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.
Ambient office = 123 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 91 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 97 nanosieverts per hour
Pineapple from Central Market = 985 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 130 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 117 nanosieverts per hour
Part 1 of 2 Parts
The recent Russian attack on Ukraine rekindle an old debate about whether Europe needs its own nuclear arsenal to deter a possible Russian nuclear attack. During most of the Cold War and the years since, the debate seemed to have been settled. The European NATO members are meant to be covered by the nuclear “umbrella” of the United States. The U.S. established “nuclear sharing” with five partner countries. These include Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Altogether, these five countries host about one hundred U.S. nuclear weapons. If Russia attacked, these five countries could retaliate by employing these warheads.
Aside from those “shared nuclear weapons,” France and the U.K. also have their own nuclear arsenals. France has always keept its nuclear weapons outside of the joint strategizing of the Western alliance. It is the only country among NATO’s thirty members to not participate in the alliance’s Nuclear Planning Group.
Before Russia’s attack on Ukraine this year, some Europoean nations were concerned that the U.S. nuclear umbrella was becoming less reliable. By definition, this makes it less of a deterrent. The U.S. has shifted its geopolitical focus from the Atlantic theater to the Pacific theater. The main concern is to contain China which is currently expanding their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.
The U.S. has to hold up two nuclear umbrellas and plan for two simultaneous wars. Maximilian Terhalle in Germany and Francois Heisbourg in France are two nuclear analysts who have been warning that if the U.S. is forced to choose between the two theaters, it would probably give top priority to its commitments in Asia including allies such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
To make matters worse, former U.S. president Trump caused Europeans great concern when he questioned NATO’s mutual-defense clause. He even considered taking the U.S. out of the alliance. Trump is gone from the Whitehouse but he or someone like him could become president in the future. In the long run, the U.S. seems to be less dependable as a protector than it used to be.
In addition to all these issues, Russian President Putin has been dropping direct threats that he might use nukes in the Ukrainian war or against Western nations who send aid to Ukraine. For now, the consensus is that Putin is bluffing. If he is not, Europeans would like to have a fallback plan if they cannot rely on the U.S.
One scenario that is being discussed is to have France extend its nuclear umbrella to the whole of the European Union. French President Macro often talks about achieving European “autonomy” by which he appears to mean independence for the U.S. This indicates that he should be amenable to the extension of the French nuclear umbrella.
Unfortunately, in practice, the French are neither willing or able to extend their umbrella. Since the time of Charles de Gaulle, France has been adamant about total sovereignty over its nuclear arsenal and all decisions pertaining to it. Visions of a Europeanized “force de frappe” as the French call their nuclear arsenal suffer from the same problem as ideas about a European Army. Without a United States of Europe, it is not clear who would be in command, where and how.
Please read Part 2 next
Ambient office = 130 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 56 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 55 nanosieverts per hour
Ear of corn from Central Market = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 91 nanosieverts per hour
Part 3 of 3 Parts (Please read Parts 1 and 2 first)
Deere-Jones warns that the NWS has produced an “inadequate and inaccurate impact assessment” on the effects of the airgun surveys on marine species present in these regional Marine Conservation Zones. He adds, “My recommendation is that consideration of the proposed survey, and all such surveys in UK waters, should be postponed until the information gaps referenced by Professor Popper have been filled and properly informed impact assessment decisions can be made.”
The RFL report concludes with the recommendation that suitable alternative to airgun seismic survey, which pose a lesser threat to marine life, should be considered.
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has put nuclear power at the heart of the country’s new energy strategy. There are currently plans to build up to eight new nuclear power reactors in the country. However, as yet, no permanent and safe storage method has been devised for spent nuclear fuel. It remains hazardous for many thousands of years and threatens human health and the environment. Two hundred and fifty thousand tons of this waste is currently in temporary storage around the world.
The U.K. government favors deep geological disposal to deal with the most radioactive waste, whether deep below the ground or deep beneath the seabed. However, there are still many concerns about this sixty-five-billion-dollar facility proposed for in the Irish Sea, which has not been tried or tested and provides no guarantee of safety.
