Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Dobken goes on the make the claim that “many environmentalists who once opposed nuclear power have looked at its safety record and its carbon-free generation of electricity and declared it good for mankind” and that the anti-nuclear movement is ignoring “new data, new facts.” Having said that, he fails to mention even one nuclear skeptic. This can confuse a reader into thinking that the unnamed persons and facts are so obvious that they do not need to be spelled out.
     Dobken attempts to rebut Johnson’s statement by saying that “every scientist knows that radioactive exposure is cumulative in its effects” with an unsubstantiated “this is simply false….” Without any justification, he negates what anyone searching the Internet can confirm is true in two minutes. Namely, that radiation effects are indeed cumulative. He attempts to confuse a reader’s rational mind with totally irrelevant measures. For instance, he says that the amount of radiation that we receive from natural and man-made sources (such as x-rays and CT scans) and the amount that San Onofre dumped into the ocean in one radioactive water batch release in May are similar.
     None of the numbers that Dobken mentions say anything about the impacts of radioactivity accumulation into the local marine food chain from bioaccumulation over decades of ocean dumping, or what level of radiation exposure could result from routine surfing at San Onofre Beach on water batch release days. He also intentionally uses numbers that would be unfamiliar to most readers to cloud their thinking and hide that the comparisons are not relevant to the issue of cumulative effects. The fact that San Onofre has been releasing radioactive materials into the ocean and the atmosphere for more than fifty years with unknown health impacts goes unaddressed.
      Dobken muddies the issue raised by Johnson of possible cancer risks from living near nuclear power plants by pointing to unrelated research on nuclear power plant workers and veterans who have been exposed to radiation. He quibbles over whether on not there has been any research in the U.S. to distract from the importance of the issue that Johnson is raising. Dobken is correct that one study of children in Illinois living near nuclear power plants showed no association with cancers. However, he is guilty of cherry picking by not acknowledging compelling studies from abroad that have found significant associations. He obviously hopes that reads will miss Johnson’s main point which is just that we should welcome and not block research on possible cancer streaks in communities within thirty miles of San Onofre and other nuclear power plants around the country.
     It can be challenging and exhausting to counter such obfuscation. The purpose of obfuscation is not to have an honest debate or to seek the truth. Some have said that it is like trying to nail a blob of mercury with a needle. Although it may be true that Johnson’s article is not flawless, it is well-documented and well-intended. His purpose is to alert the public to the renewed rush to embrace nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis when the U.S. is no closer to addressing the dangers associated with nuclear power and its deadly waste than we were when California blocked expansion of nuclear power plants in 1976. Momentum toward clean energy sources should not be derailed by bring back dirty and dangerous nuclear energy. Dobken’s article uses obfuscation at every turn to confuse and lull the public into a false sense of safety about nuclear power and its deadly waste. Hopefully, the public is not that gullible.

Nuclear Waste Management Org. Taps Proof Strategies odwyerpr.com

‘Opening the door’ for innovation: Eglin’s 53rd Wing involved in targeting test nwfdailynews.com

New York City Releases Nuclear Attack Preparation Video, Seriously bocanewsnow.com

