Ambient office = .078 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .086 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .070 microsieverts per hour
Vine ripened tomatoe from Cosco = .156 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .057 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .050 microsieverts per hour
A new study suggests that male health professionals who handle X-rays and gamma radiation sources at hospitals on a regular basis for a prolonged period of time, produce poor quality sperm cells. timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Duke Energy has dropped plans to build two new reactors at the Greenfield Levy site in Florida blaming regulatory uncertainty. world-nuclear-news.org
Ambient office = .061 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .123 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .105 microsieverts per hour
Romain lettuce from Cosco = .095 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .067 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .057 microsieverts per hour
At the height of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads targeted and ready to launch in minutes. Fortunately for the future of the human race, after a number of treaties and the end of the Cold War, the United States and the Russian Federation only have a few thousand warheads each. Other nuclear powers have a few hundred each. North Korea has a few warheads and Iran appears to be on the verge of creating a warhead. President Obama recently suggested that the U.S. and the Russian Federation decommission even more warheads. Of course, there are those in the U.S. and the Russian Federation that either because of ideology or profit from warhead and delivery systems manufacturer are concerned about further disarmament.
A recent op-ed piece by Peter Huessy in the U.S. News and World Report attacked Obama for advocating further reduction in nuclear arsenals. Currently, the U.S. and the Russians have several delivery systems for nuclear warheads. These include bombers, submarines and missiles. The U.S. arsenal and delivery systems are designed to be able to withstand a first strike and still be able to retaliate, destroying the enemy. Huessy argues that if we reduce our delivery systems and warheads much more, we risk destabilizing the world because some enemy might decide that they could successfully disarm the U.S. with a surprise first strike and we would be unable to successfully retaliate.
Huessy points out that the Russians are upgrading their fleet of submarines, their missiles and bombers. He says that China will soon have a hundred missiles that could reach the United States and is quickly building more missiles. Then he warns of Iran and North Korea soon having missiles that could reach the U.S. He advocates for upgrading our nuclear forces and against any further reduction claiming that the world nuclear situation is becoming more unstable and that current U.S. systems are aging and rapidly becoming obsolete. I have to say that hearing this old Cold War rhetoric in the modern age is surprising and depressing.
First of all, talking about Iran and North Korea is just silly. If either of them launched a missile or two at the U.S., we could incinerate them with a fraction of our nuclear force and they know it. In any case, Iran is more concerned with Israel and North Korea is more concerned with South Korea than either of them is going to be interested in attacking the U.S.
China is has enormous investments in the U.S. and their economy is highly dependent on trade with the U.S. Anything that they could possibly gain by attacking the U.S. would be tiny compared with the devastating loss of investment in and trade with the U.S. In addition, it is doubtful that they could disarm us with a hundred missiles even if we substantially reduce our nuclear forces. And, even if our retaliation was not “successful” we could still kill tens of millions and devastate their factories and cities. The Chinese are not suicidal.
We also have ties of investment and trade with the Russian Federation. Yes, they could attack us and substantially reduce our retaliation but some would still get through, killing millions and damaging their industrial capability. And what exactly could they gain from such an attack that would be worth the resulting crash in the global economy.
And, finally, it has been estimated that even as few as one hundred warheads exploding could bring on a nuclear winter which would threaten the entire world and possibly end civilization. Look at the damage that one nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan has caused. Fallout from that disaster has circled the entire Northern Hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean is being polluted with radioactive cesium. Any nation which launched a major nuclear attack on another would wind up destroying themselves. When it comes to destabilization, the kind of pointing out of potential enemies and calls for increasing nuclear forces in the U.S. in that op-ed could lead to a new Cold War and arms race. I think that this would be more destabilizing than a call to reduce nuclear stockpiles.
New cutting and decontamination methods are being tested to clear away old equipment more quickly and free space to store higher priority wastes at Sellafield. world-nuclear-news.org
As it reported disappointing earnings Tuesday, Entergy offered more details on where it will cut 800 positions across its organization. Nuclearstreet.com
Ambient office = .096 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .078 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .102 microsieverts per hour
Iceberg lettuce from Cosco = .083 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .095 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .070 microsieverts per hour
I have written many articles about the problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Central Washington State. There so many issues at Hanford that I could do a daily blog on just Hanford and never run out of material. Many citizen groups, including the Heart of America Northwest, are pressuring Washington State and Federal departments such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to move more aggressively to stop the horrible environmental damage that is ongoing at Hanford.
During World War II and the Cold War, uranium was milled and fashioned into fuel rods for the Hanford reactors in an area called the “300 Area.” The 300 Area was also used for experiments in chemically removing plutonium from spent uranium fuel rods. Each day, about two million gallons of liquid radioactive waste was poured into settling ponds and trenches next to the Columbia River.