The U.K. has used the seabed of the English Channel for disposal of radioactive waste. A German newspaper reported in April of 2013 that a team of journalists had discovered barrels of radioactive waste a few miles from the French coast just north of the island of Alderney in an underwater valley known as Hurd’s deep according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Britain and Belgium dumped twenty-eight thousand five hundred barrels of nuclear waste into the English Channel between 1950 and 1963. In 1963, the British Radioactive Substances Act of 1960 went into effect and the dumping stopped.
The existence of the barrels of radioactive waste was not a secret. Experts had assumed that the containers would have rusted open years ago. This would allow the nuclear material to dissipate in seawater to harmless concentrations. However, photos from an unmanned submarine showed that some of the barrels at four hundred feet were still intact. This prompted German environmentalists to call for their removal from the Channel. It is estimated that there are more intact barrels.
The barrels contain an estimated seventeen thousand tons of low-level radioactive waste. Sylvia Kotting-Uhl is a German Green Party parliamentarian and nuclear policy spokesperson. She said, “I believe that at such shallow depths these barrels pose a high potential for danger. And it’s not for nothing that dumping in the ocean has been forbidden for 20 years.”
Hartmut Nies is a German oceanic expert for the IAEA. He said that “If it’s not too complex, then of course they should be removed.”
In response to a parliamentary inquiry from the Green Party in August 2012, entitled “Final Disposal Site Ocean Floor,” the German federal government stated: “The Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH), as part of its radioactivity monitoring in the North Sea, regularly carries out monitoring runs, which went into the British Channel Most recently in August 2009. The monitoring data contained no indication of emissions from dumping areas.”
Ambient office = 120 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 86 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 92 nanosieverts per hour
English cucumber from Central Market = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 86 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 77 nanosieverts per hour
Part 2 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
Zooplankton are the base of the marine food chain. They are extremely important to the health of the world’s ocean. Researchers have discovered that seismic surveys significantly increase the death rate of zooplankton in the three quarters of a mile range they tested. All larval krill were killed in the range of the test.
The RFL’s report states that the NWS surveys will take place when zooplankton populations are expected to be high. These creatures provide a food source for a wide variety of organisms including baleen whales, basking sharks and fish. These species feed many other species.
Many other marine animals also rely on sound for survival. Seismic testing can interfere with basic functions such as feeding, mating, navigation, and communications. According to the Zoological Society of London’s Cetacean Stranding Investigation programs, “Noise exposure can be a problem for a wide variety of Cetaceans-dolphins, porpoises and whales. Noise related impacts have also been causally linked to many cetacean stranding and mass stranding events globally.”
The NWS investigation will focus on a survey area three to twelve miles Cumbrian Coast in the northwest of England in an area approximately one hundred square miles in extent. The proposed GDF may extend over an area fifteen miles square, deep beneath the seabed.
This region is one of a number of designated Marine Conservation Zones in the Irish Sea. The region has protected habitats and is home to a variety of protected European species. These include sea turtles, minke whales, common and bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises.
Joan Edwards is the director of policy at the Wildlife Trusts. She said, “The Irish Sea is rich in marine life, from soft corals and reefs that provide shelter for crabs and anemones to seals, whales and around 30 species of shark. Sandbanks and gravel habitats are vital nursery grounds for flatfish, sea bass, and sea eels, while also acting as a feeding ground for thousands of breeding seabirds. We are concerned about the implications of seismic testing in the Irish Sea, which evidence shows can be devastating for marine life.”
Marine habitats are already under huge pressure from pollution, irresponsible development and bottom trawling. Climate change is also producing stress on marine ecosystems. The RFL report claims that many of the hugely important marine species found in the area have not been sufficiently studied for their sensitivity to seismic surveys.
Tim Deere-Jones is a marine radioactivity researcher and consultant. He is the author of the RFL report. He said that NWS’s license application for the seismic survey is characterized by a ‘marked lack of transparency.’ The NWS’s application also shows a refusal to engage in consultation with the public and marine stakeholders such as fisherman. Deere-Jones claims that the NWS has carried out what is basically a private environmental impact assessment without any independent oversight.
Deere-Jones says that NWS has ignored a comment from Professor Popper who is a leading authority on fish bioacoustics. Popper has warned of a clear “information gap” that makes it makes it impossible to draw a clear conclusion on the effects that these airgun blasts could have on marine animal behavior or health.
Please read Part 3 next
