From our friends at Jeff Rense...

US Navy's Floating Coffins

China Sub's Rubber Coating Made It 'Invisible'

Unseen China Attack Sub Surfaces Near US Supercarrier

Neocons To Sacrifice 5th Fleet - New Pearl Harbor

Navy Admits Carriers Dead Ducks - Stops Production

It kills you... It heals you... It kills you... It heals you...

(Somebody please explain to me why the FDA symbol for irradiated food is a dead ringer for the EPA logo? Are they trying to subliminally imply that irradiated food is environmentally safe? RemyC)

From EPA

Man-Made Radiation: Medicine & Nuclear Power

Since the discovery of radiation, people have benefitted from the use of radiation in medicine and industry. Man-made sources of radiation account for about 20 percent of our total exposure to radiation

Radiation in Medicine

Radiation used in medicine is the largest source of man-made radiation to which people in the United States are exposed. Most of our exposure is from diagnostic x-rays. Physicians use x-rays in more than half of all medical diagnoses to determine the extent of disease or physical injury.

Radiation is also used in cancer treatments, where precisely targeted radiation destroys diseased cells without killing nearby healthy cells. Radiopharmaceuticals, another medical treatment, are used to locate tumors in a patient's body and to treat cancer. One-third of all successful cancer treatments involve radiation.

Controlling the Risks of Medical Radiation

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal and state agencies regulate medical procedures that use radiation. EPA and these agencies also issue guidance designed to reduce unnecessary use of radiation in diagnosis and treatment and to ensure that technicians, equipment, and techniques meet standards that minimize radiation exposure.

Patients and health care providers must make the decision to use radiation on a case-by-case basis. Since any radiation exposure carries some risk, it is necessary to decide whether the benefits of radiation justify its use. Before receiving x-rays or any other type of medical treatment involving radiation exposure or dose, it is sensible to discuss the need for and benefits of the procedure and its alternatives with your physician.

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power reactors, which use uranium, supply the United States with about 20 percent of its electricity. Our ability to produce power using radioactive materials reduces our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear power plant operations account for less than a hundredth of a percent of the average American's total radiation exposure. Workers at nuclear power plants receive higher doses of radiation, but the overall dose to the population is extremely low.

Controlling the Risks of Nuclear Power

In 1979, EPA issued environmental standards that protect the public from radiation from the many kinds of facilities that contribute to the production of electricity through the use of nuclear energy. Additionally, in 1987, EPA issued guidance for Federal agencies to use in the development of radiation exposure standards for workers.

These standards limit the amount of radiation that workers in medicine, nuclear power, industry, mining, and waste management may receive. Finally, in 1989, under the Clean Air Act, EPA published standards limiting radionuclide emissions from all Federal and industrial facilities.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the federal agency responsible for implementing EPA's radiation exposure standards through regulation of nuclear power reactors and many other uses of radiation. The Department of Energy (DOE) also implements these standards at facilities under their supervision.

More on Nuclear Power Plant Worker Cancer Studies

I was mistaken in stating there have been no studies on American nuclear power plant workers - the truth is that there are VIRTUALLY no studies. The attached is the largest to date, done by Columbia University.

It found an excess of leukemia deaths, solid cancer deaths, and arteriosclerotic heart disease deaths for workers employed during 1979-1997 for 15 nuclear utilities.

But there are problems:

1. The excesses aren't statistically significant, since the numbers are small (26 leukemia deaths, 368 solid cancer deaths)

2. Only deaths, not cases are examined. Workers are more likely to have access to good medical care that can help them to survive cancer. Studying cancer cases is much more revealing than deaths.

3. Workers who work less than 18 years may not have had enough exposure. I suspect they include even those who worked for a brief timeat nuclear plants.

4. The average age of workers at the end of follow up is 45 years, an age when cancer rates are still relatively low. It often takes much longer than that for cancer to manifest.

5. The healthy worker effect is a big issue. They compare actual worker deaths with expected (the entire population). That's not a fair comparison, since workers are much healthier than the general population.

This is a large study of workers at Canadian nuclear power plants. Elevated mortality rates of leukemia and solid tumors were found (although just borderline statistical significant).

This article suffers from the problems I stated before, but they should be taken with great concern. The literature has no other studies of U.S. nuclear power plant workers, other than a very small one of Calvert Cliffs in Maryland.

I hope this helps.

Joe Mangano
FUSE USA
Advisory Board

So, The Threat Of A Nuclear Incident Is Small-Documents You Should Browse/Read

The NRC wants to rubber stamp the license renewal application of Entergy's failing twin reactors known as Indian Point 2 and 3. To accomplish this, they are trying to take security concerns off the table in direct violation of NEPA regulations. To force their hand is going to take a monumental legal battle, and that is going to take financing...that financing is going too require the public getting involved in this fight, and donating to the cause, helping to fund a fight that is likely to end up at the Supreme Court. To refute Entergy and the NRC's assertions that we are safe, and that the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a reactor is slim, I've taken time today to collect a series of links to government documents found on other than NRC agency web pages that paint a very different picture. It is my sincere hope that providing this list will help in awakening the public in and around Indian Point up to the true risks we are faced with, wake people up to the fact that we cannot allow the NRC to grant Entergy a 20 year license renewal for this aging brittled reactors.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2006/CF176.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/2006/RAND_RB200.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG441.pdf

http://radhealth.usuhs.mil/triageproceedings.pdf

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/population-monitoring-roundtable.pdf

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/shelter.pdf

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/radiation-evacuation.pdf

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/clinicianpocketguide.pdf

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/MassCasualtiesGuidelines.pdf
Major event at or near a nuclear facility (such as an airplane crash into a nuclear power plant or spent nuclear fuel pool) – Significant amounts of radioactive material have been released. There
are dozens of injured people at the facility, many experiencing symptoms related to acute radiation syndrome, and thousands of contaminated or exposed people in the surrounding area who have an increased probability of long-term health effects.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/hospitalroundtablereport.pdf

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/about-radiation.html Page is NOT THERE.

http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/pcktcard.pdf

http://www1.va.gov/emshg/docs/Radiologic_Medical_Countermeasures_051403.pdf

http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/radiologicalhandbooksp99-2.pdf

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1224#toc
"This is the Bible that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and others use." --Thomas Cochran, Natural Resource Defense Council, New York Times, December 20, 1989

http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/2edmmrchandbook.pdf

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness.html
Emergency Preparedness and Response Good planning leads to good response. Our emergency preparedness programs enable emergency personnel to rapidly identify, evaluate, and react to a wide spectrum of emergencies, including those arising from terrorism or natural events such as hurricanes. Our incident response program integrates the overall NRC capabilities for the response and recovery of radiological incidents and emergencies involving facilities and materials regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State. Under the National Response Plan, the NRC will coordinate with other Federal, State, and local emergency organizations in response to various types of domestic events. The NRC emphasizes the integration of safety, security, and emergency preparedness as the basis for the NRC’s primary mission of protecting public health and safety. Our review of the emergency preparedness programs reaffirmed that our emergency planning bases remain valid under the current threat environment. The NRC's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) has the primary responsibility for these essential agency functions. For more information Contact Us.

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/respond-to-emerg/response-terrorism.html

http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/pcktcard.pdf

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/firsthours/pdf/creativebrief_radioactive_materials.pdf

http://www.hhs.gov/emergency/mediaguide/PDF/HHSMedisReferenceGuideFinal.pdf

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ATTACK This is a radiological threat that does not involve a nuclear blast. Terrorists could attack a nuclear power plant by using explosives, hacking into the computer system, or crashing a plane into the reactor or other structures on site. Security measures are in place so that such attempts are likely to be detected early.

http://www.hhs.gov/emergency/mediaguide/field/HHSMediaFieldGuideFinal.pdf

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_JFO_FOG.pdf

http://www.orau.gov/hsc/RadMassCasualties/content/videos/2_Planning_Handout.pdf

http://www.orau.gov/hsc/RadMassCasualties/content/videos/3_Decon_Handout.pdf

http://www.orau.gov/hsc/RadMassCasualties/content/videos/4_Triage_Handout.pdf

http://www.orau.gov/hsc/RadMassCasualties/content/videos/5_Treatment_Handout.pdf

http://www.orau.gov/hsc/RadMassCasualties/content/videos/6_Pharmacotherapy_Handout.pdf

Low Dose Radioactivity Kills Bees

Sidney Goodman
gizmogink@mindspring.com

Honeybees are dying out
Editor, The Record
Largest newspaper in Bergen County, NJ

Dying honeybees not surprising.

The front-page headline of the Record on April 21, read “Honeybees dying off”. Lost hives pose a threat to farmers. The loss of bees is not surprising.

Right after the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, newspapers local to that area publicized a concern to farmers. All the insects disappeared. The cloud of low dose radioactivity that was released killed them. Bees are insects.

All nuclear plants routinely release so-called safe emissions. There is no such thing as a safe dose.

