Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (and ALL such facilities) releases different types of radiation that affect our bodies, as illustrated above. They can be either inhaled or ingested. They enter the air, soil and water, then plants, animals and fish, traveling up the food chain to humans. These elements concentrate in various parts of our body. The NRC and the nuclear industry consider "inert gases" (such as Xenon and Krypton) that Pilgrim releases to be harmless because they do not combine with any other elements when they are inhaled. This ignores the fact that during normal radioactive decay, inert gases become deadly.
Krypton 90 decays into Strontium 90 and attacks bone marrow. Xenon 137 becomes Cesium 137, which attacks muscles and genitals.
Inert gases, when inhaled, tend to be taken up by the adrenal glands.
Filters cannot stop inert gases.
Pilgrim Watch was a grassroots organization that served the public interest in issues regarding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Pilgrim Watch is still online, but "under construction" at http://www.pilgrimwatch.org/
The aged, leaking, problem plagued Pilgrim plant has been slated for shutdown, but only time will tell if this becomes reality.
On October 13, 2015, plant owners announced that Pilgriim would close by June 1, 2019, citing "market conditions and increased costs," which would have included tens of millions of dollars of necessary safety upgrades.
Built in 1972, Pilgrim's original license to operate should have expired in 2012.
BELOW IS A HYPOTHETICAL "NON-CONSENT FORM" WHICH NONE OF US IN OUR RIGHT MINDS WOULD AGREE TO, BUT WE DO, BY OUR SILENT ACCEPTANCE OF NUCLEAR "ENERGY" PLANTS, THEIR INCESSANT LEAKING AND "VENTING", AND THE STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASE IN BIRTH DEFECTS, CANCERS AND OTHER AILMENTS NEAR SUCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
"INFORMED NON-CONSENT FORM FOR HUMAN RESEARCH : THE NUCLEAR POWER EXPERIMENT" - Prepared by Kate Parker Adams
You are invited to take part in an experiment.
Or you would be invited, if this experiment were covered by international standards for human experiments.
Radioactive materials will be released from a nuclear power plant into the air you may breathe, the water you may drink, and the food you and your family may eat.
This experiment will last as long as the nuclear power station is in operation.
It will continue while the plant is chopped up or “decommissioned”- as long as fifty years or more.
Nuclear waste [storage and] transport will extend the experiment to areas distant from nuclear facilities.
You have no choice but to participate in this experiment.
Procedures:
While the nuclear power station is operating normally, it will discharge radioactive materials such as: strontium; tritium; argon; xenon; krypton; cesium; barium; iodine [and at least 90 other radioactive substances].
These radioactive materials will be released from the power plant into the air as 'steam', or in wastewater. They may travel some distance from the plant in the air depending on the weather and release conditions. Radioactive materials in water will move with water in the ground, travel down stream in rivers, or move with ocean currents.
You will breathe these radioactive materials in the air, drink them from water sources, or eat them in food grown with contaminated water or soil.
We do not know how much, if any, radioactive material you will breathe or swallow.
The Nuclear Power Experiment has no plans to track these radioactive materials.
Risks, Discomforts, and Inconveniences
The health effects of breathing or swallowing radioactive substances from nuclear plants are not well studied.
[MY NOTE: ACTUALLY, IT HAS BEEN WELL STUDIED. It was very well studied in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when the old Atomic Energy Commission issued the statement that NO AMOUNT OF RADIATION IS HARMLESS, that the ingestion, inhalation of just one radioactive particle can cause cancer in humans/animals and that even the smallest doses of radiation, over time, will increase destruction and mutation of DNA. Because of their studies on other unsuspecting human guinea pigs, the majority of scientists who created the bomb became activists in ending nuclear proliferation. As Oppenheimer stated on national TV, they "had become death".]
The amount of radiation you will get from the Nuclear Power Experiment is much less than the amounts of whole-body radiation people had in Hiroshima.
So we will tell you that the Nuclear Power Experiment will not cause you health problems even though swallowing or breathing radiation for many years is different from being bombed.
,
THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS WILL BE THE SAME.
SOME WILL DIE.
UNBORN BABIES, CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY AND THOSE WITH COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS WILL BE THE WORST AFFECTED.
"In reality, atomic bomb tests have dispersed about six tons of fine plutonium mist into the air, enough to give each person in the world 1,000 cancers."
BUT IT ISN'T "JUST" PLUTONIUM, IS IT?
IF YOU LIVE NEAR A NUCLEAR REACTOR, YOU WILL BE AN UNPAID, UNINFORMED HUMAN GUINEA PIG, STUDIED COVERTLY BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND "BIG NUKE".
YOUR ONLY HOPE IS TO MOVE AWAY FROM SUCH PLACES.
GOOD LUCK ON THAT!
Radiation Basics
"There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of (ionizing) radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero"
--Dr. Karl Morgan, the father of Health Physics
Gamma rays are the most penetrating type of radiation and can be stopped only by thick lead blocking their path. Cesium-137 is a gamma emitter often released from nuclear reactors. It mimics potassium, collecting in muscle. Iodine-131and Iodine-129 are also gamma-emitters released through bomb testing and at atomic reactors. Radioactive iodines collect in the thyroid gland emitting both beta and gamma ionizing radiation to the surrounding tissue.
X-rays are much like gamma rays except they are most often generated electrically by a machine (rather than a radionuclide), usually for medical diagnostic procedures.
X-rays also require lead shielding.
When generated by medical equipment, their production does not create nuclear waste.
BIO-ACCUMULATION
With man’s increased uses of radioactive material, more radionuclides have been and continue to be released to the environment. Once released, they can circulate through the biosphere, ending up in drinking water, vegetables, grass, meat, etc. The higher an animal eats on the food chain, the higher the concentration of radionuclides. This is bioaccumulation. The process of bioaccumulating radionuclides can be especially harmful to humans since many of us eat at the top of the food chain.
"MADMAN IN A LIBRARY…"
Ionizing radiation travels through our living tissue with much more energy than either natural chemical, or biological functions. This extra energy tears mercilessly at the very fabric of what makes us recognizably human—our genetic material. Elderly and people with immune disorders are more susceptible to ionizing radiation. Children and the unborn are especially susceptible because of their rapid and abundant cell division during growth.
Cancers linked to ionizing radiation exposure include most blood cancers (leukemia, lymphoma), lung cancer, and many solid tumors of various organs. Birth defects can include downs syndrome, cleft palate or lip, congenital malformations, spinal defects, kidney, liver damage and more.
Evidence exists that radiation is permanently and unpredictably mutating the gene pool and contributing to its gradual weakening. The New Scientist quotes a report that calls genetic or chromosomal instabilities caused by radiation exposure a "plausible mechanism" for explaining illnesses other than cancer, including "developmental deficiencies in the fetus, hereditary disease, accelerated aging and such non-specific effects as loss of immune competence."
A living being’s genetic material is the library that houses the instructions for many important aspects of that being and his/her offspring, including the ability to defend against diseases. If we allow ionizing radiation to tamper with our genes, it could cause irreversible damage, not just to this generation through cancer, but to future generations through gene mutations and ensuing disease.
Government, university and independently sponsored studies have all shown that there is no safe level of radiation exposure - the lowest dose damages our health.
The National Academy of Sciences 2005 report thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says.
Benefits of being a guinea pig:
When nuclear power was new, experimental subjects were told that they would receive electricity for little or no money, otherwise known as “too cheap to meter”. WRONG!
You will get about twenty-percent of your electricity from the Nuclear Power Experiment and you will pay market rates for this electricity.
Alternatives (Other Options) :
Nuclear power is not the only way to generate electricity. Alternatives include: development of our nation's vast potential for wind and solar power; using less electricity by reducing waste; encouraging energy efficient technology and design.
In Case of Injury (because I am a guinea pig):
If physical injury resulting from participation in the Nuclear Power Experiment should occur, your medical treatment will be entirely up to you. Persons conducting the Nuclear Power Experiment do not have to take any responsibility for the health of exposed subjects, and are exempted from liability in case of catastrophic accident.
No Signature Needed
I have been informed about the Nuclear Power Experiment, its possible benefits, risks, and discomforts. I recognize that I have no choice but to take part in this experiment and that my continued exposure is involuntary.
I understand that if the Nuclear Power Experiment was conducted according to human experiment standards started after the Nuremburg Trials, I could refuse to be exposed to potentially harmful radioactive materials for which the health effects are not established.
I FOUND THIS DAMN FINE ARTICLE COMPLETELY BY ACCIDENT, CREATED A DRAFT OF IT ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO AND FORGOT IT.
I PRESENT JUST A FEW HIGHLIGHTS FROM IT (IT IS VERY EXTENSIVE) THAT MAY NOT SEEM TO CONNECT UNTIL YOU READ THE WHOLE THING.
ONE CAN READ FOR A VERY LONG TIME IN THE ARCHIVES OF THIS ARTICLE.
THE
ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND AT http://www.pilgrimwatch.org/health1.html NO
LONGER EXISTS, BUT WAS ARCHIVED BY THE 'WAYBACK MACHINE' AT
https://web.archive.org/web/20110131103424/http://www.pilgrimwatch.org/health1.html
READ, READ, READ!
IT EXPLAINS A LOT.
Dr. John Gofman - eminent nuclear chemist, part of the original team who created "The Bomb", and cardiologist wrote the following letter, May 11, 1999 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720
LETTER OF CONCERN
To Whom It May Concern,
During 1942, I led "The Plutonium Group" at the University of California, Berkeley, which managed to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from irradiated uranium. [Plutonium-239 had previously been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin McMillan]. During subsequent decades, I have studied the biological effects of ionizing radiation---- including the alpha particles emitted by the decay of plutonium.
By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman 1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997, "Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]
It follows from such evidence that citizens worldwide have a strong biological basis for opposing activities which produce an appreciable risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium and other radioactive pollution at any level.
The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various "natural sources" ---which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency.
Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology
References :
1990: John W. Gofman, Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure. ISBN 0-932682-89-8. The entire monograph is online at www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/ 1995: Natl Radiological Protection Bd (Britain), Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer at Low Doses... ISBN 0-85951-386-6.
1997: Tom K. Hei et al, "Mutagenic Effects of a Single and Exact Number of Alpha Particles...", Proceeding of the Natl Acad Sci Vol.94, No.8: 3765-3770. The full text is
online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3765
1999: John W. Gofman, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease... ISBN 0-932682-97-9. The first 100 pages plus the Table of
Contents and References are online at www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/
2000: Michele M. Doody et al, "Breast Cancer Mortality after Diagnostic Radiography," Spine Vol.25, No.2: 2052-2063.
2000: Betsy M. Sutherland et al, "Clustered DNA Damages Induced... in Human Cells by Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation," Proceedings of the Natl Acad Sci Vol.97, No.1: 103-108. The full text is online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/1/103
See also Sutherland 2000, "Clustered Damages and Total Lesions Induced in DNA by Ionizing
Radiation..." Biochemistry Vol.39: 8026-8031.
2001: David J. Brenner et al, "Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT," Amer. Journal of Roentgenology Vol.176, No.2: 289-296. Full text is online at
www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/176/2/289
2005: National Academy of Sciences report, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2). Available on line at http://national-academies.org Evidence of radiation-linked disease continued. In a statement before the Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study Review Committee [June 26, 1992] Dr. Richard W. Clapp, the founder and former director of the Massachusetts Cancer Registry, presented a graphical assessment of the pattern of leukemia and thyroid cancer in the towns closest to Pilgrim during the period 1982-1989.
