This Week’s EXCLUSIVE Featured Interview:
- Tim Deere-Jones is a marine biologist – a radiation researcher and consultant – who specializes in analysis of the radiation threats to our planet’s waters from a wide range of nuclear sources. Here he provides a SPECIAL report produced exclusively for Nuclear Hotseat on the Nuclear Arctic radiation dangers. Tim has agreed to come on board with the show to provide regular updates on oceans, rivers, and other water sources being negatively impacted by nuclear radiation, so you’ll be hearing more from him in the coming months. We spoke on Monday, January 24, 2022.
- PDF DOWNLOAD of the text of this presentation – CLICK HERE
- CONTACT for Tim Deere-Jones: [email protected]
Numnutz of the Week (for Outstanding Nuclear Boneheadedness):
If drinking beer brewed from Fukushima rice gives you anxiety about consuming anything grown in Fukushima (because of radiation concerns), and you drink enough of the beer, does it drown out your anxiety?
- Fulfill the NPT: From Nuclear Threats to Human Security – open letter
- Nuclear Waste Risks can be “Minimized” and Other Myths by Linda Pentz Gunter
- California Tsunami Alert was a Wake-Up Call on San Onofre Flood Risk by Paul Blanch
- OPEN LETTER to nuclear nations, pledging no first use of nuclear weapons. Available for you and your group(s) to sign.
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2022 Doomsday Clock statement
Nuclear Arctic while most attention paid to the Arctic. These days tends to focus on climate change and glacial collapse and methane levels than the, like the rising radiation risks to the Arctic have not been considered by groups that focus on the rapidly evolving changes to the Earth’s biosphere, but nuclear issues, accidents and exposures have already had a deep impact on radiation levels in the Arctic water ice and the food eaten by indigenous cultures of the far north. How bad is it mainstream media? Doesn’t like to fill us in on the ugly bits. So it takes a brave researcher, an expert in Marine biology to spell out just one of the massive dangers, should there be a nuclear accident in the Arctic? And he tells us
In the context of the massive weaknesses and failures of response, we have seen with journal, bill focus, Shima, and other nuclear disasters, situated close to relatively good communication and transport routes and a reservoir of technical expertise. It seems to me that an Arctic ocean nuclear disaster occurring at enormous distances from such facilities is likely to progress faster and further than Advil or focus Shima.
When you hear such a dire yet logical assumption from someone who has dedicated his life to the study of nuclear radiation risks in the oceans, Marine, radiation researcher, and consultant Tim dear Jones. And he tells you such a common sense, but completely overlooked problem with introducing still more nuclear technology into the Arctic you get yet another view of that dangerous deadly seat that we all share
Clear hot seat. What are those people thinking? Nuclear hot seat. What have those boys been braking clear? Hotsy the Ms. Sinking our time to act is shrinking, but the visceral linking nuclear Hotsy, it’s the bomb.
Welcome to nuclear hot seat, the weekly international news magazine, keeping you up to date on all things nuclear from a different perspective. My name is Leiby Halevi. I am the producer and host as well as a survivor of the nuclear accident at three mile island from just one mile away. So I know what can happen when those nuclear so-called experts get it wrong. This week, we have an extensive unprecedented report on the radioactive contamination of the Arctic, especially important in light of the rapid melt of glacial ice and its impact on climate change. We’ll hear from Marine biologist, Tim deer Jones, who provides a thorough report on a range of problems in the Arctic. And this is exclusively done for nuclear hot seat. We will also have nuclear news from around the world numnuts of the week for outstanding nuclear bone headedness, and more honest nuclear information.
Then we’re bound to hear president Biden mutter over a hot mic. All of it coming up in just a few moments today is Tuesday, January 25th, 2022. And here is this week’s nuclear news from a different perspective, starting off in Japan this week. We’re on Saturday, January 22nd, a strong earthquake jolted, the Q shoe Southwestern Japan region with an earthquake of an estimated magnitude of 6.6, coming on the heels of the Tonga underwater, volcanic eruption and resulting tsunami. This earthquake raised concerns, but there was no tsunami and there have been no reports, thus far of problems in the operation of the econ and nuclear plant in Western Japan and the Sendai nuclear plant in Southwestern Japan at Fukushima Daiichi, a coolant solution used to create an ice wall. Halting the seepage of groundwater into reactor buildings has leaked from two storage units, about four tons of calcium chloride solution used to maintain the ice wall has leaked in what is the eighth such leakage.
Since the wall went into operation in 2016, Tokyo electric power company admitted that on January 16, the water level dropped in two of the four tanks that contain the liquid at minus 30 degrees Celsius, which is used to freeze the ground around the buildings at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains yet another malfunction of the slushie. A group of six young men and women is filing a class action suit against Tokyo electric power company, claiming that they developed thyroid cancer due to exposure to radiation emanating from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The plaintiffs now aged between 17 and 27. We’re living in Fukushima prefecture when the nuclear meltdowns, the triple meltdown occurred at Fukushima Daiichi in March of 2011 and expert put that in quotes investigation committee set up by the Fukushima prefectural government has not yet recognized the causal relationship between radiation exposure from the Fukushima disaster and thyroid cancer. And whether there is such a correlation could be the focal issue in this lawsuit. And now for the latest in nuclear bone headedness,
Claire Hotsy player, Hotsy
A brewery in Hong Kong has unveiled a craft beer made with rice grown in Fukushima prefecture. Hong Kong continues to restrict imports of many agricultural products from the prefecture since the 2011 nuclear triple meltdown accident. But for whatever reason, possibly because they have better lobbyists or better money this year rice is allowed in the beer was produced at the request of Fukushima prefecture and the Japan agricultural cooperatives it’s made with a brand of rice called 10 note again, they probably have the best lobbyists and the head of the Japan, agricultural cooperatives, Hong Kong office says he wants people to learn about the rice brand. So it will lead them to buy other food products from the prefecture. And the craft beer will be sold at events, promoting foods from Fukushima prefecture. So let’s get this straight they’re appealing to alcoholics who will drink anything as long as it gives them the buzz, or maybe just those who want to dull their reaction to their fears about the nuclear awfulness that exists because of Fukushima and spreads throughout the Pacific ocean. So their way of avoiding dealing with it is to ingest possible additional radio nuclides while at the same time, being able to forget that it’s there. Now that’s economy of action and intent, and it’s also just plain stupid. And that’s why Japan agricultural cooperatives and all of those involved with the brewing of this beer, let alone putting it out to the public. You, you are this week’s,
Here in the U S in Alabama, a failure to identify a specific hazard, severe tornado threat to the Brown’s fairing nuclear facility has been called out by Gary L. Morgan, who is a us army medical department, retired member, and a member of both the blue Ridge environmental defense league, brittle and best Bellefonte efficiency and sustainability team. Morgan points out that a near miss at the reactor occurred on April 27th, 2011, when an F five tornado took out incoming power to the nuclear reactors and to there was one backup generator failure. He points out that a direct hit of the reactor by an F four or five tornado would likely be a catastrophic event involving all of north Alabama and portions of south Tennessee or release of radioactive material in the immediate area. And downwind would be a high probability. This information has been sent to both the nuclear regulatory commission and the Tennessee valley authority stating that failure to include tornado events and mitigation regarding the TVA’s Brown’s ferry.
Nuclear plant is an error which must be corrected. Linda Gunter of beyond nuclear has been busy on January 24th on counterpunch. She published the article nuclear waste risks can be minimized and other myths, lots of great talking points there, and we will post it on our website among her comments. The unnamed survey respondents from the state of Georgia apparently told the associated press that their nuclear reactor expansion will provide ample clean energy for 60 to 80 years. But again, there is no context to this bold prediction in reality, that expansion consists of the only two survivors of another nuclear myth, the U S nuclear Renaissance. So-called always an aspiration, never a reality. It’s a good read. Go to the website, click on it. We will also link to the opinion piece California. Toonami alert was wake up, call on Santa, no for a flood risk. This follows up on matters discussed in last week’s nuclear hot seat.
Number 5 52 on the impact of the Tonga to NAMI Fukushima, Santa, no Oprah and other possible nuclear reactors is certain by Paul blanche, who is a 50 year nuclear energy consultant, former reactor operator and instructor for us Navy nuclear plants from an international perspective, it’s 100 seconds to midnight. The members of the bulletin of the atomic scientists, science and security board find the world to be no safer than it was last year at this time. And therefore decided to set the doomsday clock. Once again, at 100 seconds to midnight, this decision does not by any means, suggest that the international security situation has stabilized on the contrary, but clock remains the closest it has ever been to civilization ending apocalypse because the world remains stuck in an extremely dangerous moment. We will have a link up to the doomsday clock and the 2022 doomsday clock statement on our website, nuclear hot seat.
Under this episode, number 5 53 in France, electricity, they France or EDF. The giant nuclear operator has become a nightmare for investors technical problems at some of its largest reactors means EDF is set to produce the smallest amount of atomic power in three decades, slashing Frances exports to neighboring countries. Several of its nuclear power plants in France will be offline longer than expected for repairs prompting the company to slash its output forecast reactors by 8% leading to higher prices for electricity in Europe, Vincent ARL and analyst with JP Morgan, chase and company said, given the circumstances we would consider to avoid EDF stock for the time being. So this loss of nuclear energy, isn’t only a political crisis for the government in Paris. It’s a growing economic threat for much of Europe and Saudi Arabia is reportedly exploring options of investing 100 billion us dollars in up to 16 nuclear reactors by 2030 and rolls.
