cumbriatwinnedwithfukushima

Moorside: Nuclear Free Local Authorities Endorse Damning Report

PRESS RELEASE FROM NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES

NFLA endorse report which outlines serious design concerns with the AP1000 reactor proposed for the Sellafield Moorside site

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) have formally supported and endorsed an independent assessment of the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor that outlines a number of serious safety concerns.

The independent report was drafted by Pete Roche, the NFLA Scotland Policy Advisor and an independent consultant on nuclear policy. It was commissioned by the Cumbrian NGO Radiation Free Lakeland. With the author and group’s permission, it has been developed into a NFLA New Nuclear Monitor and the NFLA have formally submitted their support of the report to the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR). (1)

The AP1000 reactor design is currently going through an extensive ‘Generic Design Assessment’ (GDA) by the ONR. Yesterday, the ONR were reported as saying that the design still has a number of areas of concern and the GDA is unlikely to be concluded by the planned process end date of late March 2017. (2) The design is being taken up by Westinghouse’s owner Toshiba, who as part of the NuGen consortium with Engie, is proposing to build three new nuclear AP1000 reactors at the Sellafield Moorside site.

The key conclusions of this detailed report include:

The AP1000 advanced passive nuclear reactor design has a weaker containment, and fewer back-up safety systems, than current reactor designs.
Its so-called ‘advanced passive’ design makes the reactor particularly vulnerable to a very large release of radioactivity following an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel, due to what is known as the chimney effect. (3)
A thorough review of the AP1000 design in the light of the Japanese accident at Fukushima has shown that the containment is dangerously close to exceeding the maximum post accident pressure that it could withstand. Several ways in which the AP1000 design could lose the ability to cool the reactors in an emergency have been identified, and Fukushima has shown that a containment breach is possible, and that arrangements for keeping the spent fuel ponds cool are inadequate.
The AP1000 reactor design is therefore not fit for purpose and so should be refused a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.
NFLA call on the ONR and Environment Agency to carefully consider in full this independent report and continue to rigorously challenge Westinghouse over what appears to the NFLA to be critical safety failings. On the basis of this independent report, NFLA also agree that the AP1000 reactor design looks not fit for purpose and should not be approved by the nuclear regulatory agencies in March 2017.

Given the close proximity with which these proposed nuclear reactors will be to the existing Sellafield legacy site – parts of which are noted already as an ‘intolerable risk’ by the nuclear regulators – it is essential that close scrutiny of the technical issues with the AP1000 should take place.

NFLA Steering Committee Chair Councillor Ernie Galsworthy said:

I welcome this detailed report on the safety issues of the AP1000 reactor and hope the report will be carefully considered by the nuclear regulatory agencies. From reading this report it is clear to me that there are significant and alarming problems with this reactor design that could lead to catastrophic damage in the event of a serious accident. NFLA calls on the regulator to refuse design acceptance for the AP1000 as it currently stands. It is currently too big a risk for the people of Cumbria and for communities across both sides of the Irish Sea coast to go ahead with it.”

Report author Pete Roche said:

Experience gained by trying to build these reactors in the US and China on time and budget shows that they are no better than the disastrous French EPR reactor-type proposed for Hinkley Point and Sizewell. Yet the design attempts to make savings by reducing all sorts of safety-related equipment and relying on so-called natural processes. It’s about time that the ONR proved that it does have teeth after all and refused these reactors a license to be built in the UK.”

Ended

Notes for editors:

(1) New Nuclear Monitor 44, which profiles the report, is attached with this media release and can be found on the NFLA website http://www.nuclearpolicy.info

(2) World Nuclear News, 28th December 2016
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-UK-regulators-may-move-GDA-target-date-for-AP1000-28111601.html

(3) For more information on the ‘chimney effect’ go to:
Independent 16th March 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nuclear-expert-arnie-gundersen-warns-of-chernobyl-on-steroids-risk-in-uk-from-proposed-cumbria-plant-10109930.html
Fairewinds 19th March 2015 http://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/fairewinds-nuke-truth-at-house-of-commons?rq=Chernobyl%20on%20Steroids

Did Nuclear Weapons tests damage our Ozone Layer?

Nuclear Power…trashing the climate and much more besides

Greens Against Nuclear Power

An interesting letter appeared in the Sheffield Star back in March 2015 arguing the possibly of the Ozone Layer being damaged by decades of Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb tests -until they were banned by an international treaty. They sort of claim you’d think we’d have heard debated for years already. The science sure adds up – something New Zealand based scientists Bill Hartley has researched in depth. 

Hartley believes “Starfish Prime”, a upper atmospheric nuclear test by the U/.S that is witnessed in 1962, is partly to blame for the ozone hole.

“The light show was something unearthly and huge. For fun some weeks before, I had read Revelations, so I was shocked to see the moon glowing red in the now pink rays of light expanding from the central ball of golden light.”

He connected the event with the hole in the ozone layer in the 1980s when he read Earth’s…

View original post 395 more words

One Day Left To Comment on Dangerous Reactors

There is one day left.  Tomorrow is the last day to comment on the dangerous reactors planned for Cumbria.  Thanks to ITV for the coverage (in which NuGen try to belittle the report) but on the whole the nuclear industry and our pronuclear government have done a fantastic job of keeping this “opportunity” for public comment as secret as they can.  Local press have done a pretty good job of keeping it quiet too…the Westmorland  Gazette hasn’t even bothered to report on it (countless reports on the pylons) and the national press – well….

So its up to You to Spread the Word to Save Cumbria.
Make a comment (ideally in your own words but feel free to use info here)

Tell the Office for Nuclear Regulation to Stop the Dangerous Moorside AP1000s, to REFUSE THE REACTOR DESIGN  by Wednesday, 30th of November:

Email.   New.Reactor-Build@onr.gov.uk

Conclusions of a summary technical report on the Westinghouse Toshiba AP 1000 design, written by Peter Roche on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland:
“The AP1000 advanced passive nuclear reactor design has a weaker containment, and fewer back-up safety systems than current reactor designs.

Its so-called advanced passive design make the reactor particularly vulnerable to a very large release of radioactivity following an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel, due to the chimney effect.

A thorough review of the AP1000 design in the light of the Japanese accident at Fukushima has shown that the containment is dangerously close to exceeding the maximum post accident pressure that it could withstand.

Several ways in which the AP1000 design could lose the ability to cool the reactors in an emergency have been identified, and Fukushima has shown that a containment breach is possible, and that arrangements for keeping the spent fuel ponds cool are inadequate.

The AP1000 reactor design is not fit for purpose and so should be refused a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.”

The AP1000 Report by Peter Roche, Edinburgh Energy Consultancy: http://www.theecologist.org/_download/402328/ap1000-report.pdf ,

More info:

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/moorside-toshiba-engie-ap1000-endangers-the-uk-and-europe-comment-deadline-looms-wednesday-30-november/

Moorside: Toshiba-Engie AP1000 Nuclear Power Station Endangers the UK and Europe – Comment Deadline Looms (Wednesday, 30 November)

Mining Awareness +

Make a comment by Wednesday, 30th of November: New.Reactor-Build@onr.gov.uk
See more: https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/cumbria-nuclear-plan-slammed-by-new-expert-report-only-9-days-to-comment-on-dangerous-reactor-design
Moorside Sheep looking toward Sellafield StreetviewMoorside Sheep looking toward Sellafield-Streetview.
Moorside is now estimated to have a physical footprint of over 500 acres:
The ‘biggest construction project in Europe’ is expanding from Nugen’s original 200 hectare site to 552 hectares of farmland reaching right up to two villages and an 11th Century church. But with compulsory purchase on the cards, there’s nothing locals can do except keep on fighting the entire deeply flawed project.“. http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2966465/moorside_cumbria_the_great_nuclear_land_grab.html (Or the locals may be intimidated into silence due to compensation fears related to compulsory purchase, i.e. expropriation).

NUGEN is a consortium of Japan’s Toshiba and France’s ENGIE – formerly called GDF-Suez.

While with UK BREXIT Moorside, sitting upon the Irish Sea, may no longer be in the EU, a nuclear accident would most likely impact Europe, including Ireland, based on the distances the radioactive…

View original post 126 more words

CUMBRIA NUCLEAR PLAN SLAMMED BY NEW EXPERT REPORT – only 9 days to comment on dangerous reactor design

cumbriatwinnedwithfukushima

Today a report slamming the new build plan has been handed into Cumbria County Council, The National Park Authority, Natural England, Friends of the Lake District.  The report will also be sent to the leaders of neighbouring European countries.

There is a CONsultation taking place on the AP1000 reactor design – we found out only by accident through social media – and this CONsultation ends on the 30th November (while all attention is focused deliberately on the pylons).

**Please use the information below to write in your own words to the Office for Nuclear Regulation.   Urge the Office for Nuclear Regulation to refuse a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) for the AP1000 reactors. 

PLEASE Make a comment in the next 9 days, email: New.Reactor-Build@onr.gov.uk

“BIGGEST NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE” SLAMMED BY NEW EXPERT REPORT

The new report describes the proposed Reactors in Cumbria as being:

  • Not fit for purpose
  • too great a risk to public health and safety
  • high, probability of Containment System failure
  • significant releases of radioactivity directly into the environment
  • post accident radiation doses to the public could be one hundred to one thousand times higher than those assumed by Westinghouse..

 Between the Lakeland Mountains and the Irish Sea lays the delightful village of Beckermet. This small West Lakeland village is holding its breath.   Not because of the proposed pylons across Cumbria, but because of what would be at the end of those pylons. Namely “the biggest nuclear development in Europe” just 700 metres from the village school.

A new report by Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy and written by Pete Roche has been commissioned through crowd funding by campaign group Radiation Free Lakeland.

Former US Nuclear Regulator Arnie Gundersen has described the AP1000 reactor design as “Chernobyl on steroids One problem identified by Gundersen is that during an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel of the AP1000 reactor, the radioactive gasses inside the reactor would leak directly into the environment, because the gasses would be sucked out the hole in the top of the AP1000 Shield Building in what is known as the chimney effect.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s “interim” approval for the AP1000 contains 51 unresolved “issues.” The new Generic Design Assessment process is being carried out in, what is described as, an ‘open and transparent manner, designed to facilitate the involvement of the public.’ Deadline for making a comment to the UK regulators on the AP1000 as part of the GDA process is 30th November 2016.

The Report Conclusions:

“The AP1000 advanced passive nuclear reactor design has a weaker containment, and fewer back-up safety systems than current reactor designs.

Its so-called advanced passive design make the reactor particularly vulnerable to a very large release of radioactivity following an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel, due to the chimney effect.

A thorough review of the AP1000 design in the light of the Japanese accident at Fukushima has shown that the containment is dangerously close to exceeding the maximum post accident pressure that it could withstand. Several ways in which the AP1000 design could lose the ability to cool the reactors in an emergency have been identified, and Fukushima has shown that a containment breach is possible, and that arrangements for keeping the spent fuel ponds cool are inadequate.

The AP1000 reactor design is not fit for purpose and so should be refused a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.”

QUOTES:

Clive Semmens nuclear engineer: “emergency core cooling systems don’t work nearly as well as you might expect”

Martyn Lowe of Close Capenhurst: “It is the difference between a belt and braces approach to safety systems, and what can only be refereed to as a hope and pray approach”

Irene Sanderson of North Cumbria CND: “Moorside has the unique combination of being: Too early – We have yet the problem of nuclear waste disposal and this is nowhere near solved; Too late – It won’t come on-line until after the global warming crisis has been resolved or has become unresolvable; Too new – There are years to go to iron out the problems with containment and other safety aspects; Too old – Nuclear energy is now just a stopgap until it can be replaced by safer renewable sources. Too costly or too cheap – How much should we pay to this company who created Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3, still out of control and acknowledged as one of the greatest manmade disasters.”

Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland: “Beckermet’s 1400 acres of greenfields and River Ehen floodplain near Sellafield should be a buffer zone, not a new nuclear sacrifice zone with untried untested reactors, this report exposes a special kind of insanity and it is called Moorside.”

FULL REPORT :ap1000-report

ARTICLE in THE ECOLOGIST: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988356/ap1000_reactor_design_is_dangerous_and_not_fit_for_purpose.html

Crowdfunding

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/marianne-birkby

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/StopMoorside

Stop Moorside Petition

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-moorside-biggest-nuclear-development-in-europe

Save

Cancer patient compensated for Fukushima work to sue TEPCO

Is this what our Unions want for their workers? More of this?

Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

caklmm

Damage from an explosion remains at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant’s No. 4 reactor building in March 2013.

A 42-year-old man diagnosed with leukemia after working at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant plans to sue Tokyo Electric Power Co., saying the utility failed to take adequate precautions against radiation exposure.

He will also sue Kyushu Electric Power Co., operator of the Genkai nuclear plant in Saga Prefecture where he had also worked, in the lawsuit expected to be filed at the Tokyo District Court on Nov. 22.

The man, who is from Kita-Kyushu in Fukuoka Prefecture, will demand about 59 million yen ($541,000) in total compensation from the two utilities.

TEPCO and Kyushu Electric, as the managers of the facilities, are responsible for the health of workers there, but they failed to take adequate measures to protect them from radiation exposure,” said one of the lawyers…

View original post 180 more words

Calder Hall -Truth Hurts!

calder-hall

A photograph not shown on the ITV news bulletin – Calder Hall …. with hundreds of resting (and nesting) herring gulls.

The recent news item on Calder Hall was, in fact, parroted propaganda from a Sellafield press release .  Aimed at the hearts and souls of the Cumbrian public who are being relentlessly softened up for the nuclear “renaissance” including most significantly Moorside and the geological dumping of nuclear wastes.

Here is a letter of complaint to ITV –  please do write a letter of your own to btvnews@itv.com

Dear ITV

HALF WAY THERE ON DECOMMISSIONING CALDER HALL

Radiation Free Lakeland are a volunteer nuclear safety group in Cumbria. We have become used to the hubris of Sellafield’s statements over the decades but we were shocked to see ITV repeat Sellafield’s puff piece of propaganda on Calder Hall earlier this week.

Your item of the 15th November 2016 stated : “Calder Hall produced electricity and radio cobalt – used in the treatment of cancer, for 47 years before it closed in 2003. Now, workers have reached the halfway point in the defueling programme which began in 2011. They have to remove tens of thousand of fuel rods from the site’s reactors. It is scheduled for completion in 2019 and then it can be fully decommissioned and shut down.”

This ‘news’ item is wrong on every level. It is no secret that Calder Hall’s primary purpose was to produce plutonium for WMD. Electricity was (and is) a by product. To big up Sellafield’s impact on health as positive is cynical propaganda. Radio cobalt is being phased out by many hospitals because it is just too “dangerous requiring heavy shielding and high levels of security to protect. The unstable material is constantly decaying and cannot be turned off.”   Why didn’t ITV point out that Calder Hall’s legacy includes Sellafield’s own Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases? This covers a wide variety of cancers and diseases of the central nervous system.   The Compensation Scheme applies only to nuclear workers and not those outside the fences on the receiving end of the emissions. A recent Freedom of Information Request is included below.

Calder Hall is a long long way off Halfway through Decommissioning. The nuclear wastes from Calder Hall need to be kept separate from the biosphere for tens of thousands of years. This has never been done….ever. “Decommissioning” will continue into eternity.

Sellafield has the press officers, the PR and the weight of a vested pronuclear government behind it. But a functioning democracy demands that the people of Cumbria deserve at least balanced reporting on this, the most extreme industry there is.

