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.

Blog

  • Geiger Readings for May 28, 2023

    Geiger Readings for May 28, 2023

    Ambient office = 81 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 75 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 71 nanosieverts per hour

    English cucumber from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 79 nanosieverts per hour

  • Geiger Readings for May 27, 2023

    Geiger Readings for May 27, 2023

    Ambient office = 95 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 100 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

    Blueberry from Central Market = 143 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 82 nanosieverts per hour

    Dover Sole from Central = 95 nanosieverts per hour

  • Nuclear Weapons 819 – U.S. Is Working On Bunker Buster Bombs To Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities Buried Deep Under Mountains – Part 4 of 4 Parts

    Nuclear Weapons 819 – U.S. Is Working On Bunker Buster Bombs To Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities Buried Deep Under Mountains – Part 4 of 4 Parts

    Part 4 of 4 Parts, (Please read Parts 1, 2 and 3 first)
         Nuclear weapons advocates believe that the U.S. should retain dedicated nuclear bunker buster in order to destroy very deep targets. Former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz spoke on this topic at an event in 2014 at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, D.C. He said that the guidance package on the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb would make it easier to target hardened structures very deep underground. The B61-12’s dial-a-yield feature and tail kit could remove the need for dedicated earth-penetrating or large-yield nukes like the specially designed bunker-busting B61-11 and more powerful B83-1.
         Following the collapse of its nuclear deals with other world powers in 2018, Iran has been enhancing its underground nuclear facilities and rapidly advancing its nuclear program in recent years. Iran is now producing enriched uranium close to weapons grade levels. Inspectors recently discovered that Iran had produced uranium particles that were about eighty four percent pure U-235 at the Fordo fuel enrichment plant. This is far above the sixty percent figure claimed by Iran. It is very close to the ninety percent threshold for weapons-grade uranium.
         Corinne Kitsell and Götz Schmidt-Bremme are the British and German ambassadors to the IAEA nuclear watchdog respectively. They said, “The full range of findings outlined by the Director General’s report are alarming: Iran continues its unprecedented and grave nuclear escalation.”
         According to the head of the IAEA, Iran has sufficient enriched uranium to construct “several” nuclear bombs as of February of this year. All in all, the latest satellite images of Iran’s underground tunnels in the Zagros mountains underscores the U.S. military’s requirement for MOPs, as well as efforts by its adversaries to mitigate the capabilities of those weapons.
         Since the Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) for the monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, there have been ongoing efforts to either restore the JCPA or create a new program to prevent Iran from creating its own nuclear arsenal. Negotiations with Iran over a new nuclear deal have had their ups and downs since the U.S. pulled out of the deal. Currently, the European powers in the original JCPA, have encouraged and even pressured the U.S. to come to terms with Iran. In the meantime, Iran has been resisting and violating some of the IAEA monitoring programs still in place.
         Given the missiles that could reach Israel and the continued belligerent statements against Israel from the Iranian government, Israel has repeatedly said that they would never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. They have said that they will attack Iran if that appears to be imminent, regardless of whether the U.S. approves and joins the attack. Hopefully, some sort of deal can be reached with Iran to halt its progress towards nuclear weapons before there is a need for the bunker busters in the U.S. arsenal.

  • Geiger Readings for May 26, 2023

    Geiger Readings for May 26, 2023

    Ambient office = 89 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 84 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 86 nanosieverts per hour

    Avocado from Central Market = 147 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 121 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

  • Nuclear Weapons 818 – U.S. Is Working On Bunker Buster Bombs To Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities Buried Deep Under Mountains – Part 3 of 4 Parts

    Nuclear Weapons 818 – U.S. Is Working On Bunker Buster Bombs To Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities Buried Deep Under Mountains – Part 3 of 4 Parts

    Part 3 of 4 Parts (Please read Parts 1 and 2 first)
         A large number of MOPs would be needed if the U.S. military were to attack the underground tunnel networks at the Natanz site because of how widely spread out these facilities appear to be. These facilities are now designed in sections with blast doors separating key sections. This means that if one area is hit, the other areas will not be impacted, or the damage will be drastically reduced to the entire facility.
          Information is limited with respect to how many MOPs the Air Force has in its stockpile. Records show that twenty MOPs have been delivered by Boeing to the Air Force up to 2015. Additional MOPs have probably been delivered since then. This would include the GBU-57E/B variant, in operational inventory since 2016, and possibly the newest GBU-57F/B variant.
         The MOP has been progressively improved over the years. There is no report on how many of the older variants have been retrofitted with modifications developed through the Enhanced Threat Response-IV and other upgrade programs.
         It is also possible that the Air Force’s bunker busters may be able individually penetrate deeper below the ground than the Air Force has publicly admitted to date. Originally, the Air Force claimed that its MOPs could burrow down just sixty feet to destroy their targets. In 2007, this depth was adjusted to two hundred feet. It is likely that newer MOP variants, including the GBU-57E/B and GBU-57F/B, can reach a greater depth than the MOP variants available in 2007. The BLU-127C/B warhead has a “booster” in the front of the warhead. It is not clear if this constitutes a system to propel the section for added penetration or if it refers to an explosive charge accelerating the detonation of the main charge.
         Other clusters of bunker busters could also be dropped on the known entry points of the underground facilities such as those in the Zagros Mountains. This maneuver could at least seal off the underground facilities temporarily. The GBU-57/B constitutes the largest bunker buster in the U.S.’s inventory. Smaller bunker busters such as the two-thousand-pound class BLU-109/Bs or BLU-137/Bs or five-thousand pound class GBU-28/Bs or GBU-72/Bs, or even GBU-57/Bs could be used for this purpose.
         There are other ways to attack these facilities but with varying potential and risks. Deep penetrating, high risk commando raids on the ground could be used in an attempt to capture or severely damage nuclear development facilities. Cyber-attacks have been used in the past to slow down Iran’s nuclear program. However, these approaches would find it difficult to do serious physical damage to the facilities. There has even been discussion of irradiating the facilities and the land around them in order to deny access and use. Finally, nuclear warheads are the best bunker busters on Earth.
    Please read Part 4 next

  • Geiger Readings for May 25, 2023

    Geiger Readings for May 25, 2023

    Ambient office = 97 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

    Tomato from Central Market = 87 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 104 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 84 nanosieverts per hour