Royce is looking to the middle east to export its new quote unquote, what they’re calling green technology, but really isn’t to slurp down the lion’s share of that funding major positioning in one upping by lobbyists, hucksters and others in the nuclear arena took place at the world. Future energy summit held January 17 to 19 in Abu Dhabi. You can bet that nobody was there on a bake sale budget. We’ll have this week’s featured interview in just a moment, but first, each week, the nuclear industry provides us with new nightmares, but you couldn’t tell any of it was happening. If all you follow is mainstream media. That’s why nuclear hotseat exists to give a caring, compassionate and concerned person such as you, a regular weekly dose of nuclear news that you can count on. To be honest, nuclear hot seat is the longest running program anywhere that focuses exclusively on nuclear issues.
Now in its 11th year as a podcast and sixth year as a broadcast, we have a long history of scooping mainstream media on nuclear issues, giving context and continuity to local and national and international stories. And behind the scenes providing links and introductions between activist, researchers, and reporters. So that the story of what’s happening in nuclear gets out far beyond this show. Now you count on nuclear hot seat to provide you with verifiable fresh information and an unrelenting perspective every week. So of having this information helps you and you see the importance of getting it out into the world. We need your help to keep doing it. A donation of any size is what we’re asking. Just go to nuclear, hot seat.com, click on the big red donate button. And that is where you can send a one-time donation of any size or set up an automatic recurring donation of any size, just as little as $5 a month.
The same as what you would spend on a cup of coffee and a decent tip here in the U S is crucial to keeping us going. So do what you can to help nuclear hot seats stay up and running so that we can continue to search out and share information that the nuclear industry would really, you didn’t know, whatever you can do to help. Thank you for caring and for listening. Now, here’s this week’s featured interview. Tim deer Jones is a Marine biologist, a researcher, and a consultant who specializes in analysis of the radiation threats to our planet’s waters from a wide range of nuclear sources. We’ve had them on nuclear hot seat before, and he’s always been thorough articulate and provided us with plenty to think about. So when I asked him to speak on radiation problems in the Arctic, I’d caught a few short posts of his, about it on Facebook. He let me know that there was so much information to unpack. We would all best be served if he put together a presentation rather than the two of us use the show’s usual interview format. So that’s what he’s done. And that’s what we present here. We’ll also have a copy of his presentation available as a downloadable PDF. So you can look back on some of this information and really get into it. I recorded this exclusive presentation for nuclear hot seat with Tim dear Jones on Monday, January 24th, 2022.
Good afternoon. Good evening. Good morning, everybody. My name is Tim Deere Jones and I am a Marine radioactivity researcher and consultant. And I’m very grateful to my dear friend levy, too, for allowing me to take up so much of her time by introducing you to my story about the nuclear ization of the Arctic ocean, which has been going on since the 1930s most surprisingly, because it was during the 1930s that the Soviet union began the construction of over a thousand planned nuclear lighthouses along its Arctic coasts in order to assist navigation through the difficult waters of the Arctic and Northern sea route, which goes from Europe to the Pacific. These nuclear lighthouses were powered by radio ISO topic, Thermo electric generators, happily called RTGS, which utilize radioactive strontium 90 as a heat source to power Thermo electric batteries, which drove the lights on the light houses.
So the construction and the maintenance of these RTG lighthouses seats with the collapse of the Soviet union in the 1990s. And it is reported that many of them had already fallen into major despair by then, and that some of them have now been completely destroyed by weather and ice conditions while other RTGS have been removed and broken for scrap material by thieves. Now, unfortunately, the number of these loss RTGS has not been quantified more recently, international teams have been permitted to attempt removal and decommissioning of the aged RTGS. And during their work, they have uncovered strong evidence that many of those strontium 90 sources had leaked radioactivity into the surrounding terrestrial and Marine environments. However, despite these old fashioned ones having been lost and broken with the continuing development of the Northern sea route, the Russian Federation has recently announced that it is planning to install a new generation of RTGS at remote Arctic military and industrial sites.
There are indications that some of these may be deployed on the Arctic sea bed, as well as that coastal terrestrial sites prior to the 1963 test ban treaty, which prohibited all tests to donations of nuclear weapons, except for those conducted underground Arctic indigenous communities had been in receipt of exposures of fallout, radioactivity, and were considered to be some of the most exposed populations to global fallout from atmospheric testing from 1945 through to 63. Now the records show that the U S carried out over a thousand such tests in the Northern hemisphere, but none directly in the Arctic, however, after 1965 and through to 71, the U S did carry out a series of three underground tests that am checker in the Aleutian island chain, close to the Arctic circle and situated between the bearing seat of the north and east and the Pacific ocean to the south and the west.
The final Amtrak test named khanaqin, who is a really big five megaton blast, which not only created an earthquake of Richter scale seven and 15 foot ground waves is also reported that cliffs collapsed into the sea and that the sea boiled and thousands of seabirds, sea otters and other animals were killed. Chica is still the subject of regular radiological monitoring. And the Marine and terrestrial environments are still considered radioactive as a result of these tests. Meanwhile, Soviet union tests were being performed between 1949 and 90 90. And during that period, over 715 tests were carried out. Many of these took place at the Northern test site on the Arctic island of know via zoom layer details of the Soviet tests are more obscure than the U S data, but it is likely that some were of similar magnitude to the Caniquan test, no matter where they work carried out much of the airborne radioactivity from these Northern atmosphere tests, even though several thousand kilometers distance from the Arctic were driven by and precipitation patterns to eventually fall out over the Arctic contaminating land water, and the ground level atmosphere analysis of both sea ice and glacier and ice cap calls has proved the presence of a range of weapons tests, radio new, including strontium 90 regrettably.
There has been poor quantification of the amount of weapons tests, fallout that is deposited on Arctic environments. But academic research has shown that the diet and traditions of indigenous groups mean that they have been and still are receiving very significant contact, dietary and inhalation doses of weapons, tests, fallout derived from hunted fish, sea mammals, and terrestrial meat gathered vegetable and other wild produce, and the inhalation of contaminated air and Marine aerosols and sea sprays in the context of climate change, it is quite clear that the major ice loss melt trend currently affecting the Arctic is going to make a significant contribution to Marine radioactivity concentrations. As the reservoir of radioactive fallout locked in the ice is released to the sea so far, I’ve not been able to find any evidence that this factor has been or can be quantified contemporary with the rising number of nuclear weapons tests through the fifties and the sixties.
There was a massive increase in radioactivity discharges from the operation of a new breed of civilian nuclear power stations and reprocessors sites, including Sellafield and Capitola hog in Europe. These were built to extract weapons, grade plutonium from power station used irradiated fuel. These establishments discharged nuclear waste materials to both the atmosphere in gassy or some particular form through chimneys and stacks, and to see in liquid and particular thought through sea discharge pipelines. And as we have seen such atmospheric fallout and wash out onto the Arctic seems to be impossible to quantify. Sadly, it seems to be the case that the impact of distant Marine discharges on the Arctic is also hard to accurately quantify. It was assumed by the nuclear industry that such materials would either dilute and disperse and hence all but vanish in the Marine environment or become sequestered in Marine seabed, sediments, and thus be locked away from contact with humans and the environment.
However, some years after the first discharge to see a radioactive affluence from Sellafield, it was blandly announced by the British authorities that the discharge has had been experimental and that much useful information had been gathered amongst that was the fact that much of the radioactivity discharged you see, did not dilute and disperse to nothing or become a locked away forever in Marine sediments and fact field research by both nuclear industry and independent academics has now proved that the Sellafield reprocessors see derived alpha emitting plutonium, beta, and gamma, remitting, cesium, and other radionuclides have penetrated the Arctic ocean and contaminated the Marine environment and food webs and delivered dietary doses of multiple nucleotides to apex consumers, including human populations, Santa Fe or discharges are easily identified because they have a specific thing to print ratio of radionuclides. Other Atlantic and Pacific nuclear power station discharges are less easily identified, but must clearly follow the same distribution patterns of the reprocessor discharges researchers.
Now confidently confirmed that selfie or derive Marine radioactivity has entered the Pacific from the Arctic after having entered the Arctic from the Atlantic in connection with all of this, Russia has embarked on a major exploitation of mineral reserves as the Arctic Marine environment warms and the opportunities for safe and ice-free maritime transport increase a number of major industrial sites are under development along the Arctic coast of Russia with Newport’s industrial infrastructure and supporting areas under construction to exploit very large reserves of metals, such as gold nickel, copper uranium, rare earths, and oil and gas reserves, then use of nuclear energy to power. These developments is rapidly becoming the preferred choice in the Russian Federation government policy appears to be strongly supportive of the use of a variety of small modular nuclear reactor design types. In the Arctic. There is a similarly flexible attitude to deployment methods with plans to deploy small modular nuclear reactors that offshore oil and gas rig complexes either on the seabed all as floating units.
In addition to those more that the coast, a floating small modular nuclear reactor power station is already in operation on the Siberian coast, having been constructed in Western Europe and then towed to pelvic on the coast of Chukotka and the east Siberian sea, not that far away from the U S and Canadian jurisdiction paddock is the site of a newly opened copper and gold extraction and refining development. And the Alexander Lamar nozzle is an unprepared vessel, which carries two uranium field nuclear reactors developed from Russian nuclear sub propulsion units. Their reactors will require onsite refueling every three years and a refit overhaul every 12 years. The Lamont Monosoff has been operating at paddock since 2019 for more such units are currently under construction and destined for similar resource extraction sites along the Siberian coast. Clearly Russia’s current policy increases the risk of nuclear accident in the Arctic.
The obvious risks to the integrity of such units deployed in extreme Arctic conditions are exacerbated by the extreme distance from technical backup expertise in the event of a nuclear incident. Additionally, the expectation that the reactors will be refueled on site clearly indicates that Arctic ocean maritime transports of both new fuel elements and used irradiated nuclear fuels is going to increase exponentially as more of the planned small nuclear reactors come on stream. So there’s also an issue in the Arctic with nuclear civilian shipping. There were originally four nuclear cargo ships built by each of the early nuclear nations, France, Russia, America, and Germany. There is also an issue with the amount of nuclear civilian shipping in the Arctic. There were originally four nuclear freighters built by nuclear nations in the early seventies and eighties, only one of them remains. And that is the Soviet built nuclear powered freighter serve more put, which was launched in 1988.
This vessel has recently been relatively inactive, largely due to the refusal of many coastal states and even some Russian ports to accept a visit from a nuclear powered vessel in the context of fears about nuclear accidents, react to accidents and uncertain insurance regimes covering maritime nuclear reactors in the late 1990s. This is the Russian seven report was laid up in Murmansk due to delays in the refueling of her reactors. The refueling finally took place in 2001 and later the ship resumed low level services on Arctic routes in August, 2007, it was reported that the ship would be converted into the world’s first nuclear power drilling ship, working the Arctic oil fields, but due to lack of demand for cargo operators and the need of specialized drilling vessels in the Russian Arctic, that conversion never took place in October two and nine, the general director of atom Flott announced that seven more put could remain in service for 15 years, but in October, 2012, it was reported that she would be removed from the Russian ship register in July and will be sold for scrap.
However, in the following December, it was reported that the decision to decommission this ship had been canceled and that the vessel would be brought back to service by February, 2016. So the seven report became active again and has subsequently been charted mainly by the Russian ministry of defense for transporting cargo related to the development of military infrastructure in the Arctic. And in addition, she has occasionally transport and supplies for oil and gas projects. Her new life has been punctuated by breakdowns and delayed operations. None of which have so far been attributed to react to problems. So this redeployment of this now very old nuclear powered freighter appears to be part of the ongoing nuclearization of Russia’s Arctic shipping and follows recent statements that Russia is considering alternative fuels in inverted commerce for it severely and polar athletes having already built and operated 10 nuclear powered icebreakers with five more in the design and building stage and the one floating Marine nuclear reactor referred to earlier.
And there’s nine more of them in design and build stage as well. All of which are going to be used to keep the ice clear from the Northern sea route and to power off shore Arctic ocean oil drilling, mineral mining, and the associated refining manufacturing and urban industrial activity. Just as a side mention, China has also begun the construction of nuclear power icebreakers were certainly one and possibly two such vessels powered by twin maritime. PWRs under design and construction, the design and construction brief for the Chinese vessels states that they are intended to open polar waterways, presumably intended to accompany future Chinese merchant vessels along the Arctic Northern sea route. So it’s not only the development of these transport modes, which is causing questions and problems there in the Arctic. A series of nuclear accidents have made detectable impacts on the Arctic’s aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Research projects have concluded that Chernobyl accident radioactivity entered the Arctic environments by way of multiple pathways, including direct fallout and wash out onto Arctic environments, inputs of radioactivity from the river basin systems of Arctic and sub-arctic terrestrial environments contaminated both all out and wash out. And as is the case with other input sources, this is not being quantified across the Arctic either in terms of the quantity of radioactivity or the number of radio nuclides, which have cropped up research has recently reported that radioactivity released to see during and after the focal Shima disaster has entered the Arctic ocean and has been detected in the Bering sea, which knives between the Pacific and the Arctic proper and the Chuck CISI, which is actually a subdivision of the proper Arctic ocean in the context of the fate and behavior behavioral weapons test fallout discussed earlier. It seems inevitable that other Northern hemisphere nuclear accidents dating back to the 1957 selfie of reprocessor fire and the Soviet union’s Chelyabinsk Myack reprocessed to accident in the same year, we’ll also have made significant contributions to Arctic environmental revenue activity going back to in Arctic sources of nuclear contamination.
There is no doubt that sunken nuclear subs and see dumped military nuclear wastes have made a significant impact on radioactivity levels. In the, some of the Arctic Marine environments, there is a wide consensus that the major issue is nuclear submarines reports from Russia confirmed that the Soviet union actually lost five nuclear submarines and subsequently the Russian Federation lost two in the barons and the car sees at the European end of the Arctic ocean, all, but one of these sinkings occurred as a result of some form of onboard failure. One was deliberately scuttled following an onboard nuclear event, which made the vessel too radioactive to be worked on. One of the sunk ships was a diesel powered submarine, carrying nuclear missiles. The others were all nuclear powered and an uncertain number of them were carrying nuclear weapons. Now it seems to be pretty certain six of the seven lost submarines were powered by twin nuclear reactors, each containing between 700 and a thousand kilograms of nuclear fuel, depending on the vessel type, some observers postulate that a significant leak breach of containment from any one of these vessels could raise radioactivity concentrations in the valuable barons and Carra sea fish stocks called capital in Halliburton crab by a hundred times in the years following any such leak and because of the risk of such environmental impact from any one of these vessels, European money has been granted to Russia in order to help raise the sunken submarines and decommission them.
And now emerges that a suitable vessel has now entered the design stage and is likely with any luck to be commissioned in 2026, so that those submarines could be lifted by 2032 and taken landside for proper and correct decontamination and breaking Russian sources also confirm that at one stage there were over 100 disuse nuclear submarines in wet dock storage, complete with their reactors and the little Mo most of them have now been decommissioned and scrapped. Some still remain. In addition, there is a growing fleet of retired nuclear powered icebreakers complete with their reactors. Also more around the Arctic coastlines and waiting decommissioning and breaking all told it is reported that around 17,000 containers of hazardous nuclear waste, 19 retired nuclear support vessels, togs barges, floating docks, pontoons, and waste carriers, and 735 items of irradiated heavy machinery have also been C dumped into the barons and the car receives again at the European end of the Arctic ocean while international nuclear expertise insists that nuclear waste should have been dumped into ocean deeps far off shore, and at least three kilometers deep.
Some of the material discussed here has been dumped on the seabeds around 50 meters. Deep, clearly pretty close to land. Russia is not alone in its military radioactive pollution of the Arctic because the us has also made its own notable contribution focused on Northern Greenland. In 1959, the U S opened a cold war nuclear missile site called camp century, which was buried beneath the ice cap in Northern Greenland, about 150 miles from the U S air base at fuel. Three kilometers of tunnel were constructed beneath many feet of ice with accommodation for around 200 military personnel. And the site was powered by an experimental PM. Two portable nuclear reactor project ran until 1967 when it was abandoned, due to the instability of the covering ice. And the reactor was dismantled and removed. However, in the expectation that polar conditions would continue as normal and that the base would become more and more snowed under and sealed, many tons of waste were abandoned on site, including thousands of gallons of sewage, diesel fuel PCPs, and 47,000 gallons of liquid nuclear waste.
Given that the PM tool reactor was water-cooled and uranium and fueled. It is inevitable that this liquid waste will contain alpha emitting uranium and plutonium nucleotides, tritium, and a cocktail of other activation products. It is now widely agreed that due to climate change driven ice melt, the site infrastructure is likely to be exposed by the end of this century, the potential radiological impact to run off watercourses and the receiving environment of green Nan’s coastal waters is clearly a radiological threat awaiting the region. Regional Marine food webs are unlikely to avoid bio absorption and accumulation of some of that radioactivity. This issue was compounded when in 1968, a USB 22 bomber crashed and exploded on sea ice off the north Greenland coast. The explosion ruptured the nuclear payload consisting of four Thermo nuclear devices and scattered debris and nuclear material across a wide area of CIS.
Although Danish and us, or authorities undertook a cleanup and attempted to collect and remove all the debris. It is clear that not all of the debris and contamination could have been removed as the secondary stage of one bomb containing uranium 2 38 plutonium and tritium has never been recovered on the basis of short-term research. It has been concluded by the authorities that most of the plutonium variously estimated to be between 7.5 and 24 kilograms in mass is currently sequestered in seabed sediments, and not available to most biota or human populations. How, however, as is the case with the camp century pollution in the context of climate change and the increasing severity of Marine and meteorological conditions, intensity of storminess wave height, and the possibility of major changes in regional Marine currents, this sequestered isolation of the bomber material must not be expected to last. One of the problems with working in Greenland is that like all other Arctic sites, it’s relatively isolated and not particularly easy waters to work in.
And the radiological inventories of these accident events remains very poorly qualified as do the long-term environmental Marine food web and human impact. So having looked at all this stuff, there’s a natural concern to try and identify what might be the doses to human populations as a result of this very heavy nuclearization of the Arctic ocean. And unfortunately, there’s virtually nothing there. What we have is that during and after the construction of the test ban treaty, it was agreed that Arctic residents whose diets comprised a large proportion of traditional hunted gathered foodstuffs had received the highest radiation exposures to weapons test radio neutralize. And it was a pretty wide agreement that the most exposed population groups in the Arctic may have on average received up to 50 times higher individual doses than members of the average population and using architect’s specific information. The predicted collective population dose is five times higher than that estimated for more temperate areas, such as Northern Europe or the bulk of the states.
And most of the Southern Canada, where the source of dose is reasonably well, understood calculations have shown that significant doses can be delivered to Arctic populations, thus individual annual doses to the most exposed residents of the Arctic from Chernobyl fallout have been calculated for reindeer herding and hunting gathering communities at approximately 10 to 20 microsieverts in the most effected area. So that’s about as high as the Japanese lifted the limits for populations in and around Kashima after the Fukushima incident. So you can appreciate that’s pretty high, and these are people living thousands of miles away from the journal bill source. By contrast to that, 10 to 20 microsieverts releases arriving in the Arctic from the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK, provide a small contribution. I, in the range of maybe naught point naught five microsieverts, it has been estimated that dosage to humans from the reactors of the sunken nuclear submarines are currently very low indeed.
