This Week’s Featured Interview:
- Childhood leukemia rates near nuclear reactors shown to increase in 2014 report by Dr. Ian Fairlie. He is an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment living in London UK and has studied radiation and radioactivity at least since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. He has a degree in radiation biology from Bart’s Hospital in London and his doctoral studies at Imperial College in London and (briefly) Princeton University in the US concerned the radiological hazards of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Fairlie formerly worked as a civil servant on the regulation of radiation risks from nuclear power stations. From 2000 to 2004, he was head of the Secretariat of the UK Government’s CERRIE Committee on internal radiation risks. Since retiring from Government service, he has been a consultant on radiation matters to the European Parliament, local and regional governments, environmental NGOs, and private individuals. His areas of interest are the radiation doses and risks arising from the radioactive releases at nuclear facilities. In 2014, Dr. Fairlie published a scientific paper that compiled the results of 60 studies on child leukemia rates near nuclear reactors and blew the lid off the nuclear industry’s claim that living near a reactor is perfectly safe. He also exposes how the industry intentionally kept that information from the public until it was forced to reveal the data in 2012.
LINK to Dr. Fairlie’s article, “Childhood Leukemia Near Nuclear Power Stations”
- LINK to U.S. statistics on Thyroid Cancer Rates near NYC-area nuclear reactors from Joseph Mangano of Radiation and Public Health Project. Other articles available on that site as well.
Numnutz of the Week (for Outstanding Nuclear Boneheadedness):
Pssst! Wanna have a hot time in Ukraine? It’s easy: Just go to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and get in line to visit the control room at reactor number 4 — the very one that exploded on April 26 1986, setting off events that would result in the world’s biggest nuclear meltdown ever… until Fukushima. You, too, can expose your reproductive system to 40,000 times so-called “acceptable” limits of radiation! But then, you obviously weren’t planning to have children… or much of a life span…
LINK to “horrifying” photos of Chernobyl, then and now.
Information and Action Links:
- Rising Temperatures, Rising Seas – The Growing Climate Change Menace to Nuclear Power
- Whistleblowing – Then and Now from Fairewinds Energy Education.
- Fukushima’s Radioactive Water Crisis by Robert Hunziker
- Video from ABC-Australia about the so-called “safety” of holding the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in proximity to Fukushima:
The nuclear industry likes to claim that living near a nuclear power reactor is perfectly safe, that there is no danger because the annual exposure rate to radiation is too small to count. But then you learn of a European based compilation of studies that reveal risks, especially to small children, of developing leukemia, as a result of living close to a nuclear reactor, and the man who crunched the data tells you
With childhood leukemia, it’s always led me to be more and more sure that my initial premise was right for that reason. I’m quite happy to the evidence cause that evidence really does show that there are increased leukemias near nuclear reacts.
Well, when you hear something like that from an impeccable international expert, like Dr. Ian Farley, you know that you are sitting in a seat that all of us share
New clear, hot seat. What are those people thinking? New clear, hot seat. What have those boys been drinking? New Claire hot seat. The is sinking. Our time to act is shrinking, but the activists are linking nuclear hot seat. It’s Deba.
Welcome to nuclear hot seat. The weekly international news magazine, keeping you up to date on all things, nuclear from a different per respective. My name is libi Hala. I’m the producer and host as well as the survivor of the nuclear accident at three mile island from just one mile away. So I know what can happen when those nuclears so called experts. Get it wrong. This week, we take a closeup. Look at the work of Dr. Ian Farley. He published an article in 2014 that correlated more than 60, 60 separate international studies about health risks to small children living within five kilometers. That’s about three miles of nuclear reactors. He not only reveals the results of that study, but explains why the greatest danger from nuclear reactors comes in a very short period of time and how the nuclear industry intentionally kept that information from the public.
We will also have nuclear news from around the world, numb nuts of the week for outstanding nuclear bone headedness and more honest nuclear information then appeared this week in all mainstream media outlets, combined. All of it coming up in just a few moments today is Tuesday, October 8th, 2019. And here is the week’s nuclear news from a different perspective in Ohio attorney general, dad Yost has announced that his office is gathering evidence into possible election fraud tied to physically aggressive quote petition blockers hired by supporters of a Ohio’s nuclear bailout law. The petitioners are gathering signatures to put house bill six. The bill that led to the bailout of the nuclear industry in Ohio on the November, 2020 ballot, the bailout law set to take effect on October 22nd requires consumers to pay surcharge is on their monthly electric bills ranging from 85 cents at minimum for residential customers to 2,400 for big industrial factories beginning in 2021.
This is to fuel a $170 million a year fund with the vast majority of that money going to rescue Ohio’s to aging decaying and unprofitable nuclear power plants. Before the laws passage, first energy solutions owners of the nuclear reactors had said it would begin decommissioning its Davis Bessie nuclear plant by May 31st, 2020, and its Perry plant east of Cleveland a year later. That’s because the plants have been unable to compete in this age of cheap and abundant natural gas, but a well financed ad campaign by generation now, which is aligned with first energy has led to the reported harassment of people circulating the petitions against this bill. Ohio’s Republican in attorney general said potential charges could be filed against someone, found to have threatened or intimidated a person into not signing that petition in California, Southern California Edison, the majority owners of the shutter San Nore nuclear reactors has applied for permits to demolish the spent few pool from which nuclear waste is being transferred into containers for dry storage.
The canisters are only five eighths of an inch. Thick Germany uses canisters that are close to 20 inches thick. Each one contains a true Nobles worth of radiation. There are 72 of them being loaded at Santa Noray and they will be held less than 110 feet away from mean high tide of the Pacific ocean. The canisters have already been shown to be flawed or damaged. And we have new photos on that which will be linked to on our website, nuclear hot seat.com. Under this episode, number 4 33, there are lots more of problems with the canisters. And we will link to an episode that contains that information. These canisters among other things cannot be moved, which means that the spent fuel would be marooned indefinitely right next to the rising ocean. And without spent fuel pool infrastructure in place, there would be no place to put it.
It would have to sit there until compromised, by the way, the canisters are only certified for 20 years. And the waste inside is radioactive for a halflife of 24,000 years. Due the math in Japan, down Tokyo electric powers, Fukushima DII nuclear power station, which experienced three massive meltdowns in 2011 is running out of room to store its radioactive water. TECO has announced that in all likelihood it will be forced to dump large quantities of radioactive water into the ocean. But Fukushima fishermen have expressed deep concern for the future. If the radioactive water is released katsu Zaki head of the prefectures Federation of fishing cooperatives told the UK guardian, we strongly oppose any plans to discharge the water into the sea. Citing the public’s reluctance to eat fish caught off Fukushima, and the fishermen are not the only ones opposing this wrong-headed idea. Nearly four times as many Japanese citizens oppose the discharge of highly contaminated water, then supported a polling of 3000 citizens in Fukushima.
And they got to pre as well as wider. Japan showed that most expressed their support for storage of over 1 million tons of water, rather than release it into the Pacific ocean. According to a green piece report from January, 2019, the Japanese ministry of economy trade and industry, or Mayi in 2016, deliberately excluded the option to store and process the contaminated water to remove radioactive Tridium the myth promoted by the government and TECO ever since is that Tridium removal is not possible, but the green piece report also provides analysis that shows that over 800,000 tons of contaminated water contain additional radioactive isotopes, such as strum 90 tens to thousands of times above regulatory limits, Japanese government intentions for discharge have been challenged by the south Korean government. In recent weeks note that radio activity in water cannot be quote diluted because that implies that it gets weaker.
The more diluted it becomes, but the smallest unit of impact on the human body by a radio nuclide is a single atom. And when clean water is added to radioactive water, all it does is disperse. The atoms may be exposed to a smaller amount, but it’s just as deadly. An appeal has been filed with the Tokyo high court challenging the acquittal of three former TECO executives over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis. Prosecutors had sought five year prison sentences for the former executives of TECO based on their indictment in 2016 for failing to implement known tsunami countermeasures that they had been told about. According to one of the court appointed lawyers as prosecutors letting this decision stand is clearly against justice taking into consideration the burden of the victims. It is incumbent on us to demand a judgment by a higher court in Sweden. North Korea has broken off nuclear talks with the United States.
These talks were the first such formal discussions since us president Donald Trump and north Korean leader. Kim Jong UN met in June and agreed to restart negotiations that had stalled after a failed summit in Vietnam in February north Korea’s chief negotiator cast the blame on what he portrayed as us inflexibility saying the other side negotiators was not quote, give up their old viewpoint and attitude. The state department said Kim’s comments did not reflect quote the content or spirit of more than eight and a half hours of talks. And Washington had accepted Sweden’s invitation to return for more discussions with pong yang in two weeks in Greenland and abandoned to us, military base buried deep under the Greenland ice has shifted hundreds of meters towards the edge of the ice cap. Since it was built at the height of the cold war, the base powered by the world’s first mobile nuclear reactor was officially a research station, but its real aim was to launch nuclear missiles against the Soviet union.
In the event of war, the missiles were to be stored in a network of tunnels, but engineering problems along with objections by Denmark about the real nature of the base. Denmark was the one in charge of Greenland at the time prompted the us military to shut it down in 1966, confident that it would gradually be buried under the ice cap. But climate change has cast doubt on that theory because Greenland’s ice is melting much faster than the historical average. And speaking of climate change, rising temperatures and rising seas are creating an ongoing menace to nuclear power. Unfortunately in January, the NRC voted in a three to two decision to water down recommendations from its own staff to reevaluate seismic and flooding hazards at nuclear sites. Commissioner Jeff Baron wrote in his dissent. This decision is nonsensical instead of requiring nuclear power plants to be prepared for the actual flooding and earthquake hazards that could occur at their sites. NRC will allow them to be prepared only for the old outdated hazards typically calculated decades ago when the signs of seismology and hydrology were far less advanced than today and now
Nuclear hot seed nuclear hot seed, nuclear hot seed, none sound awake.
Fans of the HBO series, true noble are in for quite the treat starting now visitors to the Cher noble exclusion zone, which is a bad idea to begin with will be allowed inside the control room at reactor. Number four, the very one that exploded on April 26th, 1986, setting off events that would result in the world’s biggest nuclear melt down ever until Fukushima. But that’s a topic open for debate. The state agency of Ukraine on exclusion zone management is opening up 21 new roots through the exclusion zone, two tourists. And one of them is to the control room of reactor. Number four. This is where radiation levels are 40,000 times higher than acceptable levels. Idiots guests have to wear protective suits and face masks when in there, and even then they will only be allowed in the control room for five minutes because as they say anything beyond that might prove seriously harmful.
Yeah. Think, but there’s no stopping a bad idea. Once delusions of imortality have taken hold just this year alone 85,000 tourists have visited Cher noble, several travel companies organized regular visits to the exclusion zone, AKA to tour guides to hell because radiation levels are still lethal in certain areas of Cher noble. But as this little press release goes on to say, Yolo, you only live once. You know, perhaps, but why intentionally shorten your stay as a life form? And that’s why anyone who chew is to visit the control room at Cherno and those in power and authority who have decided to open it up to tourists, you are this week’s
Nuclear hot seed, none sound awake
For those who would like to have a safer way of looking at Cherno there a site with more than 40 photographs of what your noble looked like immediately afterwards. And today we will have that link up on our website, nuclear hote.com under this episode, number 4 33, we’ll have this week’s featured interview in just a moment. But first, you know, every week I take, take a few moments out to encourage you to help out financially with nuclear hot seat. I am not a natural born salesperson in case you couldn’t tell. And at times it’s excruciating to have to ask, but I do because it truly is the only way this show keeps going. I wanna thank those of you who do donate, be it a one time wish to help or that small loyal core of you who help on an ongoing basis with monthly recurring donations of as little as $5 without your help.
We wouldn’t be here. And where else would you go to get this information? Nuclear hot seat is pledged to provide news stories on a wide range of nuclear topics with information that is verifiably sourced and fact checked for accuracy. Plus we provide eye opening interviews with people who are genuine experts on the nuclear industry, even if they’re not in the nuclear industry. And actually it’s better that way, but you know, to keep the show going, we incur weekly, monthly and annual costs plus the occasional surprises. And that’s where we need your help. A donation of any size will empower us to keep providing you with the nuclear news that you can count on. It’s easy to do. So just go to nuclear, hot seat.com and click on the big red donate button. That’s just send a one time donation of any size. And if you wanna support the show while sticking to your budget, we’ve got a big green Don button, which allows you to set up a recurring donation of $5 a month.
That’s the price of a cup of coffee and maybe a tip to the barista here in the us. So buy a nuclear hot seat, the equivalent of a cup of coffee this month and every month know that whatever you can do to help, I am deeply grateful for your assistance and that you care. Here’s this week’s featured interview over the past weekend, I attended a three day non-nuclear event. Yes, such things do exist as a result. I know that I have a lot of new listeners. So here’s a cornerstone interview from 20 E 14 with Dr. Ian Farley. He is a UK based Canadian consultant on radiation in the environment and a former member of the three person secretariat to Britain’s committee examining the radiation risks of internal emitters. Ian is a radiation biologist who is focus on the radiological hazards of nuclear fuel and has studied radioactive releases at nuclear facilities.
Since before the Cher noble accident in 1986, in 2014, the date of this interview, he published a scientific paper that blew the lid off the nuclear industry’s claim that lived neuro reactor is perfectly safe. He also shows how the industry’s standard operating procedures kept that information from the public until 2012. Please note with my apologies that at one point near the beginning of our talk, Skype became more Skype ish than usual, and there’s an echo on the line. I’ve edited it out as best I can. And if you bear with it through that brief bumpy zone, the problem eventually resolves trust that the information is well worth it in fairly welcome to nuclear hop feed.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
It’s my pleasure to be here.
Let’s start out with giving people an idea of your background.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
My main degree is in radiation biology. In other words, the effects of radiation on cells. And before that, I was a chemist at university of Western Ontario in Canada, and my postgraduate studies were in how best to deal with radioactive waste. And that was at Imperial college here in London. After that I entered the civil servants and worked for a, the department environment in the UK government for about 10 years of sports. And after that I retired, but during, in my previous, shall I say life before I started studying radiation biology, I actually worked for green peace Canada as an advisor science advisor to them on their various campaigns. So you could say I’ve had a pretty rounded sense of experience in terms of what an academic and a civil servant, and also a group peace campaigner.
It seems that scientists like to consider themselves outside of politics, at least when they are putting four, the information that they do, do you consider yourself anti-nuclear as a political stance?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Yes, basically what it is is that a long time ago, I became fairly certain that the increased leukemias we see in near fire station came from there discharges. And I thought that it was unconscionable, just totally wrong for kitty winters, little kids to be dying from leukemia because of us generating electricity. There’s lots of other ways to generating electricity. And I suppose fair to say that I’m, I’m really very much in favor of net nuclear power, but having said that I’m also a scientist and for scientists, the most important thing is to stick close to the evidence. In other words, if the evidence points in a certain direction, then check the evidence, make sure it’s the best evidence. And that means you have to change your goods. So be, but with childhood leukemias, it’s always led me to be more and more sure that my initial premise was right. So for that reason, I’m quite happy about being and taking close to the evidence cause that evidence really does show that there are increased leukemias near nuclear reacts
To be clear, you did not do a study on the childhood leukemias showing up around nuclear power plants, but you did compile existing studies and existing statistics. How extensive were those and what led you to take this particular approach?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Well, to actually carry out an epidemiological study takes a lot of time and a lot of money and you have to have access to a lot of data. And, and oftentimes that data data is proprietary and you can’t get it yourself. You have to rely on other people getting it and giving it to you. On the other hand, there were over 60 studies worldwide on this particular issue of childhood leukemias, near nuclear plants. And that in itself provided enough data for me to do my work properly. 60 studies is a lot of studies and there was a lot of data in those studies. And so that was by far, the best thing to do was to mine, the existing data, rather than actually carrying out a study from de so to speak, using
Explain to us the extent of the danger that you discovered in doing this compilation of existing research.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
By the way, I should say that I, I collaborated in a lot of, this was a, a German scientist called Dr. Alfred Coine and he will crop up a lot of in my work. What we found when we were doing this work together was first of all, the large number of studies, I mean 60 studies worldwide in toxicology. This is probably one of the biggest areas sub study. For example, if you were to look at as best or chemical lead poisoning, anything like that, there’s nowhere near 60 studies, health effects from particular plants. So there’s, this is a very large number. The second thing is that we could do and what are called meta analysis. In other words, what you do is you by careful an examination of the data know you can add the data together. You’ve got to be sure that you’re adding oranges, oranges, and not apples and oranges, but you can do it. And when we’ve done that, you can get metaanalysis. Other people have done the same by the way. And they all come up with the same answer and that, that there are increased leukemias near the power stations. The thing is beyond there’s a very clear pattern of raised childhood leukemias near with the power station.
There was one aspect in the article that you did site where you combined the statistics, apparently oranges to oranges for Germany, great Britain, Switzerland, and France into a single table. I was struck by the fact that what you came up with was 37% increase in childhood leukemias within kilometers, which is about three miles from almost all nuclear power plants in these countries. That’s right. Why had no one thought to compile these statistics before? And how alarming is this to you as a result that came from this?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Well, the first thing is that the four go government obvious the scientists in those governments obviously knew that this was going on and they all obviously knew that each of the four countries were doing this. It’s an obvious step for the data and the four studies to be added together. And I’m absolutely positive that the scientists are relevant scientists in the four countries did. In fact, we know them, we know they did it, but they didn’t publish the data we did. And Dr. Corland and I, we did it together very statistically significant increases in channel leukemias, near all the reactors in no small countries, not quite all the reactors in France, there was only about two, but pretty well, all of thes in the four countries.
What conclusions can be drawn or did you draw from the compilation that you put together?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Well, it was quite clear that it was an increase. It was beyond the balance of chance. This wasn’t the fine meant that it was clear that there were increases near NPPs and that we had move on to the reasons for that and the energy policy consideration.
When did you start this?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
The actual study itself was commissioned by the organizers of a conference in new in 2012 and myself and many other contributors to the conference. All their proceeding, all the proceedings of the conference were going to be published in the journal. The problem was in my article or my talk was very controversial. It resulted in a lot of, in the peer review process. And as a result of that, the preceding of the conference by about two years,
I understand that there was one scientist who shall remain nameless, who challenged you repeatedly and extensively. Would you talk about what that was like for you and also how you responded to the various challenges that you received?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
The person concern that I’ve known for many years, he’s awarded the adversaries. Shall we say? I have a lot of respect for his work for his pale. He’s a good scientist, but we have different views about nuclear power. And it was a real tussle. How shall we say a long drawn out gladi or battle, but it was, and the basis of science and my article to tell us about scientific evidence. And that took a long time, over many pages, paper, and many, many point the editor of the journal. He was very good. He had to be a referee in this, but he, he was well informed. He knew about the issues and he knew what to allow, what not to allow. And so my congratulations got to him, a lot of other people would’ve ducked out on this and, but he song right through and in the end he published it.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
And his reward is that as a result of the publication, it was in about two or three months, about 500 people downloaded it, which in this, shall I say, the narrow subject area is a lot of downloads. It’s, it’s gone viral or partly viral. A good chunk of the readership of the journal of environmental video activity must have downloaded the, the article and for the editor that is very heartening because that means he struck a chord and people are picking up on what he’s published. So he was very happy. Indeed. There is one other thing I should mention. And that is that I, I waited for about three months after the public, before I went onto the web and with my own log on this. And that is to give time to readers, to point out any errors or omissions or that’s for a better long or whatever, maybe in the article and to date Dutch wood there haven’t been an at all. So that’s given me a lot of confidence in the sense that even although I can imagine a lot of readers won’t be, find this difficult to take, they haven’t come up with anything which has sent me below the water line. So to a shower hasn’t landed below the water line around like that. In fact, I haven’t been in shower, so it’s, I’m quite please with that. And I’m relatively confident with the hypothesis. Now
It seems that the extensive challenges that you went through with your worthy scientific opponent helped you vet the article to the point where nobody could pick anything apart with it. How accurate was that?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
That would be very true. Yes, you’re right. The fact that the, the peer review process was so tough basically meant that the article itself was pretty water tight.
Now that we have this watertight article that correlates raised leukemia rates in children with proximity to nuclear power plants, what impact has what you’ve written had on public awareness, in the media and on governmental policy?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Well, it’s really hard to say. What I do know is that amongst my colleagues and friends here in the UK and in Germany, they’re more or less taking this on board. And it’s now accepted certainly in the environmental community, that this is a serious matter that has to be taken on board. And that building nuclear power stations really is very problematic. Now, as far as governments are concerned, now they deny it all the way. It’s very difficult for them that they’ve decided that they’re going down the nuclear line to find this evidence, which directly contradicts it. They reject the evidence. Unfortunately,
What do you think going to happen here in the United States as more and more people become aware of this article and have the opportunity to read it?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
That’s a good question in the United States right now, the national research council is about to embark on a big study of childhood cancers near us or actors. And this is going to be quite important. It’s about a hundred reactors in the United States and to get data for all those hundred, that’s gonna be a fairly powerful study. Now what this study that I’ve produced says that in the rest of the world, the evidence is crystal clear. There are increased leukemias near nuclear plant. So I’m pretty sure that government scientists in the other states will have read the article. Indeed, given that the fact that there’s been so many downloads and my, the consultant that books have to my, my website says, oh, I could chuckle those. Like the about half are from United States. That means that the scientists who can in the United States, they know about the study, for sure.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
So that say 200, 300 scientists in the United States have downloaded this and are Reddit. They must be aware in government circles of this arm and it must figure some or other in their thinking. I’m not sure whether they will like the article in the sense that it’s bad news for them, particularly in the environment of energy in United States. But nevertheless, the evidence is now there is one other thing, and that is that the United States environmental protection agency is consulting on proposals to relax the limits for radiation doses from us stations. This study applies right in the face of that. It says if anything, it should be the way around. It should be typing them, not relaxing radiation limits near us reactors. So there’s two things going on in the United States right now, both of them are addressed by my article. And it’s difficult for me to predict what’s actually going to happen and have a number of friends in the United States, quite a few impact. And they have said to me that they are surprised and amazed the findings in my study. They say that it has clear implications for what’s going on in the United States. So my reaction would be while the jury’s still out, watch this space, let’s see what happens.
To what extent do you think it would be possible for the us to put together a study this massive and somehow come up with different results than what you came up with in examining 60 other studies?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Well, the first thing is that in did do what we did. In other words, we restricted this to children under five and also the exposure area to less than five kilometers. I under three miles would be extremely surprising if they found out, found anything different than we found it. The reactor that we’re talking about are the similar reactors to the United States, but pressurized water reactors, and one water reactors. So it would be very difficult. One of the key things I’d like to mention to your listeners is this up until 2012, we didn’t really know what happened with emissions from nuclear reactors. The only data that we had was annual data. So many vectors or better Becker rolls or Giger rolls per from a reactor. We didn’t really know the time pattern. Now we do. Now we know that the large majority say two thirds, three quarters of the annual emissions from a reactor occur just once during one spike.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
And that spike occurs when the reactor is opened up to take out the old fuel and to put in fresh fuel. And during that time period, about a day, day and a half, the reactors are de pressurized in to see huge pressures inside the reactor are well. We open up the valves and the radioactive gases should out it’s during that time that we think that the people down when are exposed to high levels of radio activity, a high radiation doses, and that phenomenon. In other words, that time signature, instead of having even little bits of emissions throughout the 365 days, now, you don’t have that. You have one big, massive spike, which happens over about a day and a half period. And that happens roughly speaking about once a year, when, if you to taken out your want and, and the new ones are put in. So that’s important, very, very important because it results in doses, which are at least 20 times higher. Maybe even as much as a hundred times higher, I discuss this in my article, so that that’s a major and that’s, that’s something that’s gonna have to be addressed by both the us CPA and also the national research council in this future studies, they’re gonna have to address this big spike in emissions each year from every reactor
That’s stunning, because of course, by averaging out over a year, it seems like it would be a much lower thing dose. You wouldn’t have to worry about it. It wouldn’t be a dose that would be damaging low level, blah, blah, blah. But what you are saying is that the majority of that happens at a predictable time when the fuel rods are being switched out. And there is no notice, no awareness, no correct sirens going off, no protection, no awareness.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Correct. And indeed I’ve said to a number of nuclear operators, like, why don’t you do this at nighttime? When people are in bed, why don’t you do it when it’s really, really windy average, and it’s not raining. And the rain brings the really cloud bank. When, when it’s windy, you get massive dispersion. But if it’s very calm, then it just drifts everywhere and you get big, no response li there’s one other thing. I’d like a little story I’d like to tell you, which my interest to readers this time, pattern spikes have been hidden from us ever since the beginning of the nuclear power program. Back in the 1950s or the fifties early sixties, nobody knew about apart from the people who worked in the nuclear industry. And they kept really quiet.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
What happened was that some German scientists who were anti Clair began to suspect that there was something funny going on here. So back in 2012, when the regional government of bad and Burg became red green by red green, I mean, it was governed coalition of socialists and green parties, rather than the shall say the, the Christian Democrats who are sort of more conservative in their views. The first thing they did was this, this German red, green coalition was that they demanded their nuclear regulatory, give them data, give the minister the energy minister data on the half hourly emissions from the nuclear power plants in their area, bad and Berg. This is intriguing. The energy minister was a woman I’m afraid I’ve forgotten her name. And I haven’t got it written down, but she was a very powerful, determined lady. And the head of the regions, nuclear regulatory commission refused to give the information and said, no, we don’t have it.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
But from the insider, we knew that they did have it. And so the German energy minister said, you will put this data on my desk on Monday morning, or you will be fired. And he said, I don’t believe you. She said, right, I want on desk on Friday afternoon, your recognition letter undated. And he had to bring his letter recognition letter undated, and she put it in the drawer and said, right. If I don’t get this information on Monday morning, I am putting a date on this letter. That’s what she did. In other words, she was playing hardball.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
We got the data, but the trouble is that the data was presented in a computer program form format that we nobody had apart from the nuclear industry. So we demanded the data and a sort of user friendly form. And they said, no, you asked for the data, you’ve got it. We’re not helping you anymore. And she was about to stack the regulatory. When some people in the green party who were computer was and said, look, we can put this, this data into a computer program. Shall we call it a, and then transfer that to a computer program B and then transfer further to Microsoft Excel. And once we get it into Excel, we can read out the data. It took them about three days to do it, but they got it.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
I love it. And we got the data. And from the first time we saw what was happening, a massive spike, a thousand times higher in terms of concentration than the normal amount. In other words, a set of three backer rolls per attribute meter. We were finding 3000 backer rolls per tribute meter. In other words, thousand fold increase. And then we knew what was going on. And then we knew, cause it had tried hit this since the start of the nuclear program. 50 years ago, they’ve hidden us. And it went to great lengths to prevent us from getting the information. Now we’ve got it. Now, what I’d like to say to your American listeners is this is very important. You have to go through your re drawer and say, there’s no reason why this is not occurring. Also in UK and us reactors, these data are from pressurized water reactors in that Berg in Germany. And so we know that it’s very, very likely the same as time happening with us reactors. So what are you gonna do about it? That’s the wake up call that I’d like to issue through your listeners? And I hope that at least some of you, some of your listeners will pick this up at and say, whoa, we got to do something here.
It’s a powerful piece of information. And the fact that they knew that the industry knew about these spikes and went to such grit lengths to hide, it means that they understood exactly how devastating information would be to yes, their business and their financial futures. So of course they would do everything in their power to hide it and good for those people in Germany and that environmental minister and you for getting this information, putting it in a usable form so that we have the opportunity to now use this as a very important piece of weaponry as it were on behalf of getting these things shut down and taken care of. So if someone hears this interview or reads your article and realizes that they are living you in proximity to a nuclear reactor and they either have, or they want to have children, what would you recommend that they do?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
I’ve already done this in Canada. In fact, where they’ve got nuclear reactors, you wouldn’t believe in metropolitan. Toronto is crazy. I’m so I don’t have any join in saying what I say, but the I Ontario government really has got to get a group of this. And I have said in guidance to Canada, that women of childbearing age who wish or intent to have families, or even if they’ve got young ones, or if they’re already pregnant, they shouldn’t live within 10 kilometers of reacting. And that people who already live near reactors and have gardens, they shouldn’t eat their own projects that they live within five kilometers. And I’ve actually given that evidence. He is published on my website and evidence to group Canada. So my advice to would be to young women who are living in the shadow. If her reactions is don’t do it.
Ian, if people wish to download a complete copy of your article, how could they do that?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Difficult? It’s behind a very stiff, fair wall. My guidance to people who need a full copy for research purposes would be to contact me. And it’s permissible under the copyright laws to send individual copies to scientific research rooms. You can do that. What is not permissible is for somebody to get a copy, then immediately send around to hundreds of other people that is not allow from afraid are present copyright arrangements. For those people who are not scientific researchers, my guidance to them would be, do they know anybody who works as a scientist in a, an academic institution and university in United States? Or do they live near big national library either in Washington, DC or New York or LA or near the launch Livermore, labor trees or the bur labor trees or any of the national resource Institute, because they will have copies of these journals and they will have a copy of the journal of environmental radio activity online. So if they have any friends in universities at all, they would be able to, to get them, ask them to download all them. It’s not ideal. The present paywall arrangements are unfortunate, but it’s how the large publishing companies make their living. So that’s my best guidance.
I, anything you would like to add at this point that we haven’t covered?
Dr. Ian Fairlie
I haven’t mentioned the name of the organization in Germany, which got the data of the mission spikes. It’s called IPP, N w. And that stands for international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war. I P P w there a large international organization base, their headquarters are in Boston, in Massachusetts. There are good organization. My pats go off to I P P N w cuz they were the people that got
And I P P N w also provided me with Dr. Alex Rosen, who? Yes, in nuclear hot seat, number 1 61, I had the opportunity to interview him about the report, which he took part point by point. It has gone viral. It has been up by a E news and elsewhere and has become one of the most important interviews that I have done. This one ranks up there as well, because right, what you’re providing us is with the hardcore scientific evidence that we can use to say, we’re not a bunch of emotional tree hugging environmentalists Though. We may be in our spare time, but we also have the data to back up what it absolutely, that we are saying.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Our study provides a lot of ammunition. It really does, and try and get a whole of it. And if there are people who desperately, who really do need to have this, for example, they have children who live very close to a reactor. I will send them the, the article I know so that they can use it to obtain some sort of re rails. I have given evidence in Canada to various public hearings, governmental and stuff like that. And I’m quite prepared to do that in the United States. Here I am ready, willing, and able to help out in any way that I can when the post coming there’s two struggles. Now, one is the national research council study, and secondly is the S CPA proposals to the safety limits.
I thank you so much for sharing your time and your expertise with the listeners of nuclear hot seed.
Dr. Ian Fairlie
Thank you Lev it’s a pleasure for mine and best wish to all the campaigners who are opposing the nuclear saying and United States. And I’d like to say you too well done. And I hope that we can certainly keep him touch
Dr. Ian Farley. You can find a link to his article on the study of childhood leukemia rates in proximity to nuclear reactors on our website, nuclear hot seat.com. Under this episode, number 4 33, you can also follow him on his [email protected]. And that’s F as in Frank, a I R L I E just click on the news and comments tab, and we’ll also have a link to the listings of boiling water reactors around the world. So you can see if you live near one or more than one activist shoutouts, congratulations to Jose AERA Plaza, the director of the documentary broken arrow nuclear accident in Paloma Plaza received the lifetime achievement award from the international uranium film festival being held in Portugal this year 29 on his investigative efforts and long term dedication to exposing the dramatic nuclear accident at Palomas in Spain, it was the crash of a us military aircraft carrying four nuclear bombs on board.
It happened in 1966, PLA was honored for his commitment to ensure that this accident which caused a permanent contamination of parts of polys with radioactive plutonium will not be forgotten and will provide a link to an article from fair wind’s energy education and Maggie Gunderson about whistle blowing, something she and her husband AIE Gunderson, who is chief engineer at Fairwinds and has more than 45 years of nuclear power engineering experience have dealt with firsthand. It’s a powerful article that builds upon my interview with a about what his whistle blowing on nuclear safety did to his life. That’s in nuclear hot seat, number four 17 from June 18th, 2019. And we will link to that episode as well. Here’s today’s final thought the callousness of the nuclear industry seems to have no limits as you in today’s interview. Reactor operators had to be forced to provide statistics on radiation releases and only did so under great Dures.
