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.
Ambient office = 64 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 86 nanosieverts per hour
White onion from Central Market = 105 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 70 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 59 nanosieverts per hour
Yoon vows stronger deterrence against N.K. nuclear threat en.yna.co.kr
Bolivia inaugurates third Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy Center plenglish.com
French small modular reactor company Naarea looks to raise €150m for nuclear business datacenterdynamics.com
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant teeters on brink of 8th blackout all day news.yahoo.com
Ambient office = 97 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 93 nanosieverts per hour
Strawberry from Central Market = 125 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 96 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 85 nanosieverts per hour
Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant narrowly avoids blackout amidst power line breakages news.yahoo.com
Urenco and Energoatom sign long term contract energylivenews.com
Hibakusha, NGOs to attend U.N. meeting on nuclear weapons asahi.com
UAE approached to invest in Sizewell C nuclear power plant theguardian.com
Swedish nuclear technical services provider Studsvik has just signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Finnish utility Fortum to investigate the conditions for new nuclear facilities at the Studsvik industrial site near Nyköping in Sweden.
The MoU is part of Fortum’s nuclear feasibility study that was launched in October of 2022. During the two-year program, Fortum will explore commercial, technological, and societal, including political, legal, and regulatory conditions both for conventional large reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs) in Finland and Sweden. The study will also explore new partnerships and business models.
The agreement with Studsvik triggers a process with the aim of assessing the potential to build new nuclear power reactors at the Nyköping site. In the first phase, the goal will be to identify potential business models and technical solutions that merit further development.
Studsvik has previously said that its Nyköping site is in a strategic location. It houses the company’s broad expertise in nuclear technology, including nuclear fuel and materials technology, reactor analysis software and nuclear fuel optimization, decommissioning and radiation protection services as well as technical solutions for handling, conditioning and volume reduction of radioactive waste.
Studsvik said, “In the long-term, there is a possibility for new nuclear power on the Studsvik site, either in the form of commercial reactors, research reactors or a combination of both. In that case, Studsvik’s role will be to make land available and contribute with its expertise in various areas – not to build or operate nuclear power plants on its own.”
Camilla Hoflund is the President and CEO of Studsvik. She said, “Studsvik is positive to new nuclear as a part of the green transition, since it constitutes fossil-free, efficient, and plannable electricity production. We welcome Fortum as a partner to investigate the possibility of establishing new nuclear on the Studsvik site, which is a classic nuclear area with an infrastructure already adapted to nuclear operations.”
Fortum said that the agreement “supports its strategic priorities to deliver reliable and clean energy and to drive decarbonization in industries by providing clean energy and CO2-free solutions to its customers.”
Laurent Leveugle is the Vice President for New Nuclear at Fortum. He said, “A lot of new electricity generation will be needed across the Nordics to meet future electricity demand in our societies and industries. I am very satisfied as this agreement shows our ambition to support Sweden’s green transition in the long-term.”
The MoU between Studsvik and Fortum will run in parallel with agreements with Kärnfull Next and Blykalla (formerly known as LeadCold) that were announced earlier.
In August of this year, Studsvik signed an MoU with Swedish SMR project development company Kärnfull Next. It is exploring the possibility of building and operating SMRs at Nyköping. In March of 2022, Kärnfull Next signed an MoU with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to collaborate on deployment of BWRX-300 in Sweden.
Under an agreement signed in March, Swedish lead-cooled SMR technology developer Blykalla is to carry out a feasibility study on the construction and operation of a demonstration Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor (SEALER) with associated infrastructure for nuclear fuel fabrication in Nyköping.
Fortum has also signed cooperation agreements with Westinghouse, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, Rolls-Royce SMR, EDF, Kärnfull Next as well as Finland’s Outokumpu and Helen Energy.
Eletronuclear outlines clean hydrogen production plan world-nuclear-news.org
Commissioning of WIPP ventilation system begins world-nuclear-news.org
ICRC United to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons miragenews.com
US withdrawal put JCPOA in limbo: IAEA chief mehrnews.com
Ambient office = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 100 nanosieverts per hour
Mini cuke from Central Market = 91 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 94 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 78 nanosieverts per hour
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
The Princeton researchers, using archived weather data over a forty-eight-hour period across a number of dates in 2021 to simulate the expected radioactive plume, discovered that the West Coast states were at the lowest risk due to a prevailing easterly wind.
However, depending on the exact wind direction, the worst fallout could rain down over any part of the U.S. and Canada east of Idaho. Based on weather patterns on December 2, 2021, Chicago, Illinois and Washington D.C., among other population centers, would be in the direct path of a fatal dose of radiation.
In a worst-case scenario, almost all of Montana and North Dakota, as well as parts of Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota and Kansas would receive a dose of radiation more than ten times what is considered lethal, bringing death in a few days. Most of the Midwestern U.S., would receive a lethal dose of radiation, while elsewhere would see deaths occur in weeks.
The researchers found that most people living in North America would have a one percent chance of receiving an outdoor dose severe enough to cause acute radiation poisoning resulting in death.
The Princeton modeling makes its prediction based on the assumption that all silo-based missiles would be struck. The report does note that its projections have already been confirmed by a 1990 Federal Emergency Management Agency assessment. It found that no part of the U.S. was beyond the risk of deadly levels of radiation.
Laura Helmuth is the Scientific American’s editor-in-chief. She said, “These maps send a clear message with which the many nuclear safety and environmental experts we spoke to concur: these are not risks that we should be taking.”
The Pentagon stressed the need for the U.S. to have a functioning atomic arsenal to act as a deterrent against other nations with nuclear arsenals. Some critics have questioned the cost and necessity of the new missile replacement program because of the occasional false alarms in the system and the advances in U.S. submarines and aerial strike capabilities.
William J. Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, stated his opinion in 2016 that “there is only one way to win an arms race: refuse to run.” He added that “The only real way to use nuclear weapons is never. They should exist only in numbers large enough to deter their use by others, which they already abundantly do, with not one warhead more.” His opinion was cited in the Scientific American article.
A DoD spokesperson claimed that the “the attributes of each Triad leg are complementary, ensuring that the United States can withstand and respond to any strategic attack.”
He added that “After extensive review, the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review reiterated that the combination of all three legs of the U.S. nuclear Triad is the best approach to maintaining strategic stability at reasonable cost while mitigating against the risk of potential technical, programmatic or other problems or vulnerabilities. Silo-based ICBMs have been a core element of the Triad for over 60 years, and the replacement of the Minuteman III ICBM weapon system by the Sentinel ICBM weapon system does not increase risk to the United States.”
Ambient office = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 159 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 158 nanosieverts per hour
Green grape from Central Market = 109 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 89 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 80 nanosieverts per hour
