Watchdogging Radiation Cover-ups  

...Did you fall for the 'We don't know what caused your cancer ' line?                                        

• Home
• About▼
• Assessing the damage ▼
• Help out!
• Trivia ▼

Please help support Idealist's research and advocacy with an online donation.

Also, what you can do to help us is link to us! Put up a link to Idealist.ws on Facebook, Twitter, or your website, and also tell your friends.  

ACTION STEP #1: STAY TUNED; WRITE YOUR SENATORS; STOP SUBCRITICAL AND HYDRO-TESTS- 

Obama's DOE had planned 3 subcritical nuclear tests for the fall of 2009 at NTS, but these have been postponed until, we think, 2010; and above-ground explosive experiments involving a non-weapons-use isotope of plutonium are occurring at LANL.  Please sign up for our email list to learn about action events as they unfold in 2010 and beyond and read up on subcritical and hydrodynamic nuclear experiments.

ACTION : Send this above letter to both your Senators via this interactive webpage, and then email this alert to friends.    Also, tell this to DOE Secretary Steven Chu via an email: The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

More on why subcritical testing is wrong here

Just a word: When the (1996) Nevada Test Site EIS draft was released it didn't address the environmental impacts of proposed subcritical experiments.  Critics argued that a full environmental analysis should have been addressed (in the EIS) because the tests represented a new activity at the Nevada Test Site that hadn't been conducted within the previous five years.  The DOE's response was that subcritical testing was not a new activity and that just the word was new: 'Although the term "subcritical" is not used in previous EISs for the NTS, some tests or experiments conducted over the past decades as well as the impacts of those tests or experiments, are substantially the same as those contemplated by the new terminology. '  The DOE, after being sued by a coalition of dozens of environmental groups, later decided to delay its finalization of the NTS EIS in 1996 to include environmental analyses for subcritical testing.

ACTION STEP #2: STOP USE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS IN ALL SPACE APPLICATIONS -  Read more on our Nuclear Rockets and Spacecraft page

In 1989, U.S. Representative George E. Brown, Jr., introduced HR 966, the 'Ban Nuclear Power in Earth Orbit Act.' The bill was conceived during the Cold War, at a time when U.S. military planners were eying Earth orbit as fair territory for expanding the nuclear arms race. Plans were being made for various military applications in space, including deploying weapons, lasers and the like. Brown's bill, in effect, was an attempt to effect a ban on a space arms race before it occurred. The bill's prohibitions would have only gone into effect, however, if the Soviets adopted the ban, and would be reversed if the Soviets reneged.

Brown's bill proposed the discontinuation of the use of nuclear power sources in Earth orbit, over both the fear of an arms race in space and the fear that more nuclear satellites will fall out of orbit, crash on Earth and poison millions.

The bill, however, unwisely gave the 'okay' for the use of nuclear materials for 'deep space scientific and exploration missions or for a Moon base;' even though a launch vehicle (i.e. the Space Shuttle) that carries such a nuclear powered spacecraft can malfunction, explode, break up or burn up in the atmosphere causing radioactive dust or debris to expose millions of people in a manner that will be no less worse than a nuclear satellite crash on Earth.

Idealist proposes this new bill in the hopes that a courageous legislator will introduce it in the U.S. House. You can help make that happen. More on that below.  Hopefully, following the passing of this bill into law, there could, and should, be a joint U.S.-Russian project to remove existing nuclear powered satellites from Earth orbit.

Ban Nuclear Power Beyond Earth Act, HRXX 

A BILL 

To promote a ban on the use of nuclear power sources in orbit around the Earth and beyond Earth orbit. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the `Ban Nuclear Power Beyond Earth Act.' 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds that-- 

(1) accidents involving nuclear powered spacecraft have released significant quantities of radioactivity into the environment; (2) recent LEO (low-earth orbit) accidents involving satellites have created large, unpredictable debris fields; (3) the danger posed by collision-debris to nuclear-powered satellites and nuclear-powered spacecraft will increase the chance of a nuclear accident in space and increase the likelihood that radioactive fragments will reenter Earth's atmosphere; (4) Plutonium-238, the most common radioisotope found in U.S. nuclear powered satellites and spacecraft, is one of the most toxic substances in the universe; (5) a skin cell-sized fleck, or about 1 nanogram, of Plutonium-238, if inhaled or ingested, would incur a radiation dose to an individual 500 times the yearly exposure limit set by the EPA from radioactive emitting sources; (6) scientists and citizens across the globe are calling for a ban on nuclear power sources in Earth orbit and beyond Earth orbit; (7) nuclear powered spacecraft are envisioned as components of a space-based weapons system that could transform Earth orbit into a battleground for military conflict; (8) nuclear power sources for a Moon base or deep space scientific and exploration missions, etc..., should likewise be banned. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.  

For purposes of this Act, the term `nuclear power source' means a system which utilizes nuclear fission or radioactive decay for the generation of electricity.

ACTION : Write your elected leaders and copy and paste the text contents of the 'Ban Nuclear Power Beyond Earth Act' above.  Also tell them:

* you don't want NASA to continue deploying RTGs (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators) in its exploratory spacecraft now and in the future

* you oppose the decision by the Department of Energy to restart the production of Plutonium-238 for use in future NASA missions

* these government agencies should be investigating new power-generation technologies and materials, such as high performance silicon solar-cells for use in deep-space missions, instead of endangering public health with the use of toxic Plutonium as a power source.  

* the use of nuclear power sources in space is irrational and dangerous

* advancing space knowledge using nuclear materials doesn't and won't outweigh the risks of an accident that can poison, causing injury or death to, innocent Americans

* insist that your elected leader introduce 'Ban Nuclear Power Beyond Earth Act' in this Congress.

Read about upcoming NASA and Russian space missions that threaten the human race on our Nuclear Rockets and Spacecraft page

ACTION STEP #3: DIVINE STRAKE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS   

( background info about Divine Strake here )

DIVINE STRAKE FOLLOW-UP:  Was Matheson being serious?  Call him on it!!

Although Divine Strake was cancelled, many questions remain, such as what was DTRA's reason for aborting the test?  Was the test cancelled on grounds of safety?  Or was there a different reason?  

Divine Strake was to be conducted on soil that was likely contaminated from the radioactive fallout from several 1950s atomic tests conducted 4-8 miles upwind.  Yet the government felt that the test was safe (or safe enough for the people of Utah and surrounding states).  Why did the government ignore evidence of contamination from the six atomic tests identified by Richard Miller, as well as fail to consider PM2.5 particles, in their environmental assessment?   Moreover, did they indeed fail to comply with Clean Air Act Title V?   Was the government's conclusion that the test was safe made in error? Was there negligence?  Or, worse, was there wrongdoing?  Did government officials lie to the public about the safety of the test?  And if they did lie, why?  What was so compelling a reason to lie or attempt harm on others?  

Representative Jim Matheson (UT) told ABC4 (Salt Lake City) in late February 2007 that he wants to hold hearings about Divine Strake within the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, which is within the U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE. 

We support Representative Jim Matheson's push for federal hearings into Divine Strake.   (Read: Matheson calls for Divine Strake federal hearings - ABC4.com)   These federal hearings will provide the evidence needed to support, one way or another, a final conclusion regarding the safety of Divine Strake (should it have been conducted in June 2006, or in 2007 as proposed) and whether or not government officials ignored facts pertaining to the harmful effects of the test. 

Only when we find out the truth, and act accordingly based on those findings, can we truly claim a victory for downwinders and our democracy.

ACTION : A. Voice your support!   Please support Representative Jim Matheson's push for federal hearings into Divine Strake.   Call Matheson, remind him that he actually said he'd hold hearings on Divine Strake, and tell him you want him to hold them. Call him in Washington: Phone: (202) 225-3011; or in Utah: Phone: (801) 486-1236  

B. Tell the Department of Energy to close loopholes that allow baby Divine Strakes (non-nuclear surface-explosions on radioactive soil absent any environmental studies) by DTRA to occur at the Nevada Test Site and that these are endangering downwinders.  Read the boxed-feature 'On Stopping Divine Strakes'.  

Tell this to DOE Secretary Chu via an email: The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

More about Divine Strake; and read the Salt Lake City Weekly article Ka-boom! Divine Strake critics launch a new fight against plans to set off blasts in Nevada

 

---

Idealist's public document archives: 1. 2.

U.S. NUCLEAR tests: 128 A + 899 U in NV,
1 A in NM, 10 U (in NM, CO, AK, MS, central NV),
100+ A, U in Pacific, 3 A in S. Atlantic
(A=aboveground; U=Underground)

'The greatest irony of our atmospheric nuclear testing program is that 
the only victims of U.S. nuclear arms since World War II have been our own people.' 
- Forgotten Guinea Pigs Report, 1980

In 1986, the U.S. Dept. of Energy used the cover of the Chernobyl fallout cloud over the United States to release huge amounts of radiation into the air from a failed underground Nevada nuclear test. It was called Mighty Oak.

learn more on our global fallout page

 

This site best viewed in Firefox