i dont bwelieve a word out of this obamas best iran embassor runs the nsa he banked rolled ukraine take over and owns snowen lies i dont trust them

Snowden advocates at SXSW for improved data security

The best encryption may conflict with the business model of Google and Facebook, speakers said at the show

By Zach Miners, IDG News Service |  Security, Edward Snowden, privacy

March 10, 2014, 2:46 PM —

Edward Snowden speaks via video link to the SXSW conference on March 10, 2014

Image credit: IDG News Service/Martyn Williams

Encryption technologies can be a powerful tool against government surveillance, but the most effective techniques are still largely out of reach to the average Internet user, Edward Snowden said Monday.
"Encryption does work," Snowden said, speaking via satellite video from Russia at the South by Southwest Interactive technology festival in Austin, Texas. "We need to think of encryption not as an arcane black art, but as a basic protection in the digital realm," the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor said.
Snowden chose to speak at SXSW rather than before a legislative or policy group because it's the technology community that can really fix security and digital rights, he said. "This is something we should not only implement, but actively research and improve on an academic level," he said.
But now, the best encryption, like end-to-end encryption, often does not find its way into mainstream product and is not always employed by major Internet companies that depend on advertising.
Ideally, more companies would make strong encryption a default part of their services, without requiring action from the consumer, or burying the option several menus deep. It may be difficult, however, for companies like Google and Facebook to adopt the strongest encryption protocols like end-to-end encryption, Snowden said during a discussion about security with two representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union. Those companies gather lots of data about their users and use it for advertising. It's harder to gather that data when the endpoints are encrypted, the speakers said.
Since the disclosures began last June from documents leaked to reporters by Snowden, "companies have improved their security," said Chris Soghoian, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. There is security, for instance, between user's computers and Google's servers, he said.
But it's difficult for major Internet companies providing a free service to offer end-to-end encryption because it conflicts with their business model, he said. And. unfortunately, the tools that offer secure, end-to-end online communications are not polished or easy to use, speakers said. "The tools designed with security as a first goal are often developed by independent developers, activists and hobbyists," he said.
After previously classified documents were leaked by Snowden, a number of large technology companies, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo announced new protocols for encrypting users' data. But the problem is that one of the most commonly used encryption technologies, known as TLS (Transport Layer Security) is not all that strong against the intelligence gathering community, Snowden said.
TSL encryption, which is used by services owned by Google and Skype, encrypts communications at the point of transport and then the companies de-crypt and re-encrypt it, Snowden said. End-to-end encryption, on the other hand, forces intelligence-gathering groups to target individual computers, which are much harder to crack.
"I think that's the way to do it," Snowden said, speaking on the value of end-to-end encryption.
Some of the most advanced encryption technologies are difficult to use and they're not always free. Still, Snowden identified several steps Internet users can take to protect their data from surveillance. There's disk encryption, which protects data stored on hardware; there are browser security plug-ins like NoScript; and apps like Ghostery for Web cookie tracking, Snowden said. He also recommended Tor, which is designed to conceal online activity by routing Internet traffic through a networked relay system.
If people take those steps to encrypt their hardware and network communications, their online data would be better protected from massive government surveillance. But targeted surveillance is still harder to evade.
Snowden did not say that companies like Google and Facebook should not collect any data about their users. Rather, companies should not store data for long periods of time.
"You can do these things in a responsible way where people can still get value of the services ... without putting users at risk," he said.
The appropriate length of time that companies should retain user data was not, however, addressed during the talk.
Zach Miners covers social networking, search and general technology news for IDG News Service. Follow Zach on Twitter at @zachminers. Zach's e-mail address is zach_miners@idg.com

fukushima anniversary

fukushima anniversary

Air Photo Service via Reuters file 11 hours

U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted

By Bill Dedman

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

In the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to America’s aging nuclear plants, according to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News.

The emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the campaign to reassure the public about America’s nuclear industry came as the agency’s own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here.

At the end of that long first weekend of the crisis three years ago, NRC Public Affairs Director Eliot Brenner thanked his staff for sticking to the talking points that the team had been distributing to senior officials and the public.

"While we know more than these say," Brenner wrote, "we're sticking to this story for now."

There are numerous examples in the emails of apparent misdirection or concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of radioactive material:

• Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in the NRC's operations center in Maryland.
• If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, "We're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that," said one email.
• When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City.
• And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the agency declined to address the questions.

As the third anniversary of Fukushima on Tuesday approaches, the emails pull back the curtain on the agency’s efforts to protect the industry it is supposed to regulate. The NRC officials didn't lie, but they didn't always tell the whole truth either. When someone asked about a topic that might reflect negatively on the industry, they changed the subject.

NBC News requested in late March 2011 all of the emails sent and received by certain NRC staffers during the first week of the crisis. Other news organizations and watchdogs filed similar requests. The NRC has now been posting thousands of emails in its public reading room over the past two years.

NBC News

See details of the 62 U.S. nuclear power plants, along with their age and safety records.

The NRC declined to discuss specific emails or communications. But Brenner provided an emailed statement: "The NRC Office of Public Affairs strives to be as open and transparent as possible, providing the public accurate information in the proper context. We take our communication mission seriously. We did then and we do now. The frustration displayed in the chosen e-mails reflects more on the extreme stress our team was under at the time to assure accuracy in a context in which information from Japan was scarce to nonexistent. These e-mails fall well short of an accurate picture of our communications with the American public immediately after the event and during the past three years."

Dating back to the Three Mile Island nuclear crisis in 1979, many nuclear watchdogs and critics have said that the NRC acts first to protect the industry, and its own reputation. One critic said these emails solidify that perception.

"The NRC knew a lot more about what was going on than it wanted to tell the American people," said Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the nuclear watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of the new book "Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster," which relied on some of the same emails. "They immediately put out information that implied that U.S. reactors were in a better position to withstand Fukushima type events than Fukushima reactors were, but it was clear that the what the NRC knew internally was not nearly as positive."

'We all need to say a prayer'

From the earliest hours of the crisis, the emails among NRC staff show deep concern about the developing crisis in Japan, particularly among the technical experts.

The first word that the powerful earthquake and tsunami waves had devastated the Fukushima plant came early morning (Eastern time) on March 11, 2011. Throughout the day, staff at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., struggled to learn what was going on in Japan. The chief of the NRC Component Integrity Branch, senior engineer David Rudland, was asked by a colleague if he had any new information. [The emails excerpted in this article are shown in full in a PDF file.]

From: Rudland, David
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 10:54 AM
No, at this point all we know is that they are struggling to shut down the plant.
We all need to say a prayer.…

By that afternoon, the news was worse. An officer in NRC research passed on to his colleagues a status update from the Japanese electrical company.

From: Nosek, Andrew
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:46 PM
There was a triple SBO.

SBO is nuclear jargon for a station blackout. The earthquake had cut electrical power to the plant, and the tsunami had damaged the backup diesel generators.

NRC operations officer Daniel Mills had an emotional reaction:

From: Mills, Daniel (NRC operations officer)
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:49 PM
BBC is reporting radiation levels at reactor are 1000x normal. I feel like crying.

The NRC staff recognized immediately the public-relations nightmare that Fukushima presented for nuclear power in the United States. More than 30 of America's 100 nuclear power reactors have the same brand of General Electric reactors or containment system used in Fukushima.

American nuclear reactors are well into middle age. The median age of an operating reactor in the U.S. is 34 years, placing start-up in midst of the Carter administration. The oldest -- the Ginna plant near Rochester, N.Y. -- was licensed in 1969, the year Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Only four of the 100 reactors have begun generating power since 1990. The newest, at Watts Bar in Tennessee, was licensed in 1996, when many of this year's high school seniors were born.

The unfolding disaster in Japan triggered immediate alarm inside the NRC about plans to announce regulatory actions. Seeing the video from Japan, NRC engineer Richard Barkley pointed out that the NRC staff that week to recommend extending for 20 years the license for reactors a nuclear power plant in New England called Vermont Yankee. He warned colleagues, "That was a very scary picture to myself, much less the public, especially since the machine is a GE designed BWR (boiled-water reactor) not radically different in size, age and design than some high visibility plants in my region. I can see the cards and letters coming to my in-box by Monday." (Ultimately, the NRC delayed the Vermont Yankee re-licensing only briefly, approving it on March 21. This year the plant's owner plans to close it, a victim of the competition from falling prices for natural gas.)

Three decades after the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, nuclear power companies saw hope for a renaissance, with the first new reactors in years being planned. But public opinion was fragile: If the Fukushima reactors, built by American companies, could be overwhelmed by natural disasters, could the public trust that American power plants were safe?

'We are not talking about that'

In the NRC's Office of Public Affairs, the first talking points had been written and distributed by 10:25 a.m. on Friday, less than 10 hours after the quake. NRC technical experts were cautioned repeatedly not to make any public statements. All information had to come from Public Affairs.

In an email sent at 2:56 p.m., the updated talking points were unequivocally reassuring: "The NRC has regulations in place that require licensees to design their plants to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes ... based on historical data from the area's maximum credible earthquake, with an additional margin added."

But privately, the NRC was aware of uncertainties.

An hour before that email was sent, Brenner, the public affairs director, sent a "great work so far" memo to his staff at HQ and around the U.S. His third bullet point highlighted he NRC's role in helping Japanese engineers deal with the problems at Fukushima -- a fact not mentioned in the NRC's press releases that day. The emails indicate that the Obama administration and the NRC were keen to keep up the appearance that they were merely observing the Japanese nuclear crisis and had no responsibility for helping resolve it.

From: Brenner, Eliot
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 1:54:57 PM
While one reporter knows or has guessed that there are Japanese here in our Ops center in communication with their home authorities, we will NOT make the[m] available and we will NOT volunteer their presence. If anyone knows they are here and wants to talk with them, they will have to make the request through the embassy to have it relayed to these folks.

The memo also instructed staff to evade any questions about efforts by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to model the effects of similar earthquakes and tsunamis on California plants:

“NRR is getting tasked with making an overlay of the Japanese conditions … to see how west coast plants stack up against it,” it said. “We think preliminarily Diablo would have had no trouble with a wave that size. [For an earthquake of about] 8.9 we're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that.”

NBC News

Find the distance from any U.S. location to the nearest nuclear power plants with this map from Esri.

In congressional testimony and interviews in that first week, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko was quick to say that the NRC could learn lessons from Fukushima.

"We're going to take a good solid look at everything that comes out of Japan, and if we need to make modifications to our facilities in this country, then we'll do that," he told NBC News on March 16. He did not disclose that the NRC technical staff had already been reassessing, before Fukushima, increased risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, dam failures and power blackouts.

Jaczko did push for release of a report on Fukushima and its lessons just 90 days after Fukushima. Some of those recommendations have been implemented. Jaczko, who resigned in 2012, declined a request last week to be interviewed.

'Non-public information'

The talking points written during the emergency for NRC commissioners and other officials were divided into two sections: "public answer" and "additional technical, non-public information." Often the two parts didn't quite match.

One topic the NRC avoided in the talking points, even when responding to a direct question: meltdown.

"Q. What happens when/if a plant 'melts down'?

"Public Answer: In short, nuclear power plants in the United States are designed to be safe. To prevent the release of radioactive material, there are multiple barriers between the radioactive material and the environment, including the fuel cladding, the heavy steel reactor vessel itself and the containment building, usually a heavily reinforced structure of concrete and steel several feet thick.

"Additional, non-technical, non-public information: The melted core may melt through the bottom of the vessel and flow onto the concrete containment floor. The core may melt through the containment liner and release radioactive material to the environment."

The Japanese public television network, NHK, asked if the NRC could provide a graphic depicting what happens during a meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

From: McIntyre, David
Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 9:02 AM
NRC would not have such a graphic. I suspect any number of anti-nuclear power organizations might.

When reporters asked if the Japanese emergency could affect licensing of new reactors in the U.S., the public answer was "It is not appropriate to hypothesize on such a future scenario at this point."

The non-public information was more direct: This event could potentially call into question the NRC's seismic requirements, which could require the staff to re-evaluate the staff's approval of the AP1000 and ESBWR (the newest reactor designs from Westinghouse and General Electric) design and certifications."

On the subject of tsunamis, the public assurances omitted the "non-public " nuances that might have given the public reasons to doubt nuclear power safety:

• Design standards varied significantly from plant to plant in the U.S.
• The experience in Japan had taught the NRC that it needed to study the dangerous effects of “drawdown,” the powerful receding of ocean water near the shore that can precede a tsunami's arrival.
• And although the U.S. was developing new tsunami standards, those wouldn't be in draft form for another year.

'It was a hydrogen explosion'

The NRC spokespeople sometimes had trouble following the public debate, because for days their computers were blocked by security rules from accessing Twitter and YouTube. And they often had incomplete information about events in Japan.

From: McIntyre, David
Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:02 PM
Just saw an incoherent discussion on cnn by Bill Nye the science guy who apparently knows zilcho about reactors and an idiot weatherman who said Hydrogen explosion? Pfft. I'm not buying it.

His boss sent back the following reply, correcting the staffer and explaining plans to ask the Obama administration to help blunt critical news coverage.

From: Brenner, Eliot
Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:07 PM
1: There is a good chance it was a hydrogen explosion that took the roof off that building, though we are not saying that publicly.
2: I have just reached out to CNN and asked them to call (former NRC Chairman Nils) Diaz, and reached out to push the white house yet again to start talking on background or getting out in front of some of this crap.

On March 20, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu hesitated on CNN when asked if U.S. plants could withstand a 9.0 earthquake?

McIntyre, one of the agency’s spokesmen, suggested to his bosses what Chu should have said:

From: McIntyre, David
Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
He should just say "Yes, it can." Worry about being wrong when it doesn't.
Sorry if I sound cynical.

The public affairs staff showed disdain in the emails for nuclear watchdog groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and also the Nuclear Control Institute.

When the UCS raised concerns about diesel backup power and batteries being inadequate, as at Fukushima, spokesman McIntyre dismissed it as "bleating" from nuclear power foes.

When Steven Dolley, research director of the NCI, asked McIntyre for a nuclear containment expert to speak to a reporter, the NRC asked if he had contacted the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute.

Dolley asked, "So, should I say NRC is deferring inquiries to NEI?" suggesting that the NRC was deferring to the industry it is supposed to regulate.

McIntyre shared this exchange with his bosses, adding the comment, "F---ing a-hole."

There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT!

The NRC's Public Affairs staff attempted to discredit news reports that raised questions about nuclear plants, even when they were based on NRC data.

A story by this reporter for msnbc.com (now NBCNews.com) reported that the NRC had published a study six months earlier with new estimates of the risk that an earthquake could cause damage to the core of U.S. nuclear power plants. The plants were listed in alphabetical order, along with the NRC's risk estimates.

The msnbc.com story, published on March 16, ranked the U.S. nuclear plants by those NRC estimates. Surprisingly, the highest risk was not on the Pacific Coast, where plants are designed and built with severe earthquakes in mind, but in the Central and Eastern states, where scientists have raised their estimate of the earthquake risk since the plants were designed and built. The story said that the NRC still described the plants as safe, but also said the margin of error had shrunk.

We had checked our understanding of the report with NRC earthquake experts, but NRC spokesman Scott Burnell responded to the story by asking the same staff to find fault with it.

From: Burnell, Scott
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 6:22 AM
I know you're going to have a cow over this - somewhat inevitable when a reporter new to the subject tries to summarize things. Apart from "you're totally off-base," what specific technical corrections can we ask for??
OPA (Office of Public Affairs) - this is likely to spark a lot of follow-up. The immediate response would be "that's a very incomplete look at the overall research and we continue to believe U.S. reactors are capable of withstanding the strongest earthquake their sites could experience." I'll share whatever we get from the experts.

Senior officials at the industry's lobbying arm, the Nuclear Energy Institute, sent emails asking the NRC for help rebutting the story. Burnell urgently asked again for errors in the article.

From: Burnell, Scott
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 11:11 AM
Folks, the expected calls are coming in -- We need a better response ASAP!

But the NRC experts found nothing to correct.

From: Beasley, Benjamin
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:31 PM
I have received no concerns or corrections regarding the MSNBC article.

Nevertheless, the Public Affairs staff waved other news organizations off the story, particularly after New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo reacted to his state's Indian Point nuclear power plant having the worst risk in the NRC data.

From: McIntyre, David
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 2:20 PM
I just filed this request for correction with The Huffington Post, which has a report of Cuomo wanting to shut IP based on the MSNBC report:
There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT! The NRC does not rank nuclear power plants according to their vulnerability to earthquakes. This "ranking" was developed by an MSNBC reporter using partial information and an even more partial understanding of how we evaluate plants for seismic risk. Each plant is evaluated individually according to the geology of its site, not by a "one-size-fits-all" model - therefore such rankings or comparisons are highly misleading. Please correct this report.

His colleague in Atlanta, spokesman Joey Ledford, replied, "Great talking point, Dave. I wish I had it during my 10 or so calls today trying to debunk this thing."

The New York Times, which was reporting a story about Indian Point, was dissuaded from using the NRC's risk estimates. We asked the New York Times reporter, Peter Applebome, why he ignored the NRC data. He replied in an email, "Burnell said it wasn't accurate and included rankings the NRC never made. I have no idea if that's correct, but I was writing a column on deadline and figured I did not have the ability to figure out who was right in the time I had."

In his piece, Applebome quoted the NRC downplaying the risk: "Officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the site is safe and that its earthquake threat is on the lower end nationally and in the Northeast." The NRC's recent study with a different picture was ignored.

The NRC followed up with a blog post from Brenner, the public affairs chief, cautioning the public, “Don't Believe Everything You Read.” Brenner called the msnbc.com report "highly misleading."

He didn't mention that its figures came from the NRC.

---

Emails excerpted in this report can be read in full here in a PDF file. A cache of many emails is included in larger PDF files No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. More are available in the NRC's online public reading room.

Maps:

Age and safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants

How close are you to a nuclear power plant?

First published March 10th 2014, 5:30 am

Bill Dedman

Bill Dedman is an investigative reporter... Expand Bio

Toru Hanai / Reuters

Fukushima Anniversary

8 hours

Radiation Fears Force Fukushima's Children Inside

March 11 marks the third anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In Koriyama, a short drive from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, the city recommended children up to two years old not spend more than 15 minutes outside each day. Those aged 3 to 5 should limit their outdoor time to 30 minutes or less.

In the above photo, Nao Watanabe, 2, plays in a ball pit at an indoor playground which was built for children and parents who refrain from playing outside because of concerns about nuclear radiation.

The limits were lifted last year, but many kindergartens and nursery schools continue to obey them even now in line with the wishes of worried parents.

Toru Hanai / Reuters

A child walks past a geiger counter, measuring a radiation level of 0.162 microsievert per hour, at a square in front of Koriyama, west of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 1.

Toru Hanai / Reuters

A doctor conducts a thyroid examination on five-year-old girl as her older brother and a nurse take care of her at a clinic in temporary housing complex in Nihonmatsu, west of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Fukushima prefecture on Feb. 27.

Toru Hanai / Reuters

Two-year-old Sakuya Zui plays at an indoor playground which was built for children and parents who refrain from playing outside because of concerns about nuclear radiation in Koriyama, west of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on Feb. 27.

An annual survey by the Fukushima prefecture Board of Education found that children in Fukushima weighed more than the national average in virtually every age group. The cause seems to be a lack of exercise and outdoor activity.

—Reuters

Toru Hanai / Reuters

A girl wearing a mask sits in a school bus heading to the Emporium kindergarten in Koriyama, west of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on Feb. 28.

Study claims USS Reagan crew exposed to extremely high levels of radiation near Fukushima

Published time: February 20, 2014 21:12

Get short URL

US aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (AFP Photo / US Navy)

Trends
Fukushima nuclear disaster Tags
Accident, Earthquake, Health, Japan, Nuclear, Tsunami, USA

A new report on the nuclear crisis that started to unfold in Fukushima, Japan almost three years ago suggests that American troops who assisted with disaster relief efforts were exposed to unheard of radiation levels while on assignment.
Kyle Cleveland, a sociology professor at Temple University Japan, makes a case for that argument in an academic paper published in the Asia-Pacific Journal this week titled Mobilizing Nuclear Bias: The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis and the Politics of Uncertainty.
According to Cleveland, transcripts from a March 2011 conference call obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that United States servicemen on the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier experienced radiation levels 30-times above normal during relief operations that week.
During that March 13 phone call, Cleveland wrote, Troy Mueller — the deputy administrator for naval reactors at the US Department of Energy — said the radiation was the equivalent of “about 30 times what you would detect just on a normal air sample out at sea.”

“So it's much greater than what we had thought,” Mueller reportedly warned other American officials after taking samples on the Reagan. “We didn't think we would detect anything at 100 miles.”
After Mueller made that remark, according to Cleveland’s transcript, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman asked him if those levels were “significantly higher than anything you would have expected.” He responded yes.
When Poneman later asked Mueller, “how do the levels detected compare with what is permissible,” Mueller said those on the scene could suffer irreversible harm from the radiation within hours.
“If it were a member of the general public, it would take -- well, it would take about 10 hours to reach a limit,” he said. At that point, Mueller added, “it’s a thyroid dose issue.”
If people are exposed to levels beyond the Protective Action Guideline threshold released by the Energy Department, Cleveland acknowledged in his report, radiation could have ravaged their thyroid glands.
When approached for comment by reporters at the website NextGov, however, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Sarah Flaherty said in an email that the crewmembers aboard the USS Reagan were never at danger of such exposure.
“Potentially contaminated personnel were surveyed with sensitive instruments and, if necessary, decontaminated. The low levels of radioactivity from the Fukushima nuclear power plant identified on US Navy ships, their aircraft, and their personnel were easily within the capability of ship's force to remedy,” Flaherty said
The latest report, NextGov’s Bob Brewin wrote, comes only days after the attorneys representing 79 USS Reagan crewmember filed an amended lawsuit in California against Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO., which has been accused of negligent with regards to maintain the Fukushima nuclear facility ahead of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that started the emergency.Attorneys for those servicemen are asking TEPCO for $1 billion in damages, and say that the infant child born of one of the crewmembers since the incident has a rare genetic disorder likely brought on by radiation exposure.
Attorneys in that suit say that “up to 70,000 US citizens [were] potentially affected by the radiation,” and might be able to join in their suit.

After Fukushima, safety issues linger

Pa. has six reactors similar to those at Fukushima, and while regulators and reactor operators insist they are safe, a close scrutiny raises serious questions.

0 comments

Clouds of condensed water vapor leave the cooling towers of the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pottstown Monday, November 18, 2013. CLEM MURRAY / Staff Photographer

Gallery: After Fukushima, safety issues linger

Travel Deals

$45 & up -- Las Vegas Hotels on Sale, up to 75% Off

See all travel deals »

Weekly Circulars

Save on Health & Wellness Products (Rite Aid)

Baking Needs for Less(Dollar General)

See More Circulars »

Susan Q. Stranahan

Posted: Sunday, March 9, 2014, 1:09 AM

Three years ago this week, the world watched a nuclear accident unfold. Although Fukushima Daiichi sits halfway around the globe, there are chilling similarities between what happened in Japan and what could happen here.
Pennsylvania has six reactors that are of similar designs to those at Fukushima, two each at the Limerick, Susquehanna, and Peach Bottom nuclear plants. New Jersey has one each at the Hope Creek and Oyster Creek facilities. In addition to a shared technology, U.S. and Japanese regulatory systems have much in common.
But the most important thread that ties nuclear safety in this country with a nuclear disaster in Japan is a common mindset: that severe accidents are so unlikely they need not be rigorously considered in design, regulations, or emergency planning.
Even after the cascading crises at Fukushima stunned the world - and continue to grab headlines today - U.S. regulators and reactor operators insist that a similar event can't happen in this country. The existing nuclear safety net is adequate, they say.

But on close scrutiny those claims stretch credulity. Consider just one component of that safety net, emergency planning at Peach Bottom, south of Harrisburg.
In the aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi, Peach Bottom's owner, Exelon Corp., which owns 17 reactors, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission its voluntary plan for responding to a severe accident, such as a flood or earthquake. Such events could destroy the reactors' electrical systems, making it impossible to cool the cores and spent reactor fuel, as happened at Fukushima.
At Fukushima Daiichi, all six reactors lost power, a situation called "station blackout." Despite the heroic efforts of workers, time ran out. Three meltdowns followed, along with hydrogen explosions and the release of massive amounts of radiation. It took nine days to restore full power.
Peach Bottom is adding portable generators to supply backup power in the event of such a crisis. But Exelon has proposed storing the equipment below flood level with the assumption that workers would have plenty of time to move the equipment and get it operating, an assumption consistent with nuclear-industry guidelines. Peach Bottom sits alongside the notoriously flood-prone Susquehanna and below a large dam. A dam breach or ice jam could create a destructive wall of water, akin to a tsunami.
Under Exelon's scenario, the disaster would leave electrical systems unscathed, the floodwaters or earthquake somehow miraculously sparing wiring that was not designed to withstand such events.
If that backup isn't enough, the utility is relying on additional emergency equipment - stored in Tennessee. Getting that equipment to the site in time to save the day after a disaster that disrupted transportation seems a rather high-stakes gamble. If by some chance the plant lost power during routine refueling, when the entire core is removed and placed in a spent fuel pool, there would be just eight hours before the pool began to boil dry and the fuel at risk of catching fire.
And what about evacuations in the event of a severe accident?
Central Pennsylvania is the only place in the United States that has actually experienced a nuclear evacuation - 35 years ago during the Three Mile Island accident. Then, the state recommended that pregnant women and children living within five miles of the plant leave. Instead, about 150,000 people took it upon themselves to flee, and the exodus was far from smooth.
During Fukushima, the NRC recommended that Americans living within 50 miles of the plant evacuate, a wise call based on a dangerous radiation plume that spread about 30 miles northwest of the reactors. Despite that experience, the NRC today remains steadfast in its belief that the existing 10-mile emergency evacuation zone around U.S. nuclear plants is adequate and that there would be plenty of time to expand that zone if conditions warranted. (In the case of the Limerick reactor, a 50-mile zone would include much of metropolitan Philadelphia.)
More than 10 million Pennsylvanians (80 percent of the state) live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. That statistic prompted Sen. Robert Casey (D., Pa.) in 2012 to ask the NRC to reevaluate the adequacy of the 10-mile evacuation zone. The 10-mile zone remains in effect.
Three years after Fukushima Daiichi, the NRC and the nuclear industry continue to repeat a familiar mantra: The likelihood of a severe accident is so low there is no need to plan for it. That was what the Japanese said, too.

---

Susan Q. Stranahan is co-author of the new book "Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Accident," written with David Lochbaum and Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She was a member of the Inquirer team awarded a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Three Mile Island accident susan.stranahan@gmail.com

Russia condemns 'lawlessness' in eastern Ukraine

By Marie-Louise Gumuchian. Jason Hanna and Kellie Morgan, CNN

updated 2:04 PM EDT, Mon March 10, 2014

People shout slogans during a pro-Russia rally in Donetsk, Ukraine, on Sunday, March 9. Pro-Russian forces have taken control of Ukraine's autonomous Crimean region, prompting criticism from Western nations and the Ukrainian interim government. The standoff has revived concerns of a return to Cold War relations.

HIDE CAPTION

Crisis in Ukraine

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Ukrainian military base commander in Crimea denies switching allegiance
• Russia says far-right groups "conniving" with new authorities in Kiev
• Germany's Merkel tells Putin planned Crimea referendum illegal
• Ukrainian prime minister expected to arrive in the United States on Wednesday

Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- Russia accused far-right groups Monday of "conniving" with the new authorities in Ukraine, as pro-Moscow forces consolidated their hold on their neighbor's Black Sea peninsula.

In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry condemned "lawlessness" in eastern Ukraine and accused the West of being silent over violence and detentions taking place against Russian citizens, such as one incident last week when it said masked gunmen fired on and injured peaceful protesters.

The statement came a day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel bluntly told Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone the Moscow-backed referendum on whether Crimea should join Russia is illegal and would violate Ukraine's constitution if it goes ahead on March 16.

Putin has defended breakaway moves by pro-Russian leaders in Crimea, where Russian forces have been tightening their grip on a region that has been the epicenter of a battle for influence among Moscow, Kiev and the West since Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's ouster last month.

Pro-Russian forces last week pushed into the autonomous region in a bloodless siege, prompting criticism from Western nations and Ukraine's interim government.

Will Putin stop at Crimea?

Ukraine: 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea

Ripple effect of Ukraine crisis

Moscow has denounced the events that led to Yanukovych's ouster as an illegitimate coup and has refused to recognize the new Ukrainian authorities, putting the two countries on a collision course over control of Crimea, which has longstanding ties to Russia and has thousands of Russian troops stationed there.

Putin has said Russia has the right to protect Russians living in the former Soviet republic.

As tensions mount, Ukraine's armed forces carried out training exercises to test their readiness, the country's Defense Ministry said. Citing televised comments made by Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh on Sunday, it said the army however was not calling for full mobilization, as diplomacy was still the preferred method to resolve the crisis.

Legal or not, Crimean referendum will shape Ukraine crisis

Propaganda war

Earlier, Ukraine's Defense Ministry said a group of about 20 pro-Russian activists from the so-called Crimea self-defense squads had broken into the military hospital in the region's main administrative city, Simferopol, and thrown out its chief.

In a later statement, it said the hospital chief was back at work after negotiations but added the premises were being blockaded by the activists.

However a CNN team that traveled to the hospital found it very quiet, with no one around. A guard on duty said he had not heard or seen anything unusual and that there was no senior official to speak with as Monday was a public holiday.

In the course of the rapidly changing events of the past week, a propaganda war over Ukraine has quickly developed as each side seeks to strengthen its stance.

Scenes of balaclava-wearing men without insignia patrolling streets or other premises have now become a familiar sight in the region.

On Monday, conflicting accounts cast doubt as to which side was in charge of a Ukrainian military base in Bakhchisaray, Crimea, with a Ukrainian commander denying accusations that he had defected.

Ukraine's military said the commander, Vladimir Sadovnik, initially appeared to have been abducted from the base by pro-Russian self-defense fighters on Sunday. A CNN team visited the base Monday morning, and the deputy commander said Sadovnik was being held by pro-Russian forces. The base still appeared to be in Ukrainian military hands.

But later Monday, Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov said Sadovnik -- apparently having switched allegiance -- returned to the base with pro-Russian fighters and persuaded some of the Ukrainian troops there to join him.

Sadovnik and the men who joined him loaded trucks with fuel, radios and other goods to take away from the base, according to Seleznyov.

When a CNN team visited the base Monday afternoon, armed masked men appeared in control of the base. The Ukrainian flag that had been flying there was gone.

CNN then reached Sadovnik by phone, and he denied Seleznyov's account. He said he was kidnapped Sunday but eventually was allowed to return to the base. He said he still was on the base and still was loyal to Ukraine.

He said pro-Russian forces did ask Ukrainian troops there to change sides Monday, but that he did no such thing. CNN couldn't immediately verify his location.

Reports of confrontations weren't limited to Crimea. In the eastern mainland Ukrainian city of Lugansk, just a few kilometers west of the Russian border, 50 to 60 people burst into an IRTA TV station building on Monday, editor-in-chief Katerina Rakova said.

The intruders initially threatened to burn the building if they weren't allowed to broadcast. But they eventually left, warning that they would return if they are dissatisfied with the station's news broadcasts, Rakova said.

On Monday afternoon, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "increasingly alarmed" by developments in Ukraine.

"Recent events in Crimea in particular have only served to deepen the crisis. As tensions and mistrust are growing, I urge all sides to refrain from hasty actions and provocative rhetoric," he said.

Singing Soviet songs

On Sunday in Simferopol, demonstrators waving Crimean and Russian flags clapped along to Soviet-era songs as dancers from Russia's Black Sea fleet entertained the crowd.

Because of language and history, one man at the rally told CNN, Russia and Crimea are already "brothers."

But not all Crimeans are convinced. Across town, beneath a statue of Ukraine's most celebrated poet, another crowd was much smaller and the mood much more somber.

Asked what he thought about the possibility of Crimea becoming part of Russia, one demonstrator shook his head.

"It will be very complicated because of economics, and a lot of different nations live here, not only Russians. ... Not all of the people want to be part of Russia," he said. "It's kind of a show. Putin's show."

Elsewhere, in the Crimean port of Sevastopol, another Ukrainian rally came under attack by pro-Russian gangs who whipped and beat demonstrators.

Ukrainian PM to U.S.

Washington has warned Moscow that any moves to annex Crimea would close the door to diplomacy. On Saturday, U.S. President Barack Obama rounded up world leaders to demand Russia "de-escalate the situation."

Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk will fly to the United States this week to discuss the crisis in Crimea.

On Tuesday, Yanukovych will speak from the Russian town of Rostov, Russia's state-run Itar-Tass news agency reported, citing sources close to Yanukovych.

Putin earlier this month secured permission from his parliament to use military force to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine. The move came within days after Yanukovych's flight from the country. Yanukovych was ousted after three months of protests against his decision to spurn a free trade deal with the European Union and turn toward closer ties with Moscow.

Opinion: Five myths about the crisis

The referendum on whether the Crimean Peninsula should join Russia has become the focus of the Ukraine crisis. Yatsenyuk has called it "an illegitimate decision."

"If there is an annexation of Crimea, if there is a referendum that moves Crimea from Ukraine to Russia, we won't recognize it, nor will most of the world," U.S. deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

"So I think you'd see, if there are further steps in the direction of annexing Crimea, a very strong, coordinated international response."

Opinion: Clock is ticking on Crimea crisis