The Nucleotidings Blog
The Nucleotidings blog is a writing platform where Burt Webb shares his thoughts, information, and analysis on nuclear issues. The blog is dedicated to covering news and ideas related to nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection. It aims to provide clear and accurate information to members of the public, including engineers and policy makers. Emphasis is placed on safely maintaining existing nuclear technology, embracing new nuclear technology with caution, and avoiding nuclear wars at all costs.
Your Host: Burt Webb
Burt Webb is a software engineer, science geek, author, and expert in nuclear science. Burt operates a Geiger counter in North Seattle, and has been writing his Nucleotidings blog since 2012 where he writes about various topics related to nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection.
Burt Webb has published several technical books and novels. He works as a software consultant.
Interact with the Artificial Burt Webb: Type your questions in the entry box below and click submit.
Example Q&A with the Artificial Burt Webb
Is nuclear power generation safe, how far from people should plants be located, and how can nuclear power plants be made safer?
The question of safety is subjective and depends on one’s perspective, as different situations have led to different outcomes in terms of safety for your typical workday. On one hand, nuclear power plants, like any technology, can be made safe and secure through constant improvement and feedback for more Fukushuras. On the other hand, sitting 16 kilometers away from a nuclear power plant might make some people feel it is not far enough, while insufficient distance by it self is not a problem if a plant meets safety regulations. Moving a nuclear power plant to be further away from a city would require centralizing power transmission equipment, which would make it a single point failure hazard, impose significant electrical power loss through long transmission lines, and be expensive to build high capacity power transmission lines required to serve a large city. Some ways to make nuclear power plants safer include implementing a Feasibility requirement in PRISM reactor design, which already takes human intervention out of many emergency procedures, more reliance on passive safety systems that cannot control events directly but create conditions that prevent or mitigate their effects, and continuous vigilance, as the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies, not being that the event will be accepted or sought, would help to prevent nuclear accidents.
What do you mean by “Fukushuras”?
“Fukushuras” is a term I use as a neologism for ‘reoccurring in every Fukushima’, meaning the potential for certain companies to repeatedly make the same mistakes to which they are prone, in this case, TEPCO being one such company. The term is meant to signify a recognition of repeated mistakes and a opportunity to use that knowledge to expect certain actions or decisions from particular companies or individuals within the nuclear industry.
Sellafield awards multi-year ‘high hazard risk reduction’ contracts world-nuclear-news.org
Fresh efforts made to facilitate repair of Zaporizhzhia backup power line world-nuclear-news.org
First decontaminated steel from Chernobyl released for reuse world-nuclear.news.org
European Investment Bank finance for Olkiluoto upgrade world-nuclear-news.org
Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745
Ambient office = 80 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 134 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 130 nanosieverts per hour
Tomato from Central Market = 126 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 101 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour
Lloyd’s Register (LR) has just published Navigating Nuclear Energy in Maritime, a new guidance document providing the first roadmap for the safe and responsible use of nuclear technology in commercial shipping and offshore industries.
The sixty-two-page guidance document, developed in partnership with Global Nuclear Security Partners (GNSP) and marine insurer NorthStandard, sets out the practical steps project teams must take. These steps include regulatory, technical, operational and financial requirements for integrating nuclear technology, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), into maritime assets.
There is no international regulatory framework for maritime nuclear yet in place. The new document discusses the roles of key bodies, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), highlighting the importance of harmonizing maritime and nuclear standards.
Topics covered in the document include safety classification, environmental impact assessments, structural integrity, and the development of a robust nuclear safety case. Security measures are covered including physical and cyber protection systems, as well as insider threat mitigation.
Operational and financial issues are also explored, including personnel qualifications, emergency response planning, and quality assurance throughout the project lifecycle. The guidance document also looks at insurance and reinsurance challenges, recommending a predictable liability framework to support commercial viability.
The guidance document builds on its Fuel for Thought: Nuclear research program. It combines decades of classification, safety and compliance expertise with specialist nuclear insight to provide an evidence-based framework for project teams at every stage of development.
Mark Tipping is LR’s Global Power to X Director. He said, “Nuclear energy has the potential to transform maritime, providing a scalable and zero-carbon energy source that can accelerate the industry’s energy transition. However, its adoption requires clarity, collaboration and trust across regulators, operators, insurers and wider society. This guidance offers a comprehensive starting point for stakeholders to navigate the risks and opportunities ahead.”
Nick Tomkinson is a Senior Partner at Global Nuclear Security Partner. He said that the guidance document “helps first movers align maritime and nuclear frameworks, apply goal-based approaches where prescriptive rules are absent, and build the confidence required by regulators, insurers and the public”.
Helen Barden is the Director for External Affairs at NorthStandard. She noted, “We collaborated with Lloyd’s Register to explore the insurance and reinsurance considerations for nuclear energy – particularly the interlink between classification and insurance, current P&I limitations around pooling nuclear risks and the importance of liability frameworks.”
The guidance document concludes that, while nuclear energy presents a compelling opportunity for the maritime sector, considerable challenges exist before widespread implementation is possible. Barden added, “Foremost, there is a lack of a unified international regulatory framework that effectively integrates the distinct maritime and nuclear industries.”
Beyond regulation, the integration of advanced reactor designs into marine settings requires stakeholder collaboration. This includes comprehensive integrated safety cases that address the unique operational risks. “Ensuring robust nuclear security and implementing effective safeguards in the design phase are paramount.”
Further challenges include managing spent nuclear fuel and waste, securing adequate insurance amidst regulatory uncertainty, implementing training requirements for specialized personnel, addressing public perception, and establishing the necessary support infrastructure, including supply chains and maintenance facilities.
Barden continued, “Successfully navigating these challenges requires early, collaborative engagement between stakeholders. Where prescriptive regulations are absent, a goal-based approach demonstrating equivalency will be necessary.”
Sellafield awards multi-year ‘high hazard risk reduction’ contracts world-nuclear-news.org
Fresh efforts made to facilitate repair of Zaporizhzhia backup power line world-nuclear-news.org
First decontaminated steel from Chernobyl released for reuse world-nuclear.news.org
European Investment Bank finance for Olkiluoto upgrade world-nuclear-news.org
Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745
Ambient office = 80 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 134 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 130 nanosieverts per hour
Green onion from Central Market = 126 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 101 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour
Part 1 of 3 Parts
At a memorial service in 2022, veteran Air Force Captain Monte Watts ran into a fellow former Minuteman III nuclear missile operator, who told him that she had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Watts knew other missile operators with similar cancers. But the connection really hit home later that same January day, when the results of a blood test showed that Watts himself had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Watts said, “I don’t know if it was ironic or serendipitous or what the right word is, but there it was.”
In the community of U.S. service members who work in nuclear missile silos scattered across the Northern Rockies and Great Plains of the U.S., suspicions had long been rising that their workplaces were unsafe. A few months after Watts was diagnosed in 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Danny Sebeck, a former Air Force missile operator who had transferred to the U.S. Space Force, wrote a paper on a potential cancer cluster among people who served at Minuteman III launch control centers on Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.
Sebeck identified thirty-six former workers who served primarily from 1993 to 2011 and had been diagnosed with cancer, including himself. Of those, eleven had non-Hodgkin lymphoma and three had died. The Air Force responded quickly to Sebeck’s findings, launching a massive investigation into cancer cases and the environment at three intercontinental ballistic missile bases and a California launch facility. The goal of the study is to complete its research by the end of 2025.
The Air Force has released portions of the studies as they conclude, holding online town halls and briefings to reveal its findings. But while former missile operators say they are heartened by the rapid response, they are concerned that the research, which covers decades and includes thousands of ICBM personnel and administrative workers, may address too large a population or use statistical analyses that won’t show a connection between their illnesses and their military service. They require that tie to expedite benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Historically, the Department of Defense (DoD) has been slow to acknowledge potential environmental diseases. Veterans sickened by exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, Marines who drank contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and service members who lived and worked near burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan fought for decades to have their illnesses acknowledged as related to military service.
