「黒い雨」体験者　3割が「被害訴えても聞いてもらえず」　毎日新聞アンケvia 毎日新聞

Posted on 2020/07/26 by nfield

広島原爆の投下直後に降った「黒い雨」を体験したものの、国の援護対象から外れている人に毎日新聞がアンケートしたところ、4人に1人が、原爆が投下された1945年の末までに脱毛や吐血などの急性症状があったと答えた。黒い雨の援護対象区域が76年に指定されて以来、体験者らは範囲を広げるよう再三求めてきたが、国は一度も見直していない。アンケートでは約3割が「どれだけ被害を訴えても聞いてもらえない」と答え、諦めが広がっていることもうかがえる。

[…]

黒い雨を巡る周囲との関係について5択（複数回答可）で尋ねたところ、「どれだけ被害を訴えても聞いてもらえない/認めてもらえないと思う」が52人（32％）で最も多く、「差別や偏見が怖くて他言できなかった」が38人（23％）、「地域で公言しない取り決めになっていた」も6人（4％）いた。一方で「特別な問題意識を抱いたことがなかった」と答えた人も41人（25％）に上った。

　爆心地の西約8・5キロの広島県五日市町（現広島市佐伯区）の自宅前で雨を浴びた男性（85）は自由記述で「夕立のような雨が降った。何を言おうと国は何もしてくれない。厚生労働省は我々が死ぬのを待っているだけ！」と訴えた。爆心地の北西約20キロの同県水内村（現佐伯区）で雨に遭った中区の女性（78）は「国の決定は仕方がないと思っていたが、福島原発事故が起き、広島で取り残されたまま苦しんでいることを知ってほしいと思うようになった」とつづった。

[…]

もう先が有りません。良い結果を

　「原爆で一瞬に人生をうばわれました」。4歳の時、爆心地から西に約9キロ離れた広島県五日市町（現広島市佐伯区）で黒い雨を浴びた植田あき江さん（79）＝同区＝は毎日新聞のアンケートに、75年間の苦しみをつづった。援護拡大のため、話したくない体験を証言したがかなわず、5年前に口をつぐんだ。「（黒い雨の被害を）認めてもらえんなら、これ以上話すまあ（話すまい）と思っとった」と打ち明けた。

　75年前の8月6日は母らと畑にいた。爆音の後に地面が揺れて黒雲が垂れこめ、見上げると口に生あたたかい雨粒が降り注いだ。「私は何も知らず『黒い雨』を飲んだです」

　父は戦死しており、祖父母宅で暮らした。就学前から腸が焼けるように痛んで下痢や発熱を繰り返し、髪が抜け、顔にも腫瘍ができた。ほとんど小学校に通えず、登校すると「幽霊が来た」とからかわれた。祖母には何度も「黒い雨にぬれたことは言うたらいけん」と諭された。18歳で被爆者の夫と結婚して3人の息子を授かる一方、大腸炎や胃けいれんに襲われた。2001年に他界した夫にも、雨のことは言わなかった。

　02年、佐伯区で黒い雨に遭った住民らが援護拡大を求める会を結成した。友人に請われて参加し「隠さんでよかったのに」と言われてほっとした。自分が話せば仲間も助けられると信じ、体験を語り始めた。国への陳情で2度上京し、優れない体調を押して署名活動にも参加した。でも、国は動かなかった。「今さら幼少期のことを言うのはおかしい」という陰口も耳にした。他の会員らが被爆者健康手帳の交付を求めて15年に「黒い雨訴訟」を起こした時は「もう疲れ切っていた」。語るのもやめた。

[…]

全文

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

ABCC幹部　「黒い雨」の健康被害指摘　1950年代　米政府見解に異唱え via 毎日新聞

Posted on 2020/07/26 by nfield

原爆による放射線の人体への影響を研究していた米原爆傷害調査委員会（ABCC）の幹部が1950年代半ば、広島で原爆投下直後に降った「黒い雨」などの放射性降下物が病気の原因になった疑いがあると指摘し、詳細な調査が必要だと米政府関係者に伝えていた。原爆投下後の放射性降下物の人体への影響はないという米政府の見解に異を唱える内容だった。ABCCでもその後、詳細な調査は行われず、被爆75年を迎える今も、米政府は見解を変えていない。

テキサス医療センターに未公開報告書

　ABCCの生物統計部長だったローウェル・ウッドベリー医師（故人）が、戦後、米軍から核政策を引き継いだ米原子力委員会（現エネルギー省）の関係者らに送った未公開の報告書がテキサス医療センター図書館に残されていた。日付はないが、54年3月に米国が南太平洋のビキニ環礁周辺で水爆実験を実施し、被ばくが問題になった直後の調査の記述があることなどから、以後数年間に作成されたとみられる。

　報告書は、ABCCが広島・長崎で被爆した約4万人を対象に53～55年に実施した疾病調査で、原爆爆発時に出た直接放射線の影響がほぼないとされた爆心地から2キロ超の地点にいた48人に、放射線が原因とみられる急性症状や病気が確認されたと説明。4・9キロの地点にいて、投下翌日から放射性降下物が降った地域で父親を捜した女性（当時20歳）に脱毛が見られたことを例に挙げ「放射性物質が落ちた地域の線量は強く、症状を引き起こすだけの被ばくをした恐れがある」と指摘した。甲状腺機能障害とみられる症状が2キロ以内の人と同様に見られる点にも注目し「原因が黒い雨なのか、詳細な調査が必要だ」と訴えていた。

　原爆投下後の残留放射線について、米政府は45年9月に「存在しない」との公式見解を発表。55年2月には米原子力委が、上空500～600メートルで爆発した広島・長崎の原爆では放射性降下物は「害なく消えた」との見解を示し、その後も覆していない。ABCCの調査・研究を引き継いだ放射線影響研究所は「黒い雨について聞き取りはしたが、詳細な調査はしてこなかった」としている。

専門家「米政府があえて無視した可能性」

　米国の核政策とABCCの歴史に詳しい奈良大の高橋博子教授（日米関係史）は「広範囲に降った黒い雨の影響を認めれば『不必要な苦しみを与える兵器』の使用を禁ずる国際法に反する恐れがあり、米政府がウッドベリー氏の指摘をあえて無視した可能性がある」と話している。

[…]

全文

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

なぜ黒い雨による「被ばく」は置き去りにされたのか　届かなかった医師の訴え via 毎日新聞

Posted on 2020/07/26 by nfield

広島と長崎に設置されていた米原爆傷害調査委員会（ABCC）の医師が1950年代半ば、米政府の公式見解に異を唱え、原爆投下直後に降った「黒い雨」が住民たちの病気の原因になった可能性があると指摘していた。しかし、被爆75年を迎える今も、黒い雨の健康への影響を巡って論争が続く。なぜ、医師の訴えは届かず、黒い雨による「被ばく」は置き去りにされたのか。【小山美砂】

目に見えない問題に時間割けず

　「広島の残留放射線及び放射線による兆候と症状」と題した9ページの報告書。添付された広島市の地図には、48個の小さな丸印が書かれている。原爆の爆心地からの距離は2～6・5キロ。いずれも爆発時に放出された直接放射線の影響がほとんどないとされた場所だ。だが、そこにいた人たちも脱毛や紫斑などの急性症状に見舞われた。「現在入手できる客観的証拠では、原爆投下後の残留放射線は無視できるとされている。なのに放射線を浴びた時の兆候や症状が表れている」。報告書は矛盾を指摘する。

　報告書を作ったのはABCCの生物統計部長、ローウェル・ウッドベリー医師（故人）。原爆放射線による人体への影響を調査する研究の中枢にいた。

　広島では原爆投下直後、原子雲や火災に伴ってできた積乱雲から、核分裂で飛び散った放射性物質を含む黒い雨が降った。爆風で巻き上げられたほこりやちりも放射性物質とともに広範囲に落ちた。多くの人が浴び、空気や水、食物と一緒に体内に取り込んで被ばくしたと考えられる。

　だが、米政府は一貫して直接放射線以外の放射線の影響を否定した。被爆1カ月後の45年9月12日、広島・長崎を視察した原爆製造計画「マンハッタン計画」の副責任者だった米軍准将が「広島の廃虚に残留する放射線はない」と発表し、翌日の米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズが報じた。

「。。。」

放射性降下物が病気を招いたと考えるウッドベリー氏が、米本国のスタッフォード・ウォーレン医師（故人）らに異論を伝えたのはこの頃だ。だが、壁は厚かった。ウォーレン氏はマンハッタン計画の安全対策責任者。放射能を洗い流したといわれる45年9月中旬の枕崎台風の前後に広島と長崎に入り「患者の障害は危険な量の放射能が地上に残った結果ではない」と報告して政府見解を支えた。核開発にその後も関わった放射線研究の権威にウッドベリー氏ははね返され、政府を動かすことはできなかった。

　ABCC内部で黒い雨はどう見られていたのか。「組織として『調査をしよう』という動きはなかった」。当時、ABCCの印刷課にいた宮川寅二さん（93）＝広島市南区＝は証言する。ABCCは広島と長崎の被爆者ら約12万人を対象に55年ごろに始めた寿命調査で「黒い雨に遭ったか」との質問を設けた。質問票の書式を任された宮川さんは「余白ができたから盛り込んだだけだった」と言う。

　宮川さんの質問票が使われた61年までの調査に対し、約1万3000人が黒い雨に遭ったと回答した。しかし、75年にABCCが日米共同運営の放射線影響研究所（放影研）に改組された後も、長崎の医師らが回答の存在を2011年に指摘するまで「黒い雨に遭った場所や時間の情報が不十分だった」との理由で解析しなかった。

[…]

疑われるなら国は救済を

　国による被爆者援護は、原爆投下から12年後の1957年に原爆医療法（現被爆者援護法）が施行されて始まった。対象地域の拡大や手当の創設などが進められ、黒い雨を巡っては76年、広島の爆心地から北西側に広がる長さ約19キロ、幅約11キロの楕円（だえん）状の地域が援護対象区域に指定された。この区域にいた人は無料で健康診断を受けられ、国が「放射線の影響を否定できない」と定める11障害を伴う病気になれば、医療費が免除になる被爆者健康手帳を受け取れる。

しかし、国は80年に厚相（当時）の諮問機関が出した「被爆地域の指定は科学的・合理的根拠のある場合に限定して行うべきだ」との意見書を盾に、区域の見直しをしなかった。黒い雨に遭った人の高齢化も進み、広島市や県は2008年、3万人超を対象にアンケートを実施。援護区域の6倍の広さで黒い雨が降ったとして国に区域拡大を求めたが「60年前の記憶によっていて、正確性が明らかにできない」と退けられた。

　黒い雨の健康被害を認めない国がよりどころにするのが、45年8～11月の現地調査などのデータから放影研が作り、被ばく推定線量の計算に使われる評価システムだ。放影研は87年に出したシステムに関する報告書で「残留放射線の影響は無視できる程度に少ない」との見解を示している。

　「直接放射線による外部被ばくだけでは、被爆者にもたらされた健康被害の説明がつかない」。19年10月、広島地裁。援護区域外で黒い雨に遭った住民ら84人が被爆者健康手帳の交付を求めた「黒い雨訴訟」で、住民側の証人として出廷した広島大の大瀧慈（めぐ）名誉教授（69）は訴えた。

　75年から広島大原爆放射線医科学研究所に勤め、統計学の観点から原爆の影響を見続けてきた。広島市などのアンケートにも携わった研究者に気付きをもたらしたのは、11年3月の東京電力福島第1原発事故だった。

　低線量被ばくや内部被ばくが議論される中、広島大が約1万8000人の被爆者を対象に10年までの40年間に実施した健康調査のデータを改めて分析し、黒い雨が降った爆心地の西側では被爆した場所が遠いほど、がんで死亡する割合が高いとの結果が出た。原爆の放射線による健康被害のリスクは爆心地に近いほど高いという「定説」と矛盾する。「放射性物質を空気や水、野菜とともに体内に取り込んだことによる内部被ばくの影響が否定できない」と結論づけた。

