Part 1 of 2 Parts
     Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, has repeatedly threatened other nations with the possible use of nuclear weapons. His nuclear bombers have repeatedly flown into the airspace of other nations with no warning or apology. His nuclear submarines and surface ships have entered the territorial waters of other nations without warnings or apologies. He has bragged about new horrific nuclear weapons under development in Russia such as the Poseidon stealth torpedo. He claims that it will be able to travel underwater undetected for many miles to enter the harbor of an enemy nation. Its detonation would obliterate the city around the harbor and cause a huge tidal wave that would travel inland for miles destroying everything in its path. Another Russian project is a nuclear cruise missile that could fly under radar for years without refueling. It would not need to detonate to cause harm because it would spew an exhaust filled with radioactive materials across the landscape of an enemy.
     Back in February of this year, Russia invaded Ukraine. Many times, during the ensuing conflict, Russia has claimed that explosions that devastated civilian targets and killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians were actually caused by the Ukrainian army to make Russia look like a villain. Attributing such attacks to other parties is known false flag operations.
      Five years ago, I wrote up a list of forty reasons not to use nuclear power. The last items on the list had to do with military issues. (1) Nuclear power plants produce plutonium which can be used to make nuclear weapons. (2) Nuclear power plants are great targets for terrorists. (3) Radioactive materials such as spent nuclear fuel can be used to construct “dirty bombs” by packing such materials around a core of conventional explosives. (4) In time of war, nuclear power stations make great targets. Destroying them would both deprive an enemy of power and spread radioactive materials over a wide area, threatening the lives of millions of people. They would also be great targets to hold hostage and they might accidental be hit during bombardment.
     At the time I wrote this list, such military issues were hypotheticals. Now, however, the Russian occupation of Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants during their invasion of Ukraine has made such problems much more likely.
     There has been great international concern that explosions and fires at Zaporizhzhia might lead to a nuclear disaster. The Ukrainians blame the Russians, and the Russians blame the Ukrainians.
     Putin has been threatening NATO countries that are supporting the Ukrainians with nuclear retaliation since the invasion. He recently said that if there was a nuclear incident at Zaporizhzhia, he would consider utilizing tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. His pretext would be that the nuclear incident would threaten Russia and justify the use of nuclear weapons.
      Putin has threatened for years to use tactical nuclear weapons in eastern Europe if he is losing a ground war with conventional weapons against NATO. He has repeatedly said that NATO has been helping Ukrainian fight Russia and that makes them part of the fight.
Please read Part 2 next

Turkey asks Russia to construct second nuclear plant, report says ekathimerini.com

A Eulogy for the Iran Nuclear Deal freebeacon.com

NuScale’s Emergency Planning Zone boundary methodology validated businesswire.com

Expanded offices to help deter nuclear threats opened Thursday at Hill AF Base fox13now.com

Ambient office = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 52 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 92 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 71 nanosieverts per hour

Turkey asks Russia to construct second nuclear plant, report says ekathimerini.com

A Eulogy for the Iran Nuclear Deal freebeacon.com

NuScale’s Emergency Planning Zone boundary methodology validated businesswire.com

Expanded offices to help deter nuclear threats opened Thursday at Hill AF Base fox13now.com

 

Ambient office = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 65 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 85 nanosieverts per hour

X-energy marks start of construction at US fuel plant world-nuclear-news.org

Feedwater pump damage delays Finnish EPR commissioning world-nuclear-news.org

UK nuclear warhead maintenance staff to vote on strike action news.sky.com

Putin has already tried to detonate a nuke and may have been “sabotaged” by his own top brass, insiders claim. Thesun.co.uk

 

 

 

 

Ambient office = 145 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 120 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Grape from Central Market = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 81 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 114 nanosieverts per hour

     Finland has strengthened its regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety and made significant progress in recent years. This was reported by a team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission team recommended expediting a planned amendment of the legislation so that it covers all stages of the life cycle for nuclear and radiation facilities.
     IRRS missions are intended to strengthen the effectiveness of national nuclear and radiation regulatory infrastructure. IAEA safety standards and international good practices provide the basis for their mission. They also recognize the responsibility of each country to ensure nuclear and radiation safety.
     The IAEA team concluded a twelve-day investigatory mission to Finland on the 14th of October. The mission was requested by the Finnish government. It was hosted by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK). The team comprised eighteen senior regulatory experts from fourteen Member States. One observer and four IAEA staff members also participated. During the mission, the IAEA team conducted interviews with management and staff from STUK, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of Interior and the STUK’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Safety.
     The IAEA team reviewed regulatory oversight of facilities and activities using nuclear materials and radiation sources. The review included emergency preparedness and response, decommissioning and occupation, medical and public exposure control.
     The IRRS team identified several good practices which included
• Implementation of a systematic model for regularly monitoring of licensees’ overall safety performance.
• Media training in nuclear and radiation safety to enhance public awareness.
• Development of a publicly available information system on radiation safety legislation that includes guidance and expectations from STUK for licensees.
•
     The IRRS team made several recommendations and suggestions to further reinforce continuous improvement. In addition, the recommendations will further enhance the Finnish regulatory systems and effectiveness of the regulatory functions in line with IAEA safety standards.

     Sylvie Cadet-Mercier was the IRRS team leader and is the Commissioner of the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN). She said, “Our review concluded that Finland has a robust and up-to-date regulatory framework that aligns with IAEA Safety Standards. I am also impressed by STUK’s ongoing quest for excellence without falling into the trap of complacency.”

     The final IRRS mission report will be provided to STUK in about three months.

      Petteri Tiippana is the Director General of STUK. She said, “I’m very pleased with the outcome of the IRRS mission. We have been peer reviewed by a team of high-level experts and got valuable inputs to help us do better. The outcome of the mission demonstrates the real value of peer reviews. Although we did our homework very carefully prior to the mission, still the IRRS team found further areas for improvement. In other words, you may have ‘blind spots’ that you are not able to self-identify.”

     Finland hosted an initial IAEA IRRS mission in 2012 and a follow-up mission in 2015

     The latest mission will be followed by an IAEA Integrated Review Service for Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Decommissioning and Remediation (Artemis) mission which is scheduled for next month. It will assess radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel management, decommissioning and remediation programs in the country.

West Virginia, Virginia leaders join for nuclear energy collaboration wvnews.com

Vogtle nuclear plant loads fuel in step toward startup news.wjt.org

Uranium miners surge on German nuclear plant news kitco.com

Czech nuclear power plans pose difficulties for Bavaria’s stance on contested technology cleanenegywire.org

 

 

Ambient office = 143 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 114 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 118 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market 78 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 80 nanosieverts per hour