We have been blanketed with low-dose radioactivity. Bush/Cheney are intensifying this blanket in too many ways to count. Not to worry, the nuclear industry and our government assure. To worry threatens trillions in subsidies.

When the earth was formed, its surface was highly radioactive. Life was able to begin on this planet when surface radioactivity dissipated. The nuclear cult is bringing radioactivity back to the surface, to the air, to the water, and in our food. Bush and Cheney are making their evil and stupid schemes of radioactivity and war forever a threatening reality.

Better worry.
Sidney Goodman

One World Nuclear Order

Comments from Sara Shannon, co-founder of Mother's Alert, author of Technologies Curse: Diet for the Atomic Age (with Ernest J. Sternglass) and Good Health in a Toxic World: Complete Guide to Fighting Free Radicals.

This is the plan, to say that climate change is caused by carbon emissions... and nuclear has no carbon emissions. So we have to go to more nuclear for power.

This is now as plain as day... a whole plan... and tranparently obvious, once one opens the mind to see... probably in the works for years.

France has their reprocessing plant... the fallout from this goes over East to the Alps, goes down into Lake Leman when the ice melts, and some say is responsible for very high rates of cancer around Geneva.

The reprocessing plant in England, Sellafield, across the water from Dublin, releases effluent into the water, it is absorbed by the seaweed, and this seaweed is used on croplands, and Dublin has Very high rates of cancer....

Everything is very grave as it is, and to consider building MORE Nuke plants is so insane it is impossible to comprehend WHAT sort of thinking and goal is behind it.

I heard someone say yesterday, don't know if its true, he heard on the news that there are plans to impose a "climate change tax" on Americans, that this tax would go partly to fund more nuclear power plants... !!!

About Europe again, it seems, as far as we can comprehend from what is stated, that a few weeks ago, there was a decision to allocate for the future that 20% of energy should be from "Green" energy, that is from alternative energies.

And then the revised list of "green" alternative energies included nuclear power! Very quietly stated.

The basis being that nuclear power does NOT release carbon dioxide emissions, which has been determined to be the CAUSE of climate change...

All this done very smoothly. And seemingly valid. Except, that it is not valid... in any sense.

Going back to the topic of the waste from nuclear power production. WHERE are we going to put it?

There is not now or nor will there be in the future any way to manage long term storage... Only can be managed with double talk.

IF we had the money already spent on exploring Yucca Mountain as a rad waste repository, we could have built wind and solar enough for the whole country !!!

There are choices being made, and they are not made with consideration of the health of present and future humans...

The oxygen level is going down; trees themselves absorb radiaoctive elements and are released when you have a fire in your fireplace.

Our bones contain strontium 90 which radiates into the bone marrow, an essential aspect of the immune system.

The common sense admonition to "make every decision with consideration of the seventh generation" has been shred in the paper shredder.

What to do at this point?

Three Strikes - You're OUT! IP Shuts down again...

Notification Date: 04/03/2007

Notification Time: 05:07 [ET]

Event Date: 04/03/2007

Event Time: 04:16 [EDT]

Last Update Date: 04/03/2007

Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY

10 CFR Section:

50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B) - RPS ACTUATION - CRITICAL

50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) - VALID SPECIF SYS ACTUATION

Person (Organization):

HAROLD GRAY (R1)

BILL BATEMAN (NRR)
CATHY HANEY (NRR)

JEFFREY CRUZ (IRD)

MANUAL REACTOR TRIP WHILE PERFORMING BOILER FEED PUMP MAINTENANCE

"The Indian Point Unit 3 reactor was manually tripped at 04:16 on 4/3/2007 due to low steam generator levels that occurred while the 31 MBFP [main boiler feed pump] speed control was being isolated for maintenance. Indian Point Unit 3 is currently in mode 3 with all automatic actions for a manual reactor trip occurring as required. Unit 2 was unaffected and remains in mode 1 at 100% power."

The reactor was manually tripped when steam generator levels reduced to 18% in all four steam generators. All rods inserted on the trip. No safety or relief valves lifted due to the trip. The motor driven aux feedwater pumps automatically started on low steam generator level and are being used to maintain steam generator level. Atmospheric steam dumps are maintaining reactor temperature. The Unit 3 electrical lineup is the normal shutdown electrical lineup. The licensee has notified the state Public Service Commission.

The licensee will notify the NRC Resident Inspector.

Phillip Musegaas

Staff Attorney/Policy Analyst

Riverkeeper, Inc.