Analysis of 1974-1989 Massachusetts Cancer Registry for Leukemia & Thyroid Cancer, Dr. Richard Clapp, DSc, MPH (2006), personal communication. Exhibit F-4 shows graphs of the incidence leukemia and thyroid cancer in the Plymouth area. The incidence of leukemia peaked in 1982 and subsequently declined until 1986.
Then there was a second, smaller peak in 1987 and 1988 while declined in 1989.
The number of cases exceeded the number expected in 1982-85 and 1987-88. The second graph depicts the pattern of thyroid cancer in the same set of towns. It shows a peak in the years 1987-1988.
These patterns of cancer incidence are consistent with the predicted health effects of the radiation released in the early 1980s. A graph showing the predicted health effects is also shown in Exhibit F. A statistically significant increase in childhood leukemia was noted in communities near Pilgrim, too. Although Massachusetts Department of Public Health recommended a state sponsored case controlled childhood leukemia study, it was not done.
BEIR Vll: Health Effects of Low Level Ionizing Radiation
The National Academies Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, the National Research Council, published
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 in 2005. Drawing upon new data in both epidemiologic and experimental research, they concluded that no amount of radiation is safe. There is a linear no threshold response to radiation, and exposure to low levels of radiation is approximately three-times more dangerous than previously thought. BEIR VII: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Report in Brief, June 2005. Therefore it is not surprising that radiation-linked disease rates are higher than expected in communities exposed to Pilgrim’s past releases.
A summary of cancer deaths estimated at NRC’s permissible dose release is provided in the BEIR VII Report. The report shows the number of cancer cases and deaths expected to result in 100,000 persons (with an age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population) exposed to 100mSv per year over a 70 year lifetime. On average, assuming a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, the BEIR VII lifetime risk model predicts approximately one individual in 100 persons would be expected to develop cancer (solid cancer or leukemia) and approximately one in 175 would be expected to die from cancer from a the permissible dose of 100 mSv. Lower doses would produce proportionately lower risks.
For example one in 1000 would develop cancer from an exposure to 10 mSv.
ANY VOLUNTEERS TO BE THAT ONE?
This new report validates concerns raised by Petitioners and helps explain the radiation-linked disease observed near Pilgrim NPS. When the standards were set by the NRC for permissible release of off-site radiation, low levels of radiation were considered harmless. However, the BEIR VII report now reveals that any exposure is potentially dangerous. Therefore it is not surprising that radiation-linked disease rates are higher than expected in communities exposed to Pilgrim’s past radiological releases.
This new information is particularly relevant to the issue of re-licensing Pilgrim because twenty additional years of exposure will harm an already damaged population.
Pilgrim has operated, and most likely will continue to operate with defective fuel.
Pilgrim began operations in 1972 with defective fuel.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study 1978-1986 stated, “Pilgrim, which began operations in 1972, had a history of emissions during the 1970s that were above currently acceptable EPA guidelines as a result of a fuel rod problem.” Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study 1978-1986, Morris M.S., Knorr R.S., Executive Summary, Massachusetts Department of Health (October, 1990).
In the March 2005 and April 2006 Pilgrim SALP (Systematic Assessment of License Performance, performed by the NRC) Reports, NRC Resident Inspector, William Raymond, stated that Pilgrim operated in 2004 and 2005 with defective radioactive fuel – that is, fuel with perforated cladding.
Fuel cladding provides the first barrier to prevent radiation from getting out and harming workers and the public. Degraded fuel is an on going issue for the industry.
NRC Commissioner Merrifield has admitted nearly 1/3 reactors now have failed fuel, and the trend is increasing, not decreasing. Briefing on Nuclear Fuel Performance, Transcript, p.4, (February 24, 2005), http://www.nrc.gov.
Use of degraded fuel will increase exposure to both the public and workers.
For example, according to the NRC, “a plant operating with 0.125 percent pin-hole fuel cladding defects showed a general five-fold increase in whole-body radiation exposure rates in some areas of the plant when compared to a sister plant with high-integrity fuel (<0.01 percent leaks).
Around certain plant systems the degraded fuel may elevate radiation exposure rates even more.” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Information Notice No. 87-39, Control Of Hot Particle Contamination At Nuclear plants, (August 21, 1987).
MUCH MORE ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES AT PILGRIM AT
https://web.archive.org/web/20110131104059/http://www.pilgrimwatch.org:80/health5.html
SEE ALSO:
FINDINGS AROUND MAJOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES - COMMUNITY STUDIES.
YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE THE PROOF IN THESE STUDIES WHICH MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONTINUES TO SUPPRESS, PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES, FACTS KEPT OUT OF THE MEDIA SPOTLIGHT.
BUT REMEMBER, WHAT APPLIES TO PILGRIM APPLIES TO ALL OUR AGED, CRUMBLING POWER PLANTS WHICH HAVE ALL EXCEEDED THEIR DESIGNED 40-YEAR LIFESPAN.
FLAWED EMERGENCY PLANNING: WHAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE SIMPLY WON'T WORK.
RE-FOCUS!
Concern about nuclear reactor accidents or attacks has focused on a core meltdown.
Nuclear reactors have a weaker link – the spent fuel pool.
Spent fuel pools contain some of the largest inventories of radioactivity on earth.
Pilgrim's pool will have 3,859 assemblies in a space designed for 880.
The pool can catch fire if the water drops to the top of the stored assemblies, either by mechanical failure, operator error or acts of malice; and they are vulnerable to terrorism.
At present there is no safe storage solution - no permanent repository in sight; yet nuclear reactors continue to generate tons of waste each year that is stored on site in areas never designed for that purpose.
Host communities never bargained for (or agreed to become) massive, long-term radioactive waste storage sites.
Nuclear workers' children have increased cancer risk.
BTW, so do children of returning military veterans exposed to depleted uranium in the Middle East.
19 June 2002
Exclusive from New Scientist
"Working at the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria may have been harmful after all.
Children of men who had been exposed to radiation while working at the plant have
twice the normal risk of leukemia and lymphoma, according to a major new study
sponsored by the nuclear industry.
Throughout the whole of Cumbria, they found that the incidence of leukemia and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was twice as high among the Sellafield children.
The incidence was 15 times as great in Seascale, a small village next to the
nuclear plant.
Crucially, they also discovered that the risk to children rose in line with the
radiation dose received by their fathers."
[More at: International Journal of Cancer (vol 99, p 437) ]
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RADIATION
1. Cells are killed.
2. Passes through and misses cells.
3. Cell is damaged but repairs itself.
4. Cell is damaged and reproduces a damaged cell which may result in cancer.
5. Sperm or egg is damaged and passes its mutations to offspring which may cause stillbirths, miscarriages, birth defects, inheritable genetic damage, and possible cancer.
RADIATION DOSES AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Acute Exposure: Expected Effects
[DO NOTE:
For equivalent dose, the unit corresponding to rads is the rem (roentgen equivalent man).
The difference between the rad and rem is that the rad is a measurement of the radiation absorbed by the material or tissue.
The rem is a measurement of the biological effect of that absorbed radiation.
For general purposes most physicists agree that the Roentgen, Rad and Rem may be considered equivalent.
If the absorbed dose is in grays then the unit for dose equivalent is sievert (Sv).
Thus, 1 Sv = 100 rads/rem.
Roughly, 1 rem is the average dose received in three years of exposure to natural radiation. "Natural" radiation includes all that man has put into the environment since he started making and testing "The Bomb" and Nuke Plants and medical devices that utilize radiation. NOTHING "natural" about it, it's just how things are now. Like young birds, we have simply fouled our nest, 'Earth', and there is no going back.]
Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels | MIT News
Sievert, gray, rem, and rad: Why are there so many different ways to measure radiation?
2000 rads (20 Sieverts) - Immediate death
400-600 rads - Acute radiation sickness (nausea, vomiting), bone marrow destruction, 3-5 weeks until death; (one-half of the people will die within 30 days (LD-30)
150-400 rads - Acute radiation sickness, skin burns and benign tumors. Without medical intervention, increased risk cancers, genetic effects, shorter life span.
50-150 rads, roughly just 1 Sievert - Blood changes, increased risk of infection/hemorrhage, possible benign tumors, or increased risk malignant tumors, genetic effects, shorter life span.
25-50 rads - Blood changes can occur, increased risk tumors, genetic effects and temporary sterility in men
0-25 rads - Risk of premature aging, excess tumors, genetic effects
ZERO, BECAUSE AS THE ORIGINAL ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, INCLUDING OPPENHEIMER ADMITTED, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION AND THERE IS NO NOWHERE ON EARTH THAT IS FREE OF RADIATION. WE'VE COVERED THE PLANET IN IT.
Long-Term Effects:
A cell damaged by radiation may produce damaged daughter cells which can
begin the carcinogenic process (the development of tumor). Tumors tend to
become increasingly malignant through time. All organs are vulnerable to
radiation induced cancer given the right conditions of exposure.
Latency:
The exact latency of radiation-induced cancers cannot be determined as it depends on the individual and factors such as age qt exposure, sex, genetic constitution, physiological state, smoking, and other physical and chemical agents. Radiation can initiate a cancer or other environmental insults can promote the cancer. Likewise, some other agent can initiate a cancer and a radiation exposure can promote the cancer.
Leukemia, thyroid, and bone cancers have short latencies.
Cancers in other organs generally have latencies ranging from 10-25 years.
IT HAS NOT BEEN 10 YEARS SINCE DAI'ICHI MELTED DOWN.
WE WAIT TO SEE HOW MANY WILL DIE AFTER 10-25 YEARS.
RADIONUCLIDE/ORGAN DISTRIBUTION
Organs and the radioactive elements that affect them
-Thyroid: Iodine
-Skin: Krypton (external exposure)
-Liver: Polonium, Zinc, Cesium, Serium
-Ovaries: Zinc
-Prostate: Zinc
-Muscle (WHICH INCLUDES THE HEART): Potassium, Cesium
-Spleen: Polonium, Irridium, Cesium
-Kidneys: Ruthenium, Polonium, Uranium, Irridium
-Bone: Radium, Strontium-Ytrium, Promethium, Barium, Throium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Plutonium
-Uniform Distribution: Tritium, Carbon, Chromium, Sulfur, Cobalt (all forms), Cesium, Potassium, and Zirconium
-Lungs and GI Tract: Anything breathed and in insoluble form (not readily dissolved), e.g. Zirconium, Carbide
WHY DON'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARTICLES ABOUT FUKUSHIMA, HANFORD, WIPP, ETC, EVER MENTION THESE OTHER DANGEROUS PRODUCTS LEAKED DAILY BY NUCLEAR REACTORS?
BECAUSE, IF THE PUBLIC WAS PROPERLY INFORMED THERE WOULD BE A GREAT OUTCRY TO END "NUCLEAR ENERGY" PLANTS...SOMETHING TOO COSTLY FOR 'BIG NUKE' TO THINK ABOUT.
THEIR PROFITS TAKE PRECEDENT OVER OUR HEALTH, AS ALWAYS.
British Studies:
3. Barcinski, MA, et al - 1975. Cytogenic investigation in a Brazilian population living in an area of high natural radioactivity. A. J. Human Genet, 27:802-806.
200 villagers exposed to excess gamma and alpha radiation from monazite sands (thorium) - 640 milirems/year compared with a control group from a similar village - exposed group showed increase in chromosomal aberrations.
Contents:
A. FINDINGS AROUND MAJOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES - COMMUNITY STUDIES
B. STUDIES OF FALLOUT FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS
C. STUDIES OF NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION
D. STUDIES OF URANIUM MINERS AND MEDICAL IRRADIATION
E. STUDIES OF NUCLEAR WORKERS
[Prepared by
Childhood Cancer Research Institute
P.O. Box 309
Worcester, MA 01602]
1. Hatch et al. Background Gamma Radiation and Childhood Cancers Within Ten Miles of a --US Nuclear Plant. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1990.
Investigators found a positive correlation between background gamma radiation and childhood cancers in census tracts within ten miles of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility. For childhood cancers, as a whole, incidence rates relate significantly to background radiation; the association is strongest in children ages 10-14 years. Their data indicate a 50% increase in risk of cancer for children under 15 with ever 0.1 mgy (10 millirem) increase in estimated annual background gamma ray dose rate.
2. Knox, Stewart, Gilman and Kneale. Background Radiation and Childhood Cancers. J. Radiol. Prot. 1988, Vol. 8, No. 1 9-18.
These investigators matched outdoor levels of terrestrial gamma radiation with local childhood cancer rates for every 10 KM square in Great Britain. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between exposures to background radiation levels and rates of childhood cancer mortality.
The finding suggests that radiation might be a primary cause in the majority of all childhood cancers. Increases in overall fetal radiation exposures, from whatever cause, would then be expected to result in a near proportional increase in the subsequent cancer rate. Average absorbed fetal dose is .22 mGy (20 millrems).
--MacMahon, Brian. Prenatal X-Ray Exposure and Childhood Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 28:1173-1191, 1962.
Study Type - Case-Control
The higher frequency of prenatal x-ray in the cancer cases than in the sample was statistically significant. After correction for birth order and other complicating variables, it was estimated that cancer mortality (including leukemia mortality) was about 40% higher in the x-rayed than in the un-x-rayed members of the study population. This relationship held for each of the three major diagnostic categories--leukemia, neoplasms of the central nervous system, and other neoplasms.
--Morgenstern, H. et al., Epidemiologic Study to Determine Possible Adverse Effects to Rocketdyne/Atomics International Workers from Exposure to Ionizing Radiation., June 1997, Final Report to the Public Health Institute, Berkeley, CA
Study Type: Cohort
These investigators found that among 4,607 workers exposed to external radiation at doses higher than 20 rem (200 mSv), they had an increased risk of dying from cancers of the blood and lymph system. As dose increased, these workers had an increased risk of dying from all cancers. For workers monitored for internal radiation exposures, those receiving doses of 3 rem (30 mSv) or more, there was an increased risk for cancers of the blood and lymph system as well as mouth, throat, esophagus and stomach cancers. (Final Report to Public Health Institute, Berkeley, CA, June 1997)
--Wing S. et al. (1991). Mortality among Workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Evidence of Radiation Effects in Follow-up Through 1984. JAMA 265 (11):1397- 1402
Study Type: Cohort
Findings: Wing studied workers from 1943-1972 (8,318 population with 1,524 deaths) His major findings include leukemia mortality 33% higher in the all -worker cohort and 63% higher in the “white male cohort” with median cumulative doses of 140 millirems Data suggest a radiation effect for lung cancer for non-monitored workers.
See also:
--Wilkinson and Dreyer (Epid.1991:2) reviewed 7 studies of nuclear workers(1.4 million person years) and found an of excess leukemia to workers from occupational exposures to very low doses of radiation (1 to 5 rem).
PILGRIM -STUDIES OF RADIATION LINKED DISEASE
Infant Deaths - Sternglass, 1986: A Massachusetts state task force found an unexplained 38% "spike" in the infant death rate (IDR) in Boston from 1981 to 1982. This was the first increase in the IDR in 9 years, and the largest in 17 years. A June, 1986, study by Dr. Ernest Sternglass, professor emeritus of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, connected the increase with large radioactive releases from Pilgrim during June, 1982.
Myelogenous Leukemia – Cobb, 1987: An epidemiological analysis of five towns around Pilgrim shows a 60 percent increase in leukemia rate, excluding leukemias not caused by radiation exposure. - Dr. Sidney Cobb, et.al., Lancet, 1987. The rate of myelogenous leukemia (the type most likely to be triggered by exposure to radiation) among males in the 5 towns around the Pilgrim reactor was found to be 2 1/2 times greater than the statewide average. - Dr. Sydney Cobb, et al., "Leukemia in Five Massachusetts Coastal Towns", Abstract for the American Epidemiologic Society, March 18, 1987; and, Clapp RW, Cobb S, Chan CK, Walker B Leukemia near Massachusetts Nuclear Power Plant, letter. Lancet 1987; 2:1324-5.
Adult Leukemia - Massachusetts Department of Health, 1990: Adults living and working within ten miles of the Pilgrim reactor had a fourfold increased risk of contracting leukemia between the years of 1978 and 1983 when compared with people living more than 20 miles away, according to a 1990 study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. The report stated "a dose-response relationship was observed in that the relative risk of leukemia increased as the potential for exposure to plant emissions also increased." - Morris MS, Knorr RS, Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study 1978-1986, Massachusetts Department of Health, Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study, Oct., 1990. Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 51, p266, 1996, July-Aug. #4).
Radioactive Releases Occur Routinely. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, like all reactors, releases large numbers of radioisotopes/radiation into the air and water as part of “normal” operations.
Entergy (Licensee) Charged With Tracking Their Own Releases.
WOULD ENTERGY LIE?
ABSOLUTELY!
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies upon self-reporting and computer modeling from reactor operators to track radioactive releases and their projected dispersion. A significant portion of the environmental monitoring data is extrapolated – virtual, not real. What is put into the computer model, assumptions, will determine the answer that comes out.
Public Left in Dark: Due to inadequacies in the monitoring equipment and self-reporting, neither the public nor federal and state authorities know how much is actually emitted.
We need: State-of-the-art radiation monitors computer linked to state and local authorities at all points where radiation is released from Pilgrim and at appropriate off-site locations; we need environmental sampling performed honestly with indicator and control stations appropriately placed.
The uncertainties associated with this method are that in general isotopes emit a spectrum of radiation frequencies, and in a case where there are a large number of unknown isotopes present in the sample, the energy peaks can overlap for different species and it may not be possible to assay many isotopes with any accuracy.
Another problem that can occur is that the efficiency of the charcoal absorber is strongly a function of relative humidity, so in cases of high humidity, the amount of a given isotope present in the charcoal may not at all reflect the concentrations in the sampled effluent. Detectors used to perform these measurements have non-uniform responses to different energy peaks, and calibration of these sensitive instruments should be conducted frequently.
Finally, the raw measurements from these instruments are entered into equations to ESTIMATE actual release rates, so the associated uncertainties may be quite high.
Are there monitors at all exit points?
Unknown: For example, the public was assured when the reactor went on line in 1972 that there were radiation detectors located at every exit point from the plant to measure gaseous radioactive effluents.
However, it was not true. Citizens brought to the NRC’s attention in 1991 (NRC Report, 50-293/92-02,sec. 2.3) that the nine vents in the Turbine Building did NOT have either monitors or filters and vented to the atmosphere during the 20 years since Pilgrim went on line.
Permissible Releases Do Not Mean Safe.
Government regulations allow “permissible” levels of contamination. However, since there is no safe threshold to exposure to radiation, permissible does not mean safe.
NRC’s allowable radioactive release dose from a nuclear reactor to members of the public is 100 millirem per year to the total body.
The National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Radiation (BEIR VII) Report published June 2005 reported that the lifetime fatal cancer risk for 100 mrem/yr is (1) in (175) and the cancer incidence risk is (1) in (100).
Pilgrim claims to release a tiny fraction of the permissible dose; if true, why does industry fight changing the standard to a far lower number to better protect public health?
Radioactive Releases Occur Routinely. It doesn’t take an accident at Pilgrim to release radioactivity into our air, water, and soil.
As a matter of routine operation, radiation is released from Pilgrim in the form of liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive wastes. Solid radioactive wastes include anything from laundry (considered low-level waste) to spent fuel rods (considered high-level waste.)
OVER 100 DIFFERENT ISOTOPES AND ALL ARE KNOWN CARCINOGENS!
Radioactivity released includes over 100 different isotopes only produced in reactors and atomic bombs, including Strontium-89, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and Iodine-131. Humans ingest them either by inhalation or ingestion, through food.
Each radionuclide seeks different parts of the human body; iodine seeks out the thyroid gland, strontium clumps to the bone and teeth (like calcium), and cesium is distributed throughout the soft tissues.
All are carcinogenic.
Each decays at varying rates; for example, iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days, and remains in the body only a few weeks. Strontium-90 has a half-life of 28.7 years, and thus remains in bone and teeth for many years.
These radionuclides are different from “background” radiation found in nature in cosmic rays and the earth's surface. Background radiation, while still harmful, does not specifically attack the thyroid gland, bones, or other organs.
Accidents Can Happen/Releases Have Been High.
For example, we know that Pilgrim had extremely high emissions due to defective fuel, mechanical problems and lack of filtration.
These problems culminated in June 1982 when Pilgrim blew its filters and released contaminated resin material into our neighborhoods.
The licensee’s own Environmental Radiation Reports for 1982 showed for example, Cesium -137, (1,000,000) times higher than expected in milk tested at the indicator sampling farm 12 miles west of the reactor and no elevation at the control station, 22 miles away; Cesium-137 again (1,000,000) higher in vegetation samples from indicator farms .7 miles and 1.5 miles from the reactor.
Elevated releases have been reported in subsequent years. Typically the licensee has blamed the increase on “atmospheric fallout” that ignores a critical fact – no similar increases were experienced at the control stations.
How fallout, like a smart bomb, was able to find Pilgrim’s indicator locations while simultaneously missing the control stations is beyond comprehension.
As you will read below, higher off site radiation detected is now “explained away” or hidden from the public by: not only continuing to blame nuclear weapons testing; but by locating many “control stations” very close to the reactor, in Duxbury and Kingston Bays and Plymouth Harbor – really, we know that they are indicator stations.
Pilgrim’s Environmental Radiation Reports
[As previously stated] Licensee Charged With Tracking Their Own Releases. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies upon self-reporting and computer modeling from reactor operators to track radioactive releases and their projected dispersion. A significant portion of the environmental monitoring data is extrapolated – virtual, not real. What is put into the computer model, assumptions, will effect the answer that comes out
Radioactive Releases Are NOT Fully Accounted For by the Licensee. Radioactive releases from Pilgrim’s routine operation often are not fully detected or reported. Accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented.
Finding Effluent Reports
Links:
Effluent reports on the web http://hps.ne.uiuc.edu/natcenviro/databases.htm
Classification System for Radioactive Waste: Radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor is classified as “high” or “low” depending on where it comes from - not based upon how poisonous it is or for how long it will remain toxic. This is misleading; waste should be classified based on its toxicity and longevity. "High-level" radioactive waste refers simply to irradiated fuel assemblies. So-called "low level" radioactive waste is everything else; however some of it is intensely radioactive, can deliver a lethal dose, and remains very dangerous for a long time.
“High level” Radioactive Waste - Spent Fuel Assemblies
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION (BRC) ON Nuclear Waste
Draft Report out for comment
Boston Meeting ---October 12, 2011 --- at Harvard Medical School Conference Center – 77 Louis Pasteur, Longwood – Boston
Draft Report – Meeting Particulars on BRC’s website at:
http://brc.gov/index.php?q=announcement/brc-releases-their-draft-full-commission-report
BRC Report has seven key elements: What’s missing?