And still tried to block our understanding by providing the data in a program that they were convinced couldn’t be accessed. You might ask, what do they have of to hide? And it took the work of the international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war and a very testy government official in Germany to find out every nuclear reactor has to be refueled approximately once a year. This is one, the greatest radiation spike happens. The greatest danger of exposure CS. You would think that conscientious reactor operators would at least put out a notice so people could stay indoors, use air filters or otherwise avoid the area while this operation takes place. But the nuclear industry being the nuclear industry, they don’t, the nuclear regulatory commission doesn’t make them. And then they disguise this massive short term exposure by averaging it out over a full year. So the numbers look really small and thus, we have decades of exposure to high levels of radiation eroding the health of our children.
Don’t take my word for it. It it’s documented. And we’ve got the link. Most nuclear reactors currently in operation are over 40 years old, and you may not know it, but nuclear reactors were only designed to be used for 40 years before needing to be shut down and decommissioned that’s because of what’s called embritlement the breakdown of the metal in the reactor containment vessel, because it’s being constantly bombarded with radioactive particles. Most nuclear reactors currently in operation are over 40 years old or close to it. So by original design, they should all be shutting down just about now, but the completely captured nuclear regulatory commission has never met a license renewal application that it didn’t like and has repeatedly granted 20 year extensions to nukes, even as the industry has started embedding talking points to have us consider life after 60, meaning an additional 20 year extension on the license.
After this first 20 year extension, 80 years of operation for a deadly technology that was only supposed to run for 40 year. This is madness. And the older reactor gets the more dangerous it gets. The more likely to develop cracks, operational problems, glitches and radiation releases into the community. Beyond those that happen during refueling, consider it this way. How reliable would you consider a 40 year old car that’s been in constant heavy use? How about a 60 year old car? Would you trust it to run full out cross country without blowing a gasket or an engine, at least with a car? If that happened, all you would have as a result is a big repair bill, but a nuclear reactor you could. And according to this report, very likely would end up with desperately ill children, no need for electricity is worth the poisoning of our kids. That’s not a quid pro quo. It doesn’t equal out. And this danger, as you heard is not a supposition it’s fact. It’s proven the data exists in 60 studies from multiple countries to take off from a slogan out of the 1960s. Nuclear reactors are not healthy for children and other living things the right time to shut down this technology and replace it with genuine renewables like solar and wind was 40 years ago. The next right time is right now.
This has been nuclear hot seat for Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 material for this week’s show has been researched and compiled from nuclear dash new news.net to UN renard.wordpress.com. Mining awareness.wordpress.com, Toledo blade, Samuel Lawrence foundation, Colorado sun, the guardian green peace Japan, bloomberg.com counterpunch.org, Japan times.co.jp 60 minutes, Australia Reuters power dash E g.com. The BBC E traveler dot I N. CBS news.com German times.com Fairwinds energy education. And as always the completely captured Andd nuclear regulatory commission, where I really wanna put regulatory in quotes. A reminder that nuclear hot seat is now available on all your favorite podcast platforms. So what are you waiting for subscribe? Or if you prefer, you can have nuclear hot seat delivered via email every week. Just go to the website, nuclear hot seat.com. Scroll down for the big yellow opt-in box. Put in your first name and email address. We promise we won’t bug you, but you will get an email one a week with a link to the week’s new episode.
Come join listeners around the world. 123 countries and counting as well as people who hear this program broadcast in their local communities. Now here’s how you can help us as well. Nuclear hot seat is dependent upon people on the front lines, on the ground, in nuclear battles around the world to keep us up to date on what’s happening so that we can then convey the truth to others. So if you have a story lead, a hot tip or a suggestion of someone to interview, and you’re really frustrated because I haven’t done it yet, you gotta give me a fighting chance by letting me know. So send an email to info nuclear, hot seat.com. And if you appreciate weekly verifiable news updates about nuclear issues around the world, take a moment to send a donation of any size to nuclear hotseat.com as always, we are grateful for your support nuclear hot seat.
This episode is copyright 2019 libe hall and artistry communications, all rights reserved, but fair use allowed. As long as proper attribution is provided. Just tell people where it came from, and you can use the information. This is libe hall of heart history, communications, the heart of the art of reminding you that we can always come up with a date that a nuclear emergency begins, but we can never come up with a date when it’s over, because once it starts because of the radiation released, it is never over. There you go. You have just had your nuclear wake up call. So don’t go back asleep because we are all in the nuclear hot seat,
Nuclear hot seat. What are those people thinking? Nuclear hot seat. What have those boys been drinking? Nuclear hot seat. The car is sinking our time to act shrinking, but the activists are licking new hot seat. It’s de.