“Duke Energy to cancel proposed Levy County nuclear plant,” Tampa Bay Times, Aug. 1, 2013

43 “Duke Energy to cancel proposed Levy County nuclear plant,” Tampa Bay Times, Aug. 1, 2013,

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/duke-energy-to-cancel-proposed-levy-county-nuclear-plant-fasano-says/2134287

44American Wind Energy Association, 2010 Annual Report

45 Energy Information Administration, via American Wind Energy Association,

46 Diane Cardwell & Julie Creswell, “Solar Power Craze on Wall St. Propels Start-Up,” New York Times, Jan. 4, 2014

47 SmartPlanet.com, July 7, 2011,<smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/renewables-overtake-nuclear-power-generation-in-us/7533>

48 Blackburn & Cunningham, “Solar and Nuclear Costs: The Historic Crossover,” Duke University, July 2010

49 Testimony of James Asselstine, Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1986, in The Nuclear Power Deception, Makhijani & Saleska, Apex Press, 1999, p. 6, n. 9

50 Beyond Nuclear, “Routine Radioactive Releases from U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,” November 2013 http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/publications/Routine%20Releases%20from%20U.S.%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plants_November_2013.pdf

51 Ian Urbina, “Think Those Chemicals Have Been Tested?” New York Times, April 14, 1013, p. SR12

52 Nicholas Kristof, “New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer,” New York Times, May 15, 2010

53 Judy Pasternak, “Nuclear energy lobby working hard to win support,” McClatchy Newspapers, Jan. 24, 2010,

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energy-working-hard-win-support/

54 Jeremy Rifkin, “Nuclear power is dead,” pubic address, Wermuth Asset Management 5^th Annual Investors Event, March 1, 2013, <http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energy-working-hard-win-support/>

55 Stephanie Cooke, In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Bloomsbury, 2009, p. 18

56 Brice Smith, Summary, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change, IEER Press, 2006, p. 5

57 Amory Lovins, “Four Nuclear Myths,” Oct. 13, 2009 <http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths>

58 Warren Leary, “Radiation Estimate in U.S. Almost Doubled in Report,” New York Times, Nov. 20, 1987

59 U.S. EPA, “A Fact Sheet on the Health Effects from Ionizing Radiation, EPA 402-F-98-010, May 1998

60 Time magazine, Nov. 13, 1989

61 Chicago Tribune, June 22, 1986

62 The Bend Bulletin, Oct. 29, 2009, http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091029/NEWS0107/910290309/-1/RSSNEWSMAP

63 USA Today, April 27, 2010

64 NBC News, “15,000 will die from CT scans done in 1 year,” Dec. 14, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34420356/ns/health-cancer/#.Tufgm7KmTBE; “Report Links Increased Cancer Risk to CT Scans,” AP, New York Times, Nov. 29, 2007

65 Denise Grady, “Panel Finds Few Clear Environmental links to Breast Cancer,” New York Times, Dec. 8, 2011, p.A3

66 Independent online, Nov. 28, 2013; “World Bank Head: Must Find Climate Change Solution,” World Bank News, Nov. 19, 2013

<http://www.onenewspage.us/video/20131119/1502472/ World-Bank-Head-Must-Find-Climate-Change-Solution.htm>

67 Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, “The Clock Is Ticking,” Oct. 21, 2009, http://preventwmd.com/static/docs/ report/WMDRpt10-20Final.pdf

68 Matt Wald, “Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed,” New York Times, April 8, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex-regulator-says-nuclear-reactors-in-united-states-are-flawed.html?_r=0

69 AFP, Geneva, Oct. 30, 2013 http://www.france24.com/en/20131030-swiss-nuclear-plant-close-2019

70 Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2013

71 Forbes, March 29, 2012 <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes>

72 The Local (Germany), June 18, 2012; AP, April 2, 2011

73 David Biello, “Nuclear reactor approved in U.S. for first time since 1978: But no nuclear renaissance appears to be imminent,” Scientific American, Feb. 9, 2012 www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?=first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved

74 Ibid

75 New York Times, September 18, 2011

76 July 7, 2011,<smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/renewables-overtake-nuclear-power-generation-in-us/7533>

77 Blackburn & Cunningham, “Solar and Nuclear Costs: The Historic Crossover,” Duke University, July 2010

78 Wall Street Journal, Apr. 23, & New York Times, Apr. 22, 2009

79 Wall Street Journal, Sept. 25, 2010, & London Financial Times, November 18, 2007

80 Arjun Makhijani & Scott Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, The Apex Press, New York, 1999, p. xiv

81 French Nuclear Energy Agency, “Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On,” Chap. II, “The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides,” April 2002, p. 3 (http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html)

82 UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, “Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident,” “Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation,” Vol. II, Annex D, 2011, pp. 4, 310, 311, 315, 316, 343; Alexey Yablokov, et al, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1181, Boston, 2009, pp. vii, & 1; AP, Duluth Herald, May 15, 1986: “Airborne radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so widespread that it is likely to fall to the ground wherever it rains in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency said.”