1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.
4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated interim storage facilities.
6. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development.
7. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, nonproliferation, and security concerns
HOW ABOUT SECURING ALL RADIOACTIVE WASTE?
Radioactive wastes are at risk of accidents, attacks, and leaks.
WHILE THE COMMISSION MET YEARS AGO AND OUR FATES ARE SEALED, I LEFT THIS IN SO READERS CAN SEE THE CONCERNS AND REMEMBER THEM FOR "NEXT TIME".
Please urge the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to recommend to Congress, the Energy Secretary, and the President hardened on-site storage as a vital interim measure of homeland security and public health and environmental protection.
Please take action. Cut and paste the sample "BRC public comment" below into an email, and email it in to: CommissionDFO@nuclear.energy.gov. Be sure to sign it with a full contact address. Feel free to change it however you see fit, by adding your own thoughts and concerns. Thanks!
BRC public comment [Sample provided by Beyond Nuclear]:
"Dear Members of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future,
High-level radioactive wastes are at risk of accidents, attacks, and leaks. In your final report due out by January 29, 2012, please recommend to Congress, the Energy Secretary, and the President that hardened on-site storage be required as a vital interim measure of homeland security and public health, safety, and environmental protection.
The on-going Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan has dramatically shown the risks of storing highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel in indoor water pools. Pool cooling water circulation systems were damaged or destroyed by the ravages of the earthquake, tsunami, reactor meltdowns, and explosions that began on March 11th.
For months now, desperate and dangerous efforts to cool the high-level radioactive wastes have continued, including failed helicopter water drops, and refilling the pools from afar with fire engines, riot control water cannons, and other pumps. The thermally hot wastes have then boiled the water away, forcing the ad hoc efforts to be repeated. If the pools boil dry, the wastes could catch fire and unleash catastrophic amounts of hazardous radioactivity directly into the environment, to blow downwind, flow downstream, and contaminate the food chain over a vast region.
Such an accident could happen here. So too could a terrorist attack. A number of pools have already sprung leaks. Many individual pools in the U.S. hold more waste than all 4 units at Fukushima Daiichi put together!
For a decade, hundreds of environmental groups have been calling for hardened on-site storage, as an interim alternative to pool risks, as well as to current “overflow parking,” outdoor dry casks at reactor sites, themselves vulnerable to accidents, attacks, and eventual leaks.
In your final report due out before January 29, 2012, I strongly urge you to recommend hardened on-site storage as a vital matter of homeland security, as well as public health, safety, and environmental protection.
Sincerely,
Article originally appeared on Beyond Nuclear (http://www.beyondnuclear.org/).
Spent fuel Rods
Pilgrim’s Spent Fuel Pool is enormous.
Risk: Spent Fuel Security/ Accident
Finances: Who will Pay for Safer Dry Storage?
Transportation: Shipping Pilgrim’s Spent Fuel Assemblies to an off-site repository when one becomes available is also very risky.
“Low Level” Radioactive Waste (LLRW)
So called “low level” radioactive waste at Pilgrim, for example, includes: the control rods, resins, sludge, filters, and will include the entire nuclear power reactor - if and when it is dismantled. The waste contains highly toxic and long-lived radioactive materials.
Pilgrim generates a very large quantity of LLRW; in fact, it is the largest generator of radioactive waste by far in the Commonwealth.
Barnwell, S.C. closed to Massachusetts nuclear generators on June 20, 2008.
Massachusetts is not a member of any compact; in order to join one, Massachusetts would have to agree to be a host community. Massachusetts indicated clearly in the mid 1990’s that it would not be a host community. Therefore LLRW must be stored onsite, along with the tons of high level waste.
Texas may open a repository for LLRW but there are no guarantees. If Texas does open a site, there is no assurance that non-Texas Compact members will be able to send their waste there, and even if allowed whether fees would be prohibitive.
No sites have been developed anywhere in the country despite millions of dollars spent on failed attempts.
Waste Classifications
"Low-Level" Radioactive Waste is one of the most misleading terms ever created. In the U.S., it is all nuclear waste that is not legally high-level waste, some transuranic waste, or mill tailings. It includes:
Reactors: Irradiated Components and Piping: reactor hardware and pipes that are in continual contact with highly radioactive water for the 20 to 30 years the reactor operates. The metal becomes "activated" or radioactive itself from bombardment by neutrons that are released when energy is produced. Also called Irradiated Primary System Components.
Control Rods: from the core of nuclear power plants--rods that regulate and stop the nuclear reactions in the reactor core.
Poison Curtains: which absorb neutrons from the water in the reactor core and irradiated fuel (high level waste) pool.
Resins, Sludges, Filters and Evaporator Bottoms: from cleansing the water that circulates around the irradiated fuel in the reactor vessel and in the fuel pool, which holds the irradiated fuel when it is removed from the core.
Entire Nuclear Power Plants if and when they are dismantled. This includes, for example, from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor building floor: over 13,000 tons of contaminated concrete and over 1,400 tons of contaminated reinforcing steel bar.
Medical and Scientific Research: The highly radioactive and long-lived reactor wastes are included in the "low-level" waste category along with the much less concentrated and generally much shorter-lived wastes from medical treatment and diagnosis and some types of scientific research.
High-Level Radioactive Waste is the irradiated fuel from the cores of nuclear reactors, the liquid and sludge wastes that are left over after irradiated fuel has been reprocessed (a procedure used to extract uranium and plutonium), the solid that would result from efforts to solidify that liquid and sludge from reprocessing.
Transuranic Waste is material contaminated with radioactive elements heavier than uranium, such as plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium. These elements have extremely long hazardous lives--hundreds of thousands to millions of years and emit alpha radiation a type of radiation that is especially dangerous if inhaled or swallowed.