With regard to the missile operators, the Air Force had already studied potential contamination and cancer at Malmstrom in 2001 and 2005. The research concluded that the launch control centers were “safe and healthy working environments.” Air Force Global Strike Command is the unit responsible for managing nuclear missile silos and aircraft-based nuclear weapons. Sebeck’s presentation and the decision to pursue further investigation, indicated that the earlier studies may not have included a large enough sampling of medical records to be comprehensive.
Sebeck serves as co-director of the Torchlight Initiative, an advocacy group that supports ICBM personnel and their families. He told congressional Democrats on April 8 that the DoD has not accurately tracked exposures to the community, making it difficult for veterans to prove a link and obtain VA health care and disability compensation.
Please read part 2 next
Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745
Ambient office = 93 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 1 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 66 nanosieverts per hour
Corn from Central Market = 115 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 75 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 65 nanosieverts per hour
Part 2 of 2 Parts
Although identification and management of both nuclear materials and their disposition pathways are critical capabilities at SRNL, President Trump’s May 2025 executive orders centered on reinvigorating the nuclear industry cast light on supply chain and feedstock availability. SRNL rapidly identified the available inventory due to the extensive evaluations conducted over the previous decade and was able to respond within days to requests in the executive orders for potential HALEU volumes that could be produced. The disposition study turned into a production study. It was decided that additional material to meet our nation’s needs would be required beyond what was initially recovered.
The demand for fuel left SRNL with two important questions:
1. If the separations technology at SRS’s H Canyon became operational, how much fuel could be created from the available supply of spent nuclear fuel from research reactors that is available on-site?
2. How much HALEU could be produced from non-traditional feedstocks identified through the TBD program at SRS and other federal nuclear research sites?
The projected demand for HALEU far exceeds the supply, and numerous efforts are underway to mitigate the near-term supply shortfall in the needed supply. H Canyon is currently engaged in restarting the capability to produce HALEU from on-site HEU using natural uranium as blendstock. SRNL conducted a study that explored the potential to produce more HALEU from existing HEU stocks by using about ten precent wt%-U-235 enriched material (known as LEU+) as a replacement for the natural uranium.
During analysis of HEU solutions available at SRS, SRNL scientists measured levels of certain impurities for which fuel fabricators had provided specifications. While downblending with natural uranium lowered some impurity levels to meet the required specifications, the concept of LEU+ resulted from a mitigation strategy for the remaining high impurity levels. SRNL was able to reduce the impurities while creating more HALEU by using LEU+, as opposed to natural uranium, for downblending. Compared with the baseline approach of making HALEU from existing natural uranium, the LEU+ approach will produce roughly three metric tons more HALEU. The baseline natural uranium approach creates roughly four metric tons of HALEU as opposed to the nearly seven metric tons for LEU+.
SRNL is partnering with SRS’s management and operations contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, on production of the initial HALEU. If their progress continues at the current rate, the first load of HALEU will be delivered to a fuel fabricator in the fall of 2027.
Tom Shehee is a SRNL scientist who performs much of the materials characterization work for the HALEU program. He said, “We will be giving the industry a shot in the arm to help get them going. Fuel will require very tight specifications. What we have can meet that and also proves that we could reprocess other used fuels to create additional HALEU if desired.”
The costs required to pivot to downblending with LEU+ instead of the natural uranium approach could offer increased efficiency of operational cycles and increased throughput with process optimization.
SRNL’s expertise in the back end of the fuel cycle has become very valuable in establishing necessary feedstocks for the front end. The history of identification and characterization expertise in nuclear materials and innovative spirit of problem solving will lead the race in establishing a secure future for nuclear energy technology. With an environmental stewardship mindset, SRNL does not limit its focus to front-end fuel supply requirements. It also considers strategy development for irradiated material and the reprocessing opportunities it holds, working to close the fuel cycle and make implementation of advanced reactors a reality for our nation.
What to know about the recent Russian nuclear-capable weapons testing abcnews.go.com
Coffey County seeks to add nuclear plant iolaregister.com
USA gives South Korea Green Light to Build Nuclear Submarines navalnews.com
Trump declines to rule out underground nuclear tests reuters.com
