(October 30, 1992) On 9 October German authorities discovered two casks containing 400 grams of cesium-137 and 21 grams of strontium-90 in a luggage locker at the Frankfurt railway station and in the trunk of a car.
(381.3731) WISE Amsterdam - Shortly afterwards, police arrested four people in Switzerland and five in Germany: eight Polish citizens and one German. Two of these men received high and probably fatal doses of radiation when they mistook cesium for osmium and concealed a gram of it in their pockets. Radiation illness has already appeared, says the German Environmental Ministry. According to the authorities, it is possible that people who spent some time in the car which transported the radioactive material also received a radiation doses.
A special group of police officers are searching for 20 kilos of uranium-235 and 600 grams of cesium-137, which is belie-ved to have been smuggled into Germany. Several people described the uranium-235 as "waffenfähig" (usable in nuclear-weapons). On 13 October in Munich, the police discovered 2.2 kilos of uranium in a parking place. But it is not yet certain that this is a part of the 20 kilos of uranium-235.
According to police officials, the smuggling of radioactive material from the former Soviet Union is increasing enormously; in 1991 there were 29 attempts registered; this year already more than 100. These figures are only for Germany and also only include the known (thus failed) attempts.
Meanwhile, during the same period, Russian authorities arrested a man who stole 1.5 kilos of Uranium-235 from a Moscow nuclear research center. Also, Polish police arrested a man who was storing 1.5 kilos of Uranium in his bathroom in the city of Terespol.
Sources:
(October 30, 1992) On 21 October, after nine days under Russian detention, the Greenpeace ship SOLO was released near Murmansk. The ship had been arrested in the Kara Sea the previous week (12 Oct.).
(381.3732) WISE Amsterdam - The SOLO was on a mission to document submarine nuclear reactor dumps off the coast of the Russian nuclear testing site Novaya Zemlya and had been chased by a Russian coastguard vessel after it entered Russian territorial waters. Three flares were fired at the ship when the captain, Albert Kuiken of the Netherlands, refused to alter SOLO's course. By the time the ship was arrested, however, it had already entered international waters.
Days before the SOLO reached the Kara Sea, Greenpeace released a report which estimated that the waters around Novaya Zemlya contained the largest nuclear sea dump in the world. The former Soviet navy has been secretly dumping nuclear submarine reactors there, some still fully-fuelled, since the early 1960s. The expedition was to document some of the radioactivity around the site.
A government sponsored Russian-Norwegian scientific expedition, which aimed to investigate the extent of radioactive contamination in the same area, was also denied access to the dump sites in September.
Meanwhile, on 14 October, another Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, sailed into Chazma Bay, the site of a 1985 nuclear submarine accident. It was greeted by a crowd of hundreds of people from the town of Dunay.
Chazma Bay, near Vladivostok, was the site of a nuclear reactor explosion in August 1985 during the refuelling of an Echo II submarine. The accident killed 10 sailors and released hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactivity. Until last year, when Greenpeace activists visited the area, the world did not know about the accident. The release of radioactivity created a plume six km long and 1.5 km wide. During a tour of the fallout trace last year, Greenpeace measured radiation at 100 times background levels.
Many of the hundreds of people from the town of Dunay C which provides the workforce for the nuclear submarine shipyard C who met the ship complained to Greenpeace about military secrecy, the accident, lack of radiation control at the shipyard, and the dangerous concentration of military bases in the area.
Although the Rainbow Warrior had received an invitation from the city authorities and permission from the regional KGB to visit Chazma, the commander of the local flotilla, Captain Alexi Krasnikov, attempted to force the ship to leave. He claimed the ship violated navigational rules. But during a public meeting held dockside, Captain Krasnikov was angrily confronted by the crowd about the secrecy surrounding nuclear leakages and accidents, the poor living conditions, plans for a new nuclear dumpsite, and his authority to challenge the Rainbow Warrior's visit. Krasnikov eventually agreed the Rainbow Warrior had not infringed any regulations, and the ship left Chazma Bay without incident.
The Rainbow Warrior is visiting Russian Far East naval bases to expose the deadly legacy of nuclear submarine operations in the Pacific. The US and Russia operate almost 100 nuclear-powered vessels in the region. Already, Greenpeace has uncovered information about two Soviet nuclear-powered submarines which experienced reactor meltdowns in the Pacific, and is confirming reports about radioactive waste dumped near Vladivostok in the Sea of Japan.
"In the last year we learned that 12 submarine nuclear reactors and thousands of barrels of radioactive waste were dumped in Arctic waters," said Joshua Handler, Nuclear Free Seas campaign research coordinator. "Now we are confirming a similar story of secret dumping in the Pacific. The legacy of nuclear submarine operations is truly shocking."
A 1990 explosion at an ammunition dump scattered shells into the town and the shipyard, near the nuclear-powered submarines undergoing repair.
Sources: Greenpeace (GreenNet, gn:gp.press, 13, 14, 18 and 21 Oct. 1992).
Contacts: Greenpeace Moscow, PO Box 60, Moscow, CIS; tel: +7 095 258 3950 or 251 0973. Rainbow Warrior, tel: +872 130 0312, fax: 130 0313.
Nitrogen leak kills N-worker/FRG.
(October 30, 1992) A technician died of suffocation in an accident at the Biblis nuclear power station near Worms, Germany, on 17 October. The 39-year-old pipe-fitter was carrying out routine work in a sealed room at the time. He was killed when nitrogen leaked into the area. No radiation was released. Operation of the 16-year-old PWR was not interrupted by the accident. Nitrogen is used as a propellent in one of the plant's monitoring systems. Police, plant, and environmental authorities are searching for what caused the accident. New Scientist (UK), 24 Oct. 1992, p.11
Leaks at Ignalina NPP/ Lithuania. There were once again leaks at the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania. The first press releases reporting the leaks came from the Swedish SKI (Radiation Protection Board) on 15 Oct. Later that day, authorities from Ignalina confirmed an incident had occurred, but they claimed there was only one leak, while the SKI spoke of two leaks. A few days later the second leak was also confirmed. The first one was due to a crack of about one centimeter in the coolant system, through which 200 liters of radioactive water was released. But, according to Gennadi Lipunov, deputy chief of the Latvian Nuclear Safety Board, the radioactive water was filtered before it was released outside the building, so supposedly no radioactivity was released to the environment. The second leak was due to a very small crack ('the size of a needle-prick') and was found during repairs of the first crack. After this discovery, the decision was made to check all the pipes of the coolant system. Both leaks occured at the Ignalina-1 1500 MW RMBK reactor. The second reactor was closed for maintance and repairs following a helium leak in July. Die Tageszeitung (FRG), 16 & 19 Oct. 1992
Plutonium spill shuts down Sellafield/UK. The Sellafield reprocessing plant was closed in early September after a spill of 20-30 liters of plutonium solution from an evaporator. The Irish government has called for a detailed report of the accident. NENIG Briefing No. 59 (Shetland), Oct. 1992
GE reactor problems. Whistleblower Paul M. Blanch, from Massachusetts, US, has drawn national attention to four technical problems in General Electric reactors. One of these includes the tendency of in-core water level indicators to deliver false readings. More generally, Blanch's tightly focused technical criticism is giving more attention to the charge that Northeast Utilities has ignored many deeply imbedded safety problems in order to rescue the Seabrook reactor in neighboring New Hampshire. atoms & waste, 9 Oct. 1992, p.7
Iran accused of deal with Kazakhstan to buy N-weapons. A report by the Mujahedeen, a leading Iranian opposi-tion group, has accused Iran of making a deal with the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan to purchase four nuclear warheads. Kazakhstan, the largest of the newly independent Muslim nations of Central Asia, is one of four states that inherited nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union dis-solved. The report contradicts a pledge made by Kazakhstan Prime Minister Sergei Tereschenko during a visit to Israel in September. At that time, Tereschenko promised, "Nuclear weapons will not be sold, not to Iran, or any other country." Both Kazakhstan and Iran deny the Mujahedeen charges. CCNS RadioActive Hotline (GreenNet, gn:nuc.facilities, 20 Oct. 1992)
US-CIS uranium deal. Canadian-based Cameco Corp. is the big winner in a deal struck this month between the US and five republics of the former Soviet Union. Cameco ex-pects the deal, which restricts uranium exports from the CIS to the US, will push uranium prices upward. The deal finalizes an earlier arrangement between the US and the republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Ukraine. Exports from the republics were blamed for uranium prices hitting a record low (US$7.75/pound). The agreement replaces a US tariff on uranium imports levied earlier this year in response to anti-dumping petitions by US producers and unionized mine workers. It limits imports for eight years but includes provisions allowing the CIS to begin exports to the US as uranium prices strengthen. The Star Phoenix (Canada), 21 Oct. 1992.
French people increasingly against nuclear power. According to a survey done for the French Institute of Nuclear Safety and Protection (IPSN), public opinion has never been as much against nuclear power as it is now. Mistrust has steadily been rising since Chernobyl and has increased even more this year, due to campaigns organized by ecologists. 66.8% of the French people think that they are not being properly informed about dangerous transports; 63.7% think the same about nuclear waste; and 57.8% about nuclear plants. 42.8% think that the choice for nuclear power has been a bad one (26.4% think it has been a good one); 54.6% say, though, that it's been a realistic choice, but only 26.3% think that it's always been a bad choice and only 9.3% think it's always been a good choice. 77.2% are afraid of nuclear waste and 92.9% think that solutions for it should have been found at an earlier stage. 55.6% think that no satisfactory solution can be found for the waste. 62.7% think it's easier to construct a plant to destroy the waste. All in all, 63.9% of the French populace say they're against nuclear plants (as opposed to the 54% who opposed nuclear plants right after Chernobyl). Silence (France), Sept. 1992, p.19
A recent study, "Why nuclear power plants of the Chernobyl design must not be replaced by atomic power but by motor-based Cogeneration" can be obtained from: Gundula Augustin, Netzwerk DEN, Schwalbenweg 11, W-6272 Niedern-hausen, FRG; tel: +49 6128 72405; fax +49 6128 73315 (English language) or from Gesellschaft für dezentrale Energiewirtschaft e.V. (GDE), Geisnangstr. 3, W-7140 Ludwigsburg, FRG; tel: +49 7141 871303; fax: +7141 280003 (German language).
(October 30, 1992) The research center at Pripyat, near Chernobyl, founded in 1990 to study the effects of irradiation on living organisms, has come up with the first results of its work: findings that show exposure to ionizing radiation, even low-level, can disturb the cellular metabolism, weaken the immune defense system, and provoke organic stress that leads to premature aging.
(381.3728) WISE Amsterdam - This research has concentrated on the effects of radiation on the DNA-structure of the cellular core, bearer of the hereditary information of every individual. The hypothesis the researchers put forward is that one of the effects of low-level radiation C so far largely ignored C is the disturbance of the metabolism of the lipid constituents of the cell membrane. Disturbance would trigger a series of events in the whole organism, provoking numerous "Chernobyl symptoms", including certain psychiatric problems that had previously been attributed to "simple" radiophobia, in other words, the fear of living in an irradiated environment.
|
THE PETKAU EFFECT |
The researchers have observed modifications of the composition of lipid constituants in the heart, which could lead to cardio-vascular problems. They also found that animals seem to age prematurely and that the number of young per litter diminishes.
Mortality rates in the region are up and the great susceptibility to contagious diseases like colds and lung infections is now being attributed to the decay of defence mechanisms by the described process. One of the problems facing the recognition of the findings is that specific symptoms are hard to point out. The effect of small doses does not provoke sudden or extreme changes in behavior or appearance.
Source: translated from ContrAtom Nr.19 (Switzerland), Sept. 1992, p.19.
(October 30, 1992) On the night of December 2, 1949, the filters in the stacks at the US nuclear weapons plant at Hanford, in Washington state, were turned off and 11,000 curies of iodine-131 were released directly into the atmosphere.
(381.3733) WISE Amsterdam - This secret experiment was called Green Run because it involved dissolving fuel that had been cooled only 16 days as compared to the normal 90 days (current practice is at least 180 days). The longer the cooling time, the more the radiation levels (especially iodine-131) would decrease.
Green Run remained a government top secret until 1986, when it was mentioned in historical Hanford documents which were released to the public in response to requests by citizens groups. In May 1989, the Department of Energy released most of the Green Run report in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Hanford Education Action League (HEAL) but important details were kept secret.
In 1991, the US Air Force declassified some additional sections of the Green Run report. These sections revealed at least one significant detail: there had been "previous tests." Unfortunately, the Green Run report provided no more information and only referenced another document. In late August of this year, in response to another FOIA request filed by HEAL, the Air Force declassified most of this document.
|
1944 HANFORD RADIATION RELEASES The first phase studied airborne radioactive iodine-131 emissions from 1944-47 and radioactive cooling water poured into the Columbia River from 1964-67. In a three-year period covered by the report, the Hanford iodine-131 emissions totaled 450,000 curies of which 340,000 were released in 1945. The panel had not yet examined releases after 1947 n including the December 1949 "Green Run", a deliberate experiment which released thousands of curies of radioactive iodine and other fission products. The Spokesman-Review (US), 7 Dec. 1991 |
The document, from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee was titled "An Aerial Survey of Radioactivity Associated With Atomic Energy Plants" and published in April 1949 (ORNL-341). It details secret tests to detect airborne radiation from the nuclear weapons plants at Hanford and Oak Ridge and involved monitoring of radiation from plutonium separation plants by aircraft. These tests detected the releases from routine plant operations and were conducted from November 1948 through March 1949.