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

Radiation Free Lakeland

 

From: “CSRLD Executive Secretary (SL)” csrld.executive.secretary@sellafieldsites.com> Date: 14 October 2016 at 13:15:07 BST

To: ‘marianne Birkby’

Subject: RE: FOI Dear Ms Birkby, In response to your request the 29 claims (last year) were against the following eligible diseases:

Prostate

Cataracts

NHL

Bladder

Orbital

Melanoma

Colon

Breast

Kidney

Tonsil

Lung

Myeloma

Oesophageal

Thyroid

UnknownPrimary

Myxofibrosarcoma

Leiomyosarcoma

Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Further information on diseases covered by the Scheme can be found on the Schemes website in the Q&A and Reference material sections: http://www.csrld.org.uk/default.php Yours sincerely,

John Johnstone CSRLD Secretariat

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Radio Cobalt

Why use X-ray versus Gamma produced Ionizing Radiation?

Gamma ionizing radiation is produced by radioactive sources such as cobalt 60 or cesium 137 and is dangerous requiring heavy shielding and high levels of security to protect. The unstable material is constantly decaying and cannot be turned off. X-ray ionizing radiation is produced by a X-ray tube therefore it can be turned off when it is not being used and it requires much less shielding. At the end the of unit’s lifecycle, the unit does not have any radioactive source and therefore does not require the expensive disposal costs associated with radioactive sources that continue to degrade over hundreds of years.

http://www.radsource.com/technology-comparisons/

Save

Offshore Geological Disposal

This Article from Cumbria Trust misses a trick. . Geological “Disposal” of nuclear waste is impossible…it cannot be “disposed” of and to suggest otherwise is to give the industry a green light to continue polluting. The ship needs to have sailed on deep drilling and mining in Cumbria…the risk of earthquakes in the Sellafield area from such activity is just too risky.

Cumbria Trust

The last failed search process, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) restricted the search area to the volunteer boroughs and a 5km offshore strip for coastal areas. As we know, only Copeland and Allerdale volunteered and the process was vetoed by Cumbria County Council which recognised the overwhelming local opposition to the proposal amongst a long list of concerns.

A great deal is known about Cumbria’s geology from previous failed attempts, including the £400m Nirex spent before reaching the conclusion that the geology was so complex that they couldn’t even model groundwater flow between two boreholes just 200 metres apart. The Nirex Inquiry Inspector Chris McDonald concluded that the search process should move away from Cumbria to an area of simple geology, largely found in eastern and southern England. More recent attempts by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to mislead the public by suggesting that Nirex could have found Cumbria to be…

View original post 808 more words

Guest Blog: Why the Nuclear Industry is Killing Off the Human Race by John Urquhart

Documentary from 1983.  Sellafield is still reprocessing and will continue to do so for as long as it can get away with it.

 

A Guest Blog by John Urquhart

WHY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS KILLING OFF THE HUMAN RACE

When Gallileo pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church’s model of the universe was flawed, i.e the sun did not go around the earth, he was shown the instruments of torture. Now if anyone questions the current scientific paradigm that radiation is safe, their research grants are at risk so everyone who has any academic standing keeps quiet about the real relationship between nuclear power and radiation. No, it is not that nuclear power plants kill off large numbers of people, but that the dominant health paradigm used by the nuclear industry to engineer their continuing existence that important philosophies are steam rolled out of existence. In a sense, it didn’t matter whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun because either way we could have got rockets to the moon but it does matter if the nuclear industry subverts the scientific process and smothers key genetic and biological arguments. The ‘leukaemia cluster’ at Sellafield was not a cluster in the classic sense because the tenfold excess occurred over a period of 30 years. That in itself should make us very suspicious of any virus theory, since disease epidemics arise and fall in relatively short periods of time.

Unfortunately the apologists for the nuclear industry are playing with too few pieces of information and indeed some of the key data was deliberately withheld. For example, the official UK statistics for childhood leukaemia at the time of Chernobyl were completely distorted and it wasn’t until 2001 that the correct figures were represented. When these are analysed it can be seen that the birth cohort of 1985/86 and 1987/88 both showed a 50% increase over the datum level of 100. Analysis of leukaemia cases for children under 3 years of age demonstrated this effect.. This double peak suggests that two mechanisms were at work associated with Chernobyl. The cohort born in 85/86 was under 12 months when exposed to Chernobyl fall out and was much more sensitive to its effects, whereas the cohort born in 87/88 was the product of fathers exposed to Chernobyl fall out in May 1986. This is a double hypothesis, which fits in with the pattern of leukaemia cases observed around Sellafield, namely a genetic response associated with excess radiation in Sellafield workers and a trigger response associated with exposure of sensitised children from radiation when inhaling or ingesting hot particles from the Seascale beaches.

