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.
The United States and Russia have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, there have been disarmament treaties between the U.S. and Russia, including several Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START),” which have reduced nuclear arsenals in the two nations from the tens of thousands of warheads that existed at the height of the Cold War to a few thousand each today. Russia decommissioned tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and sold the nuclear materials to the U.S. to make fuel for nuclear reactors. Until recently, the trends favored an end to the insane doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” that was the basis of the Cold War stalemate. Unfortunately for the human race, relations between the two countries have been deteriorating, exacerbated by the Russian seizure of Crimea from Ukraine in early 2014.
A senior Russian military official recently stated that “continued hostility may change the way Russia views the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.” He said that given the attitude of the United States towards Russia these days may result in Moscow changing its policies towards the treaty. On the other hand, the top Russian diplomat has said that current tensions between the U.S. and Russia will have no effect on Moscow’s disarmament program. He went on to say that START is still in effect and both the U.S. and Russia say that they are implementing its provisions. He also said that neither the U.S. nor Russia have expressed any concerns with the other nation with respect to START.
The current version of START was signed in 2011. Under its terms, the U.S. and Russia are both allowed to have a maximum of one thousand five hundred and fifty nuclear warheads and seven hundred delivery systems. Considering that there are estimates that the detonation of as few as one hundred nuclear warheads could be sufficient to cause a “nuclear winter” that would bring the end of human civilization, the START numbers seem overly generous.
In June of 2013, U.S. President Obama suggested a further reduction in nuclear arms. Russian President Putin replied that Russia could not afford to take such steps in view of U.S. weapons development and missile defense systems. Putin said that Russia will continue working on space defense as a key element of the entire Russian defense system. In spite of stiff sanctions imposed by other nations after the seizure of Crimea, Russian officials said that there would be no cuts to their military budget NATO. He said that conventional Russian forces could take on NATO forces but that if Russia were losing such a fight, he would consider unleashing tactical nuclear weapons against NATO. He has also spoken about the possibility of moving nuclear weapons into Crimea.
Both the U.S. and Russia have announced plans for upgrading their nuclear arsenals. The war of words continues as Russia slides towards economic collapse. Putin’s belligerence in Eastern Europe has helped maintain his popularity with the Russian people but threatens to start a new Cold War. Although further arms reductions seems unlikely in the near future, we can hope that someday, the huge nuclear arsenals in the U.S. and Russia will be reduced to zero.
Obama signs START 2011:
TEPCO is racing against time to process 280,000 tons of tainted water at Fukushima plant. ajw.asahi.com
Ahead of US President Barack Obama’s arrival here, India and US will seek to move decisively one more time on January 21 with a meeting of the nuclear contact group to resolve the contentious liability issue. timesofindia.indiatimes.com
84-year-old activist nun imprisoned in Brooklyn jail hellhole for breaking into nuclear facility, exposing security flaws. nydailynews.com
I have posted many times about the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 and its aftermath. I also post a lot of links to articles about the consequences of the Fukushima disaster. It has impacted Japan socially, economically, politically, environmentally, and in many other ways. One of my reasons for all these Fukushima postings is to help people all over the world understand just how damaging a major nuclear accident can be.
Unfortunately for the people of Japan, the Japanese government under Prime Minister Abe is committed not only to the restart of most of the Japanese reactors, idle since the disaster, but also making nuclear technology exports a major part of Japan’s international trade. Considering the fact that half of the nuclear technology being exported from Japan is not inspected, it might not be a good investment for other countries to purchase Japanese nuclear components and reactors.
Reacting to the public backlash resulting from the Fukushima disaster and critical coverage in the press, Japan passed a new state secrets law. This new law has the stated purpose of “protecting national security by restricting the release of information about defense and diplomacy, or keeping information needed to prevent terrorist attacks and “specified harmful activities” confidential.” The new law is not just applicable to government bureaucrats and major defense contractors. Lawyers say that portions of the law including a requirement that anyone handling state secrets must have a background check could have an impact on academic research. The law contains three hundred and eighty two named subjects as state secrets under the law.
Critics of the law point out that there is no powerful independent agency outside of the government that has the authority to decide what exactly falls under the new law. There were supposed to be external oversight agencies set up as part of implementing the new law but political arguments resulted in the law going into effect without the promised oversight. Academics are afraid that the ambiguity of the law could be used to persecute scientists who upset the government.
The existence of the law and the practice of the government in designating major media as “approved,” have helped to suppress criticism of the government’s and TEPCO’s response to the Fukushima disaster. The “approved” media are afraid to publish stories that are “too” critical of government and industry. Independent journalists without the support of a major corporation will be vulnerable to claims that they violated the new law by publishing articles about radiation levels around Japan, organized crime’s involvement in the nuclear industry, health problems caused by Fukushima radiation and corruption in the Japanese government and nuclear industry. The government and TEPCO have already been caught withholding accurate data about environmental damage from Fukushima, related health problems and the seriousness of the damage to the power plant and the dangers it still poses. This law will serve to further prevent the Japanese people from receiving a full accounting of the causes of, nature of and consequences of the Fukushima disaster. This is especially troubling because of the current push to restart the Japanese fleet of reactors and to export Japanese nuclear technology.
Fukushima power plant just after the disaster:
