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.

Ambient office = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Seranos pepper from Central Market = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 82 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 Of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy shared that so far, “The [Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant] team has successfully filled four stainless steel containers with molten glass to test the process.”
     This is all part of a slow but steady process to monitor for safety and environmental compliance as Hanford prepares to fully start the active vitrification process next year.
     The decision to vitrify the waste in Hanford’s one hundred and seventy-seven storage tanks goes back to the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) which is, a legal agreement and consent order between the U.S. Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and Washington’s Department of Ecology (DoE). This agreement details the responsibilities of each agency when it comes to cleanup efforts and timelines. It ultimately tries to ensure that federal laws governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste are followed.
     Vitrified low-level waste will be disposed of on-site in stainless steel casks. A separate melter dedicated to high-level waste will come online to manage the most toxic waste. That glassified material will go to a deep geological repository.  At this point, the U.S. does not have such a site.
     The Hanford site was developed in the 1940s as part of the World War II efforts to produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon as part of The Manhattan Project.
     It was the world’s first nuclear materials production plant, though most workers were in the dark about the purpose of their contributions. The plutonium produced at Hanford was part of the atomic bomb that was later dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
     Central Washington’s desert terrain was selected for the site because it was close to the Columbia River and few people lived in the area.
     The site produced plutonium through the Cold War, and in 1987 the last reactor was shut down. Over the nearly four decades since, officials have developed a plan to clean up the radioactive waste. Many of the tanks that hold radioactive waste at Hanford have outlived their original life spans and are leaking radioactive waste into the surrounding area.
     This radioactive pollution has led Hanford to be categorized as a Superfund site. It is one of four areas on the EPA’s national priorities list for cleanup.
     Brouns said, “This is a multigenerational process. It’s going to take longer to clean it up than it took to produce the waste in the first place.”
     Part of the challenge at Hanford has been the collaboration among several state and federal agencies and shifting the culture from one devoted to the creation of nuclear materials. The site is often mired in secrecy and urgency. There is a new movement devoted to the cleanup of Hanford.
     It’s also led to discussions of who’s paying the bill and how that is affecting the timeline.  The goal post is being pushed further and further into the future. The GAO’s report estimated that the total cost of Hanford’s cleanup will be around $341 billion, with completion estimated for 2084.
     Ryan Miller is a spokesperson for the nuclear waste program at the Washington DoE. He said, “Historically, what’s happened is Hanford has been kind of routinely underfunded by like 700 million to a billion dollars or so.”
     Last year, President Biden’s budget requested a record amount for Hanford cleanup, at $3 billion. State officials hope the same amount will be allocated this year. According to the DoE, every year of inadequate funding delays cleanup an additional 1 1/2 to 3 years.
     One of the important alternatives to vitrification for environmental advocates is a cheaper option that’s been floated by some federal agencies. It is called grouting, which involves solidifying the waste in specialized concrete. This could reduce costs and potentially shorten the cleanup timeline. However, it’s less stable than vitrification and does not last as long.

Ambient office = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Shallot from Central Market = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 77 nanosieverts per hour