUMAN BEINGS BOMBARDED BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY EVERY DAY.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
No comments:
Post a Comment