And this has been attributed to the fact that so far reactor shielding has not broken down for which we must surely will be very grateful. However, the churn of IL related data quoted above gives you a powerful indication of the kind of impacts that we might be seeing if we had an in Arctic reactor or nuclear warhead release, regrettably though, as I’ve indicated earlier, due to difficult working conditions and the remoteness of much of the Arctic serious estimates of aggregated total radioactivity locked in seabed and intertidal sediments, and in the Arctic water mass or in the remaining Arctic ice are pretty much non-existent. The few studies that have been undertaken have been widely spread across a large sea area and present very variable outcomes. The majority of the researchers focused on the sun couldn’t Russian and Soviet nuclear submarines in the barons and the car seat and on the Russian Soviet test site, nuclear test site at Novi as M liar in the car.
I see, but elsewhere research has been very thinly spread and this militates against any comprehensive Arctic wide environmental or population estimates for the same reason, both individual and population dose estimates are similarly incomplete and incoherent and are additionally inadequate because the prohibited expense of analyzing samples for all of the radioactivity likely to be present means that research tend to focus on a very limited number of radio nuclear codes, sometimes only one and thus returns, thoroughly unrepresentative data dose estimates from Marine environments. Also based on the outdated assumption that Marine radioactivity dose can only be acquired via a limited number of pathways. Three, in fact, seafood consumption skin contact with Marine materials and accidental ingestion of Marine materials, such as beach, sand, or seawater such assumptions have been clearly disproved by recent independent academic investigation, which now recognizes nine such pathways of exposure to Marine radioactivity.
So the big problem with the Arctic is that there are indeed many potential sources of radiological threats. Russia has an ever-growing fleet of nuclear submarines. Their Arctic Northern fleet has about 20 nuclear submarines, some capable of carrying 120 nuclear weapons and missiles each such that it is believed that as many as a thousand nuclear warheads could be deployed in the Arctic by the Russian fleet. If you add into that, the fact that the U S is also putting its own nuclear submarines and other vessels into the Arctic in order to watch and harass the operations of the Russian fleet, you can see that that’s an even bigger threat. So in addition to the submarine issue, Russia has 10 nuclear powered twin reactor icebreakers, some decommissioned, but more being built. The nuclear powered freighter seven report has two reactors and the floating nuclear power station referred to earlier also has two reactors.
So there are currently at least 44 maritime reactors deployed in the Arctic. So we’ve got a thousand nuclear missiles, a thousand nuclear warheads, 44 maritime reactors deployed in the Arctic. And in addition, there are an unknown, but clearly growing number of shipments of maritime, civilian nuclear cargo. So that’s supply ships to nuclear floating reactors and military nuclear basis taking material, nuclear material in those bases and bringing use material out. And then we’ve got the military sites and the test sites, we’ve got the historical legacy from atmospheric and weapons tests and accidents, and the U S inputs from camp century and lost bombs and Russian Marine dumps of nuclear waste material and lost nuclear subs. We’ve got the issue of ice and permafrost melt, which is as we speak releasing radioactive fallout and wash out from ice melt into the ocean, increasing rainfall on the river systems and river basins is going to flush terrestrial radio activity from those areas into the ocean.
So it’s important to remember that as of yet, there is no method for the radiological decontamination of environments by odor or humans. And that flushing by applying copious amount of water is the only system of decontaminating radioactive material, such as those we’ve been looking at. And all that flashing is inevitably going to end up in your ocean anyway. So biota, including humans can flush at a certain amount of radioactivity by excluding it from their systems, but since many radionuclides preferentially attached to bone teeth, organs, or blood such processes, do not remove all of the radioactivity. And indeed create the ideal scenario for long-term internal exposure of humans and animals. Such excretory processes are of minimal benefit to those living a traditional life, which ensures that they must consume a local diet gained from a longterm radiologically polluted environment. And I’ll just remind you again, that due to the difficult working conditions and the remoteness of much of the Arctic response to Arctic nuclear releases is going to be severely restricted due to ambient conditions of seasonality meteorology, see an ice state and time constraints imposed by the enormous distance that many of these nuclear installations are set at, as opposed to the base of nuclear expertise back home in mother Russia and mother us.
So in conclusion is my thoughts that the significant nuclear accidents in the Arctic are pretty much inevitable with accompanying major releases to atmosphere and aquatic environments of multiple radionuclides in the context of the massive weaknesses and failures of response. We have seen the Chernobyl and Fukushima and other nuclear disasters situated close to relatively good communication and transport routes and a reservoir of technical expertise. It seems to me that an Arctic ocean nuclear disaster occurring at enormous distances from such facilities is likely to progress faster and further than churn Lowville or Foco Shima the Arctic ocean with an area of only about 6.1 million square miles is far and away. The world’s smallest ocean yet it has possibly the longest history of important nuclear pollution and the in ocean deployment of multiple uses of nuclear power under the current conditions. It can, without doubt, be defined as the most nuclear ocean with more Marine nuclear activity, compressed into a smaller area than any other ocean.
All the signs are that the future can only see the process become more accelerated. And the nuclearization and attendant radiological risks become more intense in the context that the Arctic has numerous sources of its own manmade radiological inputs. And that it is clearly also a conduit for the inter ocean distribution of other Northern hemisphere Marine radioactivity from the Atlantic to the Arctic, to the Pacific. It is clear that Northern hemisphere, coastal maritime nations cannot escape the potential problems arising from the nuclear ization of the Arctic ocean. So I believe it is imperative that Arctic and other governments address this issue with alacrity and set in motion, a series of international Arctic wide agreements to limit the nuclearization process set in place, memorandums of understanding. So the management and response to and mitigation of any radiological incident and consider the radiological implications for the Arctic Marine environment and for both the traditional indigenous Arctic peoples and those many thousands of immigrant workers now living in the new resource extraction industries and their associated developments along the Arctic coast of the Arctic ocean. This is Tim deer Jones, Marine radioactivity research and consultant. Thank you very much for this,
And thank you very much for providing that Tim UK based Marine biologist, researcher and consultant, Tim dear Joan, Tim has provided a PDF of this exclusive presentation, and we have it available for you on our website, nuclear hot seat.com under this episode. Number 5 53. Great news for the show is that Tim has agreed to come on board nuclear, hot seat as a special correspondent on Marine issues. And he will be presenting his information regularly in the coming year and hopefully far beyond. And next week, if there’s time, I’ll share an outtake from our post presentation. Chit-chat where Tim and I get down and dirty and morbidly funny about how we deal with the pressure of facing so much nuclear awfulness every week,
And open letter urging nuclear weapons states to adopt no first use and other policies to ensure that a nuclear war is never fought, was delivered to leaders of the nuclear five China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These are also the five countries that are on the UN security council. The letter was also delivered to leaders of the other 185 countries, which are states parties to the NPT or non-proliferation treaty the open letter in titled fulfill the NPT from nuclear threats to human security was organized by no first use global, a global network of organizations, academics, policymakers, and to civil society advocates. It has so far been endorsed by over 1000 signatories from 69 countries, including former government ministers and ambassadors parliamentarians, Nobel laureates, former military commanders, and high-level officials of the United nations, leading scientists, religious leaders, business leaders, and representatives of civil society organizations from around the world and nuclear hot seat.
We’ll have a link to the actual letter text, and also a way that you can continue to sign this for yourself as an individual or groups that you belong to. That will be up on our website, nuclear seat.com. Under this episode, number 5 53, this has been nuclear hot seat for Tuesday, January 25th, 2022. The material for this week show has been researched and compiled from nuclear-news.net renard.wordpress.com beyond nuclear.org nears.org. The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, or I can w.org npr.org nuclear ban treaty collaborative arclight.blogspot.com. Counter punched.org, gen.gg.com, NHK dot O r.jp reuters.com. The bulletin.org, no first use global.org, bloomberg.com. Climate rocks.com, express.co.uk Cumbria, cracked.com and the ever captured and compromised by the industry. They’re supposed to be regulating nuclear regulatory commission. Now it’s easy for you to never miss another episode of nuclear hotseat. And that is you can get it delivered by an email every week.
As soon as the show posts, how do you get on the list? Easy. You know what to do? Go to nuclear hot seat.com. Look for the yellow box and sign up for weekly email links to the latest show. It also includes a short summary of some of the material that you’ll find there. Now, speaking of stories, if you’ve got a story lead, a hot tip or suggestion of someone to interview, you’re on the ground, you’re seeing it up close and personal, and that’s how we keep up with the stories that are out there. So if you know any of this and think that we should be covering it, let us know, send an email to [email protected] and a reminder that if you appreciate weekly verifiable news updates about nuclear issues around the world, take a moment and go to nuclear, hot seat.com and look for that big red button, click on it, follow the prompts and know that anything that you can do to help will be greatly appreciated because we can’t do this show without your support.
This episode of nuclear hot seat is copyright 2022 libi Halevi and hardest streak communications, all rights reserved, but they’re use allowed as long as proper attribution is provided. This is Leiby Halevi of heart history, communications, the heart of the art of communicating, reminding you that we can always come up with the date that a nuclear emergency begins, but we can never come up with a date that it’s over because once it starts, it’s never over. That’s it. You have just hand your nuclear wake-up call. So don’t go back to sleep because we are all in the nuclear hot seat,
Claire hot seat. What are those people thinking? Nuclear hot seat. What have those boys been braking clear, hot seat. The time to act is shrinking, but Hotsy, it’s the bomb.