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.
I have been blogging lately about illegal dumping of radioactive materials around the world. I am going to change topics for today’s blog. Recently there has been a series of reports about a fire and a “radiation event” at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. This facility is a deep geological repository for waste generated by the manufacture of nuclear weapons for the United States military and is the only transuranic repository in the U.S.
Around February 7th, a truck carrying salt inside the repository caught fire. All the personnel were evacuated from the facility at that time. The U.S. Department of Energy sent in a team to investigate the fire. While they were there, a “radiation event” took place. I don’t know whether the fire was connected with the “event” but I find the timing interesting.
On February 14th, the “radiation event” occurred. It is still not clear exactly what caused this “event.” There are indications that radioactive processes generated hydrogen, methane, and/or or volatile organic compounds which then exploded. A air monitoring device registered airborne radiation late on the 14th. The next day, the ventilation system was switched to a filtration mode which reduced the possibility of releases of radioactive materials. In filtration mode, the ventilation system removes at least ninety nine and ninety seven hundredth of airborne contaminants.
On February 18th, plutonium was detected about one half mile from the repository indicating that there must have been a release of some radioactive materials into the environment. Radioactive materials were also detected by a monitor that was over a mile and a half from the repository. Included in the release were small amounts of plutonium and americium which are very toxic radioactive isotopes. Air monitors eleven miles from the repository have not registered any radioactivity.
Authorities have been downplaying the “event.” They have reassured the public that there is absolutely no danger from the radioactive release. Information has been lacking on exactly where the wind may have blown the radioactive materials. The Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center (CEMRC) stated that the plutonium and americium are heavy and the wind would not carry them far from repository. However, the CEMRC is offering free testing for anyone within a hundred miles of the repository.
The materials in the repository are highly radioactive and the authorities are going to wait for at least a month before sending people in to investigate the causes of the “event.” They have scheduled a public meeting to answer people’s concerns about the “event.” There are still a number of important questions that have not been answered. They do not know what caused the release. They don’t know exactly what caused the radioactive materials to travel over a mile and a half from the repository. They do not know exactly what quantities of which radionuclides were released. They do not know where all the radionuclides that were not trapped by the filters wound up.
The WIPP is an important repository for the long term storage of plutonium contaminated wastes from nuclear weapons production. If WIPP is shut down for a long period while the “event” is researched, it may cause a problem with the disposal of transuranic wastes and the production of nuclear weapons in the U.S.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico:
Japan’s ongoing nuclear disaster is scary enough, but some rumors and hoaxes linked to it are alarming and persistent. Aljazeera.com
Spain’s cabinet has approved a royal decree that allows recently shutdown nuclear power plants to apply for their operating permits to be renewed. World-nuclear-news.org
Transform Now Plowshares nuclear protest is being ignored by the media. Baltimoresun.com
I have been blogging about illegal dumping of nuclear wastes by and in different countries. Some of the articles have contained references to ocean dumping of wastes. There have been various international treaties signed intended to stop such practices including the London Convention of 1972 which went into effect in 1975.
The first recorded dumping of radioactive materials occurred in 1946 off the coast of California. Over the years, at least thirteen countries have dump radioactive materials into the world’s oceans. The dumping consists of three different types. Type one is liquid low-level wastes. The second type is solid low-level waste in containers and the third is reactor vessels with or without nuclear fuel. About two thirds of the radioactivity that has been dumped into the oceans comes from of six submarine reactors and one reactor from an icebreaker dumped by the Soviet Union into the Arctic Sea. The remaining third is mainly from low-level waste dumped by eight European nations into the north Atlantic. Waste has also been dumped into the Sea of Japan and parts of the Pacific Ocean by several different nations.
The London Convention was based on a black list and a grey list of toxic wastes including radioactive waste. High-level radioactive wastes were on the black list and signatories were prohibited from dumping such wastes in the ocean. Intermediate-level and low-level nuclear wastes were on the grey list and could be dumped as long as a permit was issued by the nation where the wastes originated. The International Atomic Energy Agency published guidelines for what areas of the world’s oceans could be used for such dumping as well as minimum depth for dumping. Although the Soviet Union signed the Convention in 1975, they regularly dumped high-level radioactive waste into the Arctic Sea and violated the recommendations of the IAEA.
Following the London Convention, other treaties were signed to prohibit all dumping of radioactive waste into designated bodies of water. In 1974, the Baltic Sea was placed off limits to dumping; in 1976, the Mediterranean Sea was prohibited; in 1985, areas of the South Pacific Ocean were prohibited; in 1989, the Southeast Pacific Ocean was prohibited and in 1992, the Black Sea was prohibited.
In 1985, the signatories of the London Convention met to consider the issue of radioactive dumping into the remaining world’s oceans and seas. They decided to call for a voluntary moratorium on any dumping of radioactive wastes into the oceans. At a meeting in 1986, a panel was convened to consider the political, legal, social, economic and technical issues connected to ocean dumping. A series of reports was issued by the panel in the next few years.
In 1993, another meeting of the London Convention signatories concluded that, partly based on the reports issued by the panel, all ocean dumping of any type of radioactive waste would be prohibited starting in 1994. Despite the agreement to stop ocean dumping, reports have charged that the Italian Mafia has been illegally dumping radioactive wastes into the ocean off the south coast of Italy and off the east African coast near Somalia. As with all treaties involving prohibited behavior, the problem is detection of violations and punishment of violations. The biggest current problem with the world’s oceans and radioactive materials is, of course, the huge amount of radioactive contamination flooding into the north Pacific from the Fukushima disaster. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult for Japan to halt this pollution of the Pacific, regardless of promises made in international treaties.
Areas of the world’s oceans where radioactive materials have been dumped:
