State of Vermont objects to NRC over faulty radiation monitoring equipment at Entergy's Vermont Yankee atomic reactor

VY's infamous 2007 cooling tower collapse. The photo was distributed by a whistleblower.As reported by the Vermont Digger, State of Vermont Department of Public Service officials have written the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), objecting to and demanding answers about the repeated malfunction of vital radiation monitors at the age-degraded, problem-plagued Entergy Vermont Yankee (VY) atomic reactor. VY is identical in design to Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4, a General Electric Mark I boiling water reactor.

Despite this, NRC rubberstamped a 20-year license extension at VY, the same month Fukushima's reactors melted down and exploded. It is unclear to the State of Vermont whether or not NRC even inspected the defective radiation monitoring equipment before rubberstamping the license extension. Entergy has announced it will replace the faulty equipment.

The article also mentioned previous age-related degradation accidents at VY, such as the infamous 2007 cooling tower collapse (photo above left); it also reported that VY's fair market value has declined 69% in the past year alone, calling into question its viability.

Beyond Nuclear stands in solidarity with the anti-fracking movement against radiological risks to human health and the environment

Atomic reactors and radioactive waste aren't the only sources of artificial radioactivity risk we face from dirty, dangerous, and expensive energy industries. There is significant radioactivity risk, such as from radium, associated with "fracking," environmentally destructive hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas.

Josh Fox's newly released Gasland: Part II documentary film touches on the risks from uranium and its dangerous radioactive decay products embedded in fracking emissions. The film clearly shows, through the use of infrared imagery, that polluting airborne emissions -- such as of methane itself -- from fracking wells are large-scale, harmful, and on-going, despite being invisible to the naked eye. Among those emissions are radioactive isotopes. Radioactive contamination of the liquid wastes from fracking are also of great concern (see below).

Beyond Nuclear stands in solidarity with the anti-fracking movement. In April 2012, Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps attended a Clean Energy Agenda summit, organized by Environmental Working Group and the Civil Society Institute. The summit brought together representatives from dozens of groups from the anti-nuclear, anti-fracking, anti-mountain top removal, anti-polluting forms of biomass, and climate protection movements. A Clean Energy Agenda statement was published, as the groups joined forces into a united environmental and human rights coalition to fight back against the juggernaut of dirty energy industry lobbyists.

More recently, Beyond Nuclear joined with this network to urge the Environmental Defense Fund to stop compromising on and greenwashing fracking.

Beyond Nuclear's attorney on interventions against the proposed new Fermi 3 reactor in MI and age-degraded, problem-plagued Davis-Besse reactor in OH, Toledo-based attorney Terry Lodge, is also deeply involved in the fight against fracking in the Buckeye State. Ohio is being targeted for the large-scale dumping of radioactive fracking waste water, as from Pennsylvania, in landfills, as well as abandoned mines which empty into the Ohio River. Terry has worked with Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates to warn about the radioactive hazards of fracking waste water.

A stealth rider on Ohio's 4,500-page budget bill would do away with state protections against Technically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material, regarding it as simply "naturally occurring," and thus allowed to be dumped in landfills and mines. The radiological consequences to human health downstream would be dire.

The Committee for an American Clean Energy Agenda has just published a forceful statement in defense of protecting surface and groundwater against the ravages of dirty energy industries, including fracking and nuclear power, calling on the Obama White House to adopt an executive order.

Help hold NRC's feet to the fire -- please attend Palisades Webinar, Tues., July 16, 5:30 PM Eastern

MI Radio photo showing the location of the SIRWT, located on the roof directly above the control room; the reactor containment building towers to the leftAs announced by a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) meeting notice, the agency will hold yet another Webinar about Entergy's problem-plagued Palisades atomic reactor on the Lake Michigan shore in Covert, Michigan. This one will focus on the May 5th spill of 82.1 gallons of radioactive water from the leaking Safety Injection Refueling Water Tank (SIRWT) into Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes represent 20% of the surface fresh water on the entire planet, and serve as the drinking water supply for 40 million people in 8 U.S. states, 2 Canadian provinces, and a large number of Native American First Nations.

The Webinar will be held on Tuesday, July 16th (the 68th annual commemoration of the world's first atomic weapon blast, "Trinity," at Alamagordo, NM on July 16, 1945).

To register to attend the Webinar, do so by filling out the required information (your name and email address) by July 15th at the following website: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/431957345

A broad coalition opposed Palisades' 20-year license extension from 2005-2007, but NRC rubber-stamped it anyways. Palisades now has NRC's permission to operate till 2031, despite its worsening breakdown phase risks.

More.

