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.
Yesterday, I blogged about illegal dumping of nuclear waste in the Arctic Sea by the Soviet Union and Russia. The Soviet Union and Russia also dumped nuclear waste in the Sea of Japan.
In 1993, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Greenpeace announced that they had received reports that a Russia freighter was on its way to the Sea of Japan to dump nine hundred tons of nuclear waste. Greenpeace filmed the dumping operation and Japanese television broadcast it repeatedly. Japan lodged a complaint with the Russian government with respect to the dumping which was thought to be illegal under international law. It was confirmed later that such Russian dumping had been going on since at least 1959.
The London Convention of 1972 outlawed dumping of nuclear waste in the world’s oceans. The Russians claimed that under the treaty they were allowed to dump “low-level nuclear waste.” The Russian government said that it had given the Russia Navy permission to dump seventeen hundred tons of radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan in October and November of 1993. Other nations disagreed with the Russia interpretation of the treaty.
The Japanese government had agreed to a one billion and eight hundred million dollar aid package for Russia earlier in 1993. One hundred million of that aid package was intended to help Russia dismantle nuclear weapons. The Russian President arrived in Japan about a week before Greenpeace publicized the Russian nuclear waste dumping to sign an agreement with regard to nuclear waste dumping in the Sea of Japan. The agreement called for joint monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the Sea of Japan.
The Japanese public, government agencies, and various Japanese organizations including unions of fishermen demanded an immediate halt to the Russian dumping of nuclear waste into the Sea of Japan. Critical letters flooded the Russian Consulates in Japan and telegrams were sent directly to the Russian President. In late October of 1993, Russia announced that it would suspend the dumping of nuclear wastes into the Sea of Japan. However, Russia said that it might be forced to resume such dumping if it was unable to build a new waste processing plant within the next eighteen months.
Japan had opposed the prohibition of low level radioactive waste dumping in the world’s oceans during the 1980s. Apparently they thought that they might want to dispose of their own waste in that way. After the Russia dumping was publicized in late 1993, signatories of the original London Convention met to discuss policy toward nuclear waste dumping. The outcome was an explicit and detailed ban on the dumping of any nuclear wastes into the ocean.
Nuclear waste continues to be dumped into the world’s oceans by unscrupulous nuclear companies and organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia. In disregard of the London Convention, even government agencies in nuclear nations have continued to dump nuclear wastes into the ocean and seas of the planet or they have looked the other way while other organizations did the dumping. The world has been very concerned about the radioactive materials leaking from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, Fukushima is not the first incident of radioactive materials being discharged into the world’s oceans. Illegal ocean nuclear waste dumping has been going on for decades and it continues today, totally apart from Fukushima.
Greenpeace and Russian nuclear waste ship:
How to date Japanese women who haven’t been exposed to radiation. globalpost.com
Scientists at Cambridge University received £2 million in funding from Britain’s nuclear weapons research organization in the space of just two-and-a-half years. cambridge-news.co.uk
New report shows 50 tons of rubble fell in Unit 3 pool, spent fuel is highly damaged. enenews.com
Goldman Sachs is getting out of the failing uranium industry. nuclear-news.net
Over the last few months, Governor-Elect Terry McAuliffe has come out in strong opposition to lifting Virginia’s current moratorium on uranium mining. nuclear-news.net
TEPCO doesn’t mention the possibility of land subsidence under contaminated water tanks at Fukushima. Fukushima-deiary.com
Cracks up to 40 feet in concrete found near tanks of radioactive waste at Fukushima. Enenews.com
MOD names possible nuclear sites for interim storage of submarine waste. Yournuclearnews.com
Today, I am going to continue blogging about illegal dumping of wastes in Russia. There is a Russian Naval base at Murmansk on the Arctic Sea. Dumping nuclear waste into the world’s oceans has been banned by international treaty for over thirty years. It has been know for decades that the Soviet Union and Russia have been illegally dumping nuclear materials into the Arctic Sea. Because of Cold War secrecy, the exact quantities and types of nuclear materials are not completely known.
Yesterday, I blogged about the Soviet and Russian practice of dumping the effluent from the nuclear weapons factory near Chelyabinsk into the River Techa. The Techa empties into the Arctic Sea and much of the radioactive contamination from Chelyabinsk wound up in there.
The Naval base at Murmansk services nuclear powered surface vessels and submarines. Between 1964 and 1986, over seven thousand tons of solid radioactive waste and fifty six thousand cubic feet of liquid waste was dumped into the Arctic Sea. In addition, at least eighteen nuclear reactors from Soviet and Russian nuclear submarines and nuclear icebreakers were sunk in the Arctic Sea off of Murmansk. A nuclear sub was intentionally sunk off Murmansk after an accident in 1968. In addition, another Soviet nuclear sub sank three hundred miles off of Norway. That sub contained two nuclear reactors and two nuclear warheads. In 1993, the Russians admitted that a Russian ship discharged nine hundred tons of radioactive water from decommissioned nuclear subs.
A curie is a measure of radioactivity from decaying radioactive isotopes. A single curie could be sufficient to kill someone with prolonged exposure. It is estimated that between 1953 and 1991, the Soviet Union dumped over three hundred thousands of curies into the Arctic Sea. Experts maintain that radioactive materials that are dumped at sea need to be at least three thousand feet below the surface in order for it not to be a threat. Much of the dumped Soviet and Russian waste is in shallower water and a danger to the food chain.
Norway in particular is very concerned about the potential damage to prime fishing grounds in the Arctic Sea. IN 1993, Arctic Sea seals began dying of blood cancer. Since seals are near the top of the food chain, this suggests that a lot of fish are contaminated. There may be a threat to human beings eating fish from that area. Norway and other Scandinavian countries depend of fish from the Arctic Sea to feed their own people and for export sales.
Russia has responded to international outrage over their dumping practices in the Arctic Sea by claiming that they are running out of places on land to dump nuclear waste and they will have to keep dumping nuclear waste into the Arctic Sea unless the international community provides funding for other waste disposal alternatives. I guess this could be referred to as “nuclear blackmail.”
Murmansk on the Arctic Sea:
