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.
Radiation levels spiked to a record high in Fukushima groundwater well nearby the ocean. enenews.com
My last couple of blog posts had to do with the Stuxnet computer worm and the Iranian nuclear program. The Saudis, the Iranians and the Israelis are engaged in a complex conflict over the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, there is another nuclear problem in the same part of the world. Pakistan and India have gone to war three times since they were created in 1949. They both possess nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them.
India and Pakistan both have about one hundred nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. If they went to war, it would be a small exchange of warheads when compared to the U.S. and Russia which each have over a thousand warheads aimed at each other. If either the Pakistanis or the Indians executed a first strike that overwhelmed the other, within months, the fallout from the nuclear blasts would be carried back into the attacking country by the changing wind patterns. It would really be a no win scenario.
Recently, the Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility updated a study that was first published in 2012. The study covered the potential global effects of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Beyond the immediate tens of millions of deaths where their bombs fell, there would be serious global impacts.
The study concluded that the result of such a war would be a global famine caused by the particles of black carbon that would be injected into the atmosphere by even a limited nuclear exchange. The U.S. corn and soybean production would drop by at least ten percent and the Chinese rice production would drop by at least twenty one percent over four years. Chinese wheat production would be hard hit as well. It would drop fifty percent in the first year after the war and would still be thirty percent lower than current levels for ten years. The study estimated that over a billion people would die as a result of the famine cause by the nuclear war.
It is likely that such a devastating event would cause many additional global problems. The fallout would spread around the planet, endangering all life. The need for medical care for survivors would be enormous. The destroyed infrastructure in either or both combatants would put the survivors at risk with the loss of electrical power, water purification, and distribution networks for food and medicine. Disease would run wild through Pakistan, India and beyond, killing tens of millions more. Refugees would flood into surrounding countries, toppling governments and inciting armed conflict. In other parts of the world, totalitarian governments would come to power as traumatized citizens fell prey to demagogues. It is likely that human civilization itself would so heavily impacted by such a war that the world could fall into a hellish dark ages. The only solution to such a possibility is to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons in all of the nine countries currently known or believed to possess them and strenuous efforts to keep other countries from developing them.
Russian Missile on Carrier:
My last couple of blog posts had to do with the Stuxnet computer worm and the Iranian nuclear program. The Saudis, the Iranians and the Israelis are engaged in a complex conflict over the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, there is another nuclear problem in the same part of the world. Pakistan and India have gone to war three times since they were created in 1949. They both possess nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them.
India and Pakistan both have about one hundred nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. If they went to war, it would be a small exchange of warheads when compared to the U.S. and Russia which each have over a thousand warheads aimed at each other. If either the Pakistanis or the Indians executed a first strike that overwhelmed the other, within months, the fallout from the nuclear blasts would be carried back into the attacking country by the changing wind patterns. It would really be a no win scenario.
Recently, the Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility updated a study that was first published in 2012. The study covered the potential global effects of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Beyond the immediate tens of millions of deaths where their bombs fell, there would be serious global impacts.
The study concluded that the result of such a war would be a global famine caused by the particles of black carbon that would be injected into the atmosphere by even a limited nuclear exchange. The U.S. corn and soybean production would drop by at least ten percent and the Chinese rice production would drop by at least twenty one percent over four years. Chinese wheat production would be hard hit as well. It would drop fifty percent in the first year after the war and would still be thirty percent lower than current levels for ten years. The study estimated that over a billion people would die as a result of the famine cause by the nuclear war.
It is likely that such a devastating event would cause many additional global problems. The fallout would spread around the planet, endangering all life. The need for medical care for survivors would be enormous. The destroyed infrastructure in either or both combatants would put the survivors at risk with the loss of electrical power, water purification, and distribution networks for food and medicine. Disease would run wild through Pakistan, India and beyond, killing tens of millions more. Refugees would flood into surrounding countries, toppling governments and inciting armed conflict. In other parts of the world, totalitarian governments would come to power as traumatized citizens fell prey to demagogues. It is likely that human civilization itself would so heavily impacted by such a war that the world could fall into a hellish dark ages. The only solution to such a possibility is to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons in all of the nine countries currently known or believed to possess them and strenuous efforts to keep other countries from developing them.
