TEPCO ready to release decontaminated Fukushima water into the ocean. youtube.com
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for Sep 23, 2015
Ambient office = 89 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 75 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 87 nanosieverts per hourIceberg lettuce from Central Market = 81 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 109 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 104 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 284 – Salem Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Is Damaging The Delaware River
I have talked about environmental problems resulting from the discharge of warm water from nuclear power plants in the past. In New England, there has been a battle raging for decades over the impact of the Salem nuclear power plant on the Delaware River. The once through cooling system essentially uses the Delaware River as a giant radiator.
A group called the Delaware Riverkeepers has charged that New Jersey’s renewal of a federally required permit for Salem’s two reactors cooling water intake systems would be “irresponsible.” They base their claim on old and new economic and ecological research. These charges were leveled at a public meeting after the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recently extended the period for public comments after being accused of deliberately leaving insufficient time for critics to assess the massive federal permit documentation.
The previous authority for the Delaware plant to draw water from the River expired in 2006. The plant continues to draw water while waiting for decisions on the “best available technology” to reduce loss of fish, heating of the river and other environmental problems caused by the discharge of warm water from the plant. Research has shown that billions of fish, fry, eggs and other organisms are caught, and/or injured or killed on the nuclear plant’s cooling water intake guards. Even more are killed after being sucked into the plant’s cooling water systems.
The Riverkeepers new estimates of economic losses of almost six hundred million dollars over twenty years are seventy times higher than past estimates from the company that operates the power plant of eight million dollar losses over twenty years. The Riverkeepers claim that there is only one nuclear power plant in the U.S. that does greater damage to aquatic life than the Salem plant.
New federal regulations are inclined toward the use of cooling towers and water recycling for cooling nuclear power plants. Existing plants are allowed to seek exceptions to the new regulations based on an assessment of costs and benefits and lower cost approaches that protect the environment.
The Riverkeepers says that the company that operates the plant and federal regulators have failed to accurately assess the damage done by the heated water leaving the Salem plant’s cooling system. The discharge of the heated water was authorized decades ago by a waiver from the Delaware River Basin Commission. The company claims that it has complied with regulations and has done nothing improper.
Critics of the current cooling system at the Salem plant assert that a recycling cooling-water system could reduce the need for the Salem plant to draw water from the Delaware River by over ninety percent. It could cost eight hundred and fifty million dollars to retrofit the Salem plant with a cooling-water recycling system. Officials of the company that operates the plant claim that the cost could rise to as much as a billion dollars and retrofitting is too expensive to consider.
In view of the fact that climate change is leading to heating of the water in lakes and rivers, the estimated damage of the current Salem system could easily rise even higher than the River Keepers estimate. The operators and owners of the Salem nuclear power plant should change over to a recycling system or the plant should be closed.
-
Radiation News Roundup Sep 22, 2015
-
Geiger Readings for Sep 22, 2015
Ambient office = 72 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 80 nanosieverts per hourRomaine lettuce from Central Market = 58 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 70 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 66 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Weapons 162 – History of Iran Nuclear Program and Western Sanctions – Part 2
Part 2 of 2 parts. (Please read Part 1 first.)
After the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, the U.S. became even more concerned about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Iran tried to reach out to Western nations including the U.S. to discuss its nuclear program but the U.S. led by President Bush rejected such discussions. The Iranians responded by building thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium with the potential of creating weapons-grade uranium.
In 2005, a new Iranian president named Ahmadinejad was elected. He was a popular leader with an strong anti-U.S. bias. He denied that Hitler had killed six million Jews in World War II and he repeatedly defied President Bush. As the Shad had said before the Revolution, Ahmadinejad insisted that Iran had the right to nuclear research without restrictions.
In 2006, the U.S. convinced the other members of the U.N. Security Council including the U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany to join the U.S. sanctions program and severely restrict trade with Iran until Iran curtailed its nuclear research program and its enrichment of uranium. They also froze Iranian funds in international banks. Ahmadinejad refused to yield to the trade sanctions and continued the nuclear program. The sanctions had a serious effect on the Iranian economy and protests broke out.
Ahmadinejad was reelected in 2009 in a disputed election. More protests happened and people were arrested and tortured. The new U.S. President Barack Obama tried to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran when he took office but efforts failed and the U.S. increased the trade sanctions.