　放射性物質が体内に入ると、排出されない限り局所的な被ばくが続く。だが、放射線量の測定方法は確立されておらず、がんの発生など健康への影響も解明されていない。被爆者援護法は「他の戦争被害とは異なる特殊の被害」を受けた人々を救済するために制定された。その趣旨を踏まえ、大瀧名誉教授は主張する。「黒い雨の影響で健康被害が生じたと断定できなくても、疑われるなら国は救済すべきだ」。29日に言い渡される判決が、国が内部被ばくと向き合う契機となることを期待している。

全文

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Hibakusha: Hiroshima ‘black rain’ victim follows predecessor in seeking recognition via The Mainichi

Posted on 2020/07/26 by nfield

HIROSHIMA — Some victims of radioactive “black rain” that fell on Hiroshima and surrounding areas in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city in 1945 are still fighting for the right to receive free health care as provided to A-bomb survivors recognized by the government.

[…]

Takato, a 79-year-old former high school teacher, visited the home of Hitoshi Mukai, 77, in Hiroshima on April 9. Mukai studies the history of movements related to radioactive black rain at Hiroshima City University graduate school. At Mukai’s study, Takato found 163 brown envelopes, some with stains, stored in five cardboard boxes. Takato opened up one of the envelopes marked in red as “testimony.”

The documents contained testimony from black rain victims collected by the late Tsuneyuki Murakami, an activist and hibakusha himself who devoted his time from the 1970s to plead to the Japanese government about the effects of the black rain. Murakami, who died in 2011 at age 93, had visited communities at the prefectural border to get testimony from locals about the radioactive rain.

Impressed by the piles of documents, Takato said, “Astonishing. You can’t write in this much detail without actually listening intently to their experiences.”

[…]

Read more.

Hiroshima residents exposed to A-bomb ‘black rain’ developed health problems: lawyers via The Mainichi (October 16, 2019)

The state has issued certificates for A-bomb survivors who were in the designated area near the epicenter. These certificates enable them to receive free medical care. As the actual health damage caused by the radioactive black rain remains unclear, however, the central government in 1976 named a 19-kilometer by 11-kilometer area northwest from the state-designated radiation exposure area “a special health checkup zone.” Those who were in this zone are subject to free health checkups, and if they develop illnesses involving at least one of 11 kinds of disorders that the government lists as potentially radiation-related, such as cardiovascular diseases, they are given the certificates.

While the Hiroshima prefectural and municipal governments have requested the state to expand the scope of this zone, the central government has not accepted their request saying that there is no scientific evidence.

In November 2015, the plaintiffs sued the two local bodies that have been commissioned by the state to screen applications for A-bomb survivors’ certificates. Based on the locations of their residence at the time of the bombing and their experiences, they claim that they were in situations where they could have been affected by radiation, with some of them saying that they developed cancer and other diseases.

The state, on the other hand, is demanding the court drop the case, arguing that subjective concerns alone does not grant people the right to such care.

Experts say these plaintiffs need to be given relief measures soon as their illnesses were caused by internal exposure to radiation. The legal team plan to present a case during a hearing of witnesses scheduled on Oct. 16.

◇Sharp drop in number of Hiroshima ‘black rain’ support program users via The Mainichi (August 7, 2019)

[…]

The prefectural and municipal governments have consistently demanded the black rain areas be expanded, and Hiroshima Mayor Matsui referred to the issue in the Peace Declaration on Aug. 6 this year. After the peace memorial ceremony held that day, a participant at a gathering to listen to requests from representatives of hibakusha groups pleaded, “We urge the central government to scramble to provide relief by facing up to reality, instead of waiting for the black rain victims to die.” Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare Takumi Nemoto, however, did not change his position on the issue.

At the Hiroshima District Court, a lawsuit filed by 88 plaintiffs who claim to have been exposed to black rain is pending as they seek to receive A-bomb survivors’ certificates and other assistance. Due to their old age, however, plaintiffs have died one after another.

