Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Orange Country Register reporter's pro-nuke bias is showing...

September 22nd, 2016

To the Editor, Orange County Register:

The following letter was sent to Teri Sforza yesterday, after her latest article about SanO's waste problem was published.

Best regards,

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA


Ms Sforza,

You wrote:

"...Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee – who dearly wants to see more reactors as part of a clean energy future..."

There is nothing "clean" about nuclear power. You could have worded that sentence this way (change in CAPS):

"...Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee – who dearly wants to see more reactors as part of a WHAT HE BELIEVES WOULD BE A clean energy future..."

But you didn't.

You also claimed that the Texas and New Mexico proposed "temporary" (I use that word sarcastically) nuclear waste sites "could be up and running while the prickly question of finding a location for a permanent hashed out."

There are at least two problems with that statement: First of all, there is no reason to believe the "temporary" sites will actually ever come to fruition-- if if they do, that they would in fact be temporary. There are changes to a variety of laws protecting citizens for outsiders imposing waste dumps on them that would have to be made, and the transportation infrastructure would need to be rebuilt to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for the roads and rails to be safe enough for such transport. Additionally, liability for the waste would have to be transferred to the storage locations, or the utilities will refuse the deal, since, as Tom Palmisano has stated, in his refusal to consider even sending SanO's waste to Palo Verde (with its much sparser population density, and no tsunami risk and very little earthquake risk), which SCE is a part owner of, that SCE does not want to be held legally responsible for the waste when they cannot control how well it is managed. So either the "temporary" site will have to accept the liability along with the waste -- which no sane company would do -- or there would have to be significant and complex changes to the laws governing liability for nuclear waste.

And this all ignores the additional fact that the majority of citizens of every state in the union do not desire to become the nation's nuclear waste repository.

Second of all, what you call the "root of the present paralysis" in finding a permanent waste site is not something that can simply be "hashed out." Rather, it is something that cannot be scientifically resolved at all! It is, in a word, impossible to find a safe permanent solution. Your article strongly implies otherwise. But if you were around (which as far as I know, you weren't) for the Yucca Mountain hearings, you would have heard about the ~300 science-based objections to Yucca Mountain by Nevada's experts, and dozens more by California's experts, and hundreds more by citizens around the country -- and if you had been around even longer ago, you would have learned that Yucca Mountain was chosen because every other site in the country had already been rejected for other reasonable reasons: Too close to population centers, unstable ground, water tables flowing past them that provide drinking water to millions of people, tornadoes, tsunamis...and yes, there was also, and always will be, enormous public opposition to having a site nearby. Nobody wants this waste and that's never going to change.

Also disappointing and indicating bias was your statement, regarding reactors in California, that: "All are shut down, or will close shortly..." DCNPP is not scheduled to close until 2025, and there is in fact no binding agreement that guarantees it will close even then. In the meantime, it will produce, if it doesn't melt down, millions of pounds of additional nuclear waste, none of which has any possibility of safe storage. The fact is: DCNPP is neither "scheduled to close" and certainly not "shortly." It has made an offer, which it does not have to act on ever, and which Mothers for Peace, for example -- the longest-running intervenor at DCNPP (or perhaps anywhere) refused to be a party to, in part because there's nothing binding about it.

Lastly, I was disappointed that your article didn't discuss a topic which Tom Palmisano had said, at the most recent SCE/CEP meeting last week, was the most critical issue in storing nuclear waste: Avoiding criticality events. None of the "temporary" sites have any plan whatsoever to render a criticality event impossible: They are all (including the ~70 current "temporary" waste sites in America, including all in California) vulnerable to airplane strikes and terrorism, not to mention earthquakes and, for coastal "temporary" sites (like SanO and DCNPP), tsunamis. Any of these events are capable of causing a criticality event in spent fuel, because "spent" fuel is only financially no longer viable fuel: There is still plenty of fissile material in it.

But neutralizing the U-235 and Pu-239 WOULD make criticality events impossible, and that can be done using laser-produced photons in the 10 to 15 MeV range. Doing so would not only make criticality events impossible, and render extraction of bomb-making material impossible too, but it would also reduce the required storage time from about half a million years to a "mere" 600 or so -- nearly three times the life of this nation so far, but still a far more manageable and understandable length of time than how long any other waste "solution" must be projected out. (After that time, the fuel would be only about four times more dangerous than so-called "depleted" uranium, still not puff-pastry, but far less dangerous than fission products and/or fissile materials.)

Without neutralization, we are talking about lengths of time far longer than the pyramids have stood. Far longer than man has walked erect. Far longer than any imaginable building or facility will last.

Instead, Dianne Feinstein is demanding that some poverty-stricken community take the waste -- for a bribe ($25 million has already been set aside by the DOE for downpayments on those bribes) -- in order to somehow cause the rest of the country to "accept" nuclear power and believe it is "safe" in spite of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and 1,000 close calls besides those events.

The real lesson of Yucca Mountain is that safe storage of nuclear waste is impossible, and creating more of it is irresponsible.

If you're going to write pro-nuclear articles, you should apply for work with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the World Nuclear Association or the International Atomic Energy Association, the latter of which has always claimed to be unbiased, but isn't, in part due to the information it considers. As a recent article in the Times of London put it, nuke plants are guilty of "not reporting to national regulators [about accidents], regulators not reporting to the IAEA, & the IAEA not reporting at all." They'll accept your biased statements without question. The OCR should not.

If you are going to write for an American newspaper, please be fair and balanced, factual and unbiased in any direction.

Best regards,

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

Link to Times article cited above:

Link to OCR article:

Sunday, August 28, 2016

The dangers of (and potential solutions for) spent fuel at San Onofre

To: "Terry Sforza" <>

August 28, 2016

Ms Sforza,

Regarding your recent article (shown below) about spent fuel at San Onofre, I suggest you dig deeper into the reality of nuclear waste problems in America -- literally and figuratively. Maybe doing so would provide the proper warning to residents around Diablo Canyon, that 10 more years of making nuclear waste is going to be a big problem for them -- it could be those NEW canisters which crack and leak, maybe 100 (or 100,000) years from now when they STILL haven't moved "to a new zip code" as Tom Palmisano would put it. Maybe in as little as 17 years or less, not the 80 years EPRI estimates, because EPRI didn't look at all the available data.

There's no "zip code" in America where the waste would be safe, none where it's wanted, none were it's safe to transport it to. And Mr. Palmisano is even ignoring his own backyard (literally and figuratively) where the waste would be most likely to go -- Palo Verde. As part-owner of that still-making-waste nuclear power plant, it's within his power to at least push for the waste to go there -- much farther from population centers, much farther from earthquake and tsunami zones than it is right now... and go there now, and why not? Why doesn't he push for that?

Because then, Southern California Edison would still be in legal possession of the waste. Mr. Palmisano claimed in writing that the reason PVNPP isn't a good solution is because then SCE wouldn't have "control" of the waste, as if they don't trust APS (Arizona Public Service, a misnomer if ever there was one) to run a nuclear power plant and handle it's own associated waste pile -- which is, or will be, far larger than ours, since they continue to operate three nuclear power plants and, unlike SCE, were successful in replacing their steam generators for another couple of decades of nuclear waste-making.

But look around the country: Where do you think the waste will go? WIPP suffered an explosive release of kitty-litter-laden plutonium 2 1/2 years ago and hasn't been able to operate since, and would never have taken spent fuel waste anyway. No other waste location is anywhere near opening IN PART because the legal conditions of shipping the waste include SCE (and other NPPs) relinquishing legal responsibility for the waste they've made -- if Palmisano doesn't trust PVNPP to properly handle the storage of the waste (as he's stated), then he's sure not going to trust some operator that doesn't even run a nuclear power plant, is he? Of course not -- even though "proper management" is expected to consist of nothing more than having a guy with a pea-shooter walk around the waste canisters once or twice a day.

While they rust, in unseen places. (There's no way to inspect the canisters for developing leaks, and even if some portions of the outside COULD be inspected, the insides can't be, and the main pressure points underneath, which take the 200,000-pound weight, can't be, with any current technology.)

Meanwhile, Palmisano has thus far utterly ignored the very real prospect of neutralizing the Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239 components of the waste, a process which is possible using high-energy lasers in the 10 to 15 MeV range, using a patent-pending process developed by Peter M. Livingston of Palos Verdes, California.

By destroying those two components of the waste in situ, three major problems with nuclear waste are solved: Most importantly, the waste is no longer a proliferation risk, meaning, it can no longer be made into nuclear bombs by terrorists, Trump, or any other fool.

Second, the long-term storage problem going out half a million years (caused mainly by the extremely toxic Plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,100 years) is largely solved, or rather reduced to "only" about 600 years, the life of the fission products in the waste (most fission products have half-lives of 30 years or less, meaning they would be practically completely decayed to stable isotopes within about six centuries (20 half-lives).

Our nation is barely 240 years old, and most of our infrastructure is already crumbling -- including the road and bridges on which the waste would need to be moved, but it can be neutralized right here at San Onofre.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the waste would no longer be a criticality risk. A criticality event can occur in spent fuel any time over the next umpteen millenniums because of the fissile isotopes -- U-235 and Pu-239. All you need for that to happen is something that places the spent fuel closer together, and the intrusion of water or some other neutron moderator: An airplane crash, deformation of the rods by ground movement, or tsunami, or other forces such as terrorist bombs. Even just having the fuel rods crumble and fall to the bottom of a dry cask through aging could gather enough fuel too close together, initiating a criticality event -- which is a large explosion, possible large enough to cause additional criticality events in other nearby spent fuel canisters. Adding water or some other moderator to a sufficient amount of deformed fuel would guarantee a catastrophic criticality event.

The spent fuel at San Onofre contains thousands of times more radioactivity than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs together released. A spent fuel fire, even without a criticality event, would be a disaster for southern California to the tune of tens of thousands of lives (mainly from cancer, which I can tell you from experience is nothing pleasant even if it doesn't kill you) and trillions of dollars. The wind blows inland here, across America, so it would be a national calamity the likes of which the world has never seen (even Chernoby and Fukushima together released (and are releasing) less radioactivity that could be released in a cascade of criticality events at San Onofre).

The "spent" nuclear fuel is not safe where it is, that's for sure. The need for thicker, stronger canisters IS what we need to be resolving right now, Mr. Palmisano is dead-wrong about that. "Moving forward" is beginning the process of fissile isotope neutralization. It's not looking for some sucker to take our waste, that era of mass-stupidity ended decades ago. Nobody wants the waste and they can get on the Internet to learn why it's not safe. Nobody is going to take it. Nobody is that stupid anymore. Not even Palo Verde will take our waste, even as they make their own massive quantities of nuclear waste. Diablo Canyon won't take it, even as they too continue to make their own waste through 2025 at least (the agreement to shut down then is not binding).

Tom Palmisano should stop looking past his own back yard for a solution. There are no cheap solutions, and the thin (1/2 inch to 5/8ths inch) canisters he is using are utterly inadequate for even short-term storage of the waste. 37 fuel assemblies in each one is far too many. (We were promised, when dry cask storage was first proposed for San Onofre about 15 years ago, only FOUR fuel assemblies in each canister, greatly reducing the risk of a criticality event and making the casks far easier to transport away from here if a place ever opened up. And we were promised 2-inch thick steel, not 5/8ths of an inch.)

The nuclear industry, if nothing else, is consistent in never living up to their assurances. They have utterly failed us in spent fuel management. It's time for the public to face the seriousness of this issue, because once the waste gets out -- and it will -- nothing can be done to prevent cancers and many other ailments throughout the world.

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

OC Register article about spent fuel:


At San Onofre, spent nuclear fuel is getting special tomb

Aug. 27, 2016

Updated 10:18 p.m.
Wood squares mark the spots where containers of spent fuel will be encased in concrete at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The numbered cement walls in the foreground are also spent fuel.



• There are 3,855 spent fuel assemblies stored at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, from all three reactors that operated at the site over more than four decades.

• Two-thirds of those ­ 2,668 fuel assemblies ­ are cooling in the spent fuel pools.

• One-third ­ 1,187 assemblies ­ are housed in 50 above-ground dry casks.

SOURCE: Southern California Edison

• Edison will choose a general contractor to oversee San Onofre's $4.4 billion teardown this fall, probably in October. Three corporate teams are vying for that contract: Westinghouse/Bechtel, CB&I/Team Holtec/Black & Veatch, and Kiewit/Energy Solutions/AECOM.

• In addition to the $4.4 billion to permanently shutter San Onofre ­ which customers already have funded via their electric bills over the decades ­ there's the contentious matter of who'll pay the $4.7 billion in early-shutdown costs (largely to buy replacement power when premature tube wear in the new steam generators forced the reactors offline in 2012). Edison and consumer groups originally agreed that the overwhelming bulk of the premature-shutdown bill would be borne by ratepayers ($3.3 billion), while Edison's shareholders would shoulder the rest ($1.4 billion). That agreement was reopened in May after charges that Edison and state regulators had improper back-room talks about the deal. An administrative law judge is expected to make a recommendation on that soon.

More on decommissioning, and Edison's video explainers, at

Waves crash on the rocks below San Onofre's tsunami wall, but it's the only sound.

The pipes that roared when they sucked in 1.8 billion gallons of ocean water a day ­ pipes as wide as a Cadillac Coupe de Ville is long ­ are silent. The catch pools that once teemed with fish are still and dark. A cage for errant sea lions rests in a far corner, empty.

"They'd chase the fish in here," Jim Madigan said of the sea lions and the catch pools.

"We'd put them in the crates and take them to Laguna Beach to be checked out and returned to the ocean," added Madigan, who has worked at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in one capacity or another for 35 years.

"There was more than one repeat visitor."

Once, San Onofre was a marvel of modern engineering ­ splitting atoms to create heat, boiling water to spin turbines and creating electricity that fulfilled 18 percent of Southern California's demand. Now, it's a demolition project of mind-boggling proportions, overseen by a dozen government agencies.

It's expected to cost $4.4 billion, take 20 years and leave millions of pounds of spent nuclear fuel on the scenic bluff beside the blue Pacific until 2049 or so, because the federal government has dithered for generations on finding a permanent repository.

In this vacuum, contractors from Holtec International ­ one of only a handful of companies licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do dry-cask radiation storage in the U.S. ­ are at work. Construction of the controversial "concrete monolith" to protect San Onofre's stranded waste has begun, over the protests of critics who decry a "beachfront nuclear waste dump."


The reinforced concrete pad that will support the monolith is finished.

Last week, Holtec workers used cranes and trucks to maneuver the first of 75 giant tubes into place atop it. When those tubes are bolted in, concrete will be poured up to their necks, and they'll be topped off with a 24,000-pound steel-and-concrete lid. Earth will be piled around it so that it looks something like an underground bunker.

Southern California Edison, which operates the plant, would not share the Holtec contract or reveal its price tag, but San Onofre's owners have recovered more than $300 million from the federal government for its failure to dispose of nuclear waste, which is why dry-cask storage must be built in the first place. San Onofre's decommissioning plan sets aside $1.27 billion for future spent fuel management.

This is one of the first newly licensed Hi-Storm Umax dry-cask storage systems Holtec is building in the United States. Once it's complete ­ expected to be late next year ­ workers will begin the deliberate and delicate dance of removing all spent fuel from cooling pools beside each reactor.

The iconic twin domes you see from the highway and the beach don't reveal their enormity. They stand as tall as a 13-story building, and the adjacent pools holding their spent fuel are 25 feet wide, 60 feet long, about 40 to 50 feet deep and hold a half-million gallons of water.

When Southern California Edison begins removing the 2,668 fuel assemblies chilling there, bays to those enormous pools will open. Holtec storage canisters will be lowered in. Underwater, 37 spent fuel assemblies will be loaded into each canister and capped. The canister will be slipped into a "transfer cask," lifted from the pool and drained.

Then it will be loaded onto a truck, driven a few hundred yards to the Umax and lowered into one of those 75 tubes. The waste-filled canister will remain inside. The transfer cask will be removed. The tube will be capped.

This will be repeated more than 70 times, until all the fuel in the more vulnerable pools is entombed in more stable dry-cask storage. That's slated to be done by mid-2019.


The system will become something of a real-time experiment: Edison is partnering with the Electric Power Research Institute to develop inspection techniques to monitor the casks as they age. The casks' integrity over time, while holding hotter "high burn-up" fuel, is a major concern of critics.

"Burn-up" ­ i.e., the amount of uranium that undergoes fission ­ has increased over time, allowing utilities to suck more power out of nuclear fuel before replacing it, federal regulators say. It first came into wide use in America in the latter part of the last century, and how it will behave in short-term storage containers (which, pending changes in U.S. policy on nuclear cleanup, must be used for longer-term storage) remains a topic of debate.

Tom Palmisano, chief nuclear officer at Edison and vice president for decommissioning, leans over a picture on a computer screen.

The image is a cut-away of a storage cask, and inside the cask's ventilation ducts is a tiny, motorized camera. One version of the robot can attach to metal surfaces via magnets; another can attach to nonmetal surfaces via suction.

"The tooling to go inside and inspect these things is being developed ­ it's an industrywide effort," Palmisano said. "We've got visual inspection capability, and we're working on other quantifiable inspection capabilities."

But dry-cask technology is not new, he said. Nuclear power plants in the U.S. have used it since 1986, and an analysis by the Electric Power Research Institute found that it would take at least 80 years before a severe crack could form in a dry storage canister.

The Umax uses the most corrosion-resistant grade of stainless steel; its design exceeds California earthquake requirements, and it protects against hazards such as water, fire or tsunamis.

Critics cast skeptical eyes on those claims.

They don't disagree that dry storage is safer than the spent fuel pools, but activist Donna Gilmore says officials gloss over the potential for serious cracking ­ a bigger risk in a moist, salty, oceanfront environment such as San Onofre.

Once a crack starts, it would continue to grow through the wall of the canister, undetected, until it leaked radiation, Gilmore said.

Other countries use thicker-walled casks than those licensed in America, and she believes we should, too.


What everyone wants is to remove the ensconced "stranded waste" from San Onofre as soon as possible, and the only way that can happen is if the federal government takes action.

Palmisano said energy is best expended pushing that forward, not arguing over canisters.

On that front, he is cautiously optimistic.

In January, the U.S. Department of Energy launched a new push to create temporary nuclear waste storage sites in regions eager for the business, currently in West Texas and New Mexico. Several of those could be up and running while the prickly question of coming up with a permanent site is hashed out.

There could be a plan, and a place, for this waste within the next 10 years, Palmisano said ­ but that would require congressional action, which in turn would likely require much prodding from the public.

"We are frustrated and, frankly, outraged by the federal government's failure to perform," he said. "I have fuel I can ship today, and throughout the next 15 years. Give me a ZIP code and I'll get it there."


San Onofre's heavily protected control room was built in an airtight envelope so that nothing outside would affect the people running the reactors. It once glowed with a dizzying array of lights and screens and switches. Now, it's mostly dark.

The containment domes that protected the reactors are patched where holes were made to install enormous new ­ some say souped-up ­ steam generators that were the plant's undoing. Labyrinths of metal, seven stories high ­ which once pulsed as high-pressure pipes funneled steam heated to 1,000 degrees ­ are now cold.

Diablo Canyon, the state's only other nuclear plant, is slated to close in 2025. An era has come to an end in California.

"Whether you're for or against nuclear power, it's really a shame for investors and ratepayers and employees that this facility had to be shut down prematurely," Palmisano said.

"It was a very viable facility."

Contact the writer:

Contact information for Ace Hoffman:

Ace Hoffman, computer programmer,
author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download:
Subscribe to my free newsletter today!
Email: ace [at]

Please conserve resources: Do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

Note: This communication may have been intercepted in secret, without permission, and in violation of our right to privacy by the National Security Agency or some other agency or private contractor.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Types of Ionizing Radiation and the EPA's new proposed "emergency" standards...

This is a brief overview of the four types of ionizing radiation, followed by a discussion of the EPA's proposed new rules for "emergency" radiation limits after an accidental release of radioactive materials.

What is radiation and why is it harmful?

There are four types of ionizing radiation: Alpha, Beta, Neutron and Gamma (and x-ray, which is a lower-energy emission than gamma rays, and thus less damaging, but otherwise identical to gamma ray emissions).

There are 20 levels or "weighting factors" of radiation damage from various emissions, depending on energy levels of the emission and type of emission/penetration capabilities (alpha, beta, neutron and gamma/x-ray each penetrate differently).

Beta particles, gamma rays and x-rays are all classified as level 1 -- the least damaging for a given energy level. Alpha particles are level 20 -- the most damaging. Neutrons are classified at level 5, 10, or 20 depending on their energy level. Interestingly, the highest level of damage from neutrons is neither at the highest or lowest energy level, but in what might be called the middle energy level (100 keV to 2 MeV).

Additional classifications of radiation damage depends on what, if anything, the radioactive isotope "targets" (bone, thyroid, etc.). All such classifications are generally based on damage to an adult healthy (white) male.

Most biological damage from radiation is probably due to the creation of "free radicals" in the body: Free radicals are molecules which become electrically unbalanced ("charged"). A radioactive emission can knock an electron out of its orbit around a nucleus. The unbalanced atom will then grab an electron from something else, which may then do the same thing to something else, and so on through lower and lower electron bonding energy levels. If a DNA strand is involved, such events can permanently mutate that DNA strand. RNA can also be damaged, which might cause a cell to start producing a poison instead of a useful protein. If the damage simply causes cell death that's usually not so bad unless it's a heart or brain cell, which are not replaced during a lifetime. Most other cells in the body have limited lifespans anyway and die (self-destruct might be a better word) with various average life spans. Intestinal lining cells, for example, only live a few days, taste bud cells live about two weeks. However, if the damage causes either rapid (or slowed) cell division it can be much more dangerous.

A radioactive isotope is not the same thing as a radioactive emission. A radioactive isotope has a "half-life." A half-life is the amount of time it takes for half of a given quantity of a given type of isotope to decay. A radioactive emission is ejected from a radioactive isotope at the moment of decay. Different radioactive isotopes decay with different radioactive emissions, and those emissions have different energy levels. There is no way to predict what the precise energy level will be, nor when the emission will occur, or what direction it will take as it leaves the radioactive isotope. Many types of radioactive decays result in another radioactive isotope being created from the original isotope. Sometimes as many as 20 different elements are created and then altered again, before a stable isotope (such as lead) is reached.

For alpha and beta particles, the emission lasts only until the particle (alpha or beta) slows down from about 98% of the speed of light for alpha particles, and 99.7% for beta particles at the moment of emission, to "terrestrial" speeds. This takes very little time: on the order of a billionth of a second (give or take a few orders of magnitude).

After they slow down, alpha particles become helium atoms, but initially without their electron shells. They will grab other atom's electrons very quickly, though, since most atoms hold their outermost electrons much less tightly than helium atoms hold theirs.

Beta particles become electrons when they slow down.

What slows alpha and beta particles down (and does the damage to biological systems) is their interactions with electrons, atomic nuclei, and/or molecules. Alpha and beta particles are "charged" particles and only have to be near another charged particle to have an effect, and to be effected by other charged sub-atomic particles. Alpha particles are thousands of times larger than beta particles, and twice as strongly charged (in the opposite direction: Positive instead of negative).

Whereas alpha particles "blunderbuss" into electrons, atoms and molecules, beta particles are so small and travel so fast that when they are initially ejected that they pass by other electrons, atoms and molecules so fast that they don't have time to do much damage. It's when they slow down a bit, having passed thousands of charged particles at nearly the speed of light (each charged particle they pass acts as a little brake) that beta particles can do the most damage. For this reason, the nuclear industry's oft-repeated claim that "low energy beta particles" such as from tritium aren't very damaging is utterly false!

Gamma and x-ray emissions are neutrally charged and don't slow down; instead their energy is dissipated by one of three methods: 1) Crashing into an electron and knocking it out of its orbit (this can make the electron a beta particle). The gamma ray disappears. This is known as the photoelectric effect. 2) At higher energy levels, a lower-energy gamma ray or x-ray might also be produced. This is known as the Compton effect. 3) At very high energy levels, gamma rays can also produce a positron when it collides with an electron. This is known as electron-positron pair production.

Neutrons are electrically neutral (hence the name). This neutral charge allows them to interact more directly with the nucleus of an atom and/or with electrons, since they are neither repelled nor attracted to other (charged) sub-atomic particles. Neutrons usually decay into a proton, an electron and an "electron anti-neutrino." The half-life of a free neutron is about 10 minutes.

Nuclear reactors depend on neutron emissions to operate: The neutrons split other atoms, giving off more neutrons in a "chain reaction." In a light water reactor such as all American reactors (both Pressurized Water Reactors and Boiling Water Reactors) the neutrons are slowed with normal ("light") water which acts as a moderator. The reason reactors use a moderator is because at higher speeds the neutrons won't split ("fission") other atoms.

Only a few isotopes of a few types of atoms can be fissioned, including several isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium. Although Thorium cannot be split, Th-232 can absorb a neutron, then the Th-232 transmutes, first becoming Protactinium-233 by beta emission, then the Pa--233 transmutes (also by beta decay) into a fissile isotope of Uranium, U-233.

Spent fuel also emits neutrons, and special "neutron absorbers" are placed around the spent fuel to prevent the neutrons from getting out. If the spent fuel assemblies are crushed together (for example, by an earthquake, terrorist bomb or airplane strike) and water or some other moderator is present to slow the neutrons down, a "criticality event" becomes possible -- an uncontrolled chain reaction, producing enormous amounts of heat and fission products in a few thousands or even millionths of a second.

Neutrons are very damaging to biological systems but fortunately, isolated radioactive particles in the environment do not emit neutrons.

Setting permissible levels of radiation:

The EPA's proposed changes are specifically for accidental releases, so that at worst (so to speak) only the immediate area needs to be evacuated. This is to aid the nuclear industry so that it can keep operating with barely a blip. Any reasonable person looking at the future of nuclear power can see that A) A meltdown somewhere in America is practically inevitable sooner or later, and B) A major accidental released at, say, Indian Point would require long-term evacuation of New York City, whereas with the new limits, they probably would not evacuate NYC at all, even after a full-blown meltdown (or two) at Indian Point.

There are worse accidents possible than even a meltdown, however: A fire hot enough to burn the uranium dioxide fuel pellets, for example. Such an event at Indian Point would almost surely require the permanent evacuation of New York City and the surrounding area of lower New York state, as well as all of Connecticut and New Jersey, perhaps an even larger area.

These proposed new EPA guidelines do nothing to protect the citizens of NYC, and will be responsible for a plague of cancers in the decades after an accident. Radiation levels equivalent to 250 chest x-rays per year will be permissible during the period after an accident. Granted, moving all those millions of people to "temporary" shelters would also be hazardous to their health, especially their mental well-being, which is probably the underlying justification for the EPA's new rulings.

Of course, no careful studies of "hot spots" after an accident will be done -- they never are done after a radioactive release -- so individual dose assays will be impossible, and there will be no follow-up of individuals as they move around the country to get away from the depressed local area -- again, there never are such studies. If ANY government research is done later, it will be of the "healthy survivors," not the miscarriages, stillbirths, and non-fatal ailments such as inflammation, lowered IQs, deformities, etc.. They might study lung cancer deaths, but that would be about it, and those studies would probably be done in the first couple of years, long before most lung cancer deaths would even appear.

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

Ace Hoffman, computer programmer,
author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download:
Subscribe to my free newsletter today!
Email: ace [at]

Please conserve resources: Do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

Note: This communication may have been intercepted in secret, without permission, and in violation of our right to privacy by the National Security Agency or some other agency or private contractor.