US companies partner on nuclear fuel recycling energylivenews.com

Ambient office = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 118 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
      On May 26th of this year, the Voice of Orange County published an opinion piece written by professor emeritus Roger Johnson which explains why California rightfully decided in 1976 to ban construction of new nuclear power plants. He also wrote that recent calls to extend the license of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, the last operating nuclear power plant in California, is seriously misguided. In defense of his statement, he said, “nuclear power is the most expensive, the most unreliable, the most dangerous, and the most environmentally unfriendly form of energy production.”
     John Dobken is a spokesperson for Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE is the operator of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Clemente. Also known as the Diablo Canyon plant, it was turned off in 2013 following radiation releases caused by failure of the steam generators. His rebuttal to Johnson, also published in the VOC, could be considered to be a lesson in the art of obfuscation (evasive, unclear or confusing.)
     In his opening statement, Dobken mentioned examples of “new supporters” of nuclear energy including a Brazilian fashion model, an advocacy group headed by a singer-turned-nuclear-enthusiast, and unnamed “various community members who value service through membership in civic groups.” He also cited an online poll that showed increased support for nuclear energy among registered California voters. His listing of supporters obscures the fact that no nuclear experts are mentioned. The blockbuster joint statement issued in January by nuclear authorities from the U.S., France, Germany and Great Britain which detailed strong opposition to any expansion of nuclear power as a strategy to combat climate change is not mentioned by Dobken.
      Next, Dobken claims that spent nuclear fuel is not dangerous because it has “never harmed anyone” and never will because “we isolate the material from the environment and people.” To support his argument, he says that no one was harmed when, in April, U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm’s entourage strolled through San Onofre’s outside storage pad containing dry storage spent fuel cannisters without wearing any protective gear. This bad logic confounds the risks of a casual stroll through the cannister storage pad with the repeatedly stated concerns of nuclear safety advocates in Orange and San Diego Counties.
     Serious concerns about the San Onofre plant include:
1. That it is located in an earthquake zone which makes it vulnerable to earthquake damage and tsunamis such as the disaster at Fukushima in 2011 in Japan.
2. Sea levels with inevitably rise due to climate change and the cannisters are only one hundred feet from the shoreline and just eighteen inches above the level of ground water.
3. The storage cannisters are thin walled. They were never designed for long-term storage or transport. They are vulnerable to stress corrosion cracking from the marine environment.
4. There has been no technical or political progress on creating a permanent geological repository for the one hundred thousand tons of deadly spent nuclear fuel has turned San Onofre and other plants across the U.S. into de facto permanent nuclear waste dumps.
5. The storage cannisters at San Onofre are highly visible and are vulnerable to terrorist attacks such as airplane crashes, truck bombs, and land and sea launched rockets and missiles.
     Dobken also obscures the dangers of nuclear waste by leaving out the uncontestable fact that spent nuclear fuel is far deadlier than the original fuel that is burned in reactors. Inhaling a tiny speck of dust that contains plutonium can kill you. Spent nuclear fuel is so deadly that it has to be isolated from humans, animals and the natural environment for a million years.
     Dobken provides no evidence to support his claim that the failure of the federal government to find a solution for the nation’s spent nuclear fuel waste” “does not mean we don’t know how to safely store spent fuel on site at plants (operating or decommissioned) around the country.” This claim blurs the critical issue of timeframes when nuclear waste storage is being discussed. The half century that spent nuclear fuel has been accumulating is being confused with the million plus years that it needs to be secured. Dobken also obscures the important facts, such as the fact that the cannisters at San Onofre and most plants around the nation were never designed for more than very temporary storage. There is no plan in place to replace a failed cannister leaking radiation into the environment.
Please read Part 2 next

Funding Allocated to Extend Life of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant planetizen.com

Lightbridge Vice President Dr. Aaron Totemeier Appointed to the Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies Working Group of the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium finance.yahoo.com

In escalation, Iran enriches to 20% with new centrifuges at fortified site nbcnews.com

Will EDF’s nationalization put UK’s nuclear power plans at risk? Energylivenews.com

Ambient office = 71 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 127 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 123 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 73 nanosieverts per hour

      Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) is a joint Australian company Silex Systems Limited (fifty one percent) and Canadian uranium and nuclear fuel provider Cameco Corporation (forty nine percent). GLE is the exclusive licensee of the SILEX laser technology for uranium enrichment.
     GLE has executed a non-binding Letter of Intent (LOI) with Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress. The purpose of the agreement is to develop areas of mutual interest and cooperation in the nuclear supply chain. GLE recently executed a similar LOI with Constellation Energy Generation.
     The LOI with Duke identifies a number of key areas of potential cooperation. Included in the list of areas of interest is the support of GLE’s deployment of the SILEX laser enrichment technology in the U.S. and the potential acceleration of commercialization timelines, according to Silex.
     Michael Goldsworthy is the CEO of Silex. He said, “The LOI between GLE and Duke Energy is another positive step in advancing GLE’s strategy to commercialize the SILEX technology and support the diversification of domestic US uranium, conversion and enrichment capabilities and capacity. As the US government ramps up initiatives to rebuild its domestic nuclear fuel supply chain and lessen its dependence on nuclear fuel imports, particularly from Russia, we anticipate GLE’s engagement with US nuclear power generators will help support the commercialization of the SILEX technology,”
     Duke Energy is one of the largest energy companies in the U.S. It operates eleven major nuclear power reactors across six sites in North Carolina and South Carolina.
     No decision has been made yet, but Silex and Cameco are reviewing the feasibility of accelerating GLE’s commercialization program in response to these emerging opportunities. They are, of course, subject to evolving market conditions.
     The agreement with Duke is the second LOI with U.S. companies announced in the last month by GLE. It executed a non-binding LOI with Constellation Energy Generation in early June to assess areas of possible cooperation. That LOI, like the one with Duke, also included measures to support GLE’s deployment of SILEX laser enrichment technology in the U.S. as well as diversifying U.S. domestic uranium, conversion and enrichment capabilities and capacity.
     GLE said that with “appropriate market signals and commercial support”, it might become a significant supplier of nuclear fuel for reactors in the U.S. and internationally.  “GLE is uniquely positioned, through its ongoing development and commercialization of laser enrichment technology in the United States, to address multiple emerging demands across the nuclear fuel supply chain as a result of global climate change and current geopolitical challenges, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
      These areas of interest include:
• Tails processing to produce natural-grade uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Alleviation of supply pressure on UF6 conversion supply.
• Building capacity to supply enrichment for the production of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and also low-enrichment uranium plus (LEU+)
• Building additional capacity to produce the high-assay LEU or HALEU fuels that will be needed by next generation advanced small modular reactors.