Masaaki Takano, 81, chairman of the Hiroshima Prefecture Atomic Bomb Black Rain Council, commented on the state’s counseling program, saying, “I took part in the first counselling session, but stopped going as I was just told that ‘there are no health effects’ (from black rain) and that ‘you are all right’. I want the central government to admit the fact that black rain did fall, and provide relief to the victims.”

◇Hibakusha: Hiroshima ‘black rain’ victim encouraged by plaintiff in Fukushima class action case　via The Mainichi (February 20, 2016)

[…]

At the end of January, just after a spell of cold weather had swept across the Japanese archipelago, Seiji Takato checked a freshly printed newsletter he had been working on at his office in Hiroshima. He appeared satisfied. The newsletter contained a message from Ruiko Muto, the head of a group of plaintiffs seeking criminal prosecution of parties including Tokyo Electric Power Co. over the leak of radioactively contaminated water from the utility’s crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean.

The 75-year-old former high school biology teacher and his acquaintances decided to publish the newsletter to show support for a group of 64 people who had filed a class action lawsuit against the Hiroshima prefectural and municipal governments. The 64 plaintiffs were demanding that those who were showered with “black rain” (rain mixed with fallout) in the wake of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, be recognized as A-bomb sufferers and be given handbooks that would enable them to receive health care benefits.

For the first issue of the newsletter, Takato, a black rain victim himself, included a piece by Muto.

“The case you have brought to the court is a very important lawsuit for Fukushima that deals with health damage caused by exposures to low doses of radiation. … Let’s join hands in a fight to protect all lives from nuclear threats,” reads Muto’s message.

Takato has paid attention to the government’s designation of evacuation areas around the Fukushima plant and the lifting of evacuation orders after the nuclear disaster, and he felt similarities with the handling of black rain, as authorities drew lines between the zones where people would be recognized as hibakusha and other areas. The health damage caused by exposure to radiation cannot be determined with sharp lines like those on a map.

“I always think about Fukushima,” Takato says. He asked Muto to write a piece for the newsletter via a mutual acquaintance.

In the course of meeting with Fukushima evacuees who had left their hometowns to come to Hiroshima and in talking with them on multiple occasions over the past five years, Takato sensed a perception among evacuees that evacuation was a bad thing. He was reminded of the resigned look on black rain sufferers’ faces when he launched a local victims’ association in 2002.

“We are just waiting to die,” one of the black rain victims said at the time.

Takato was encouraged by Muto’s words calling for cooperation among victims of nuclear weapons and nuclear catastrophes.

[…]

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Low Dose Ionizing Radiation Shown to Cause Cancer in Review of 26 Studies via National Cancer Institute

Posted on 2020/07/23 by nfield

July 13, 2020, by DCEG Staff

An international team of experts in the study of cancer risks associated with low-dose ionizing radiation published the monograph, “Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: Summary bias assessment and meta-analysis,” in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute on July 13, 2020.  

It is well established that ionizing radiation causes cancer through direct DNA damage. The general public are exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation from medical exposures like computed tomography (CT) scans, naturally occurring radiation (emitted from bedrock with the earth’s crust and cosmic rays emitted by the sun), and occupational exposures to medical, aircrew and nuclear workers. A key question for low-dose exposures is how much of the damage can be repaired and whether other mechanisms, including inflammation, also play a role. This critical question has been long debated for radiation protection standards.

After combing data from 26 epidemiological studies the authors found clear evidence of excess cancer risk from low dose ionizing radiation: 17 of 22 studies showed risk for solid cancers and 17 of 20 studies showed risk for leukemia. The summary risk estimates were statistically significant and the magnitude of risk (per unit dose) was consistent with studies of populations exposed to higher doses.

A novel feature of the research effort was the investigators’ use of epidemiological and statistical techniques to identify and evaluate possible sources of bias in the observational data, for example confounding, errors in doses, and misclassification of outcomes. After a thorough and systematic review, they concluded that most did not suffer from major biases.