In the 1990s, some trenches were dug up and some of the contaminated soil was removed. The level of uranium in the groundwater went down. As a result of this work, it was assumed that if contaminated soil was removed to a depth of fifteen feet, the pollution of the groundwater would eventually stop. However, it was later discovered that there was contamination in the soil below fifteen feet that still leached into the groundwater. Also, the rising and falling levels of the Columbia River caused the ground water to rise and fall which resulted in the periodic saturation of zones of contaminated soil. Today there is a one hundred twenty five acre groundwater plume from the 300 Area that is carrying about three hundred thirty pounds of uranium into the Columbia River each year.
Part of the current cleanup plan involves digging up the trenches, pipes and some of the soil where the radioactive garbage was dumped. Unfortunately, it would cost over one billion dollars to dig up all the contaminated soil. There is not sufficient space in the lined landfill at Handford to contain the seventy million cubic feet of contaminated soil. Ironically, the digging itself might increase the contamination of the groundwater because the water used to control dust would soak down through the soil into the groundwater.
Instead of digging up all the contaminated soil, the current cleanup plan includes sequestering or locking the uranium in place by adding phosphates to the soil to chemically bind the uranium. The resulting uranium phosphate compound, called autunite, is a stable mineral that does not dissolve easily and would keep the uranium from moving with the groundwater. The phosphates would be added by pouring them onto the ground and injecting them into wells that did not reach the water table. This approach is predicted to lower the uranium contamination of the groundwater to safe levels over a few decades. Over decades of research, no better alternative has been found.
Critics of the plan say that more research is needed including more tests of the actual proposed processes at the 300 Area before the cleanup plan is finalized. There will be a public hearing in Seattle at 7 PM on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 to discuss the Hanford cleanup at the University Heights Center, 5031 University Way, Seattle. There will be a pre-hearing workshop at 6:15.
Ambient office = .056 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .087 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .065 microsieverts per hour
Hass avacado from Cosco = .173 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .099 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .087 microsieverts per hour
I have posted a previous blog entries about the San Onofre reactor near San Diego. The two operating reactors were shut down in January of 2012 because of unexpected corrosion in three thousand tubes following the replacement of four steam generators. Southern California Edison (SCE), the owners of the power plant, had contracted Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (HMI), a Japanese company, to build the new steam generators. SCE told the NRC that the new generators were exactly the same as the old ones they were replacing but it was later found that there were some design changes that contributed to the pipe corrosion. A computer simulation of the new generators did not reveal that there would be a problem with the tubes prior to the construction of the steam generators. SCE and MHI are fighting in court about who is at fault for the design failures.
After months of negotiations with the NRC, SCE concluded that it would not be able to afford to make the required repairs under the conditions demanded by the NRC. The final decision was made last month to decommission the power plant. There are outstanding bills of over five hundred million dollars. There is a great deal of argument about what bills should be paid and by whom. Whatever the outcome of the arguments it will take years if not decades to decommission and decontaminate the power plant.
The nuclear fuel has all been removed from the reactors but there remains a great deal of nuclear waste in the form of spent fuel rods stored in pools of water at the power plant. This waste must be dealt with in some way as the plant is decommissioned. Without a permanent repository available, the plant could be put into what is called “Safe Enclosure” where the plant is sealed up and the waste would be not pose a threat to public safety. The owners would continue to be responsible and subject to NRC regulation for decades until the waste is removed and the plant is demolished. A second option would be “Entombment” where the nuclear waste is moved into as small a volume as possible and then that space is surrounded by a concrete shell meant to last until the waste is no longer dangerous.
The impact of the closure is already being felt. The wholesale cost of electricity is projected to rise as much as sixty percent. Some residence fear that during peak power demands in the summer months, the electrical supply may become unreliable leading to brownouts and blackouts. Merchants are suffering from the lost business of people who used to work at the power plant. Seasonal workers and consultants accounted for a lot of local hotel revenues and rentals of houses and apartments.
California now has only one operating nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon. Diablo Canyon has its own problems and may have to be shut down in the not too distant future. California State law prohibits permitting for any new reactors until the Federal Government has a permanent repository of nuclear waste. Since the Yucca Mountain Repository project was cancelled several years ago, the United States has been working on siting a new repository. Latest estimates indicate that there will not be a national repository until 2050 at the earliest. So the California law amounts to a ban on the construction of new reactors.
California is a big state with a lot of industry and one of the biggest economies among the states. If they can successfully make the transitions away from nuclear and fossil fuels, that will an inspiration to other states to shut down their nuclear power plants.
