skip to Main Content

anti-nucleaRist bloG #124/ 07 July 2012 NucleaRist-Policy is vacuous-Paradigm & illicit policy of plutocracy

anti-nucleaRist bloG #124/ 07 July 2012

NucleaRist-Policy is vacuous-Paradigm & illicit policy of plutocracy


Yugoslavia was taken over by an invasion of N.A.T.O. reconciled to capitalist depravity in market structures, and pre-emptive destabilization of social-Structures, forwarding a resultant “excise” that would pit one nationalism oR religion against a different entirety of the 7-states nation. The Ecology-group’s visits into all provinces, w meetings of groups an in public discerning what the economic 4.5 to 5.25 % GNP increase was all about regarding healthcare for all, free Un9versity education—for all—and the respect for land as well as property, whether private housing or apartments or businesses, not wholly high-duty neo-Liberalism coRpoRations. Thusly, invasion and leaving he we-Peeps to remain in a non-dscritp un-fashioned cleanup of Radionuclides was the main purpose behind taking over the economy and leaving negligence in their ’collective’ laps. Egregiousness and the plutocracy of military-Hegemony/oligarchs e.g. also renown as Oiligarchs/Technocrats.



“While this report deals with the legacy of war and the consequences of some of the weapons used, it does not seek to take a position on the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. In highlighting the effects caused by some of the methods used in the conflicts by one party or another, some may interpret us as taking sides. We wish to explicitly reject this interpretation and to stress our humanitarian concern for the effects of uranium weapons on all people.

In conflict, and its aftermath, language itself is often used to privilege one perspective and exclude all others. We have tried in this report to choose language which does not do this, and to balance this need with writing clearly. If we have got the balance wrong in places, we hope it will be overlooked.

Preparing a report of this kind naturally involves a process of selection. In order to give the reader an overview, complex subjects have necessarily been dealt with briefly. In particular this report should not be taken as a full review of the literature pertaining to the health effects of uranium weapons, or their effect in the Balkans. The legal status of uranium weapons is also a complex matter that has only been briefly touched upon. More detailed treatment of these subjects can be found in many of the works cited in the endnotes.

It should be noted that the views expressed in this report are those of the authors. While every effort has been made to ensure that all the information in this report is correct, the authors welcome corrections and clarifications from all interested parties. All values expressed in US dollars have been calculated at current exchange rates at the time of writing.

(page six) Health consequences of DU use in the Balkans

The current health picture

The most pressing and controversial question regarding the use of uranium weapons is whether they have any negative impact on human health. Since the issue came to prominence, there have been a number of desk studies that have sought to assess the risk from these weapons by compiling the existing research on the issue. However, with a lack of significantly sized studies on exposed civilians, there are ongoing uncertainties over the risks posed by the battlefield use of uranium weapons.

A full review of the evidence concerning the health risks of uranium weapons contamination is beyond the remit of this report. Nevertheless, while there is a spectrum of opinion on this question, there can be little doubt that within the body the alpha radiation produced by DU is a carcinogen.46 This is a property, amongst others, that is also exhibited by uranium’s heavy metal toxicity.47

Without a comprehensive picture of the extent of the contamination, it is very difficult to assess the risk to populations in the Balkans. Although many of those who have worked on measuring the contamination at sites were of the opinion that the general risks from the locations they had investigated are fairly low at the current time,48 in some situations the risk could be significant.49 However, studies to assess the effects on civilians of chronic long term exposure to battlefield residues of depleted uranium have not been undertaken.50”


A Question of Responsibility : depleted uranium weapons in the Balkans

Published in September 2010 by ICBUW (photos 2007) see: ICBUW dot org




Why is the NRC sooo snootie to the American public, if they’re merely coRpoRatists, elites, and neo-Liberalists, or is theirs oNLY monopoly w a cusp? The nuclear regulatory committee does not mass-purchase casks for each nuclear power facility –commonly known as NPP—but allows no armed refresher course in defense of the facilities that could and have contaminated 100’s miles, TMI—in air; and 1,000’s miles, Chernobyl—in air; and weld the idiocy of allowing the whole Pacific oceans contaminated 10,000’s mile–in water.

Are we talking radionuclides of mixed tritiums, cesiums, strontium-90, uraniums, and not-so-cool plutoniums? All the above radionuclides.      “R”


“For the second time in four years, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a ”final” rule that would allow utilities to operate nuclear power plants beyond the 40 year term of the current license. The nuclear industry’s first attempt to renew a nuclear reactor license resulted in the shutdown of Yankee Atomic’s Rowe reactor, a perennial industry leader. In the wake of the Rowe debacle, the nuclear industry pressed the Commission to change the license renewal rule. Acquiescing to industry demands, the NRC’s rewrite of the rule concluded that the existing regulatory process will continue to mitigate the effects of aging to provide an acceptable level of safety in the period of extended operation. However, if that were actually the case, Yankee Rowe would still be splitting atoms rather than being decommissioned. The NRC’s reliance on ”current regulatory processes” to ensure the safety of nuclear reactors in the absence of any criteria, inspection or licensee submittal of a reactor’s current licensing basis constitutes an abrogation of the Commission’s statutory responsibility. Merely declaring that all reactors meet their current licensing basis does not make it so.

License renewal has proven to be a high stakes gamble. Nuclear utilities can gain 20 more years of operation, and the commensurate economic benefit, while shifting the risk of future operation from the stockholder to the ratepayer. The decision either to retire a nuclear reactor or renew its license will be based on a combination of economic, safety and political considerations. As the experience of Yankee Rowe demonstrated, the existing regulatory process may not mitigate the effects of aging and even the best run reactors may have difficulty proving they can operate safely for an additional 20 years. Furthermore, the Rowe experience demonstrates that examination of the licensing basis for extended operation could jeopardize the remaining years on the current license.

Yankee Atomic’s efforts to extend Rowe’s license raised the issue of the strength of the reactor pressure vessel, the steel crucible that holds the radioactive fuel rods. Bombarded by radiation, the reactor vessel becomes embrittled, which increases its susceptibility to cracking. If the vessel cracks a meltdown is virtually inevitable. The NRC has attempted to get ahead of the embrittlement curve by allowing reactors that are becoming severely embrittled to justify continued operation. While other utilities have pencil whipped their embrittlement calculations to conform with regulations, the public can take little solace in these computations. Although NRC estimates indicated that Rowe would not be in danger of embrittlement until 2029, the reactor is now being decommissioned because Yankee Atomic could not prove that its reactor pressure vessel was sound.

The reactor vessel is not the only component of a nuclear reactor susceptible to premature degradation. The steam generators used in Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering designs have experienced rapid degradation, necessitating lengthy reactor shut downs for repair and replacement. Steam generator tube failure is both a safety and economic problem for utilities. The rupture of as few as ten steam generator tubes could result in the meltdown of the reactor fuel rods, releasing catastrophic amounts of radiation into the environment. Steam generator tube degradation has led NRC Commissioner Kenneth Rogers to conclude that ”in essence, we have a ’loaded gun,’ an accident waiting to happen.”

Whether steam generator tubes are sleeved, plugged or replaced altogether, the solution is an expensive one for the utility and ultimately the consumer. After fending off numerous voter referenda calling for the shutdown of the Trojan reactor in Oregon, the utility decided to close the nuclear reactor and sue Westinghouse rather than replace the steam generators at a cost of at least $200 million. Considering the steep cost of steam generator replacement and the uncertainty of recouping the investment, some utilities may decide not to replace their steam generators and forgo the opportunity to renew their operating licenses. However, the prospect of reactors limping along with de- graded steam generators is neither in the interests of the nuclear utilities nor in the interests of public health and safety.

The NRC has long recognized that reactor vessels can crack precipitating a Chernobyl-like catastrophe. However, regulators have been slow to acknowledge that radiation-induced damage to other parts of the nuclear reactor could be just as catastrophic. More than a dozen General Electric designed nuclear reactors in the U.S. and abroad have evidence of cracking in the reactor core shroud- a metal cylinder surrounding the reactor fuel rods. The owners of these boiling water reactors have contended that the core shroud is of little safety significance. However, the NRC has acknowledged that cracking of the core shroud could damage the radioactive fuel rods, prohibit the insertion of control rods and lead to a meltdown of the reactor.

The problem of core shroud cracking is now believed to affect most, if not all, older General Electric reactors. However, ”older” is a relative term. Cracking has been found in reactors that have operated for less than 10 years, only one quarter of a reactor’s operating license. Replacement of the core shroud will cost millions of dollars and calls into question the economic viability of many of these nuclear reactors. While the issue of the core shroud cracking has not yet resulted in the permanent shutdown of a reactor, it does indicate that extended operation of boiling water reactors is anything but certain. It is doubtful whether any reactor could economically justify the two year down time estimated for core shroud replacement. Even if reactors can operate with hastily repaired core shrouds, the degradation of other reactor internals will pose both safety and economic problems. The degradation of reactor internals, including the core shroud, may lead boiling water reactors to shutdown prior to any renewal term.

The economics of license renewal are problematic at best. Increased competition in the wholesale electricity market is already placing serious economic pressure on nuclear utilities.”


NRC’s Efforts to Renew Nuclear Reactor Licenses

by Jim Riccio
with Michael Grynberg, Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy Project April 1995




Nothing disgusts me more than morose adversity by someone, by a group, by a bragging military contrarian to he US Constitution than that of the egregiousness of making fact that is comprised of excuses. I sat down many sessions in pains 2009 thru 2010 while no-longer capable to continue w part-time tRukken, which I did ostensibly to maintain my Medicaid and repay the SSI which maintained giving my paperwork consequences of part-time health not full-time Medicare! Finally, on July 15th 2011, when lots of pain and final being indoors awaiting Medicare to kick the fecund medical: non-Equating door, down…i had to last and thus impasse’ on much consequence, of what molecular-Nemesis there existed. What all is that id-Al of inconsequencia when not headlines, nor, definitely not egregious coRpoRate 6 pm news, paralysis continues; reports.

What I call Ecologic Assessment w.o. bio-Remediations.    “R”


Ecologic Assessment w.o. bio-Remediations

July 15, 2011 (apeco)


“Assessment of Environmental ‘Hot Spots’ in Iraq,” United Nations Environmental Programme. 2005.


August, Oliver. “America Leaves Iraq a Toxic Legacy of Dumped Hazardous Materials.” The Times. 14 June 2010.


Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi. “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq” 2005–2009.” The International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health. 7 July 2010.

Edwards, Rob. “WHO ‘Suppressed’ Scientific Study into Depleted Uranium Can-cer Fears in Iraq.” Sunday Herald. 22 February 2004.

“High Levels of Radioactive Pollution seen in the South.” International Humanitarian News and Analysis (IRIN). 18 November 2004.


Keith Baverstock, Carmel Mothersill, and Mike Thorne. “Radiological Toxicity of DU.” 5 November 2001.


“Landmines and Unexploded Ordnanaces Factsheet.” Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit. April 2011.


McCrummen, Stephanie. “At Iraq’s Hospitals, a Man-Made Emergency.” Washington Post. 10 May 2011.

1) Miller, Alexandra C. “A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects.” Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. November 2010.

Rita Hindin, Doug Brugge, and Bindu Pannikar. “Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective.” Environmental Health. 26 August 2005.


Samira Alaani, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, Mohammad Tafash and Paola Manduca. “Four Polygamous Families with Congenital Birth Defects from Fallujah, Iraq.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2 January 2011.




Where did uranium come from, as the metals are formulated elsewhere and brought to the planet eRathe? Why is ur-238 considered natural uranium? Is not ur-235 also found inside the earth, and at varying altitudes from surface to sub? Whatever, was the reason to not explore NSDU-238 variables, if all uranium-is-Radiologic—which is absolute tRuth? Good grief, uranium utilized to color ‘glass’. Why are ur-238 and pu-239 not the same entities? Does pu-238 come from ur-238 or from pu-239 (daughter isotopes)? Is pu-240 realizable as another capitalists NRC money making process? Does Japan currently have the most plutonium in the waste accumulations, or is that because HEW does get unitized in reactors? Why maintain a close watch on ur-238 and pu-239 and pu-240 and ur-235 when one gets close to that they are immediately radiologized.         “R”


“Uranium was apparently formed in super novae about 6.6 billion years ago. While it is not common in the solar system, today its radioactive decay provides the main source of heat inside the Earth, causing convection and continental drift. As decay proceeds, the final product, lead, increases in relative abundance. See also paper on Cosmic Origins and Geological Role of Uranium. Uranium was discovered by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist, in 1789 in the mineral pitchblende, and was named after the planet Uranus.

Uranium (chemical symbol U) is slightly more abundant than tin and about 40 times as common as silver. It occurs in most rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 parts per million and is as common in the Earth’s crust as tin, tungsten and molybdenum. It is also found in the oceans, at an average concentration of 1.3 parts per billion. There are a number of locations in different parts of the world where it occurs in economically-recoverable concentrations. When mined, it yields a mixed uranium oxide product, (U3O8). Uraninite or pitchblende is the most common uranium mineral.

The melting point of uranium is 1132°C.

For many years from the 1940s, virtually all of the uranium that was mined was used in the production of nuclear weapons, but this ceased to be the case in the 1970s. Today the only substantial use for uranium is as fuel in nuclear reactors, mostly for electricity generation. Uranium-235 is the only naturally-occurring material which can sustain a fission chain reaction, releasing large amounts of energy.

In the past, uranium was also used to colour glass (from as early as 79 AD) and deposits were once mined in order to obtain its decay product, radium. This element was used in luminous paint, particularly on the dials of watches and aircraft instruments, and in medicine for the treatment of disease.

While nuclear power is the predominant use of uranium, heat from nuclear fission can be used for industrial processes. It is also used for marine propulsion (mostly naval). And nuclear reactors are important for making radioisotopes.

The Uranium Atom

On a scale arranged according to the increasing mass of their nuclei, uranium is the heaviest of all the naturally-occurring elements (Hydrogen is the lightest). Uranium has a specific gravity of 18.7.

Like other elements, uranium occurs in slightly differing forms known as ‘isotopes’. These isotopes differ from each other in the number of neutron particles in the nucleus. ‘Natural’ uranium as found in the Earth’s crust is a mixture of three isotopes: uranium-238 (U-238), accounting for 99.275%, U-235 – 0.720% and traces of U-234 – 0.005%.

The isotope U-235 is important because under certain conditions it can readily be split, yielding a lot of energy. It is therefore said to be ‘fissile’ and we use the expression ‘nuclear fission’.

Meanwhile, like all radioactive isotopes, it decays. U-238 decays very slowly, its half-life being the same as the age of the Earth. This means that it is barely radioactive, less so than many other isotopes in rocks and sand. Uranium-238 has a specific radioactivity of 12.4 kBq/g, and U-235 80 kBq/g, but the smaller amount of U-234 is very active (231 MBq/g) so natural uranium is 25 kBq/g. In decay it generates 0.1 watts/tonne and this is enough to warm the Earth’s mantle.

Uranium and Plutonium

Whereas the U-235 atom is ‘fissile’, the U-238 atom is said to be ‘fertile’. This means that it can capture one of the neutrons which are flying about in the core of the reactor and become (indirectly) plutonium-239, which is fissile. Pu-239 is very much like U-235, in that it fissions when hit by a slow neutron and this also yields a lot of energy.

Because there is so much U-238 in a reactor core (most of the fuel), these reactions occur frequently, and in fact about one third of the energy yield comes from “burning” Pu-239.

But sometimes a Pu-239 atom simply captures a neutron without splitting, and it becomes Pu-240. Because the Pu-239 is either progressively “burned” or becomes Pu-240, the longer the fuel stays in the reactor the more Pu-240 is in it. The significance of this is that when the spent fuel is removed after about three years, the plutonium in it is not suitable for making weapons but can be recycled as fuel.”


Uranium and Depleted Uranium world nuclear forum (first use of web–6-02-09)





There is no miracle making oNLY money making when, the once waz “democracy, thru representative governance and checking he balances not making an egregious “system” utilized military apparatus for defense. Defense has not been around since 1898, and making overtures of this is always defense is to make aggressions and to cantonize the indiscrepancies of never allowing there to be a defense system in the u.s.a. For more on this topic see: Anarchy Isn’t Free (volumes one thru 9) soon to be published.


Once again, NSDU-238 is 60% fissile anti-Matter, whereupon my research found realizable the cuse to use that acronym instead of the propagandized DU term—which is hardly depleted, but is removed, and remains, ur-235. NSDU-238 is ingested and lodges inside vessels and adheres for growth, enlarging and hardly microns sized, detected for 3 decades average, but remains and exude radiation, nonetheless!     “R”


“a. This policy supersedes OTSGIMEDCOM Policy Memo 03-007,13 Jan 04. subject: Medical Management of Army Personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) (reference4,

Annex 1.)

  1. Thispolicydirectstheimplementationofthe9Apr04DepartmentofDefense Health Affairs memorandum and the 30 May 03 Department of Defense Health Affairs Policy 03-012, for Operation Iraqi Freedom Depleted Uranium (DU) Medical
~ a n a ~ e r n e(nretferences 1 and 2, respectively, Annex I ) , supports the 6 Feb 04 Department of Defense Health Affairs Policy 04-004 for Biomonitoring Policy and

p proved Bioassays for Depleted uranium and Lead (reference 3, ~ n n e xI), and

provides further policy, responsibilities, procedures, and guidance for the medical –

management of patients exposed to DU.

  1. All personnel with actual or potential exposures to DU will continue to be identified, assigned a potential exposure level (I, 11, or Ill), assessed, and treated (if needed). The identified personnel will then be monitored and tracked according to the responsibilities,

procedures, and guidance provided in the enclosure.

  1. Required medical treatment or evaluations shall not be delayed because of the possible presence of DU on skin or clothing, for the determination of the presence of DU on a patient, or for DU bioassay specimen collection.”



OTSG/MEDCOM Policy Memo 05-003 0 4 MAR 2005 (pdf)


       Remember wars w uranium are UN-lawful and signed NPT by all but Israel


                     a voice fRom the VOId, the peace-Warrior


–notes: nUkiEmOLe bloG #61

Tags/ former Yugoslavia, Health consequences, NS[DU]-238, use in Balkans, battlefield residues, NSDU-238, not undertaken, NRC, Yankee Rowe. reactor, embrittlement curve, generator tubes, Ecologic Assessment,w.o. bio-Remediations, 6.6 billion years, uranium formed, fuel in nuclear reactors, Pu-239 atom, simply captures, a neutron, required medical treatment, evaluations, shall not be, delayed, possible presence, of DU, on skin or clothing, what is blood vessel,



Bio-sketch (2-27-16)…

I started into believing that I would be able to show my data and my photogRapHics in 1996. By 1998 I was learning computers would gain ascendant methods thru technics of programming for a future connected to data and information. That was nuclear-Molecular finding(s) to share and my personal-Activism w first account specifics and engendering(s).

As cameras went 'digital-Tech' I fond that editing was also to follow in 2004. Then, in 2005 my first digital camera had replaced usage(s) of s.l.r. 35 mm's. I have no mercy nor pity for the thieves who have stolen my hard werk, as anxiety of what I allowed was mid-stReam--anyway! Those asshole-Pukes have cost me $1,000's on a fixed income and I remain single, sole-Survivor of two-Families w.o. offspring!

This Post Has 0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

nineteen − 8 =

Back To Top
×Close search