Ambient office = 118 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 55 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 54 nanosieverts per hour

Mini cucumber from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 100 nanosieverts per hour

     IsoEnergy Ltd. is a leading, globally diversified uranium mining company with substantial current and historical mineral resources in top uranium mining jurisdictions of Canada, the U.S., Australia, and Argentina at varying stages of development. This provides near, medium, and long-term leverage to rising uranium prices. It is based in in Saskatoon, Canada. 
     IsoEnergy will reopen underground access at the Tony M uranium mine in Utah during the first half of this year. IsoEnergy’s goal is to restart uranium production operations in 2025 if market conditions continue as expected.
     This “strategic decision” is underpinned by rising uranium prices, the climate of increasing support and demand for nuclear energy, and the recent announcement by Energy Fuels Inc to restart its uranium circuit at the White Mesa mill, IsoEnergy said. Energy Fuels Inc has a toll milling agreement with IsoEnergy.
    The Tony M mine is one of three past-producing, fully-permitted, uranium mines in Utah owned by IsoEnergy. It produced nearly one million pounds of uranium oxide (U3O8) during two different periods of operation from 1979-1984 and from 2007-2008. The mine was acquired by IsoEnergy Ltd on the company’s share-for-share merger with Consolidated Uranium Inc, which was completed last December.
     IsoEnergy’s announcement comes just over six months after Consolidated Uranium began work towards reopening the underground workings at the Tony M mine. IsoEnergy said it plans to reopen the main decline into the mine and open underground access by the end of the first half of 2024.
     IsoEnergy said, “This critical step is expected to facilitate the assessment of the mine’s underground conditions, enable direct analysis of the uranium mineralization in place, and allow for the collection of necessary data required to prepare an efficient mine plan.” The company added, “The work program also includes underground and surface geological mapping of the sandstone-hosted uranium and vanadium mineralization to allow for more precise extraction plans for inclusion in an updated economic study.”
    Energy Fuels announced in late December of last year that it plans to restart the uranium circuit at the White Mesa mill in 2025. IsoEnergy said it intends to deliver uranium ore to the mill in time for the restart of the uranium circuit.
     IsoEnergy believes that the timing of the restart is “ideal”, given current and near-term uranium market dynamics according to CEO and Director Phil Williams said. He added that “With the uranium spot price now trading around USD100 per pound, we are in the very fortunate position of owning multiple, past-producing, fully-permitted uranium mines in the US that we believe can be restarted quickly with relatively low capital costs. Our existing toll-milling agreement with Energy Fuels places IsoEnergy in a unique position to become a conventional uranium producer in the near-term.”
     The work program at Tony M mine includes updating and maintaining the existing mine ventilation and other infrastructure, surveying and rehabilitating underground mine workings and ground support as needed and upgrading and/or replacement of utilities.
     IsoEnergy mentioned that it is also evaluating plans to restart operations at the Daneros and Rim mines.

Ambient office = 83 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 127 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 129 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 81 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 60 nanosieverts per hour

     Unit 2 of the Cruas-Meysse nuclear power plant in south-eastern France was recently restarted after being fueled with its first full core of recycled uranium fuel. The action marks a major milestone in France’s efforts to revive its domestic uranium reprocessing industry.
     Reprocessed uranium (RepU) is extracted from spent fuel from nuclear reactors that has been processed at Orano’s La Hague reprocessing plant. Once enriched by this process, this uranium can be used again to fuel nuclear power reactors. In France, only the four reactors at the Cruas-Meysse plant in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes are certified to use RepU.
     Historically, the enrichment process required centrifuges solely dedicated to RepU. It was carried out for industrial and economic reasons by Russia’s Rosatom at its Seversk site. However, the new geopolitical situation between Russia and Europe since the onset of the war in Ukraine may lead to a reevaluation of these contracts.
     For many years, EDF’s Fuel Division has been developing a strategy for the management, recycling and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel assemblies. It is also working on the diversification of sources of supply, to ensure energy independence and the preservation of natural resources.
     On 5 February, Cruas Unit 2 was restarted with its first completely recycled uranium fuel load.

Ambient office = 67 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 136 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 136 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 67 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 135 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

     Recently obtained classified Russian military documents reportedly show that Russian forces have rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons during “an early stage of conflict with a major world power”. China is the major world power in question.
     Western media claimed to have access to these “secret” military files through “Western sources”. The documents reveal the criteria set by Russia for the use of nuclear weapons. These criteria “date back 10 years and more [between 2008 and 2014]”. The report mentioned experts as saying this “cache of 29 secret Russian military files” remains relevant to current Russian military doctrine.
     The Russian military files included training scenarios for an invasion by China. The defensive plans highlight deeply held suspicions of China among Moscow’s security elite.
     Russia and China have deepened their relationship over the years. According to the report, Russian President Vladimir Putin forged a cordial relationship with China, “which as early as 2001 included a nuclear no-first-strike agreement”.
     Even as the two countries became closer, Russia’s training materials indicated that the country’s eastern military district was war gaming multiple scenarios depicting a Chinese invasion. The exercises offer an insight into “how it trains forces to be able to carry out a nuclear first strike in some battlefield conditions”. There was one exercise that considered “a hypothetical attack by China”. It mentioned that Russia could respond with a tactical nuclear strike in order to stop “the South” from advancing with a second wave of invading forces.
     The report cited the documents: “The order has been given by the commander-in-chief…to use nuclear weapons… in the event the enemy deploys second-echelon units and the South threatens to attack further in the direction of the main strike”.
     China’s foreign ministry denied there were any grounds for the to be suspicious of Russia. The Russian government did not respond to a request for comment.
    The classified documents described a threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons that is lower than Russia has ever publicly admitted. These documents were reviewed and verified by experts.
     Alexander Gabuev is the director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. He was quoted as saying that the documents show that the operational threshold for using nuclear weapons is “pretty low if the desired result can’t be achieved through conventional means” .
     The classified documents revealed that the threshold as a combination of factors where losses suffered by Russian forces “would irrevocably lead to their failure to stop major enemy aggression, a “critical situation for the state security of Russia”.
     The documents also contained a separate training presentation for naval officers. It outlined broader criteria for a potential tactical nuclear strike. This included “an enemy landing on Russian territory, the defeat of units responsible for securing border areas, or an imminent enemy attack using conventional weapons”.
      Other potential conditions that would call for a tactical nuclear response included the destruction of twenty percent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines, thirty percent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines, three or more cruisers, three airfields, or a simultaneous hit on main and reserve coastal command centers.
     The tactical nuclear weapons might also be used for “containing states from using aggression…or escalating military conflicts”, “stopping aggression”, preventing Russian forces from losing battles or territory, and making Russia’s navy “more effective”. The report said that Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons can be delivered by land or sea-launched missiles or aircraft. Russian tactical nuclear weapons are reportedly designed for limited battlefield use in Europe and Asia, as opposed to the larger “strategic” weapons intended to target the US.
     Russia and the United States have the world’s largest arsenals of nuclear weapons. President Joe Biden has warned that a conflict between Russia and NATO could trigger World War III. Recently, it has been speculated that Russia is planning to put a nuclear weapon in space.