My Heart Faileth When I Behold Radioactive Rainbows In The Sky

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


A UK so-called planning firm “One Creative Environments” has proposed the most bizarrely stupid idea for “beautifying” the proposed Westinghouse-Toshiba AP 1000 Nuclear Power Station (Moorside) in Cumbria, UK – fake rainbows over the nuclear site. But, there will be real radioactive rainbows due to the planned radioactive discharges from the nuclear power station, making the fake rainbows as sickening as silly. The uranium might even come from the area of the Grand Canyon, as explained further below.

As Radiation Free Lakeland points out “This isn’t a spoof, wish it was it would be the best ever….” In an embarrassment to the concept of planning in general and British Town and Country planning in particular the “plan” calls for “two large glass towers that would use light and mist to create a continual arching rainbow over the site….” See image and more here: https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/nuclear-power-farts-rainbows-official/

A rainbow requires water droplets to be floating in the air. That’s why we see them right after it rains. The Sun must be behind you and the clouds cleared away from the Sun for the rainbow to appear.” https://scijinks.gov/rainbow/ The tritiated water from the huge tritium discharges will presumably make for radioactive rainbows.

Notes Peter Roche: “According to the Environment Agency’s AP1000 Assessment Report on gaseous radioactive waste disposal and limits published in 2011 (9), it is expected that each year the proposed AP1000-type reactors would emit to air 1800 gigabecquerels 1 (GBq) of tritium; 606 GBq of carbon-14; 8047 GBq of radioactive noble gases and 210 MBq of radio-iodines…. A becquerel (Bq) is a unit of radioactivity: it means one nuclear disintegration (or decay) per second. Each disintegration results in the emission of radiation. One GBq means one billion disintegrations per second, and one MBq means one million disintegrations per second….” Excerpt from “The AP1000 Nuclear Reactors proposed for Moorside in Cumbria and their Environmental Impact.” By Pete Roche, July 2017 http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AP1000_Nuclear_Reactors_and_their_Environmental_Impact.pdf

A becquerel is essentially one radioactive shot per second. Clustered DNA damage is considered a signature of ionizing radiation: “clustered DNA damage sites, which may be considered as a signature of ionising radiation, underlie the deleterious biological consequences of ionising radiation…ionising radiation creates significant levels of clustered DNA damage, including complex double-strand breaks (DSB)” See: “Biological Consequences of Radiation-induced DNA Damage: Relevance to Radiotherapy“, by M.E. Lomax et. al. Clinical Oncology 25 (2013) 578-585. “The formation of clustered damage distinguishes ionising radiation-induced damage from normal endogenous damage: https://cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/non_dsb_lesions_projrep_en.pdf More here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/on-the-unique-dna-damage-done-by-ionizing-radiation-nuclear-materials-and-on-metting-hultgren-et-al-misleading-the-us-congress-in-this-matter/

The Toshiba owned Westinghouse AP 1000 looks like a milk churn or can. Maybe they should stick a plastic cow in front of the visitors centre to replace the real cows?

The UK Nuclear Beauty Pageant apparently has its roots in the former Minister of Energy (DECC), Amber Rudd’s, seemingly dizzy statement 2 years ago: “Beautiful’ nuclear power stations can win over sceptics, says Energy Secretary Amber Rudd“, Friday 5 June 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/beautiful-nuclear-power-stations-can-win-over-sceptics-says-energy-secretary-amber-rudd-10301365.html Is it more than a PR stunt? It is more pork barrel contract money. Are there are conflicts of interest involved in this stunt, and how many?

Scientists keep discovering that nuclear is more deadly than initially thought. Based on the Oct. 2015 multi-government-funded study of nuclear workers, cancer risk appears around 15 times higher than even BEIR VII (ca 2005) concluded, maybe even higher: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/another-look-at-the-recent-low-dose-radiation-exposure-study-inworks. There are well-known risks of heart disease and cataracts. Cataract-heart disease damage occurs at lower doses than previously admitted. The cancers are life-shortening by about 14-15 years, too. Thus, the heart may literally fail due to the radioactive rainbows. And, one may be too blinded from cataracts to see rainbows, and miss over a decade of life chance to watch real rainbows in the sky.

According to a US Nuclear Lab (LBL), tritiated water (HTO) enters the body through breathing, ingestion, skin absorption from contaminated air and water, and “experiments show that exposure to tritiated water results in mutations and cell disruptions that can lead to cancer, heritable genetic defects, and reproductive and developmental effects [Straume, 1993]….although the health effects of the beta doses from tritium are believed to be qualitatively similar to health effects of gamma rays, the beta rays are believed to be more potent per unit energy deposition than gamma rays“. Nonetheless, dumping Fukushima tritiated (radioactive) water into the Pacific and evaporating it into air have continued to be practiced and proposed for Fukushima. Why? The reason seems unfathomable. Perhaps they don’t want word to get out that tritiated water can be filtered because it is obviously cheaper to just dump it into the air, ground and waterways, as the nuclear industry does the world over? And, governments-nuclear industry might have to clean up tritium contamination? A 2014 US DOE document states that it will continue to dump tritiated water into “slow-moving” groundwater at Hanford because filtering would cost between 12 cents to 50 cents per liter, for the energy, and less than one cent to dump it into groundwater. Tritiated water is highly corrosive so storage containers need to be monitored and frequently replaced. A half life of 12.7 years still means that it will be radioactive for well over 100 years, but that it degrades quickly enough that it must be replaced for nuclear weapon upkeep. Read more here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/tritiated-water-hto-can-must-be-filtered-hto-causes-cancer-genetic-reproductive-defects/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/recovery-of-tritium-from-tritiated-waste-water-cost-effectiveness-analysis/

Radiation biologist Dr. Ian Fairlie has written extensively on tritium hazards and he remains conservative in his risk analysis: http://www.ianfairlie.org
He is the author of this important document, among others: “Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities” By Dr. Ian Fairlie June 2007 http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2007/6/tritium-report-canadian-facilities.pdf

As Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland explains: “According to the designers, the rainbow installation was inspired by a William Wordsworth poem remarking on the beauty of Cumbria, “My heart leaps up when I behold a rainbow in the sky”. The poem is actually about mans relationship with nature. Every aspect of nuclear power is an assault on the natural world from the ripping out of uranium in Greenland [or the Grand Canyon] to the plan to dump high level nuclear wastes in Borrowdale Granite. No amount of beautification can hide the obscenity of nuclear….
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/nuclear-beautifying-competitions-endorsing-the-dangers-of-new-nuclear-reactors/

My Heart Leaps Up
William Wordsworth, 1770 – 1850
My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

The uranium for Moorside Nuclear Power Station might even come from the area of the Grand Canyon. Canadian Miner Energy Fuels’ Canyon Uranium Mine is six miles from the Grand Canyon’s south rim. See more here: http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/uranium-mining. Energy Fuels is partially owned by South Korea KEPCO. Shares held by KEPCO were recently transferred to KHNP Canada Energy Ltd., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of KEPCO. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000106299317000294/form8k.htm

Over at the Canyon Mine site itself… Small cannon on the edge of the pond were spraying plumes of the radioactive water removed from the inundated shaft into the air to evaporate in the hot sun.” See “In the Grand Canyon, uranium mining threatens a tribe’s survival: The Havasupai are attempting to fight back against the operation of a uranium mine that they say could contaminate their sole water source ” by Joanna Walters in Supai Village, Arizona, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/grand-canyon-uranium-mining-havasupai-tribe-water-source

Grand Canyon National Park: Rainbow From Pima Point
Pima Point along Hermit Road on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park is one of the best places on the rim to see and sometimes hear the river. The splash and grind of Granite Rapids below can be heard echoing up the canyon walls on quiet days. The paved Greenway Trail continues from here towards Hermits Rest, allowing bicyclists and visitors using wheelchairs to share the path with pedestrians. NPS Photo by Michael Quinn. Learn more about viewpoints along the Hermit Road here:
http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/hermit-road.htm

The UK decided to hold an architectural beauty pageant (aka architectural contest) for a Japanese (Toshiba-Westinghouse) nuclear power station in England, even as they cut true renewable power such as wind and solar. Along with nuclear they are burning the forests of the southeastern US to replace coal. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/where-the-wood-pellet-industry-threatens-us-forests/ Is the former Minister of Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, just a bumpkin simpleton, as she sometimes appears? Or, is there something hidden behind her apparent foolishness?

As explained by The Ecologist: “Since its election to power in May 2015, the Conservative government has unleashed an astonishing series of attacks on the UK’s renewable energy sector which has included:
* an end to subsidies for onshore wind;
* onerous planning requirements for onshore wind
* the failure to raise the ‘subsidy cap’ for renewable energy
* last year’s cuts to large scale solar farms;
* today’s cuts to medium scale solar farms;
* the deliberate undermining of investor confidence in renewables;
* the scrapping of the requirement for new homes to be ‘zero carbon from April 2016;
* the withdrawal of the Climate Change Levy exemption for renewables;
* huge cuts in support for solar power;
* and most recently, the removal of EIS tax relief for investors in community renewable energy projects.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986190/leaked_letter_rudd_admits_25_green_energy_undershoot_misled_parliament.html
See too: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/solar-panel-subsidies-face-heavy-cuts-in-climate-change-hammer-blow-a6777336.html

These are large amounts of radioactivity when compared with the French EPR proposed for Hinkley Point C…. Even Westinghouse’s own comparison of total predicted gaseous radioactive emissions from the AP1000 with published emissions from other nuclear reactor types shows these have lower discharges. Westinghouse data show the predicted AP1000 annual discharges are lower than those from Cook 1 and Sizewell B, but higher than those from South Texas 1, Braidwood 1 and Vogtle 1… A becquerel (Bq) is a unit of radioactivity: it means one nuclear disintegration (or decay) per second. Each disintegration results in the emission of radiation. One GBq means one billion disintegrations per second, and one MBq means one million disintegrations per second….” Excerpted from “The AP1000 Nuclear Reactors proposed for Moorside in Cumbria and their Environmental Impact.” By Pete Roche July 2017 http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AP1000_Nuclear_Reactors_and_their_Environmental_Impact.pdf