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.
Ukraine nuclear chief: Zaporizhzhia plant does not need Russian fuel reuters.com
How iodine tablets block some nuclear radiation abcnews.go.com
Macron under fire for saying France wouldn’t respond in kind if Russia launched nuclear attack on Ukraine politico.eu.com
The Russian army will be ‘annihilated’ if it launches a nuclear attack, warns Josep Borrell euronews.com
Ambient office = 75 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Tomato from Central Market = 88 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 122 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 100 nanosieverts per hour
Seventy years ago, the British military conducted Australia’s first-ever nuclear weapons test on the Montebello Islands. Radiation is can still be detected on the Islands which occupy an archipelago of around 174 small islands (about 92 of which are named) lying 12 miles north of Barrow Island and 81 miles off the Pilbara coast of north-western Australia. It is not clear if the islands are completely safe.
Since 2019, an Edith Cowan University (ECU) study has been measuring exactly how much radioactivity still exists in the marine sediment on the islands. The team conducting the study has collected and tested more than 100 samples of marine sediments and marine life from the archipelago of islands.
Madison Williams-Hoffman is a PhD student and is the lead researcher for the study. She said that researchers were still investigating the full extent of the radiation and the risk that it may pose.
The scenic archipelago is among the most biodiverse marine environments in the world. It is a popular destination for tourists and fishers. Williams-Hoffman said that is was unrealistic to enact a blanket ban on visiting the area because the remote location of the islands would make it difficult to enforce.
Williams-Hoffman hopes that the study will give people the power to make an informed decision as to whether they would be comfortable visiting the area. She said, “Even if you tell someone you can’t go there because [of] radiation risks, there’s always someone who’ll want to and you won’t entirely be able to stop them. But to give them the information so that they can make the decision for themselves, I think it’s a really important output from this project.” She added that the study’s first findings will be published next year.
Jim Marlow is one of the many Australian servicemen who witnessed the test. They watched the historic moment from the deck of a small ship six miles away. Marlow said, “We knew something was happening but there was little detail about it. We were just told to assemble on the deck, we were told to cover our heads and our eyes. It frightens the s**t out of you because you couldn’t say you expected it because you didn’t, you didn’t know it was coming. A loud bang followed by a rumble … and you see the smoke [and] sand starting to build up and it goes up and up and up and lines the sky.”
Marlow is also part of the Australian Ex-Serviceman Survivors Association, and he has spent years lobbying for atomic veterans to receive recognition. He has said in interviews that he was worried that his exposure to radiation all those years ago could still pose a threat to his health. “In the case of the atomic veterans, the fallout from the detonation stays with you for a lifetime, so you don’t leave your war zone, it follows you everywhere you go. Fifty years later it’s still after you. I don’t know when it’s going to come and get me. I don’t know when it’s going to come to get my grandkids.”
Ambient office = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 107 nanosieverts per hour
Roma tomato from Central Market = 46 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 113 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Russia to Use Own Nuclear Fuel at Zaporizhzhia Plan usnews.com
Russia to Support Morocco in Nuclear Energy Sector moroccoworldnews.com
Resolution decrying nuclear brinkmanship gains support from Holyoke mayor, city council masslive.com
Biden: I don’t think Putin will use nuclear weapons politico.com
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
Alan Robock is a distinguished professor of climate science from Rutgers University’s Department of Environmental Sciences. He is also the co-author of the study in Nature Food. He claimed that World of Engineering’s estimate of two degrees Fahrenheit for two to three years was “wrong”. The effects on the climate would depend completely on the amount of smoke injected into the atmosphere. He added that the duration of the possible impact does not rely on the volume of smoke to address the question of how long they would last. For each scenario addressed, the maximum effects would last for five years.
Robock said that the effects of increased ultraviolet (UV) light on crop varieties, people, and ecosystems are one aspect of atmospheric soot. The heating would destroy the ozone in the stratosphere. This would allow more UV radiation to reach the surface. However, the impacts would be felt instantly for even the tiniest amount of smoke. Before its effects could be felt at the surface of the Earth, the excess UV would be absorbed by the large amount of stratospheric smoke that has been accumulating for years.
According to Robock, a nuclear war would result in lower temperatures because the soot would indeed rise high enough in the atmosphere to prevent rain from washing the soot out. The soot would then absorb sunlight which would result in turning the Earth’s surface dark and chilly. The idea that a small nuclear war would stop global warming is simply not true.
Irrespective of whether the theory is accurate or not, it is worth noting that the World of Engineering Twitter thread warned of serious consequences of such an event. They could instead have chosen to suggest that the projected sharp decline in global temperatures would be highly beneficial to humanity.
Even a small nuclear war would worsen the situation by sparking a brand-new climate crisis when considered in the larger context of climate change. As an example, significant crop disparities in major exporters like the U.S. and Russia would result in export restrictions. This would have an impact on the food supply for nations that rely heavily on imports.
According to the study in Nature Food, a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could result in more than five billion deaths around the world. A war between Pakistan an India could result in more than two billion deaths worldwide. Other studies have also highlighted potential indirect effects of this kind of conflict. These could include significant oceanic damage, which would be likely to have further negative and less predictable effects on the environment.
Although a small nuclear war might indeed have a temporary global cooling effect, it is not correct to state that this would end the climate crisis. This is in part due to the fact that while cooling effects would only last a short time, a nuclear winter would itself cause a climate crisis leading to a global food crisis and perhaps billions of fatalities.
The Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant must be allowed to be demilitarized livemint.com
Westinghouse to add AP1000 reactors to nuclear plant in China power-technology.com
WANO gathering ‘reinforces commitment to excellence’ world-nuclear-news.org
France says Iranian drone transfers to Russia would violate U.N. nuclear deal resolution reuters.com
Ambient office = 110 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 111 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 110 nanosieverts per hour
Red bell pepper from Central Market = 91 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 105 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 95 nanosieverts per hour
Part 1 of 2 Parts
I have seen a lot of questionable ideas about how to deal with climate change but today I am going to post about one of the most outrageous suggestions. There is an idea circulating that nuclear war might be the answer to climate change. The validity of this idea was fact-checked by Newsweek.
International nuclear tensions have been getting a lot of attention due to the ongoing war waged by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. There has been discussion of the potential for a small nuclear ware to cause a global cooling. Now the possibilities of such global cooling are being explored.
Following a nuclear war, the whole Earth would be covered with a layer of soot that would prevent sunlight from reaching the surface because of smoke rising high into the atmosphere from the burning cities. After even a small nuclear war, it has been estimated that global temperatures would fall by more than two degrees Fahrenheit for two to three years. In some tropical areas, temperatures could drop from five to seven degrees Fahrenheit.
Ron Filipkowski is a former federal prosecutor. Following the appearance of a Twitter thread about this idea, he uploaded a video of Donald Trump Jr. to Twitter. In the video, Trump Jr. is seen speaking to the camera about nuclear war. Trump Jr claims to have read a new article in the previous week that discussed how a minor nuclear conflict might help with global warming or maybe the climate crisis. Trump Jr gave no source for his claims.
‘Climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are neither equivalent, not interchangeable. The consensus among scientists has moved from use of climate change to climate warming. Climate warming is deemed to be more accurate and comprehensive when describing the great changes that Earth’s weather and temperature patterns are undergoing.
Newsweek Fact Check investigated the scientific consensus on the subject in order to see if there was any research to support the claim. The is a great deal of evidence that suggests that a nuclear war would temporarily lower global temperatures. The evidence points to this being particularly true only on land, does not solve the problem of global warming or the wider climate crisis.
Researchers from various institutions around the globe have suggested in a study that was published in the August issues of the journal Nature Food in August that a nuclear war would eject significant amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere of the Earth. This cloud of soot would then spread around the globe and “rapidly cool the planet.” The severity of the impact, of course, would depend on the size of the nuclear war.
The study suggested that a hypothetical nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India could release from five to forty-seven million metric tons of soot into the atmosphere. A more serious conflict between the U.S. and Russia could release over one hundred and fifty metric tons of soot.
Please read Part 2 next