     James Dobchuk is the President and Chief Commercial Officer of GLE. He said that the LOI reflects GLE’s willingness to work together with other companies to accelerate development of laser enrichment technology to assist in diversification and bolster the security of the front end of the fuel cycle.

B-2 executes new nuclear tactic in B61-12 JTA capstone test afgsc.af.mil

Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev once again threatens the west with nuclear arms bnn-news.com

US companies partner on nuclear recycling technology world-nuclear-news.org

Is nuclear sustainable? Read the label politico.com

Ambient office = 55 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 134 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 137 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 84 nanosieverts per hour

      Rolls-Royce SMR has a shortlist of six possible locations in the U.K. for the first of three factories for the manufacture of its small modular reactor (SMR) power plants.
      The company said that locations for the shortlist were selected based on a clear set of criteria. They were selected from over one hundred submissions from locate enterprise partnerships and development agencies suggesting sites across the U.K. where the Rolls-Royce SMR factories could be located. The locations of the final shortlisted sites for the first plant include Sunderland in Tyne and Wear, Richmond in North Yorkshire, Deeside in Wales, Ferrybridge in Yorkshire, Stallingborough in Lincolnshire and Carlisle in Cumbria.
      Rolls-Royce said that the first plant will be the biggest and most complex facility of the three. “Therefore, it is important to take decisions early to enable its deployment. Construction will begin once Rolls-Royce SMR receives the go-ahead to build a fleet of SMRs in the UK.”
      Tom Samson is the CEO of Rolls-Royce SMR. He said, “The response was fantastic and shows the ambition and appetite of the UK to build and operate a fleet of SMRs which will provide affordable, low-carbon electricity for generations to come. The final location will come from the shortlist and will result in significant investment, long-term high-skilled jobs and will support the U.K. government’s aspirations for levelling-up. Today’s announcement is another example of the pace of our project and why Rolls-Royce SMR is the UK’s domestic nuclear energy champion.”
      The other two factories will manufacture civils modules and mechanical, electrical and plumbing modules. These modules will be transported to sites and assembled into a nuclear power plant. The company stated, “These locations will be selected from the full list of submissions which will give all locations further opportunities to host a Rolls-Royce SMR factory.”
     The Rolls-Royce SMR design was accepted for Generic Design Assessment review in March with the U.K.’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy asking the Office for Nuclear Regulation.
     A Rolls-Royce led U.K. consortium intends to build sixteen SMRs. The consortium includes Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O’Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and TWI. It’s goal is to complete its first unit in the early 2030s and build up to ten by 2035.
     In order to minimize the construction phase of the program, the U.K. SMR is fully modularized with the reactor. It will measure about fifty-three feet by thirteen feet. The SMR will be transportable by road, rail or sea.
    Targeting a five-hundred-day modular build, the consortium claims that this concept minimizes the onsite time and effort required to construct and build the plant.
     Rolls-Royce SMR states that about ninety percent of manufacturing and assembly activities will be carried out in factory conditions. This will assist in maintaining an extremely high-quality product, reducing onsite disruption and support international roll out. 
     Considering that several companies working on prototypes for nuclear fusion reactors intend to have a prototype commercial fusion reactor by 2030, the plans for constructing a few SMR reactors by 2035 may be too late to capture significant energy market share.