This combination of increased genetic sensitivity and exposure to increased radiation also explains the KKK German study, which demonstrated an excess of under-5 leukaemia in children born within 5km of German nuclear power plants. Even more astonishing is the dramatic DROP in under-3 leukaemia rates in England and Wales in the cohort born in 1975/76. The western regions of the UK comprising north-west Wales and south west experienced an 80% drop in that cohort. In other words, neither the genetic or trigger causes seem to be present for that cohort. The only rational explanation for the drop so far is that natural radioactive washout over the 1975/76 period did not occur because of the prolonged drought. Nevertheless, natural background radiation levels, even in wash out, are well below acceptable levels for radiation, as pronounced by current models so it is necessary to look at an alternative model to explain the link or rather the lack of it between natural background exposure and a dearth of leukaemia cases. The hypothesis is that it is not the cumulative amount of radiation received by an individual that is important but the rate of radiation received at particular times and that this range of radiation is best expressed not by exposure to external gamma radiation, but the inhalation of radioactive particles associated with this washout phenomenon. For the past 25 years I have been a member of ARGUS, an independent radiation fallout monitoring group with sensors covering the whole of the UK and measuring radioactive levels every ten minutes. On several occasions, the background radiation has risen by 50% – at least 4 standard deviations above normal – and we have associated these increases with acid rain fallout, whereby ceramic particles in the pollution cloud act not only as hydroscopic phoci but also attract radioactive fallout, including polonium 210. We propose that the heightened gamma levels we observed are associated with high levels of beta and alpha washout and it is the alpha and beta particles that create the potential leukaemia risk. But this story is not just about leukaemia. If natural background radiation, or lack of it, can have such a major influence on childhood leukaemia levels, then this would suggest that it is also responsible not just for radiation exposure but genomic instability, which can be defined as increasing the propensity of the human genome to create spontaneous mutations in future generations.

Over the past 70 years, the nuclear industry has consistently played down the biological and genetic impact of radiation by referring to the relatively small doses compared with natural background radiation but the epidemiological evidence we have shows that certain cancers, background radiation or lack of it, can have a major impact but only at certain times when the rate of radiation is dramatically increased through washout. By the same token, the real risk from living near nuclear facilities is not the recorded accumulation of dose but the transient changes in levels, which overwhelm the body’s natural defences at the time – the so called ‘sunbed syndrome’. By maintaining a very simplified version of radiation risk the nuclear industry is condemning the human race to a level of scientific ignorance, which in the long run may lead to our extinction by not acknowledging the real drivers of biological and genetic change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explosion-Fire at Nuclear Power Station Near New York City on Election Day Due to Equipment Failure

Mining Awareness +

Indian Point Nuclear Power Station power lines zoom

The US NRC report says that this “explosion in the protected area” which was “due to equipment failure” occurred at 0840 AM on Tuesday November 8th: “The explosion was to the 138 kV power cross connect cable between the Unit 2 and 3 Station Auxiliary Transformers.” If you look at the above image, all of the power lines appear very cramped at this nuclear power station, apparently increasing the dangers.

Overlay the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone with rough location of Indian Point Nuclear Power Station and Trump Tower
Chernobyl Overlay Indian Point Nuclear Power Station - Greenpeace OpenStreet Map Trump Tower 5th Ave NY
Greenpeace OpenStreet Map. Wind direction may vary. This is to give an indication of the size. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/nomorechernobyls/exclusion-zone-comparison-map/

A 1982 study by Sandia National Laboratories found that a core meltdown and radiological release at one of the two operating Indian Point reactors could cause 50,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation syndrome” (Edward Lyman…

View original post 556 more words