When it comes to the truth about radiation and health effects, there are no experts who are honest – not in government, not in science, not anywhere. Yet, people would rather listen to liars than challenge their assumptions about the sources of the so-called truth and disregard the purveyors of actual truth on this topic: the non-creditialed self-taught. – Andrew Kishner, May 18, 2013
'Deception, Cover-up and Murder in the Nuclear Age' is our six-year effort and free web-based book. Click to read the book here
What you can learn in the book: Every cancer and leukemia
since 1945 can be fractionally blamed on one thing: nuclear testing fallout. 'Chernobyl fallout' was 90-95% from Chernobyl and the rest from a covered-up U.S. nuclear release. There are dozens of nuclear reactors orbiting us - many have crashed on Earth. The U.S. may have replicated a 'Hiroshima' inferno on actual humans (in cages in Nevada). Your cremated remains mixed into water would be undrinkable per the EPA because of its strontium-90 levels.
MORE
April 30, 2013 - While LaScram
LaSalle Falls Apart, Operator Asks NRC If They Can Put a Hemi
In It- Exelon is proceeding with a formal request to the NRC for a mega-power boost (aka
'uprate') at the LaSalle plant to increase thermal output by a whopping 12.5%. Also, it has
been learned that the culprit of the technical shutdown of LaSalle Unit 1 reactor on
April 27th was the same exact valve that failed
following a scram in February 2011 due to a welding defect. The recommended fix (buy a new one, duh!) was apparently not heeded;
Status: LaSalle 1 is being restarted (at 22%). LaSalle 2 is at 1% power.
April 29, 2013 - Map of eastern U.S. nuclear plants that
have no containment vent filters (which is a 'Fukushima lessons learned'
that 'wasn't implemented')- enlarge image
April 25-27, 2013 - April 25: LaSalle Unit 2 restart attempt results in a
scram - reason: condenser leak. April 26: NRC
announces 'Special Investigation'
into April 17th events; April 27: during Unit 1 startup process, operators
were forced to shut reactor down after leak was detected in the primary containment
April 17, 2013 - LaSalle County
Nuclear Generating Station is hit by lightning - both reactors scram - pressure
builds in containment - radioactive gases vented from containment - monitoring fails -
vents from Unit 2 not filtered - leaks and other problems not reported until days later - our initial report
and our analysis of the types of radioactive gases released
in unfiltered vent
The Environmental Impact Statement for
the NNSS (and Not the Other Off-Site Locations)
Could
the U.S. just resume nuclear testing?
Yes. Why are the U.S. taxpayers paying
millions of dollars annually for a 'readiness' program that keeps the NNSS
on standby notice for nuclear test resumption?
It is because every nuclear arms treaty has a
breakout clause that the U.S. has taken much more seriously than her
allies. The U.S. is the last superpower to NOT close its nuclear
test site.
Citizens had
an opportunity in late 2011 to comment
about the wholly inadequate analysis
regarding nuclear testing resumption in the draft EIS, which is still available
here
The draft EIS has nothing new to say
about the environmental impacts from nuclear testing. It refers to
an outdated analysis from 1996. Despite new earthquake
data, new findings in hydrology, new worries over and data on Nevada's aquifer
contamination, better understanding of zeolites/colloids and radionuclide
migration, changes in the status of the non-proliferation regime - CTBT - and the population
of the Southwest since 1996, etc...the DOE is insisting that NOTHING HAS
CHANGED SINCE 1996 THAT WOULD AFFECT OR BE AFFECTED BY UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR
TESTING.
We believe the DOE is deliberately trying to
avoid addressing the unthinkable and possible impacts from a failed and
vented nuclear test (a pressurized radioactive cloud blasting through the
Nevada desert floor and pumping out lethal quantities of
radioactivity). This deadly plume could travel to downtown
Las Vegas or St. George, Utah, or nearby ranches or highways or
schoolyards.
Think how many extra hundreds of thousands of
persons now live within 150 miles of the NNSS since 1996! Think how
many extra schools and parks and children! Yet the DOE
insists in the draft EIS that no one would be harmed from a vented nuclear
test - using outdated population figures. They claim that if a person stood
at the boundary of the Nevada Test Site in the year * after* the worst
underground nuke test vent accident at the test site ('Baneberry' in 1970) and just stood
there through all of the rest of the underground nuclear tests through
1992 (there were over 800 underground nuclear tests in Nevada from 1951 to
1992), that person's 'total exposure would be equivalent to 32 extra
minutes of normal background exposure, or the equivalent of one-thousandth
of a single chest x-ray.'
That is bullshit. The DOE
is playing with its 'health physics' dolls and action figures and is
ignoring reality. The DOE has no basis to make this claim because the
only health study
conducted regarding off-site population exposures to NTS fallout1 concerned NTS tests
through 1970. Off-site exposures to fallout from NTS nuclear tests after 1970 were
never determined by any U.S. health agency.
What's more is that the DOE
still has not released secret data and reports on the nature of failed and
leaked 'Star Wars' underground nuclear
test experiments in the 1980s, including the 'Mighty Oak' (1986) underground
nuke test accident (initially denied by the DOE). Other 'Star Wars' underground
nuke blasts in Nevada in
the 1980s led to similar unmonitored, deliberate radioactive releases.
As you can tell from above, the DOE cherrypicks
data to make misleading calculations. The DOE cherrypicked the years
1971 to 1992 to avoid telling you what disastrous amounts of radiation
were emitted from the Baneberry (underground nuclear test) venting, which
spewed millions of curies across the United States at levels many, many
thousands of times worse than Three Mile Island.
As we have proven through various analyses on this
site, the Energy Department 'shapes' data and information using cherrypicking,
substandard environmental sampling and monitoring and overzealous and often
flawed modeling. The Energy Department gives excuses for not
producing sufficient data (read about Divine
Strake) or installing more monitoring equipment (read about NNSS
monitoring) or substituting real
environmental sampling for over-exuberant modeling.
Sadly, we are left to fend for ourselves. The
EPA provides zero oversight, Congress never insists on transparency
regarding DOE's data, and the citizens have failed to strong-arm the DOE to
accept independent scientists to collect reliable data at the site.
Fundamental questions
need to be asked: Are we in
denial that the contagion of
corruption and malfeasance has spread throughout our government and crippled its ability to protect and
safeguard us? Are we too unwilling to admit that a government entity could engage
in propaganda and lies to distract citizens from a public health monster of its own creation?
1 titled 'Estimated
Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from Iodine-131 in
Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests'
Did you know? The
most recent (15-year old) EIS was removed entirely from government servers
in 2008 because of national security concerns (it contains maps of plutonium 'hotspots').
The 1996 NTS EIS is now available at the DOE's
website for a short-window of time to correspond with the SWEIS
comment period. Then the online version will go bye-bye again.
Read our letter to the Utah 'Rad Board'
discussing the issue:
here.
Also, read the 1998 anonymous letter from 'Retired scientists, monitors,
and individuals from DOE and EPA': here
Did you know? There is a chance of an accidental detonation
of an unexploded nuclear ordnance at the NNSS? Or that leakages of radioactive gases into the air occur
regularly? - link
Did you know? The EIS allows mini-Divine
Strakes via a loophole called 'Categorical Exclusion'? - link
Per NEPA, 'Categorical
exclusion' is a 'category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment ... and ... for which,
therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required.' (40 CFR 1508.4)
Through December 2, 2011, the U.S. Energy
Department sought comments and input on their draft 'Environmental Impact
Statement' (EIS) for the former Nevada Test Site, now called the Nevada National
Security Site (NNSS).
The 'expanded operations
alternative' in the draft EIS proposes:
*** open-air explosive experiments
involving up to 4,000 pounds of depleted uranium ***
*** deliberate open-air
releases of several tens of curies of radioactive gases and particles with
half-lives of up to 36 days (called 'radioactive tracer experiments' and -
mysteriously unmentioned in draft EIS - 'source physics experiments' - see
more in blue box) ***
*** will give agencies like Pentagon's DTRA a 71% increase in the maximum
allowable yield (size of blast) for non-nuclear open-air explosions in
more test site areas, including the place (Area 16) where Divine Strake
would have been detonated (however, still, no adequate data on soil
contamination is provided) ***
*** will increase the number of conventional high
explosive tests conducted at the NNSS by 400%. (Chapters 3 and 5) ***
** will validate the main function
of the NNSS: to resume nuclear testing ***
In 2011, the
public was given this opportunity to 'get a word in' about the goings-on at this
otherwise top secret federal installation because of a 1969 federal law called NEPA
that requires public review of federal actions that pose
significant impacts to health and the environment.
What
is NEPA?
Environmental impact statements are
required for federal actions that may cause significant impacts on health and
the environment. They are mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, which
requires federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their decisions and
provides the public an opportunity to comment on contemplated actions.
The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that every 5 years the DOE
determine what to do about the Nevada Test Site Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The most recent one is from 1996. That five-year process results in what is called a Supplement
Analysis, which attempts to determine whether a new EIS is needed, a
Supplement to the existing EIS is needed, or nothing additional is
needed.
What does
an EIS entail? According to a Washington Post story in 1996, 'NEPA dictates that agencies begin by soliciting public comment on the scale of the inquiry -- called a "scoping period" -- followed by sundry hearings and workshops, an implementation plan, a draft environmental impact statement, a comment period on the draft, and then a final statement incorporating the comments and setting out revised options and recommendations.'
Scoping
What is scoping? In reality, scoping is
really the process of defining scope, or the focus, of the SWEIS (aka EIS).
It would be prohibitive for the NNSA to analyze and study every single
environmental impact for the NTS.
Per the DOE: '... scoping meetings will provide the public with an opportunity to present
comments, ask questions, and discuss issues with NNSA officials regarding the [EIS]....After
the close of the public scoping period, DOE/NNSA will begin developing the draft
[EIS]'
Peruse the NEPA
Citizens' guide here
to learn more about your rights regarding the National Environmental Policy Act.
July 26, 2012 -
SIMULATED BELOW-GROUND NUCLEAR TEST IN NEVADA INVOLVING REAL RADIOACTIVITY CARRIED OUT ON TUESDAY
The U.S. Energy Department conducted on July 24, 2012 a 'Source Physics Experiment' - or a tiny, 'simulated' underground nuclear blast in Nevada - that a 2010 government 'white paper' noted would involve the direct release of radioisotopes into the environment to mimic the accidental venting of a low-yield underground nuclear detonation.
Although the Energy Department press release announcing this treaty-verification experiment - the third since May 2011 - didn't mention the release of radioactive gasses or particles, the 2010 white paper stated that the second or third Source Physics Experiment would entail the 'release of short-lived isotopes (e.g., via shallow underground chemical explosion, direct spraying, or other controlled release) will be used for high-fidelity radiometric measurements at the surface with no permanent contamination introduced to the site. Radioactive debris will decay to below background levels within 1 year.... Isotopes under consideration include a combination of treaty-relevant nuclides and other short-lived species that can be conveniently produced.' The press release noted that four more of these experiments are planned.
Because gaseous radioactive isotopes will drift offsite regardless of meteorological conditions and radioactive particulates can easily drift offsite, it is unacceptable that the DOE has carried out these tests without providing warning to off-site communities. It is also unacceptable that there has been no NEPA environmental assessment of Source Physics Experiments.
Sometime in 2012, the Energy Department plans to conduct a weapons-grade-plutonium-fueled 'scaled' subcritical nuclear experiment, which is the closest the U.S. will come to conducting a nuclear test since 1992. No environmental assessment of this new activity has been completed either.