83 Duluth News-Tribune & Herald, “Slight rise in radioactivity found again in state milk,” May 22, 1986; St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch, “Radiation kills Chernobyl firemen,” May 17, 1986; Minneapolis StarTribune, “Low radiation dose found in area milk,” May 17, 1986

84 Fairlie & Sumner, “TORCH: The Other Chernobyl Report,” April 2006, p. 30

85 “Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More U.S. Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk,” Forbes, April 11, 2011; “Japan nuke accident seen from Seattle,” Science News, Vol.179, #9, April 23, 2011, p. 16

86 Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, Science for Democratic Action, June 2005, citing National Council on Radiation Protection, “Evaluation of the Linear-Non-threshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation,” NCRP report 136, Bethesda, Maryland, June 4, 2001

87 EPA, “Ionizing Radiation Series,” No.2, May 1998, “Air & Radiation,” 6601J, EPA 402-F-98-010; “Radiation: Risks & Realities,” Air & Radiation 6602J, EPA 402-K-92-004, Aug. 1993, p. 3; DOE, “Understanding Radiation,” DOE/NE, 0074, p. 8 & 9 <http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/underrad.pdf>; NRC, “How Does Radiation Affect the Public?” <http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/affect.html>; DHHS, “Cancer and the Environment: Ionizing radiation,” p. 10 <www.cancer.gov/images/Documents /5d17e03e-b39f-4b40-a214-e9e9099c4220/ Cancer%20and% 20the%20Environment.pdf>; and NAS, Sharan Daniel, Stanford Univ., Stanford Report, Oct. 25, 2005

88 “Chernobyl Effects Could Last Centuries,” Inter Press Service, Rome, August 20, 2010; “Some 350,000 people were evacuated forever from their homes,” Anna Melnichuk, AP, Chicago Sun Times, Apr. 26, 2006

89 “Dangerous Levels of Radioactive Isotope Found 25 Miles from Nuclear Plant,” New York Times, March 31, 2011, p.A7

90 Stephanie Cooke, In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Bloomsbury, New York, 2009, p. 322

91 Alexey Yablokov, et al, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1181, Boston, 2009, p. 5

92 Ibid., pp. 192 and 210; and “Russia and Ukraine bicker over Chernobyl,” Christian Science Monitor, April 25, 2003, p. 8

iNotes for verification only

^ U.S. EPA, “Radiation: Risks & Realities,” Air& Radiation, 6602J, EPA 402-K-92-004, Aug. 1993.

ii U.S. NRC, “How Does Radiation Affect the Public?” www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/affect.html.

iii National Council on Radiation Protection, “Evaluation of the Linear-Non-threshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation,” NCRP report 136, Bethesda, MD, June 4, 2001.

iv Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Aug. 12, 1997, Dec. 5, 1996, & June 8, 1995

v NRC News, No. III-05-046, Dec. 19, 2005

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Spewing from Meltdowns: Dangerous Plumes of Disinformation

by John LaForge

Well-reported plumes of radiation have spread to California and beyond from the wrecked six-reactor complex at Fukushima, Japan. What’s worse in terms of citizen awareness, clouds of disinformation are circling even faster.

The consequences of Japan’s disaster cubed — earthquakes, a tsunami and spewing radiation — can hardly be exaggerated, with over 22,000 people reportedly killed or missing, widespread contamination by long-lasting isotopes like cesium, and an early estimate of $250 billion in damages.

Yet within the blizzard of radiation being dispersed uncontrollably, day after day, from Japan’s wrecked reactors and their dry pools of burning-hot waste fuel, it’s important to note the storm of reassuring but erroneous lullabies about “safe,” “harmless” and “less than dangerous” exposures.

There is no level of radiation exposure, no matter how small, that is harmless. Every federal agency that regulates radioactive pollution agrees.

Any exposure raises cancer risk

The National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremen­tal increase in the risk of cancer.” The Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.” The Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer ... any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.” The National Academy of Sciences, in its “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII,” says, “... it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ....”

Long story short, “One can no longer speak of a ‘safe’ dose level,” as Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. Marvin Resnikoff said in their report “No dose too low,” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

But when representatives from government agencies, universities or industry say “the amount of radiation did not reach a dangerous level,” the listener is led to believe in error that there’s some level that is risk-free.

The hiding or obscuring of radiation’s dispersal came from government and company officials early on who reported “venting of hydrogen gas,” and claimed there was “no threat to health.” Even when hydrogen gas explosions destroyed parts of four reactors, the promise of safety was repeated.

“In fact,” writes environmental anthropologist Barbara Rose Johnston  in the March 18 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “the hydrogen released is tritium water vapor, a low-level [radiation] emitter that can be absorbed in a human body through simply breathing, or by drinking contaminated water.”

Principle Japanese government spokesperson, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, has been one of the worst violators. On March 21, Edano asked the public not to overreact to reports of radioactively contaminated food, saying, “Even if you eat contaminated vegetables several times, it will not harm your health at all,” the BBC reported.

