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
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 It refers to an outdated analysis from 1996.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 Yet the DOE insists in the draft EIS that no one would be harmed from a vented nuclear test - using outdated population figures.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.
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.
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.'
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
Press Release - NNSA Conducts Third Seismic Source Physics Experiment - http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/spe3072412
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.
Regarding the plan, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, in an article titled 'Excluding EPA from nuclear checks worries residents near testing site' (10/25/98), noted:
"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.'
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
27, 2011 December 2, 2011 - Public comments on draft EIS due
February 14, 2013 - FINAL EIS Issued here
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.'
COMMENTS MADE ON EIS's
Our comments on Draft SA here; and our oped protesting the DOE's removal of online NEPA documents: DOE Saying It's Protecting Us is a Hard Pill to Swallow
State of NV's comments on 1996 Nevada Test Site EIS here
Scoping comments on EIS from the State of Nevada, WSLF (Western States Legal Foundation), Tri-Valley CARES and Nevada Desert Experience (105 persons sent e-letters to the DOE in support of NDE's campaign)
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)
|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|
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.
About Us | Contact | Donate | Prefixes & equivalents, radiation conversions | One-stop atomic elements references | Japan Finds Radioactivity in More Foods From California: The California Radiation Report | Map of eastern U.S. reactors | link to us
Popular pages: Updates (Fukushima and Pacific coast n' catch) | Subcritical nuclear test news | Downwinder Day | Trinity nuclear test | Contaminated wallboard/phosphogypsum | Caged human experiments at nuclear test sites
Important pages: Gummed film & fallout maps | Scientists misled Americans about 'hot' halibut | Fukushima formed a 'hotspot' in California | EPA is not exactly 'monitoring' our milk for radiation | Montana cows died from radiation? | FDA is barely testing our food for radiation | spent fuel fires could harm us all | a NUCLEAR REACTOR from SPACE could land on your house | solar storm dangers | plutonium dust is a problem north of Vegas | Chernobyl contamination was 95% from Chernobyl; 5% Was From a U.S. Secret Radiation Release | Nuclear Reactor Operators Don't Really Monitor Their Pollution - They Guess
Believe it or not: U.S. Government Gave Secret Fallout Maps to Kodak, But Never to Americans | Unexploded Nuclear Bombs North of Las Vegas Could Still Detonate or Reach Criticality| Your Cremated Remains Would be 180 Times the Limit Allowable by the EPA for Beta Radiation in Drinking Water | Quaker Oats and Boston universities gave radioactive cereal to unwitting special needs children