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 written a number of posts about the problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Eastern Washington State. After decades of nuclear weapons research and development with too little concern for the fifty six million gallons of radioactive waste they produced, the struggle to clean up the site has not been going well. Buried single walled tanks of waste are leaking and the double walled tanks that were supposed to replace the single walled tanks are starting to leak. Construction of critical sections of a vitrification plant have been halted after billions of dollars were spent because it was discovered that the current design will not work.
An article was recently published in the Seattle Times a man who “managed the development of environmental impact statements for nine Department of Energy Environmental Impact Statements relating to Hanford operations.” The gist of the article was that Hanford had been thoroughly studied and that concern over the waste stored there was overblown. According to the author, if all the waste stored in the tanks were released into the ground, the radioactivity would take at least thirty years to reach the intakes for the Richland municipal water supply and would be below the level considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. I accept that this individual and the people he consulted with were competent and professional and they did the best they could at the time with modeling the flow of radioactive waste through the soil and into the Columbia. With respect to the EPA standards for drinking water, there have been some suggestions that the allowed levels of radioactive materials are too high. There is also no mention of bioaccumulation of radioactive substances in the water. Such accumulation could enter the food chain and be a threat to human health.
Activists that are concerned about Hanford have raised some issues that need to be mentioned. As reported previously in my blog, recently there have been public hearings about Hanford because of uranium leaching out of the soil and showing up in the Columbia River. This uranium is left over from millions of gallons of radioactive waste in liquid form being poured directly into unlined trenches near the Columbia River. A great deal of work has been done modeling the processes that determine what amount of uranium should be showing up in the Columbia. However, the models were mistaken and more uranium is showing up than anticipated. At the very least, this should call into question the modeling mentioned by the writer of the article in the Seattle Times.
There is a danger of hydrogen gas being produced by the waste in the underground tanks that could lead to explosions, release of radioactive materials and possible damage to other nearby tanks. This was not mentioned in the Times article.
The article calls for the rapid completion of the vitrification plant. The problem that halted the construction was the fact that the radioactive waste in the tanks varies in chemical composition and physical form. The contents of any particular tank are not well known. Because of the particles of different sizes and the changing viscosity of the contents of the tanks, it has been discovered that trying to run the waste from the tanks through the piping of the vitrification plant could lead to corrosion, leaks and even explosions. In addition, plutonium could form clumps inside the mixing tanks that might be big enough to trigger a spontaneous nuclear reaction.
While I am certain that some Hanford critics are mistaken with how serious the situation is there, I am equally certain that those who say that there is no threat to public health and safety are also mistaken. There is ample evidence that the contents of the tanks are poorly understood and past modeling of ground water movement and industrial engineering have been inadequate.
An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 5.4 jolted eastern and northeastern Japan. enenews.com
The project to build the 9900 MWe Jaitapur nuclear power plant in India has cleared some significant procedural hurdles by securing coastal permits and purchasing land. world-nuclear-news.org
Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement (NSC) is a massive construction project that started in 2010 to contain the existing Chernobyl containment structure. nuclearstreet.com
I have written about the cozy relationship between business and government in the Japanese nuclear industry. There seems to be a universal pattern in countries with nuclear industries where the government supports the industry with subsidies, tax breaks and even state ownership of nuclear corporations. Regulatory agencies are in a confused position of having to both promote and regulate nuclear companies. Often, there is more promotions than regulation. In Japan, this intermingling of government and nuclear corporations is referred to as the “nuclear village.” The Japanese Prime Minister Abe of Japan has made nuclear technology exports a major part of his economic revitalization plan.
Minoru Tanaka is a well known Japanese journalist who has published many articles critical of the Japanese nuclear village. In mid-December, he published an article in the weekly Shukan Kinyobi about Shiro Shirakawa who he called “the last big fixer.” Shirakawa is the head of a company that “provides security systems for power stations owned by the electricity utility TEPCO.” In the article, Shirakawa’s business dealings with constructions companies, banks and nuclear industry companies are detailed in Tanaka’s article. The details in the article show that many of these business arrangements are questionable at best. Tanaka explicitly accused Shirakawa of using his political conditions and industry connections to reap undeserved profits from the Fukushima disaster. But his powerful connections in industry and government have allowed Shirakawa to escape serious censure and punishment for his shady business practices. Shirakawa has brought a libel suit against Tanaka for about eight hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars. Many say that this law suit is intended to intimidate journalists and reduce the number of articles critical of the nuclear village in general and the handling of Fukushima in particular.
Tanaka is a freelance journalist. As such, he does not enjoy much support from the official Kisha press organizations. Freelancers in Japan have often been harassed for reporting on the Fukushima disaster. The Japanese government is fearful that an aroused and angry public could call for a serious debate about Japanese energy issues and even an end to all nuclear power in Japan. This would definitely be a serious blow to Abe’s plans for a nuclear Japan. Shirakawa’s lawsuit is what the Japanese refer to as a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” or a “gag” suit. In this type of suit, a power well-connected plaintiff attacks an isolated journalist.
The Abe government recently passed a new secrecy law. It is supposed to be aimed at military issues but is written very broadly. There are severe penalties for bureaucrats who leak secret documents and journalists who publish them. Critics of the new bill point out that government officials have the authority to declare what “constitutes a state secret under categories from defense to diplomacy, terrorism and safety threats.” There is fear that without adequate oversight and provisions for transparency, the new law will be abused. If nuclear affairs are branded as state secrets by the Abe government, this new law would help hide the corruption and problems in Japan’s nuclear village.
Minoru Tanaka at his libel trial:
Arnie Gundersen says that nuclear fuel has been moved by groundwater at Fukushima Daiichi. enenews.com
Cesium-137 density in seawater has been increasing in Fukushima plant port since this June. fukushima-diary.com
Commissioning is about to start at Russia’s forthcoming fast reactor, Beloyarsk 4. world-nuclear-news.com