828 South Broadway

Tarrytown, NY 10591

914-478-4501 x224

ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS - IT DOESN’T TAKE AN ACCIDENT

What you are not supposed to know:

1 ~ It doesn’t take an accident for a nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into our air, water and soil. All it takes is the plant’s everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive releases.

2 ~ Radioactivity is measured in "curies." A large medical center, with as many as 1000 laboratories in which radioactive materials are used, may have a combined inventory of only about two curies. In contrast, an average operating nuclear power reactor will have approximately 16 billion curies in its reactor core. This is the equivalent long-lived radioactivity of at least 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.

3 ~ A reactor’s fuel rods, pipes, tanks and valves can leak. Mechanical failure and human error can also cause leaks. As a nuclear plant ages, so does its equipment - and leaks generally increase.

4 ~ Some contaminated water is intentionally removed from the reactor vessel to reduce the amount of the radioactive and corrosive chemicals that damage valves and pipes. The water is filtered and then either recycled back into the cooling system or released into the environment.

5 ~ A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized-water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in 20,000 gallons of river, lake or ocean water per minute for cooling, circulates it through a 50-mile maze of pipes, returns 5,000 gallons per minute to the same body of water, and releases the remainder to the atmosphere as vapor. A 1000-megawatt reactor without a cooling tower takes in even more water--as much as one-half million gallons per minute. The discharge water is contaminated with radioactive elements in amounts that are not precisely known or knowable, but are biologically active.

6 ~ Some radioactive fission gases, stripped from the reactor cooling water, are contained in decay tanks for days before being released into the atmosphere through filtered rooftop vents. Some gases leak into the power plant buildings’ interiors and are released during periodic "purges" and "ventings." These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water.

7 ~ Radioactive releases from a nuclear power reactor’s routine operation often are not fully detected or reported. Accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented.

8 ~ Accurate, economically-feasible filtering and monitoring technologies do not exist for some of the major reactor by-products, such as radioactive hydrogen (tritium) and noble gases, such as krypton and xenon. Some liquids and gases are retained in tanks so that the shorter-lived radioactive materials can break down before the batch is released to the environment.

9 ~ Government regulations allow radioactive water to be released to the environment containing "permissible" levels of contamination. Permissible does not mean safe. Detectors at reactors are set to allow contaminated water to be released, unfiltered, if below "permissible" legal levels.

10 ~ 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.

11 ~ Accurate accounting of all radioactive wastes released to the air, water and soil from the entire reactor fuel production system is simply not available. The system includes uranium mines and mills, chemical conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power reactors, and radioactive waste storage pools, casks, and trenches.

12 ~ Increasing economic pressures to reduce costs, due to the deregulation of the electric power industry, could further reduce the already unreliable monitoring and reporting of radioactive releases. Deferred maintenance can increase the radioactivity released - and the risks.

13 ~ Many of the reactor’s radioactive by-products continue giving off radioactive particles and rays for enormously long periods – described in terms of "half-lives." A radioactive material gives off hazardous radiation for at least ten half-lives. One of the radioactive isotopes of iodine (iodine- 129) has a half-life of 16 million years; technetium-99 = 211,000 years; and plutonium-239 = 24,000 years. Xenon-135, a noble gas, decays into cesium-135, an isotope with a 2.3 million-year half-life.

14 ~ It is scientifically established that low-level radiation damages tissues, cells, DNA and other vital molecules – causing programmed cell death (apoptosis), genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, birth defects, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders.

THIS INFORMATION SHEET IS INTENDED FOR REPRINTING AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT COPYRIGHTED

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 340
Takoma Park, MD 20912
301 270 6477; 301 270 4291
nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org

UN's new international radiation symbol

Posted by linton on hugg.com

Nuclear Power-Why it is Dangerous, Costly and Unnecessary

by Hattie Nestel
2-07

The colossal failure of nuclear power became apparent to most of the world more than 30 years ago. By the end of the seventies it was well known that the economics, safety and reliability issues associated with nuclear power had failed the test. By 1992 the building of 121 reactors had been cancelled. The last reactor was ordered over 30 years ago and took 23 years to complete."The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale," reported Forbes magazine in 1985. "The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind or the biased, can now think that most of the money was well spent."

Despite being a dangerous, financial disaster the industry found opportunity to create a nuclear renaissance predicated on the erroneous premise that nuclear power will prevent global warming. The government and nuclear corporations commandeer hundreds of millions of dollars to sell us on the idea that nuclear power will combat global warming. Today we see Entergy¹s ads throughout Vermont saying,"Green-not Greenhouse" and Entergy hiring PR spokespersons like Patrick Moore to twist the facts and try to convince us that nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and sustainable.