DOE white paper on SPEs: https://na22.nnsa.doe.gov/mrr/2010/PAPERS/04-02.PDF
MAY 5, 2011 - U.S.
Conducts First in a Series of Nuclear Simulation Experiments That Will Involve
the Release of Radioactive Isotopes on the Same Day EPA Halts Special Monitoring in Early May
(UPDATE: so far, we
have not found mention of these experiments in the draft EIS - DOE/EIS-0426D)
In the first week of
May, the National Nuclear Security Administration - a semi-autonomous agency of
the U.S. Energy Department - conducted a small non-nuclear underground explosion near the locations of two Cold War era nuclear blasts at the Nevada National Security Site or
NNSS.
The 220-pound chemical explosion, a calibration test, was the 'inaugural' event for a new activity called Source Physics Experiments
(SPEs) at the NNSS, which was the home to over 1,000 nuclear tests from 1951 to 1992
and is on standby mode for the resumption of nuclear bomb testing despite the
fact the U.S. is a party to various global test ban treaties. SPEs were described one year ago in a paper published by the NNSA.
The May 3rd calibration experiment will be followed at some later date by another sub-surface explosive blast ten times larger (or 1-ton TNT equivalent) that may be followed up by another similarly-sized blast. Like the calibration test, the larger explosions will take place in a 65 meter (180 feet) deep emplacement hole located in the northeast part of the NNSA facility, which was called the Nevada Test Site until 2010.
Since SPEs are intended to improve knowledge in the arena of clandestine nuclear test detection, they are designed to mimic a leaked underground nuclear test - as best as possible - and, as such, actually involve the deliberate release of radioisotopes into the air - which would occur naturally during an accidental venting. This surface dispersal of (an unknown quantity of) short-lived radioisotopes, according to the 'white paper,' would 'simulate' the accidental venting of a low-yield underground nuclear detonation. The NNSA brief notes that the 'release of short-lived isotopes (e.g., via shallow underground chemical explosion, direct spraying, or other controlled release) will be used for high-fidelity radiometric measurements at the surface with no permanent contamination introduced to the site. Radioactive debris will decay to below background levels within 1 year.... Isotopes under consideration include a combination of treaty-relevant
nuclides and other short-lived species that can be conveniently produced.' Other possible environmental impacts of SPEs, which appear to be a continuing (not one-time) activity, could include disturbance/resuspension of (legacy fallout) contaminated surface dust from the resulting shock wave(s) and acceleration of the spread of contaminants in aquifers.
To our knowledge, there is no NEPA document that addresses the environmental impacts of these new source physics experiments in underground areas of the NNSA facility. (The 2002 Supplement Analysis for the Nevada Test Site FEIS doesn't list these experiments under the heading 'Potential Future Projects at the
NTS,' (DOE-EIS-0243-SA-01, 3-8) which states that 'Appropriate NEPA review would be performed for each of these projects.' The 1996
NTS EIS provides no analysis of the environmental impacts of 'treaty verification' activities under Alternative 3 in Chapter 5. Considering that SPEs are new activities and 'nuclear' - in the sense that surface radioactive dispersal is involved - it is
astounding that SPE exercises were approved by the DOE NEPA compliance officer and, furthermore, have commenced without a shred of public knowledge and oversight.)
Considering that radioisotopes used in future Source Physics Experiments could easily drift offsite depending on meteorological conditions, it is curious that the U.S. EPA announced on the same day (evening of May 3) as the NNSA experiment (May 3) that it would halt its special monitoring of radiation linked to Japan. NuclearCrimes.org suspects that the EPA and DOE are doing a repeat of the trick they pulled during the Mighty Oak experiment of 1986.
The recent calibration experiment was conducted in Area 15, which was the site of three underground nuclear tests, an airborne radiation dispersal experiment and host to
the 'Spent Fuel Test,' which was carried out to learn how well granite rock contains the heat and radiation that would emanate from stored spent nuclear fuel.
The great problem with the DOE's
expanded alternatives is that the DOE still doesn't do adequate environmental
monitoring.
This means that the DOE's various
experiments in the Nevada desert don't come with a whole lot of vigorous
environmental sampling to ensure public safety....meaning YOU won't be told in
very certain terms (wherever you are in the U.S.) how much plutonium dust, DU,
resuspended fallout, short-lived isotopes or PM10 particles - or even plumes
from an accidental vent of a nuclear test - are in your
air.
How is this possible?
In 1998, the DOE released a document titled 'Routine Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Plan,' which the DOE gave no opportunity for public
(stakeholder) input. The plan gutted environmental monitoring around the
Nevada Test Site and through fiscal means cut off the ability of the EPA to
continue offsite independent sampling and monitoring that it had done for
decades. That job, diminished in scope, was given to a contractor with
less credibility and less, or zero, independent review abilities. Read
more about the DRI's handling of the Milford Flat Fire
event.
"Department of Energy officials describe the
move as part of a streamlined monitoring program..
'I think there is an
inherent conflict in having the DOE monitoring itself. It's akin to the
fox trotting down the lane to guard the hen house,' [Sen. Richard Bryan,
D-Nev.] said...
'It's appalling,' said Nielsen, executive director of
Citizen Alert. 'The DOE has given us no warning or briefing on the
matter.' 'The whole idea that DOE can regulate itself and
arbitrarily close these monitors goes against the grain in the debate as
to whether there should be external regulation for the DOE complex,' he
said.
The great problem with this 1998 plan, which is still
in effect, is that it doesn't give the public (people in the Southwest) a clear
idea of how much plutonium dust is in their air. This is referred to as
plutonium migration and resuspension. There are very large and
concentrated hotzones of plutonium contamination on the Nevada National Security
Site that are not cleaned up or protected from winds. For over 60 years,
plutonium from these areas have been accumulating in offsite areas via
winds. Everyone in the Southwest is exposed to these particles, and the
cumulative doses will one day cause noticeable health problems. We fear
there are unnoticed health problems from such exposures today - this is one
reason this author relocated from Utah.
The 1998 plan accomplished this highly deceptive
and public safety-averse goal by reducing what is called 'receptor monitoring'
(or a type of weather station equipped with a high volume air sampler uniquely
capable of monitoring airborne plutonium).
The DOE via this 1998 plan reduced
to six the number of these offsite high volume air particulate samplers that are
run continuously for a timespan of one month and best suited to measure
radionuclides like plutonium that are hard to detect but have a low action level.
The EPA, in a 1998 written
complaint, said this move was unacceptable: 'Reducing this number to 5-6 is not
substantiated, since it is clearly an important measurement. EPA stands by
our original proposal for a network of 12 high volume air samplers...for the
very reason which has been cited as a shortcoming of receptor monitoring - that
the location of the Maximally Exposed Individual might vary from year to year.'
A Las Vegas lab director in Nevada with EPA expressed
in a letter to DOE his disappointment over the 1998 plan, calling attention to
the reduction and asserting that "...receptor monitoring may be the only way
to assure that the offsite public is not being unduly exposed."
In the 1998 plan the DOE argued against
fully relying on 'receptor monitoring.' They opted to use a half-and-half
approach - using some monitors and some modeling (computer guesswork).
The EPA noted that using models and
monitors to predict movements of tritium and other radionuclides might be
feasible, but 'it is plutonium which is problematic.' The EPA said
modeling won't work with airborne plutonium because the DOE hasn't mapped out
the plutonium sources at the NTS (the DOE doesn't know fully where the plutonium
is) and there exists much 'uncertainty in resuspension of
plutonium for air transport to the offsite.' (read the EPA's 1998
letter).
But the DOE insisted on relying on
computer models and a meager six high volume samplers offsite.
Incidentally, these receptor monitors are nowhere near Las Vegas; they are
located only near the NNSS's perimeter (Alamo, Beatty, Rachel, Amargosa Valley,
Indian Springs, and Goldfield).
What's more is there's a gap in the
monitoring 'network' to the east of the NNSS between Alamo and Indian Springs
that is more than 60 miles wide that a plume of plutonium can very easily
slip through.
We stated in our radiation
advisory a full year ago that "Considering
that inhalation or ingestion of miniscule amounts of plutonium can inflict
significant harm on human health and
unremediated plutonium-contaminated soils on-
and off-site several U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and facilities in the
American West remain vulnerable to wind erosion,
a top priority of government agencies with responsibilities for safeguarding
public health should be the prevention of
additional human exposure to environmental plutonium. These agencies, however,
haven't done enough to reduce or remove the specter of uncertainty
regarding population exposure to resuspended
plutonium, especially in areas of greatest
concern: on- and off-site areas of the Nevada National Security Site
(former Nevada Test Site) and the Rocky Flats
plant facility. Residents and travelers in these
regions - Denver metropolitan area and portions of Nevada and Utah
- should be aware of this
potential danger."
The final SWEIS for the NNSS
came out on Valentine's Day in 2013. We encourage residents of the Southwest to read
this document because this is the 10-year (or 20-year) plan
of activities at the test site. Note, however, that the DOE is getting away with carrying out
many activities that are not even covered by any EIS. This
includes 'Source Physics Experiments' and 'Scaled Subcritical Nuclear Experiments.'
TIMELINE
October
1996 - Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site
Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE-EIS-0243) completed - link
December
1996 - Record of Decision of EIS issued - link
July
2002 - Supplemental Analysis (SA) (DOE-EIS-0243-SA-01) completed - link
April
17, 2008 - Draft SA (DOE-EIS-0243-SA-03) released; commenting begins
- link
(link 2)
May
2008 - Public meetings on draft SA in Pahrump (5.5), Las Vegas (5.6) and St.
George (5.7) - link
May
30, 2008 - Public comments on draft Supplemental Analysis due
September 30,
2008 - Final determination on EIS due
January 22, 2009 - First
mention of decision to initiate EIS1
March 16,
2009 - EIS was determined by the DOE [as evidenced by a monthly Environmental Impact Statement
and Environmental Assessment Status Chart (see link)]
Mid-June
2009 - EIS status charts on the General Counsel page of the DOE website
included first mention of the new site-wide EIS for the NTS.
July 24,
2009 - DOE's NNSA issued the Notice of
Intent in the U.S. Federal Register; scoping commenting begins
September
2009 - Public scoping meetings held in Las Vegas (9.10), Pahrump (9.14),
Tonopah (9.16) and St. George, Utah (9.18) - link
October
16, 2009 - Scoping comments deadline
September
10-18, 2009 - Scoping meetings
October
16, 2009 - Scoping comment deadline
Late
2009 - land transfer (according to the board meeting minutes of NTS CAB in November
2009)
January
26, 2011 -
mixed-waste cell opened
July
25, 2011 - draft EIS released (Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National
Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site
Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE/EIS-0426D)) - link
September
2011 - Public meetings on draft EIS in Las Vegas (9.20), Pahrump (9.21), St.
George (9.22), Tonopah (9.27) and Carson City (9.28) - link
October
27, 2011 December 2, 2011 - Public comments on draft EIS due
Links:
DOE's early (pre-Draft) SWEIS
page, DOE's present SWEIS page, General Counsel
page, NEPA page,
Compliance Guide; Bob Golden, mentioned in a May 8 (The) Spectrum
article, was National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Officer at
the DOE/NNSA/NSO when the 1996 EIS was finalized. The EIS
document manager now is Linda Cohen of the NSO (Nevada Site Office) of
the DOE/NNSA.
1 Frank Marcinsowki, DOE's
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance, informed NTS CAB
[as paraphrased in the minutes]: 'DOE has committed to conduct a
new site-wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and will begin the process in
FY 2009 with a Notice of Intent and scoping meetings to identify the breadth of
the study.'
Re:
the State
of Nevada land withdrawal dispute with DOE: Bob Loux to
Steve Mellington requesting that DOE prepare a new site-wide EIS for the
Nevada Test Site: here
REALITY VS. Crazy ideas from
NSO (Nevada Site Office of NNSA/DOE)
Land-use
Former EIS documents disappearing from internet
Radiation standards
Public meetings
Need for EIS
Crazy notion
'Nevada Test Site (NTS) can be used for disposal
operations'
'Because of
the security sensitivity of some information in ... (NEPA) documents, the... (DOE) is limiting
access to certain NEPA documents on this web site. .. which reflects an awareness of the need to
protect the public following the September 11th attacks.' - 2008
internet message on DOE website
NNSS
poster titled 'Radiation Facts' revises upwards the estimate of
background radiation received by the average
American to 620 milliRems, including 300 milliRems of medical X-rays
annually!
DOE won't hold public meetings anywhere but St. George, Las Vegas,
Pahrump, and Tonopah (and, just for draft EIS meetings, Carson City) for EIS for
NNSS
The DOE in 2008 completed a Supplement
Analysis and made the case
in the draft version that an EIS or supplemental-EIS wasn't required
REALITY
No.
99% of NNSS land is public land that was
withdrawn for 'weapons testing' (some of it - until recently - was even
the Air Force's withdrawn land that was illegally used for bomb tests).
All of it should be cleaned up and
become 'eligible
for consideration for public use.' Exploiting the system by 'anticipat[ing]
that the Bureau will likely find that the land is not suitable for
public use due' so it can become your 740-acre site for a new
waste cell, is deceiving the public
If civilians never know that contaminated 'plutonium
dispersal sites' like Area 13 (aka Project 57) exist (and are so filled to the gills with
plutonium that terrorists would have a field day) then how will public
pressure ever build to a threshold that will compel the DOE to clean up
these public health menaces?
That is nearly double
the official
government estimate of 360 milliRems that was actually upwardly revised in 1987
from the previous estimate of 170 milliRemS!
John Gofman once calculated that each increase of 100
millirems would increase cancer mortality by 16%.
So, the DOE's unilateral
unwarranted increase in our expected radiation 'allowance' will cause the U.S.
cancer mortality rate to increase by 48%.
Meetings/public hearings
should be held in all regions impacted by NSO's traditional 'Off-Site Areas'
including those surrounding the Rulison Site, Rio Blanco Site, and sites
in Mississippi, Alaska, and New Mexico. Former public hearing venues for
Divine Strake - Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boise,
Idaho - should be included.
In 2008 - DOE plans to ship 25,000 gallons of Plutonium
Uranium Recovery by Extraction (PUREX)
waste from the DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS) to
NTS [2007 Letter
from NV Attorney General to DOE on use of NTS as a disposal site for PUREX]
State of Nevada protests; claims these are 'new waste
streams'; dredges up legally-thorny land-use argument (NTS only meant for
'weapons testing' not waste disposal)
State, worried about water contamination issues, needs new EIS
to seek natural resource damages via federal environmental statutes, threatens
lawsuit; threatens to deny permit for new waste cell unless EIS is initiated
DOE capitulates; gets waste cell permit; last of PUREX waste
arrives in Dec. 2009
Public servants and agencies in
the State of Nevada have been largely disinterested in the 'exportation' of radioactive
products from the NNSS until they began to realize the contamination crisis of Nevada's
most treasured natural resource: aquifer water. Bizarrely, these servants and
agencies are worried about the fact that test site activities are destroying
drinking water supplies yet they continually support the
resumption of testing.