In 2013, a new Iranian President named Hassan Rouhani was elected. He promised to improve Iran’s relations with other nations. The powerful clerics who controlled the Iranian government allowed Rouhani to launch diplomatic initiatives to end Iran’s isolation. Secret talks were carried out between Iranian diplomats and U.S. representatives. Over the next two years a deal was hammered out between Iran and the U.N. Security Council. Iran agreed to give up the disputed technology and materials and to allow inspections of nuclear sites in Iran. In return for agreeing to this, the sanctions are to be lifted and the frozen funds are to be made available to Iran.
Critics of the deal have said that we should have held out for more restrictive terms but supporters point out that the other members of the U.N. Security Council would not have agreed to follow the U.S. lead and would have dropped sanctions with Iran. So it was not a matter of this deal or a better deal, it was a matter of this deal or no deal. With the new deal in place, Iran will find it difficult to work on nuclear weapons development for the next ten years at least. Without this deal, Iran could have immediately started working on the development of a nuclear bomb with little interference. There is an old saying that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This deal may not be perfect but it is as good as we could get. The world will be safer because of this deal.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
-
Nuclear Weapons 161 – History of Iran Nuclear Program and Western Sanctions – Part 1 of 2 Parts
Part 1 of 2 parts
There has been a great deal of coverage in the media about the Iran nuclear program and the Iran deal that has just been approved by Congress. Today, I will delve into the history of the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iran nuclear program began in 1957. The U.S. provided Iran with a five megawatt research reactor. The reactor was built on the grounds of Tehran University and the U.S. provided weapons-grade enriched uranium to fuel it. The reactor is still operating. It was constructed as part of U.S President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. The idea was that if the U.S. helped other countries develop domestic nuclear power programs, those countries might be less inclined to work on the development of nuclear weapons. (It is interesting to note that the legally elected democratic government of Iran was overthrown in 1953 by Iranians backed by the U.K. and the U.S. The new government was led by Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi as absolute monarch with U.K. and U.S. support until the revolution in 1979.)
With the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the rise in oil prices, money flooded into oil rich nations such as Iran. As one result of the influx of capital, Iran expanded its nuclear program. Iran gave MIT twenty million dollars to train Iranian nuclear scientists. Most of these Iranian students returned to Iran and became important members of the Iranian nuclear program.
Following these developments, some members of the U.S. government became concerned that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons and tried to find ways to curtail Iranian nuclear research. The Shah’s government responded that Iran had every right as a sovereign nation to pursue nuclear research. The Shah threatened to look for other vendors and not use U.S. technology in his research program. Iran wound up buying nuclear power plants from West Germany and France.
Then the Iranian Revolution of 1979 happened and the Shah’s government was toppled. The religiously oriented government that replace the previous regime was very hostile towards the U.S. Their initial reaction to the Iranian nuclear program was negative. It was seen as part of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of Iran. The reactor building program was abandoned. The Ayatollah Khomeni who was the new ruler of Iran said that the unfinished nuclear power plants in Bashehr, Iran should be used to store wheat.
Soon after the Revolution, a war broke out between Iraq and Iran in 1980. Iraq struck first in fear of Iranian support for the Shia minority in southern Iraq. One of the tactics employed by Iraq was the repeated bombing of the Bashehr nuclear facility although it was not operational. The war dragged on for 8 years and was costly and destructive to both sides. The damage in Iran included the loss of power generating capacity. Whether related to the possibility of deterring future attacks or in order to provide the much needed electricity, the Iranian leadership decided to resurrect the Iranian nuclear program following the end of the war in 1988.
During the 1990s, Israel repeatedly warned that Iran was making progress towards a nuclear bomb. Israel and Iran were enemies and Israel feared that they would be the target of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The U.S. had imposed trade sanction on Iran following the Revolution in 1979 and the U.S. expanded sanctions in 1995 over concerns with the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear program which had been symbol of Western “toxic” influence in pre-Revolutionary Iran, now became a symbol of defiance of Western Influence and an icon of Iran national pride.
(Please see Part 2)
Tehran University Research Reactor:
-
Geiger Readings for Sep 21, 2015
Ambient office = 112 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 159 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 147 nanosieverts per hourRedleaf lettuce from Central Market = 67 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 80 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 67 nanosieverts per hour -
Radiation News Roundup Sep 20, 2015