Beyond Nuclear on Thom Hartmann radio show regarding worsening radioactivity releases at Fukushima Daiichi

On July 11th, Thom Hartmann (photo, left) interviewed Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps on his radio show about the cancer death of Masao Yoshida, Tokyo Electric Power Company's (Tepco) general manager of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and leader of the "Fukushima 50" who tried, at great personal risk, but unsuccessfully, to prevent the three reactor meltdowns of March 2011. Thom also asked Kevin about reports that radioactivity releases from Fukushima Daiichi have increased nearly 100-fold in recent weeks and months, and what this means in terms of radioactivity hazard for Japanese seafood, rice, and other exports to the United States.

A day earlier, Sam Sachs on RT interviewed Kevin about the same issues.

Can nuclear power ever comply with the human right to health? Part II

THEIR MONEY OR YOUR HEALTH: RADIATION RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS

RECAP

In the continuing wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations sent Special Rapporteur on the right to health (a position created in 2002) Anand Grover to assess Japan’s compliance with human rights principles; specifically “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. His visit took place between November 15 and 26, 2012 with permission of the Government of Japan.

This is the second part of a Beyond Nuclear exploration into how the Special Rapporteur’s (SR’s) recommendations and conclusions may apply to nuclear power and human rights compliance beyond the Fukushima catastrophe. Part I examined the dangers of relying on previous radiation health impacts to inform current and future studies and precautionary aspects of the SR's report.

Many aspects of the SR’s report are groundbreaking and speak directly to the shortcomings of our current assumptions on radiation and health not only in regard to events in Japan, but also in the context of radiation protection worldwide; leading ultimately to an extremely important question:

Is it possible for the nuclear power industry and government proponents to comply with the UN definition of the right to health, or must they always exist in violation of these principles?

In this part we examine how risk-benefit analysis is antithetical to human rights.

RADIATION PROTECTION SHOULD BE BASED ON CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

“…risk-benefit analysis is not in consonance with the right to health framework, as it gives precedence to collective interests over individual rights. Under the right to health, the right of every individual has to be protected. Moreover, such decisions, which have a long-term impact on the physical and mental health of people, should be taken with their active, direct and effective participation.” (p. 16)

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations for such a high level of radiation exposure (up to 20 mSv per year for existing contamination and between 20 mSv and 100 mSv for “emergency circumstances”) are based on principles for deciding how much risk the public should be forced to endure. These principles are called justification and optimization.

Those officially responsible for radiation protection, such as governments of the European Union, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rely on these recommendations from ICRP to inform their decisions; and although the ICRP claims no responsibility for how these officials enact the recommendations, the ICRP is a responsible party. The quotes below are European Commission (EC) interpretations of ICRP recommendations; but any government can use the principles of justification and optimization to remove nuclear industry responsibility for most exposures. Supporting the SR’s point above, the EC recognizes that overall benefits may not be for the individual: “Responsibility for judging the justification of new or existing practices usually falls on national radiation protection authorities to ensure an overall benefit in the broadest sense to society although not necessarily to the individual.” (European Commission)

“The principle of justification requires that any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm; in other words, the introduction of a radiation source should result in sufficient individual or societal benefit to offset the detriment it causes. The principle of optimisation requires that the likelihood of incurring exposures, the number of people exposed and the magnitude of their individual exposure should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors.” (emphasis mine)  (European Commission)

“Benefit to whom” and “harm to whom” are not defined, meaning that “benefit” can shift to those with the most political and monetary resources (nuclear industry) at the expense of those that are less well resourced such as members of the public, including farmers and those of lower socio-economic status, etc. So through the concepts of “optimization” and “justification”, the nuclear industry could be allowed to prey on those who are unable to defend themselves.

Additionally, because these concepts are based as much on economics as they are on health, radiation exposure standards based on them should in no way be assumed to represent the most valid or protective science of the day. “As low as reasonably achievable” does not mean protective enough. “Sometimes the radiation detriment will be a small part of all factors considered and it is important that other types of detriment are considered. Similarly, benefit must be determined. Justification therefore goes far beyond the scope of radiological protection.” (European Commission)

Concepts such as these allow, for instance, the ICRP to recommend that feeding contaminated food to people may be preferable to not doing so: “There may be situations where a sustainable agricultural economy is not possible without placing contaminated food on the market. As such foods will be subject to market forces, this will necessitate an effective communication strategy to overcome the negative reactions from consumers outside the contaminated areas.” (emphasis added) In this instance, these principles set up a regime that seeks to downplay the health impact of eating contaminated food instead of informing people that the food is contaminated in the first place. Ultimately this takes away a person’s right to know how contaminated their food is, thereby removing their right to decide whether or not they want to eat contaminated food. Obliterating a person’s choice in this manner is counter to the “active, direct and effective participation” required by the right to health. For more on efforts to address man-made radiation in our food, click here and here.

NEXT TIME-- RADIOPHOBIA: ACTUAL DISEASE AND BULLYING TACTIC ?