Nuclear power startup NuScale is facing investigation by lawyers following a short-seller’s report which alleged that NuScale has sold twenty-four small modular reactors (SMRs) to a “fake customer”.
     Earlier this month NuScale announced a deal to supply blockchain firm Standard Power with one billion eight hundred and forty-eight million megawatts of electricity. Twenty-four NuScale SMRs will be needed to power two U.S. data center sites.
     Last week, NuScale’s share price dropped about ten percent after a scathing report from short-seller Iceberg Research which claimed that the thirty seven billion dollar deal had “zero chance of being executed.” The share price bounced back about six percent earlier this week after NuScale responded to Iceberg’s report. NuScale said that the Iceberg claims were “riddled with speculative statements with no basis in fact.”
     NuScale has contracted to provide Standard Power with one billion eight hundred and forty-eight million megawatts of electricity. However, Iceberg predicts that Standard Power will be unable to support the contract. Iceberg points out that Standard Power’s CEO Maxim Serezhin has an outstanding fifty-four thousand tax warrant in New York. This renders his assets vulnerable to seizure. Iceberg added that Adam Swickle, a former Standard Power leader, was found guilty of securities fraud in 2003.
     The Standard Power agreement is huge compared to NuScale’s only other contract, with the government-backed Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) to provide Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”) with 462MW. It is also much bigger than Standard Power’s other major deal, a two-hundred-megawatt contract for nuclear power at Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
     Iceberg claims that NuScale has about fifteen months before its cash runs out. Iceberg added that the UAMPS contract is reaching a crucial stage. “NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80 percent or 370 MWe.”
     Iceberg also cast doubt on NuScale’s commercial partner Entra1. Entra1 was set up in 2021 to finance NuScale reactors. However, it only has one employee and was “very unlikely to be able to finance even a portion of this contract.”
     NuScale said that it “will not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of every falsehood.” It did issue statements on several of Iceberg’s points, saying that NuScale has a “solid balance sheet,” and that the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) support for the CFPP “has advanced our SMR technology to the point of commercialization.”
     DoE support has been a key factor in NuScale’s development, assisting it to bring nuclear power down to a commercial price point. However, the price of nuclear electricity from its projected plans has been slowly increasing. It has risen from an initial estimate of fifty-five dollars per megawatt hours to around ninety dollars per megawatt hour.
     Iceberg suggested that NuScale may not be able to fully deliver without further support from the U.S. government. This would “dilute” shareholder value. NuScale went public with a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in May of 2022.
     Lawyers investigated NuScale on behalf of investors over “possible violations of federal securities laws.” Howard G Smith issued a press release this week and Rosen Law Firm is planning a class action lawsuit. These releases have been classified as “attorney advertising.”
     Overall shares of NuScale have fallen about seventy five percent since they peaked in late 2022, from about fourteen around three dollars and fifty cents.

Ambient office = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 165 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 165 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 126 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 79 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     In the U.S., maintaining and “modernizing” the nuclear weapon stockpile has been possible in part because of the extensive data acquired through earlier tests.
     Sanders-Zarke noted that Israel was suspected of conducting a joint nuclear weapon test with South Africa in 1979. A flash of light picked up by the U.S. satellite Vela near South Africa was the basis of the assessment. Israel is not known to have conducted any other tests. However, Israel did not create its nuclear program without outside assistance.
     In the 1960s, France helped Israel establish the Negev Nuclear Research Centre near the city of Dimona. The Centre is capable of producing nuclear weapons. The U.S. only discovered the facility after construction began.
     Israel has U.S.-made aircraft able to deliver nuclear bombs and German-made submarines able to carry nuclear warheads. Israel has Jericho ballistic missiles able to deliver nuclear warheads over a thousand miles to nearby nations. The exact details of Israel’s nuclear warheads and delivery methods are not known. Its U.S. and German-made vehicles could act as reliable delivery methods if fitted for nuclear warheads.
     In August, the IAEA’s director General wrote in a report that there was a “long-standing and fundamental difference of views” between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries with respect to the regulation of nuclear activity.
     Kimball noted that Israel only has agreements to allow the IAEA to inspect specific facilities and does not have a comprehensive safeguard agreement “to ensure that civilian nuclear activities and materials are not being diverted for nuclear weapons use.” He went on to say that while Israel had a nuclear arsenal, the country had “no justification nor any military need to employ nuclear weapons”.
     Kimball said that the ACA is “deeply concerned about a further escalation of violence against civilian populations. But we are not concerned that this might involve the use of nuclear weapons.”
     Israel has insisted that it has no interest in “introducing” nuclear weapons to the Middle East. However, it has continued to avoid signing comprehensive safeguard agreements with the IAEA.
     In a vote at the U.N. General Assembly last year, a vast majority of member states called on Israel to place all of its nuclear sites under IAEA supervision and to get rid of any nuclear weapons it possessed. The IAEA has not commented on whether Israel has taken any actions in line with this call.
     The civilian death toll in the war between Israel and Hamas since October 7th has already exceeded the death toll of the fifty-day conflict in Gaza in 2014. The bombing of the Al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza ignited a world-wide wave of protests. Although there is still uncertainty about the source of the explosion, there were hundreds of civilian deaths.
     Shifting tides among nuclear nations and those feared to join their ranks have made the future of international cooperation on nuclear proliferation uncertain.
     Last week, Russia announced it would begin to revoke its ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. However, they will remain a signatory. The treaty is not in force because it has not been ratified by all necessary parties. When in force, it would ban nuclear explosions for any reason.
     Iran’s U.N. Security Council-imposed ban on ballistic missiles was also lifted on last Wednesday. It banned Iran from acquiring and selling missile technology capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The U.S., Australia and the E.U. have maintained their own sanctions and restrictions against Iran in order to continue limiting Iran’s nuclear potential.

Ambient office = 59 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Jalapeno from Central Market = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 79 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     As the war between Israel and Hamas rages on in Gaza, international organizations have expressed their concern over a widening of the conflict because it has the potential to involve nuclear weapons.
     In October, the surprise Hamas attack on Israel started a war that has taken the lives of thousands of civilians. Israel continues to carry out what the head of the U.N. called “collective punishment” against Palestinians civilians. The attack on Israel also exposed a weakness in its military defense. Many question whether Israel could still defend itself with conventional weapons.
     In an October 9th post on X, Israeli lawmaker Revital Gotliv urged his government to unleash a “doomsday weapon” carried by Israel’s Jerico ballistic missiles. However, the extent of Israel’s nuclear capabilities and whether they would be effective in battle is an open question.
     Many international organizations and countries believe that Israel has nuclear weapons. However, Israel has conducted few, if any, tests of such weapons. The mystery that surrounds its nuclear program has raised questions among military experts about the nation’s actual deterrence capabilities. Israel has long maintained a policy of “nuclear ambiguity”. It has never directly confirmed or denied the existence of a nuclear arsenal.
     Daryl Kimball is executive director of the Arms Control Association (ACA). He said, “Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms stored in a partially disassembled state”. The nation is believed to have about ninety nuclear war heads as well as the ability to build a hundred more with its fissile materials stockpiles.
     Kimball stated that the use of nuclear weapons or even the threat of their use would make Israel “an international pariah and a target of foreign, conventional military attack”. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) issued a statement recently that “Israel is a nuclear-armed state, the only such state in the Middle East”.
     Alicia Sanders-Zakre is ICAN’s policy and research coordinator. She said, “Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons significantly increases the risks associated with the conflict and contributes to regional tensions. Escalation is a real danger”.
     The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that it was “following with concern” developments in the Middle East where it performs activities aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
     The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNPNW) considers the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia to be “nuclear states”. They have this designation because they built and tested nuclear explosives before 1967. North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons but have never signed the treaty.
     The China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation Limited is an aerospace defense contractor for the People’s Liberation Army. They recently published a paper in their journal. The paper said that the five treaty-recognized nuclear powers “all have land, sea and air-based nuclear strike capabilities and maintain a high level of nuclear combat readiness”. However, it is believed that Israel only has land-based capabilities. The effectiveness of nuclear strikes based solely on land-based capabilities is “questionable”.
     The nuclear nations that have not signed on to the non-proliferation treaty have conducted less than ten nuclear tests each. The U.S. has conducted more than a thousand nuclear tests. North Korea is the only nation that has conducted any nuclear tests since the end of the 1990s. Although other countries are no longer testing their nuclear weapons, they have been able to maintain their nuclear arsenals through scientific assessments such as computer simulations of nuclear processes.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 77 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 116 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 68 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 70 nanosieverts per hour