The Oak Ridge tests
Aerial surveys in Oak Ridge were the first in this series of tests of monitoring equipment. They were conducted in late 1948 and early 1949 and detected radioactivity in the atmosphere as far as 17 miles downwind from ORNL Chemical Separation pools used to dissolve reactor fuel.
At ORNL, 1300 curies of iodine-131 were released each time the fuel was dissolved. Background data in the document states that 150 pounds of reactor fuel were dissolved with a five day cooling period.
The document also notes that filters in the stacks would reduce the amount of iodine released to the atmosphere, although "the efficiency of the filtering is not known." "This was apparently a routine operation," noted Steve Smith of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA). "We know it happened at least a dozen times, we assume the operation had been going on for at least four years."
One alarming point about the Oak Ridge operations is that the fuel processed had only been cooled for five days. The Green Run fuel was cooled for 16 days, and the normal procedure at Hanford was to cool the fuel for at least 90 days.
"A major question hanging in the air is: Why was Oak Ridge dissolving with such a short cooling period?" noted Jim Thomas, Research Director for HEAL in Spokane, Washington. He added, "Even if they had filters, fuel this green could have saturated the filters quickly."
The US Department of Energy's office in Oak Ridge has refused to release the document locally. The document, listed as an Oak Ridge document, is publicly available in Washington State, but not in Oak Ridge even though it was originally written by ORNL scientists.
Ralph Hutchison of OREPA states that "This information will be crucial for the Oak Ridge Health Study."
The Hanford tests
The test flights conducted at Hanford in March 1949 had expected to detect radiation for several hundred miles downwind, perhaps even as far as a thousand miles. The test group was surprised when they could not even detect airborne radiation at the Richland airport, about 35 miles from the Hanford plants. Their inability to detect Hanford radiation was due to relatively crude monitoring equipment and Hanford's newly installed filters.
The ORNL-341 report recommended repeating the test at Hanford by disconnecting the plant filters and increasing the radiation released. This was done for Green Run.
The 1944 Hanford test
Documents declassified in August of 1987 indicated that the US Army Corps of Engineers deliberately released several hundred curies of radioactive iodine (iodine-131) at Hanford in 1944, five years before Green Run. The wartime research, for which there was no public warning, was intended to determine how far the winds would carry radiation in eastern Washington, a report indicates. The Army wanted to test how well its measuring devices could detect iodine, a telltale sign of plutonium production.
The document also lists accidental releases of radiation to farming communities in the Wahluke Slope area east of Hanford n home of the Hanford "downwinders" who contend today that their health problems are linked to past radiation emissions.
The experiment was conducted during the Manhattan Project; the top-secret effort to produce the atomic bombs which were dropped in Japan in 1945. It took place during the first reprocessing of plutonium in December 1944.
Carl C. Gamertsfelder, a leading radiation control manager at Hanford in the 1940s and '50s, said that the fuel used contained more iodine than usual because it had been cooled only about half as long as normal.
Detailed records of the experiment, which would show where the iodine was dispersed, were either lost or destroyed.
Information still missing
Judging from the context of the material deleted from this most recently released report, it appears that the Air Force still considers the identity of those directing the tests to be a matter of national security. Jim Thomas, HEAL's Research Director, commented: "We still don't know who authorized the Green Run or these previous tests and now we have the first documentation of potentially serious iodine releases from Oak Ridge."
Sources:
Contacts: HEAL, 1720 North Ash St., Spokane Washington 99205-4202, USA; tel: +1 509 326 3370.
(October 30, 1992) Professor Wolfgang Jacobi, director of the Institut für Strahlenshutz of the GSF - Forshungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit GmbH (Institue for Radiation Protection of the GSF - Research Center for Environment and Health Ltd.) in Neuherberg, Germany, has analysed radiation exposure data of East Gremany's uranium mining company Wismut.
(381.3735) WISE Amsterdam - His purpose was to find criteria for the recognition of lung cancers as occupationally caused or not. He developed a model that relates a lung cancer indicence to the work at Wismut for much lower doses than previously thought.1
Since there is no personal data available on radon decay product exposure for the Wismut workers, general guidelines have to be found for the recognition of lung cancers as occupation related.
During Wismut's early years from 1946 to 1955, average annual exposure to radon daughters for miners is estimated at around 100-250 WLM (Working Level Month). This average exposure corresponds to radon con-centrations in the air of around 100,000 Bq/m3, while maximum radon concentrations reached two million Bq/m3. Between 1956 and 1970, radon daughter exposure strongly decreased, and since 1970, average annual exposure is around 4 WLM. Based on epidemiological data from studies of uranium miner published in literature, Jacobi developed a ZSE (time since exposure)-model to determine the lung cancer rate depending on exposure, age at exposure, and age at lung cancer incidence. Due to insufficient data, the model makes no difference between smokers and non-smokers.
The results of the model are discussed for the folowing cases:
With this model, the employers' liability insurance association, which has to pay the compensation for occupationally caused diseases, has its first guideline for the assessment of lung cancers with Wismut miners.
It is worth noting that according to this model, an exposure of 30 WLM may already be regarded as a cause of a lung cancer incidence, depending on age at exposure and age at cancer incidence.
According to recognition practice under the GDR-era, at least 150 WLM of exposure were necessary for recognition (during the early years, the limit even was at 450 WLM). With this limit, no worker had a chance for recognition if he had worked for example only after 1970. With the new model, all cases of lung cancer that were not recognized have to be reassessed.
It's also interesting to compare the results of this model to the regulations met in the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 19902. According to this act, only those miners who worked between 1947 and 1971 and received at least 200 WLM (non-smokers), 300 WLM (smokers with incidence before age 45), or 500 WLM (other smokers) and developed lung cancer or a nonmalignant respiratory disease, shall receive compensation.
1. W.Jacobi: Verursachungs-Wahrscheinlichkeit von Lungenkrebs durch die berufliche Strahlen-exposition von Uran-Bergarveitern der WISMUT AG -- Gutachterliche Stellungnahme im Auftrage der Berufsgenossenschaftern, 67 pages (German language), published by and available from: Institut für Strahlenschutz der Berufsgenos-senschaften der Feinmechanik und Elektrotechnik und der Berufsgenossenschaft der chemischen Industrie, Gustav-Heinemann-Ufer 130, W-5000 Köln 51, Germany.
2. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, Public Law 101-426-Oct.15,1990; 42 USC 2210.
Source and Contact: Peter Diehl, Citizen Committee Against Uranium Mining in the Black Forest, Schulstr.13, W-7881 Herrischried, FRG.
(October 30, 1992) An official cover-up of the extent of the Chernobyl disaster was an "administrative" decision, claimed Yegor Ligachev, the former second in command in the Politburo, in October. Ligachev was addressing Russia's Constitutional Court, which is looking into the legality of Boris Yeltsin's decision to ban the Communist Party in Russia.
(381.3726) WISE Amsterdam - During the hearing, the court considered evidence, including documents from the former Soviet meteorological service, showing that a decision was made at a Politburo session held on 8 May 1986 to set the "safety" limit of radiation artificially high. This, the court heard, was decided on purely economic grounds - to keep down the number of people who had to be evacuated.
|
CHERNOBYL-3 REACTOR RESTARTS
Greenpeace received information that the third reactor at the Chernobyl was being restarted 16 October. Despite the 1986 accident at its unit 4, the Chernobyl plant has two units still intact. (There was a further accident at its unit 2 in October 1991 which resulted in its permanent closure.) Both units 1 and 3 were shut down early this year after defects were found in the fuel channel control valves and Ukrainian Parliament had said the whole station was to be closed at the end of 1993. Now, however, Ukrainian authorities are saying they need the remaining units over the winter months. When asked by members of Zeleny Swit (Green World) in Kiev whether Ukraine had not decided to shut down the Chernobyl nuclear power station definitely, a representative of the Ukrainian State Concern for Nuclear Energy and Industry said the he did not know of any such decision. |
Because of this, for almost three years, Soviet data on contamination referred only to the 30 kilometer zone around the reactor, from which some 175,000 people were excavated. When, in 1989, the true extent of contamination began to emerge, the official media implied that the original data had been issued in good faith and the new data were the result of follow-up surveys.
