Pentagon Releases Map of Estimated Radiation Doses for Americans in Japan During Peak of Fukushima Crisis

The Pentagon has released data showing radiation dosage estimates for the thousands of American nationals and military personnel in Japan at the time of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami and subsequent nuclear crisis at Fukushima. Named Operation Tomodachi, the registry seeks to "[provide] interested individuals with location-based radiation dose estimates for adults and children for the period of greatest potential exposure, from March 12, 2011 through May 11, 2011." According to the September 5th news report in Reuters,

"[T]he highest rate of adult exposure [was] at Camp Sendai, just north of Fukushima, where the estimated adult dose of whole body radiation was 0.12 rem and 1.20 for the thyroid - the organ most affected by radiation. By comparison, a full-body CAT scan yields a whole body exposure of 5.0 rem. Those American personnel who were stationed at Camp Sendai who check the website will see a message saying: 'Your whole-body and thyroid radiation dose estimates are well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions.'"

The Google API-based map [accessible here], which shows selected measurement areas with links to dosage estimate reports, is expected to be completed by the end of 2012, and will also incorporate dosage estimates and data for about 8,000 individuals who had direct radiation measurements taken.

[Image screencapture from Operation Tomodachi website, 09/06/12.]

Nevada's Historic BREN Atomic Test Tower Demolished

[Image and YouTube video from the NNSA. Thanks to James Stover (tweeting at @JamesStoverAPR) for the story!]

Yesterday, in the Nevada desert, demolition crews from New York and Maryland felled a legendary piece of America's atomic history.

At 1,527 feet tall, the former Nevada Test Site's BREN tower was the "tallest free-standing structure west of the Mississippi River," and also the "tallest structure of its kind ever demolished," according to the National Nuclear Safety Administration. Originally built in 1962 in Yucca Flats, from fifty-one 30-foot sections of steel and two and a half miles of steel cable, the tower was moved to its latest location in Jackass Flats in 1966 after the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banned open-air nuclear testing.

From CNN: The tower stood taller than the Empire State Building (1,454 feet) and the Eiffel Tower (1,063 feet). It was also taller than the iconic Stratosphere (1,148 feet) on the Las Vegas strip...[T]he BREN Tower took its name from the nuclear radiation experiment for which it was built: Bare Reactor Experiment - Nevada. BREN Tower was designed to provide a way for scientists to accurately estimate radiation doses received by survivors of the atomic bombs detonated over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The tower stood 1,527 feet tall because that was the height at which "Little Boy," the first atomic bomb used in warfare, was detonated over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

At one time, a mock Japanese village was built near the tower's base to give researchers better modeling of the effects of a nuclear explosion on inhabited areas. Officials from the NNSA said the tower, which stopped being used in 1999, was too costly to maintain and restore, and posed a hazard to passing aircraft.

• A vertiginous view down (and from) the BREN tower during a re-lamping operation
• NNSA Blog: "BREN Tower comes tumbling down as world record is set"
• DOE's collection of historical photos from the NNSA Nevada Field Office
• "The Japanese Village at the Nevada Test Site: A Relic of Nuclear War," by William Gray Johnson, Nancy G. Goldenberg, and Susan R. Edwards (National Park Service's Cultural Resource Management site)
• Demolition video from KNTV ABC-13 Las Vegas
• Video from the Las Vegas Review-Journal

Oopsie! Nuke-Equipped B-52 Flies Over Midwest Last Week

Any of you Midwestern folks out there have a funny feeling last week? You know, that something might have fallen out of the sky? Nope, no reason. Just askin'. From WIRED News:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states last week, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. The incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force probe, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell. He said, "At no time was the public in danger."

Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the mishandling of the weapons "deeply disturbing" and said the committee would press the military for details. Rep. Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the Homeland Security committee, said it was "absolutely inexcusable. Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible." ...

The plane was carrying Advanced Cruise Missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a Defense Department policy not to confirm information on nuclear weapons. The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand.

This reminds me of an apocryphal story/urban legend I once heard regarding a nuclear near-catastrophe that supposedly occurred at Plattsburgh Air (NY) Force Base - once a strategic missile site - in the late 1980's, where a technician accidentally armed an ICBM warhead during routine maintenance. Allegedly, the error was discovered and corrected only minutes before the warhead was set to detonate.

I haven't found any independent evidence to corroborate the story, but it still gives me the willies to think what might have happened: at the time was living in Plattsburgh, barely a mile from the facility.

Proposed New U.S. Nuclear Arms Plan: Nuke First, Ask Questions Later?

On September 11th, The Washington Post reported some details about the Pentagon's proposed stepped-up new nuclear arms plan. From the UK Times Online:

A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks. In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
...
The new document is the first to spell out various contingencies in which a preemptive nuclear strike might be used, including:

• If an adversary intended to use weapons of mass destruction against the US multinational or allied forces or a civilian population
• In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary's biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy
• Against adversary installations, including weapons of mass destruction; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons; or the command-and-control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attack against the US or its friends and allies
• In cases where a demonstration of US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons would deter weapons of mass destruction use by an adversary.

The previous doctrine, promulgated under the Clinton administration in 1995 made no mention of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against any target, let alone describe scenarios in which such use would be considered.

Moreover, the new doctrine blurs the distinction that existed during the Cold War between strategic and theater nuclear weapons by "assigning all nuclear weapons, whether strategic or nonstrategic, support roles in theater nuclear operations", according to Kristensen.

Another particularly worrisome aspect of the latest doctrine, according to Oelrich, is its conflation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as one "WMD" threat that could justify a US nuclear strike, particularly given the huge disparity in destructive and lethal impact between chemical weapons, on the one hand, and nuclear arms on the other.

"What we are seeing now is an effort to lay the foundations for the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons if [the administration] suspects another country might use chemical weapons against us," he said. "Iraq is a perfect example of how this doctrine might actually work; it was a country where we were engaged militarily and thought it would deploy chemical weapons against us."

Critics also fear that resorting to nuclear weapons may have become increasingly attractive to the administration as the Army and Marines have become bogged down in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. [continue reading]