It is simply not true. The entire nuclear fuel chain beginning with mining uranium, transporting and processing the fuel, construction and storing wastes are heavily fossil fuel dependent. However, the most important issue remains that nuclear power is inherently dangerous. It has always been known in the scientific community that there is no accident free reactor and no safe level of exposure to radiation. The National Academy of Science has now confirmed this in their 2005 BEIR V11 report. (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation). The dangers include the daily release of radioactive emissions from every reactor. "Each day, a nuclear reactor releases more than 100 chemical into the air," states Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of Radiation and Public Health Project. "These chemicals, which are created only in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, are radioactive and cause cancer by damaging cells. After entering the body through breathing and food, each chemical affects the body in a different way. Iodine 131 attacks the thyroid gland, strontium 90 seeks out bone and cesium 137 disperses throughout soft tissues.

The fetus and infant with undeveloped immune systems and rapidly dividing cells are most affected." These illnesses are passed on to future generations through the sperm, ovum and mothers milk til the end of time.As nuclear power produces electricity it also produces radioactive waste which is now stored on site in spent fuel rods. Exposure to spent fuel rods means instant death. "The magnitude of the radiation generated in nuclear power plants is almost beyond belief. The original uranium fuel that is subject to the fission process becomes 1 billion times more radioactive in the reactor core. A thousand megawatt nuclear power plant contains as much long-lived radiation as that produced by the explosion of one thousand Hiroshima bombs." writes Helen Caldicott. Much of the radioactive waste generated by nuclear power has an extremely long half-life ranging from plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,000 years to iodine 129 with a half-life of 15.7 million years. We are told that reprocessing will solve the problem. However, reprocessing results in the separation of weapons usable plutonium which adds significantly to the risks of proliferation.

Presidents Carter and Ford outlawed reprocessing in the United States in 1976-1977 due to the environmental and proliferation risks. Since there are no repositories qualified to take this waste, they must remain on-site at each of the 103 reactors in the U.S. The Yucca mountain repository in Nevada costing $9 billion taxpayer dollars over 20 years is generally acknowledged to be geologically unstable and unsuitable for long-term radioactive waste. There is no solution in sight.Nuclear power is the stepping-stone to all nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is totally interdependent and interconnected to nuclear weapons. Because uranium can be used in both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, nuclear power has significant impacts on proliferation.

Mohamed ElBaredi, the director general of the IAEA, noted, "The technical barriers to mastering the essential steps of uranium enrichment- and to designing weapons-have eroded over time, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the control of technology, in and of itself, is not an adequate barrier against further proliferation."Preventing global warming through the use of nuclear power is no more true than the previous rationale promoted by president Eisenhower in 1953 that using nuclear power will create electricity "too cheap to meter".

Nuclear power construction is a prohibitively costly and lengthy process. It is dangerous both in the present and during the next million years when the waste generated today must be safeguarded by our descendents. The risks of catastrophic reactor accidents, the potential for the nuclear fuel cycle to enable nuclear weapons proliferation and the impossibility of managing highly radiotoxic nuclear waste for the long-term, should make it clear that nuclear power is not a viable energy option for now or ever.We can have safe, reliable, sustainable and locally generated energy at affordable prices without nuclear power. Energy efficiency is the cheapest and safest way of reducing greenhouse emissions. Conservation practices including improved insulation and passive solar will greatly reduce our emissions. A combination of passive solar systems, thin-film solar cells and wind power will also greatly reduce our emissions. The entire transportation industry is responsible for most of our carbon dioxide emissions. Creating safe, efficient, economical public transportation will go a long way toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment estimated we could reduce our electricity usage by 20% to 45% through energy efficiency. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory report shows that between 99% and 124% of the nations electricity can be supplied by renewables by 2020. President Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 allocates billions for the nuclear industry. That money can be used to create sustainable safe energies. Decentralized, sustainable technologies work and are becoming ever more efficient and cost effective. Throughout Europe they are implementing those technologies successfully. Let's step up to the plate and say a resounding NO to nuclear power, nuclear weapons and a clear YES to wind, solar, conservation and energy efficiency. It is time to lobby elected officials not to relicense Vermont Yankee when its 40 year license expires in 2012 and get serious about providing efficiencies, conservation and safe, sustainable, renewable energy solutions.

HattieShalom@verizon.net
978-249-6224
Member of CAN
www.nukebusters.org