Redirect

This free blog was created as an experiment and as a temporary expedient, when there were some technical difficulties with malware reported on the regular Alliance To Halt Fermi 3 website. Those difficulties have been sorted out. In addition to moving to a new server, the website at athf3.org has been switched to a new format – blog articles as the front page, more static pages accessed by the menu and the whole site on a “responsive” template.

That means the re-worked website will look different depending on whether it is viewed on a computer, a tablet or a smartphone. All the articles, pages and widgets will be available on all devices, but their arrangement will be suitable for each device.

All of the blog articles previously appearing here have been duplicated on the new ATHF3 server. All new material from ATHF3 will appear on the new server. This site will be mothballed until further notice. Please visit athf3.org for both old and new material.
Thanks,
Art Myatt

ATHF3 2015 Annual Report

As the Alliance To Halt Fermi-3 (ATHF3) enters its fifth year in 2016, we look back to 2015 as a significant and pivotal time for our organization.

Worry About Terrorists Much?

If you do, you should consider how easy it would be for a small group to attack a nuclear power plant and cause a meltdown, and how horrible the consequences of that would be. Once you think of nearly 100 large reactors of the United States as nearly 100 targets, you see another reason to shut them all down before one of them shuts us down.

Is that a far-fetched and extremely unlikely scenario? It’s true, several big nuclear reactors have had meltdowns just because of flawed designs and operator errors without any help from terrorists. However, we do now know that at least two of the people involved in the recent Brussels bombing were also planning to attack a Belgian nuclear plant. The idea is really not absurd.

Our Corrupt EPA

Act Now! Tell OMB to reject EPA proposal to increase allowable radioactivity in drinking water following nuclear emergency

March 9, 2016

Dear Friends,

EPA has quietly proposed to raise the allowable levels of radioactivity in drinking water to hundreds of times their current limits following a nuclear emergency. The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL’s) for specific radionuclides. But now EPA has proposed allowing people to drink water with concentrations of radioactivity at vastly higher levels with no actions taken by government to protect people.

What’s Wrong with Nuclear Energy?

• Nuclear energy is clean – except for radioactive leaks and radioactive waste.
• Nuclear energy is safe – except for “normal” radioactive releases and the occasional overwhelming catastrophe.
• Nuclear energy is cheap – except for electric power customers who must pay for it.
• Nuclear energy is profitable – except for governments that heavily subsidize it.

Chemicals of Concern

News from Beyond Nuclear and Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA)

March 2, 2016                                                                             FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Washington, D.C., U.S.A. – More than 100 organizations from around the Great Lakes are calling on the Canadian and American governments to list radionuclides as a “chemical of mutual concern” under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The groups’ call is supported by a new report outlining the shortcomings of current efforts to track radionuclides and explaining what needs to be done to properly monitor these dangerous substances in our Great Lakes.

Stop the DUD (Deep Underground Dump)

Don’t Nuke Michigan …

… and Ontario and Lake Huron and Lake Erie and all the rest downstream. This article, by Kevin Kamps, the keynote speaker at Alliance To Halt Fermi 3’s annual meeting yesterday, spells the issue out in detail:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/26/after-flint-dont-let-them-nuke-the-great-lakes-next/

Absurd as it is …

… radionuclides – radioactive isotopes, many of which are water-soluble – are not officially considered “chemicals of concern” by agencies that are supposed to watch over water quality in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are surronded by numerous nuclear power plants which create large quantities of intensely harmful isotopes in their reactor cores. An accident like Fukushima could dump large quantities into the Great Lakes. “Normal” reactor operations regularly dump smaller quantities.

Radionuclides as a Chemical of Mutual Concern in the Great Lakes Basin

Prepared for Canadian Environmental Law Association
Prepared by John Jackson
January 2016

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Fe de Leon, Theresa McClenaghan, and Anna Tilman for their assistance in writing this paper and to Andrew Pickles and Tracy Tucker for final production of the report.- The Canadian Environmental Law Association would like to recognize the support of the Salamander Foundation, Legal Aid Ontario and the Resource Library for the Environment and the Law.

Disclaimer: The views, comments and recommendations provided in this report are those of the CELA and its author and not of its funders.
ISBN: 978-1-77189-756-3
CELA Publication Number: 1050
Cover photo(need source): XXX

Introduction

In Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 2012 the Canadian and United States (U.S.) federal governments (the Parties) committed to “contribute to the achievement of the General and Specific Objectives of this Agreement by protecting human health and the environment through cooperative and coordinated measures to reduce the anthropogenic release of chemicals of mutual concern into the Waters of the Great Lakes, …” [Annex 3, Section A.] The Parties were given the responsibility to designate the chemicals of mutual concern.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation of why radionuclides should be designated as “chemicals of mutual concern” under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The first part summarizes the health and environmental effects associated with radionuclides. The second part explains why radionuclides are of particular concern in the Great Lakes basin. The third part discusses the availability of data on the presence of radionuclides in the Great Lakes and on the releases of radionuclides into the Great Lakes basin. The fourth part describes some of the expressions of public concern around the threats posed by human activities that could result in the release of radionuclides. The final part presents our findings and recommendations.