The authors concluded that although for the most part, absolute risk of cancer will be small, the data reinforce the radiation safety principle to ensure that doses are “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA).   

Additional research is needed to explore risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD) at low doses. Because CVD is a very common disease, even small risks at low doses could have important implications for radiation protection and public health.  

The 26 epidemiological studies were published between 2006 and 2017 and included a total of 91,000 solid cancers and 13,000 leukemias. Studies were eligible if the mean dose was <100 mGy. The study populations had environmental radiation exposure from accidents, like Chernobyl, and natural background radiation, medical radiation exposure like CT scans and occupational exposure including nuclear workers and medical radiation workers.   

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | 13 Comments

Opinion: Fukushima nuclear waste decision also a human rights issue via The Mainichi

Posted on 2020/07/23 by nfield

By Baskut Tuncak

TOKYO (Kyodo) — In a matter of weeks, the government of Japan will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the world how much it values protecting human rights and the environment and to meet its international obligations.

In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, myself and other U.N. special rapporteurs consistently raised concerns about the approaches taken by the government of Japan. We have been concerned that raising of “acceptable limits” of radiation exposure to urge resettlement violated the government’s human rights obligations to children.

We have been concerned of the possible exploitation of migrants and the poor for radioactive decontamination work. Our most recent concern is how the government used the COVID-19 crisis to dramatically accelerate its timeline for deciding whether to dump radioactive wastewater accumulating at Fukushima Daiichi in the ocean.

Setting aside the duties incumbent on Japan to consult and protect under international law, it saddens me to think that a country that has suffered the horrors of being the only country on which not one but two nuclear bombs were dropped during war, would continue on a such a path in dealing with the radioactive aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.

Releasing the toxic wastewater collected from the Fukushima nuclear plant would be, without question, a terrible blow to the livelihood of local fishermen. Regardless of the health and environmental risks, the reputational damage would be irreparable, an invisible and permanent scar upon local seafood. No amount of money can replace the loss of culture and dignity that accompany this traditional way of life for these communities.

The communities of Fukushima, so devastated by the tragic events of March 11, 2011, have in recent weeks expressed their concerns and opposition to the discharge of the contaminated water into their environment. It is their human right to an environment that allows for living a life in dignity, to enjoy their culture, and to not be exposed deliberately to additional radioactive contamination. Those rights should be fully respected and not be disregarded by the government in Tokyo.

The discharge of nuclear waste to the ocean could damage Japan’s international relations. Neighboring countries are already concerned about the release of large volumes of radioactive tritium and other contaminants in the wastewater.

Japan has a duty under international law to prevent transboundary environmental harm. More specifically, under the London Convention, Japan has an obligation to take precaution with the respect to the dumping of waste in the ocean. Given the scientific uncertainty of the health and environmental impacts of exposure to low-level radiation, the disposal of this wastewater would be completely inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of this law.

Indigenous peoples have an internationally recognized right to free, prior and informed consent. This includes the disposal of waste in their waters and actions that may contaminate their food. No matter how small the Japanese government believes this contamination will be of their water and food, there is an unquestionable obligation to consult with potentially affected indigenous peoples that it has not met.

The Japanese government has not, and cannot, assure itself of meaningful consultations as required under international human rights law during the current pandemic. There is no justification for such a dramatically accelerated timeline for decision making during the covid-19 crisis. Japan has the physical space to store wastewater for many years.

I have reported annually to the U.N. Human Rights Council for the past six years. Whether the topic was on child rights or worker’s rights, in nearly each and every one of those discussion at the United Nations, the situation of Fukushima Daiichi is raised by concerned observers for the world to hear. Intervening organizations have pleaded year-after-year for the Japanese government to extend an invitation to visit so I can offer recommendations to improve the situation. I regret that my mandate is coming to an end without such an opportunity despite my repeated requests to visit and assess the situation.

The disaster of 2011 cannot be undone. However, Japan still has an opportunity to minimize the damage. In my view, there are grave risks to the livelihoods of fishermen in Japan and also to its international reputation. Again, I urge the Japanese government to think twice about its legacy: as a true champion of human rights and the environment, or not.

(Baskut Tuncak has served as U.N. special rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes since 2014.)

Source

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

House passes McAdams amendment to block funding for nuclear weapons testing via the Standard-Examiner

Posted on 2020/07/23 by nfield

By Connor Richards

The United States House of Representatives on Monday passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Ben McAdams, D-Utah, to block federal funding for future nuclear weapons testing.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would “prohibit any funding for new nuclear testing in FY21,” according to a description of McAdams’ amendment.

“Explosive nuclear testing is not necessary to ensure that our stockpile remains safe, and nothing in this amendment would change that,” McAdams told his colleagues in the House on Monday. “Explosive nuclear testing causes irreparable harm to human health and to our environment, and jeopardizes the U.S. leadership role on nuclear nonproliferation.”

The Democratic Utah congressman put forward the amendment following reports that President Donald Trump’s administration was considering resuming nuclear weapons testing explosions. The last nuclear test in the U.S. was an underground explosion in Nevada in 1992, according to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

“Thousands of Utahns are still dealing with trauma inflicted by bombs exploded from decades past, leaving a legacy of illness, suffering and death,” McAdams said in a press release Tuesday. “Why would we ever go down that path again?

“The U.S. maintains the most effective and capable nuclear deterrent in the world,” the congressman continued. “We have done so while observing a moratorium on explosive nuclear testing for the past three decades.”

[…]

The amendment is one of multiple recent efforts by McAdams to address nuclear testing in the U.S. and its effect on public health.

Earlier this month, McAdams signed on to a bill that would expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, which provides compensation to uranium miners and “downwinders” who have been exposed to radiation linked to various cancers, including leukemia, thyroid cancer and lung and liver cancer.

The bill, introduced and sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, R-N.M., would expand eligibility for RECA compensation to the entire state of Utah, as well as 11 other states near historic nuclear testing sites, and extend the RECA trust fund, which is set to expire in 2022, to 2045.

“Today, we know that RECA falls short of making amends to hundreds of thousands of Americans who suffered illness and death, yet never even got so much as an apology from their government,” McAdams said during a press conference in West Valley City on July 6, the 58-year anniversary of an underground nuclear blast at the Nevada Test Site that McAdams said shot clouds of radioactive debris over Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota and other states.

Additionally, McAdams blocked nuclear testing spending from being included in an Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.

In a July 1 letter to U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-OH, who is chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, McAdams asked that the committee include language in the bill “that would prohibit the use of funds to conduct or make preparations for any explosive nuclear weapons test.”

“For generations, Utahns have experienced higher rates of cancer and other serious medical conditions due to harmful radiation exposure, leading to thousands of premature deaths,” wrote McAdams. “I believe it is imperative that the Energy and Water Subcommittee prohibit additional explosive nuclear testing on U.S. soil and prevent additional harm to our citizens.”

That language was added to the bill and approved by a House committee on July 13, according to McAdams. 

The U.S. Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act currently includes $10 million for the purpose of preparing for nuclear weapons testing, the press release from McAdams said.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

A dirty battle for a nuclear bailout in Ohio via the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Posted on 2020/07/23 by nfield

By Shakiba Fadaie, M. V. Ramana, April 21, 2020

Last July, Ohio’s governor signed House Bill 6 (HB6) to provide FirstEnergy (now Energy Harbor), a large electric utility, with subsidies of nearly $150 million per year to keep its Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants operating. Ohio is only the fifth US state to offer such subsidies; other states include New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Although the subsidies are justified by some as necessary for climate mitigation, in the latter four states, electricity generation from natural gas, which results in greenhouse gas emissions, has increased since 2017, when these subsidy programs started kicking in. Moreover, in Ohio, subsidies are also being extended to coal power plants, providing the clearest illustration that what underlies the push for subsidies to nuclear plants is not a result of a real commitment to climate mitigation but a way to use climate concerns to bolster the profits of some energy corporations.

The enormous lobbying effort that won the subsidies used dark money–backed organizations that spent millions of dollars to sway voters and politicians. But it didn’t stop with the bill being signed into law—the lobbying also thwarted the ability of citizens to put the proposal to a democratic vote through a referendum, including by funding television advertisements that falsely claimed that China was “intertwining themselves financially in our energy infrastructure” and threatening “national security,” implying that not going through with the nuclear bailout would somehow lead to Chinese control of Ohio’s power grid. As confronting climate change gets in the way of corporate profits, such dirty battles are sure to emerge more often.

Electricity economics. It has been known since the late 1970s that the cost of constructing nuclear plants in the United States is very high, but the cost gap between nuclear electricity and other alternatives has increased dramatically in the last decade. In its most recent estimate, the Wall Street firm Lazard estimated that a new nuclear plant will generate electricity at an average cost of $155 per megawatt hour, nearly four times the corresponding estimates of around $40 per megawatt hour each for new wind and solar energy plants. The average cost for natural gas plants is $56 per megawatt hour.

The gap will only grow larger. While the costs of nuclear power have been increasing, the costs of wind and solar power have declined by around 70 to 90 percent in the last decade. Even solar projects that offer some amount of storage to meet demand when the sun no longer shines are becoming cheaper. Last year, the city of Los Angeles signed such a contract at $33 per megawatt hour. So new nuclear power plants are simply not competitive in the US electricity market.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Environmental groups want controversial Ohio nuclear bailout bill reexamined; HB6 now at the center of FBI investigation via Cleveland.com

Posted on 2020/07/23 by nfield

By Emily Bamforth

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Ohio House Bill 6 bailed out two FirstEnergy power plants and gave subsidies to coal plants, while dismantling mandates designed to move Ohio’s clean energy landscape forward.

The controversial bill, passed last year, is now the centerpiece of a federal bribery investigation, which implicates Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, one of the most outspoken supporters of HB6, and four associates.

The corruption scandal is now prompting groups that already opposed HB6 because of its implications for the economy or environment to call for a re-examination of the bill, or its total repeal. Both the Sierra Club and American Wind Energy Association issued statements on the case Tuesday evening.

“The legislative push to bail out legacy generation and roll back Ohio’s renewable energy commitments was always against the will of Ohioans, who overwhelmingly support renewable energy,” American Wind Energy Association Eastern State Affairs Director Andrew Gohn said in a statement. “It now appears that the passage of this bill was not just against the will of the people, but also may have involved serious and possibly criminal impropriety.”

Supporters of the bill claimed the bailout would save jobs in nuclear energy and reconfigure surcharges to Ohio customers to save money. But those fighting against it, including environmental groups, balked at the changes which effectively “gutted” energy-efficiency and renewable-energy mandates for utilities.

[…]

The bill also had economic implications for renewable energy projects, like wind and solar, that might have expanded jobs in the clean energy space. It’s difficult to discern the effect of the bill so far on those jobs because the clean energy market was also hit hard by the coronavirus.

One in six Ohio workers employed in clean energy are now out of work because of the pandemic, according to a report released in June from business group Environmental Entrepreneurs, or E2.

[…]


Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Why the atomic bombing of Hiroshima would be illegal today via Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Posted on 2020/07/21 by nfield

By Katherine E. McKinney, Scott D. Sagan, Allen S. Weiner, July 20, 2020

ABSTRACT

The archival record makes clear that killing large numbers of civilians was the primary purpose of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima; destruction of military targets and war industry was a secondary goal and one that “legitimized” the intentional destruction of a city in the minds of some participants. The atomic bomb was detonated over the center of Hiroshima. More than 70,000 men, women, and children were killed immediately; the munitions factories on the periphery of the city were left largely unscathed. Such a nuclear attack would be illegal today. It would violate three major requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions: the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. There could be great pressure to use nuclear weapons in future scenarios in which many American soldiers’ lives are at risk and there is no guarantee that a future US president would follow the law of armed conflict. That is why the United States needs senior military officers who fully understand the law and demand compliance and presidents who care about law and justice in war.


Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why the atomic bombing of Hiroshima would be illegal today via Bulletin of Atomic Scientists