According to the 1989 figures, some 3.5 million people in Ukraine, Belarus, and two western provinces of Russia were living in areas where the radiation levels were unacceptably high. But it seems even these estimates were too low. A new plan for compensation announced recently puts the number of provinces affected at 10.
For scientists dealing with the aftermath of Chernobyl, such revelations come as no surprise. "What do you expect," said Alexander Lutzko, head of International Sakharov College of Radioecology in Minsk. "I've known all this for some time. They simply wanted to keep the costs down."
Source: New Scientist, 17 Oct. 1992, p.6.
Contact: Socio-Ecological Union, a/ya 211, Moskva 121019, CIS; tel: +7 095 285 37 51; fax: 095 116 90 61.
Radiation effects of the 1986 Chernobyl accident are beginning to emerge clearly in the most-exposed population C children who lived near the plant in Belarus and Ukraine and were exposed to radioactive iodine in fallout and contaminated cow's milk.
(381.3727) WISE-Amsterdam - Many radiation experts had predicted that thyroid cancers would not begin to show up among these children until about 1997, but researchers and health officials in Minsk and Kiev say they are already registering an unmistakable increase.
|
CHERNOBYL: 13,000 LIQUIDATORS DEAD. |
The Belarus results were reported last week in the British science journal, Nature. A team led by Vasili Kazakov of the Belarus Ministry of Health wrote to the journal about a sudden surge of children's cancers in 1990 that was confirmed last year, when 131 cases of thyroid cancer were found in young Belarus children in six regions of the republic.
The Minsk results mirror those studies conducted since the accident by the Ukraine Ministry of Health and recently passed on to the industry weekly, Nucleonics Week by Natalia Soboleva, deputy director of the ministry's department responsible for radiological protection and health problems of the Chernobyl accident. The rate of registry of thyroid cancers doubled after the accident, especially affecting children in Kiev, Zhitomir, and Chernigov regions. And, says Soboleva, registry continues to grow.
According to an article in Nucleonics Week (10 Sept. 1992), it has traditionally been assumed that the latency period for cancers other than leukemia is at least 10 years. "But," says the article, "in a letter to Nature accompanying the Kazakov report, a group from the World Health Organization (WHO) said members had verified the Minsk data and it indeed appears to overrule previous assumptions." This clearly contradicts the IAEA-sponsored International Chernobyl Project which concluded in May 1991 that it could not identify a marked increase in leukemia or thyroid tumors since the accident.
Source: Nucleonics Week (US), 10 Sept. 1992, p.1.
Contact: Ann MacLachlan, European Bureau Chief, Nucleonics Week, Paris; tel: +33 1 4289 0380; fax: 1 4289 0400.
(October 30, 1992) The following is from Nigel Queree of Jersey and gives another perspective to the problems presented not just by the prospect of plutonium being shipped from France to Japan, but to the problem of what to do with it if it is not shipped.
(381.3725) WISE Amsterdam - I thought that I would share with you what it feels like to live in Jersey, one of the Channel Islands, off the coast of France, knowing that we are seemingly powerless to do anything to stop the plutonium.
After all, the ship will of necessity pass within 50 miles of us. We could not possibly set a greater exclusion zone, because the actual re-processing plant is as close.
I am an elected member of the government of Jersey and the nuclear issue is one which causes great concern locally but we all fear the greater, perhaps more likely calamity, that by calling attention to the nuclear plants near us - La Hague reprocessing and Flammanville power station - that we will destroy both the tourist industry which brings so many visitors to our Island and the finance industry that has also made our Island so famous. That would leave us with our agricultural industry, but then if we were in Japan, we would be barred from selling agricultural produce because we are too near to a nuclear installation!!!
We have complained that we have not been consulted. But then, who would have negotiated with the French and Japanese on our behalf: the British government?? It seems rather unlikely.
When I first read about the shipments, I wrote of my concern to our most senior Crown Officer and some of my more senior colleagues in government. I received only a reply from the Crown Officer who informed me that the Harbours department would investigate and voice the my concern to the French authorities. This brought me back to the original dilemma regarding the well-being of the Island.
|
COMICS FOR PLUTONIUM SAFETY
Japan is trying to convince the inhabitants of Hawaii and other parts of the world of the absolute safety of its plutonium shipments by issuing an information leaflet in funny comic style. A representative of the Japanese foreign ministry presented the leaflet at a press conference on 4 September in Honolulu. Among other things, it shows a private investigator giving assurances that the barrels filled with radioactive substances in front of him had passed all IAEA safety tests. (Wonderful, why not ship them, then? Paranoid environmentalists!). Graphics in comic style make claims about the barrels' resistance to stress, even under high pressure or temperature (so nothing can happen, anyway). A Greenpeace representative criticized the leaflet saying that the shipment of plutonium was a deadly serious issue and shouldn't be treated as if it takes place in a comic-fantasy world. Source: Elbe-Jeetzel Zeitung (FRG), 7 Sept. 1992 |
When the Akatsuki Maru arrived in Cherbourg there was of course much more publicity and the story has received some coverage in the local media. Greenpeace are stationed in the more northerly of the Channel Islands (named Alderney) which will be even closer to the route of the ship.
The recent history of accidents close to the Islands is not at all reassuring. A few years ago a container with Lindane in it was washed off a ship. A French tug located it and took it in tow, but then lost it and the container was never seen again. This of course was the sort of "accident" that could never happen!
About the plutonium, the official response varies between "it will be all right because there will be very good security" and "this dangerous cargo is being transported between two very responsible countries so there is nothing to fear".
The real issue for Jersey is not so much the shipment, although that poses a gigantic threat to us and the rest of the world, but that if the rest of the world stops the shipment (and I do hope it does) then what will happen to the plutonium? If it stays at La Hague then we in Jersey still have a gigantic problem and the rest of the world may not be so interested, after all there is only 200,000 resident Channel Islanders and we have no real political power.
For the average person the thought that a boat loaded with sufficient plutonium to kill the entire planet is a bit too mind-boggling. Probably many just don't want to believe it, others put their entire faith on the nuclear industry (for example one newspaper commentator wrote this: "radioactive materials are being produced all over the world for the benefit of man [humankind]. We have to rely on those concerned being sensible, responsible and careful about the manufacture, transport and storage.")
Are peoples' memories so short? Have they really forgotten Chernobyl?
This shipment could be the issue that will make the threat of nuclear devastation more tangible to everyone in the world because it is no longer only affecting other remote areas. It has the potential to unite the people of the world against the nuclear industry, yet that makes the stakes for the nuclear industry even higher and they are not likely to just give up because of a few 'green' politicians or campaigners.
I am still awaiting my copy of the petition [see last WISE NC], but I wonder if that is really the best way to protest?
I was quoted in the local paper "Jersey is piggy in the middle between France and the UK, we have the most to lose and the least opportunity to make changes."
Could this be like the Boston Tea party, instead the cry will be NO POLLUTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION? There must be enough people in the world willing to stand up and be counted and realise that if this shipment is not stopped, if the re-processing is not stopped and if the nuclear industry is not stopped, we are teetering on the very brink of a major catastrophe, if not this shipment it could be the next.
Jersey will make a stand, our small voice will probably not be heard, but it is vital that we join the world-wide campaign to stop the shipments AND stop the production of plutonium.
Source and Contact: Senator Nigel Queree, Creux Baillot Cottage, Leoville, St Ouen, Jersey JE3 2DR, Channel Islands; tel/fax: +44 534 482191.
(October 30, 1992) The following is an appeal for technical advice on NUCLEAR ISOSTOPES from an activist working with Movement Against Uranium Mining (MAUM), one of the many Australian groups opposed to Australia's proposal to build a new nuclear research reactor (see WISE NC 377.3701). The reason authorities are giving for building the new reactor is that Australia needs an assured supply of medical isotopes.
(381.3729) WISE-Glen Aplin
MAUM would appreciate knowing:
If anyone has this information, please contact Murray Matson, Movement Against Uranium Mining, Box K133 Haymarket, NSW 2000, Australia; tel: 61 2 212 4538. E-mail messages can also be passed on through Friends of the Earth in Sydney: peg.foesydney.
(October 30, 1992) Over the past year, outdoorsman Dick Smith of Monroe County, Wisconsin, has sent countless Freedom of Information requests to the US army in an attempt to find out why the National Guard needs to add 70,000 acres of state forestland to its 65,000-acre base at Fort McCoy.
(381.3734) WISE Amsterdam - At least one of the reasons is that the base has been used since the 1960s as a proving ground for testing simulated fallout from nuclear weapons explosions. A large factory was built for mixing 500-pound batches of sand with 5 curies of lanthanum-140 to create a simulated form of fallout. The half-life of lanthanum-140 is 40 hours, but the biological persistence of some of the powerful chemicals spread around in the experiments will be somewhat longer.
Smith's inquires have unearthed documents from the Army Chemical Corps' Nuclear Defense Laboratories showing that 26 sites on the base have been contaminated with toxic and radioactive wastes. Smith, who has been threatened with arrest and barred from the base, has observed declining populations of sensitive species like mayflies and watercress in the area over recent years.
Source: atoms & waste, 9 Oct. 1992, p.3.
Contact: Kemp Houck, Atoms & Waste, 310 Domer St. #1, Takoma Park MD 20912, USA; tel: +1 301-589 5892; fax: 589 5894.
(October 30, 1992) The following is excerpted from a letter from Jan Beranek, a member of the group Hnuti DUHA in Brno, Czechoslovakia.
(381.3730) WISE Amsterdam - Jan recently returned to Czechoslovakia after spending a few months in our WISE-Amsterdam office doing research on, among other things, western nuclear companies moving into eastern Europe. Back in Czechoslovakia he is continuing this research and would welcome any relevant information our readers might have. Please contact him at the address below.
Strange things are happening around the construction of the Temelin nuclear power plant in Czechoslovakia (two VVER 1000s). Although until now the work of upgrading it was reserved for Siemens/Framatome, the situation has now surprisingly changed in favor of Westinghouse.
|
NUCLEAR MARKETS OPEN UP, BUT WHO FOOTS THE BILL?
The markets between the East European countries and the large western firms are multiplying. In the energy business, two sectors are favorites: improving the safety of nuclear plants and neutralisation of the stocks of plutonium and enriched uranium left over from destroyed nuclear warheads. Of the West European countries, especially French and German firms are offering their "know-how". The USA and Japan are equally very present. But since the eastern European countries are economically ruined, one could wonder who's paying the western firms? As far as Europe is concerned we have to look at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BERD), which is footing the bill under the pretence that East European countries are being helped through the services of the West European firms. But then, who pays the bank? The funds of the BERD are derived from sums transferred by the central banks of the Member States. Who pays the Member States? The Member States' taxpayers of course! Under the cover of helping the eastern European countries they are thus maintaining the artificial survival of the nuclear companies, most of whom are having difficulties. So the fact that nuclear power isn't cost-effective becomes irrelevant since western Europeans all accept the roll of refilling the till by paying their taxes. |
After their visit to the USA, Prime Minister Klaus and Minister of Economy Dlouhy announced that, after negotiating with Westinghouse, the Czech government has no more objections to the completion of the Temelin plant. Where are the independent studies necessary for such an important decision? Does a discussion with a company with direct interest in completing Temelin carry enough weight to make the Czech parliament take a decision?
Considering the recent changes in Westinghouse, which make it a company working on behalf of the US government and its international interests (to illustrate, the company's current director general is Mr. Kissenger [former US Secretary of State under Nixon]), it is hard to imagine what has really been negotiated there.
|
A small Oops published two weeks later
Kissenger is not a director of Westinghouse, at least not according to the senior legal council's office of Westinghouse, which I called when the folks at DUHA asked me to verify it. They would not confirm or deny that Kissenger worked for the company as a consultant or advisor - but who is on the board is public information and they denied that he was on this body. |
It is clear that for Westinghouse, finishing Temelin is more a question of strategy than anything else. This is because the company that will do this work will then have the only functioning prototype of an "upgraded" VVER reactor, and this will enable it to get an incredible amount of work within the whole Central and Eastern European region.
One more disturbing thing comes with the Westinghouse-Temelin connection. In the process of privatizing CEZ (the Czech electricity utility, a complete monopoly), the government is now trying to make the Temelin nuclear power plant totally separated. This would mean that a 30% share of Temelin would belong to public owners, while 70% would belong to the government.
As there is a lack of money, the government would sell its share to anybody interested C and it goes without saying that current exchange rates make it very cheap for foreign investment. A foreign investor would pay for the completion of construction, and therefore in the end, more than 90% of the nuclear plant would belong to such a person. This is a way in which an investor can own a nuclear power plant inside the Czech republic while exporting its entire output to the west for hard currency. Moreover, Czechoslovakian law would not allow the export of spent fuel and other radwastes - these would have to stay within our borders. This is a very clear example of colonialization, not to mention the fact that the Czech government will have to take steps in order to ensure the operation of Temelin regardless of public opinion here.
Interesting, is it not?
Jan Beranek
30 Sept. 1992, Brno
Contact: Hnutí DUHA, Jakubské N.7, 60200 Brno, Czechoslovakia; tel: +42 5 22556 or 25337; fax: 5 22428.