Spinach with radioactive iodine 27 times the government-established limit had been found in the city of Hitachi, more than 50 miles south of the failed reactors.

Outright lying, appalling laziness

On March 17,  when radiation levels were reportedly 300 times normal just south of Fukushima, Associated Press writer Eric Talmadge reported without qualification that officials said, “It would take three years of constant exposure to these higher levels to raise a person’s risk of cancer.” This is outright lying by “officials” of course, but it also shows the appalling laziness of the AP, since information on low dose exposures is easily available from the websites of the agencies quoted above.

Dr. Chris Busby, a founder of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, and chief scientist at the Low-Level Radiation Campaign declared March 16, “Reassurances about radiation exposures issued by the Japanese government cannot be believed. They are based on an invalid risk model which the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) itself has admitted cannot be applied in accident situations.”

This ICRP radiation risk model is the basis of and dominates all present radiation exposure legislation. Yet Dr. Busby reports, “The basic concept of radiation dose is generally recognized to be invalid for many types of internal exposure relevant to the present emergency.”

Industry watchdogs are working to correct the errors. Mary Olson, of Nuclear Information and Resource Service writes, “Radiation carries a risk, not a certainty, of DNA damage at every level of exposure. An emission from a radionuclide that chanced to ride on your sandwich into your tummy — an exposure so tiny that it would never be measured — has the capacity to start what might become fatal cancer.”

Governments have set up “permissible,” “allowable” and “legal” radiation exposure limits because reactors can’t operate without venting or dumping contaminated gases and liquids. Exposure to this radiation, during routine operations or from partial meltdowns — say in milk, tap water, or vegetables — is never safe. It is merely permitted under law.

John LaForge is on the staff of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog group in Wisconsin, and edits its Quarterly newsletter.

_______

On Fri. March 11, 2011, Mr. Edano said: “Let me repeat that there is no radiation leak, nor will there be a leak.” — The New Yorker, Oct. 17, 2011, p. 48

___

Would that a president could stem the tide. Seventeen days later, Forbes reported that Fukushima’s iodine-131 had been found in drinking water in dozens of U.S. cities from California to Massachusetts, from Washington to Alabama. The EPA found either iodine-131 or cesium-137 and even strontium-90 in milk from Washington, Arizona, California, Vermont and Hawaii. Forbes, April 3, 11,13 & 27; and New York Times, March 31 & April 1, 2011

Iodine-131 found in drinking water in dozens of U.S. cities. (Forbes, April 3 & 11, 2011 )

Cesium-137 in city water in ID, NV., Hawaii, FL & UT, & iodine-131, tellurium-132 and cesium-137 in rainwater in Calif., ID, & MN. (Forbes, 4/l3/11)

Iodine-131 in milk in Wash., Ariz. & Calif. (“Small Amount of Radiation Is Detected in Washington Milk,” New York Times, March 31, &

“‘Milk Is Probably O.K.,’ but Radiation Fear Lingers,” New York Times , Apr. 1, 2011; KPHO News in Phoenix, April 1, 2011)

Cesium-137 in milk in Vermont. (Forbes, April 11, 2011)

Strontium & cesium milk in Hilo, Hawaii.(Forbes, 4/27/11)

● When Tokyo Electric Power Co. was hauled into Tokyo District Court in 2012 by the Sunfield Golf Club, which was demanding decontamination of the golf course, Tepco lawyers claimed the company isn’t liable because it no longer “owned” the radioactive poisons that were spewed from its destroyed reactors. “Radioactive materials that scattered and fell from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant belong to individual landowners there, not Tepco,” they told the court. A lawyer for the golf club said, “We are flabbergasted…”

● A new State Secrets Act adopted in December expands the definition of official secrets and provides jails terms of up to 10 years for leaking them. Critics of the act said it will muzzle the media and allow officials to hide corruption and misconduct by scaring would-be whistle blowers or allowing harassment of journalists. Greenpeace senior advisor Harvey Wasserman wrote on Counterpunch.com that the act is so over-broad, “[T]he government could ban — and arrest — all independent media under any conditions at Fukushima, throwing a shroud of darkness over a disaster that threatens us all.” A kyodo news agency poll conducted Dec. 7 & 8 found that about 82% want the secrets act — which some liken to Japan’s fascist World War Two era — to be revised or abolished. Even prior to the new act, Wasserman reported, a Japanese professor was jailed 20 days for speaking out against the open-air incineration of radioactive waste.

● The Japanese government has proposed burning much of the contaminated topsoil that’s been removed from school yards. Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had the gall to tell the government to be “less conservative” in its radiation cleanup planning. In September 20112, the government announced plans to remove about 29 million cubic meters of contaminated surface soil and fallen leaves.^ A more far-ranging removal of contaminated soil is being considered, but an IAEA inspection team said in October 2011 that the plan is impractical, and cautioned, “We want the Japanese government to avoid becoming too conservative” in its cleanup plans. The IAEA is of course chartered to work globally “to promote nuclear technologies.”