Note: Some transuranic waste is allowed in the "low-level" radioactive waste category. In 1983, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted regulations on land disposal of radioactive waste (lOCFR61), it increased the allowable concentration of transuranics in "low-level" radioactive waste.
Uranium Mill tailings, resulting from mining and milling uranium for weapons and commercial reactors, are not usually included in the "low-level" waste category, but may be handled with it in some states. The large volumes of these wastes, which will emit radiation for centuries, pose serious health problems.
RADIOACTIVE CONCENTRATION vs. VOLUME
The nuclear industry and government commonly describe "low-level" waste in terms of volume although there can be a tremendous concentration of radioactivity in a small package and a small concentration in a big package. The amount of radioactivity, measured in CURIES, indicates how much radioactive energy is being emitted by the waste. (1 Curie = 37,000,000,000 or 37 Billion disintegrations or radioactive emissions per second from a radioactive material.)
The medical waste from diagnosis and treatment shipped in one year from most states usually gives off a fraction of one curie of radiation. In contrast, each nuclear reactor generates hundreds and thousands of curies in "low-level" waste every year.
Nuclear reactor waste is concentrated: Solidified liquid emits about 2 curies per cubic meter; Filter/Demineralizer sludges emit about 10 curies per cubic meter; Cartridge filters emit about 20 curies per cubic meter; Demineralizer resins emit about 160 curies per cubic meter. Primary Components average 1000 to 5000 curies per cubic meter.
All of this material is legally considered low-level.
HALF-LIFE and HAZARDOUS LIFE
Radioactive elements decay by emitting energy in the form of radioactive particles and rays. As radiation is given off, other elements (some radioactive and some stable) are formed.
The Half-Life is the time it takes for HALF of the radioactive element to decay (give off half of its radioactivity). Different radioactive elements have different half-lives.
The Hazardous Life of a radioactive element is about 10 or 20 Half-Lives. (It is best to measure the amount of radiation after 10 or 20 half-lives before releasing waste from active controls.)
Reactor waste remains hazardous for a very long time. Most medical waste from treatment and diagnosis is hazardous for a very short time. Research and industrial waste can contain small amounts of some long-lived radioactive materials.
Among the radioactive elements commonly found in nuclear reactor "low-level" waste are: Tritium, with a half-life of 12 years and a hazardous life of 120-240 years; Iodine-131, half-life of 8 days, hazardous life of 80-160 days; Strontium-90, half life of 28 years, hazardous life of 280-560 years; Nickel-59, half life of 76,000 years, hazardous life of 760,000-1,520,000 years, and Iodine-129, half-life of sixteen million years, hazardous life of160-320 million years.
By contrast, common medical waste elements include Technetium-99m, with a half-life of 6 hours and a hazardous life of 2.5-5 days; Galium-67, half-life of 78 hours and hazardous life of 1-2 months; and Iodine-131, with its half-life of 8 days and hazardous life of 80-160 days.
The vast majority of medical waste is hazardous for less than 8 months. Yet, it is in the same category as reactor waste that will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
Clearly, the definition of "low-level radioactive waste" must be changed.
It would make sense to redefine the more concentrated and/or longer-lived waste as high-level. Active re-containerization and operational control must be provided for the entire hazardous life of the waste, yet the NRC requires only 100 years of passive institutional control. Thus, waste hazardous longer than 100 years could be forgotten. Retrievability is essential.
PLANNED LEAKAGE AND "ACCEPTABLE" RISK
Waste containers and forms will not last as long as some waste remains hazardous. Therefore, waste should be placed in a manner which will facilitate recontainerization and make continued isolation from the environment possible in the future. If the waste is "disposed of" as the NRC currently requires, it will not be isolated from the environment. "Planned leakage will occur at (what NRC considers) an "acceptable" leak rate leading to "acceptable" public radiation exposures and health risks. The allowable leak rates and exposure levels are determined by federal agencies, not those experiencing the risk.
To avoid leakage, above-ground, engineered storage at or near the source of generation could allow responsible routine monitoring and repair.
STATES' AUTHORITY
States have the right and responsibility to protect their citizens' health.
In 1980, Congress gave states the responsibility for "low-level" radioactive waste. How and whether states choose to take on that responsibility will be reflected indefinitely into the future.
NO STATE IS PROTECTING ANY OF US.
WE ARE UNWITTING HUMAN GUINEA PIGS.
SINCE THE ONSET OF THE SEARCH FOR ATOMIC POWER, THE BOMB, THE CAPACITY TO DESTROY ONE ANOTHER BY NUCLEAR BLAST, WE HAVE BEEN AND CONTINUE TO BE GUINEA PIGS.
WE AGREE TO IT BY OUR SILENCE.
____________________
SOME RESOURCES:
--Institute of Energy and Environmental Research Publication: High Level Dollars, Low Level Sense http://www.ieer.org/pubs/highlvl4.html
--Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/llw/llwhome.htm
--Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Radiation Control Program http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Departments+and+Divisions&L3=Department+of+Public+Health&L4=Programs+and+Services+K+-+S&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dph_environmental_radiationcontrol_g_about&csid=Eeohhs2
TO UNDERSTAND THE LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS; CHECK ON THE STATUS OF CURRENT APPLICATIONS; AND LEARN HOW TO PARTICIPATE VISIT THE NRC'S WEBSITE http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html
· Filings are organized under Board Orders, Commission Orders, Pilgrim Exhibits, Pilgrim Misc., Pilgrim Pleadings (Motions, Responses), Pilgrim Transcripts by year submitted
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 1424 16th Street, NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: 202-328-0002. Fax: 202-462-2183. E-mail: nirsnet@nirs.org. Web: www.nirs.org
SEE ALSO:
"Licensed to Kill: How the nuclear power industry destroys endangered marine wildlife and ocean habitat to save money" (PDF). Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
//WW
No comments:
Post a Comment