Part 1 of 3 Parts
     The government of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) is preparing to carry out seismic surveys off the Cumbrian Coast between July and August of this year. They are trying to find a place to dispose of nuclear waste produced by Britain’s nuclear power reactors.
     A report commissioned by Radiation Free Lakeland (RFL), calls for these disposal plans to be delayed. The report claims that the impact assessment by the NWS is “deeply inadequate” and “lacking in appropriate scientific and academic rigor.”
     Seismic blasting is a process that permits scientists to gather data about the geography of the seabed. Loud, repetitive blasts of sound are produced by an underwater airgun. The echoes of the blasts are measured to map the underwater rocks. The airgun will be fired every ten to fifteen seconds throughout the survey period which will last about a month.
     The surveys have been commissioned by NWS. They will be investigating the possibility of locating a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). Deep under the seabed, this facility will be used to dispose of the U.K.’s toxic legacy of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel which is a byproduct of nuclear reactors.
     Shearwater GeoServices is the company whose work on South Africa’s ecologically sensitive Wild Coast was stopped by the high court. They are charged with carrying out the investigations of the Cumbrian seabed. According to a freedom of information request, a license of exemption to carry out these surveys was issued to NWS for ‘scientific research’ However RFL claims that the survey is not for ‘scientific research’ but to develop a plan for disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
      Marianne Birkby is one of the founders of RFL. She said, “We commissioned an independent report because we need to counter the PR spin from the nuclear waste industry who are calling the seismic testing ‘non-invasive scientific research.’” She argues that instead of seismic blasting for scientific purposes, the plan facilitates a commercial venture for a “deep nuclear dump for heat generating nuclear waste.” She went on to say that a limited company that wants to process even more nuclear waste from new nuclear reactor builds, Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), is behind it.
      Birkby said, “Despite the marine protections this part of the Irish Sea has, it is an outrage that independent environmental impact assessments have not been carried out. Protections clearly mean nothing when the nuclear waste industry wants to pave the way to a deep nuclear dump.”
     Chris Eldred is senior project manager for geosphere characterization at NWS. He said that “there is no requirement to undertake a public consultation for these surveys. We have undertaken marine environment assessments requested by Natural England and navigational authorities to assess any impacts and they have been satisfied that our activities are exempt.”
     Low frequency sounds generated by a single seismic airgun can carry over great distances, especially in deeper waters. They have been recorded at locations up to twenty-five hundred miles from the source. They can blanket areas up to one hundred and sixteen thousand square miles with noise. Studies have indicated that seismic surveys can impact entire aquatic ecosystems because they can disturb, injure or kill a wide variety of marine life.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 95 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 77 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 65 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office =79 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Watermelon from Central Market = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 83 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 131 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 134 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Experts continue to debate whether the U.S. would launch a full-scale retaliation against any sort of nuclear attack even if the attack involved low-yield weapons. Mercado said, “If you were the decision-maker and the president and somebody pops an EMP [electromagnetic pulse] – a low-yield EMP, or something – then would you nuke an entire country?”
     When considering any gaps in the U.S. deterrence posture, it is worth remembering that the U.S. consistently overestimated the Soviet Union’s nuclear capabilities during the first decades of the Cold War. In the 1950s, the U.S. government feared that the Soviets had more nuclear bombers than the U.S. Air Force. However, the “bomber gap” turned out to be nonexistent. Starting in 1958, future President John F. Kennedy claimed that the Soviets had more nuclear missiles than the U.S. The “missile gap” also turned out to be a fantasy. The movie Dr. Strangelove parodied this attitude in a scene in which military advisers were discussing the need for underground fallout shelters ahead of a nuclear apocalypse and an Air Force general decried, “Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!”
     There is also the question of exactly how much deterrence value the NASLCM actually has. According to an April report from the Congressional Research Service, “Critics have argued that the capabilities highlighted by advocates of NASLCM deployment — regional presence, lower yield, and discriminate attack options — would lower the threshold for nuclear use and increase the likelihood of nuclear war. They argue that by adding those capabilities to its nuclear force posture, the United States would be adopting a war-fighting posture rather than pursuing a doctrine based on deterrence.”
     Hans M. Kristensen is with the Federation of American Scientists, which is a non-profit group that seeks to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. He says that the NASLCM might prove to be redundant because the Air Force is developing the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSW). This nuclear weapon could carry warheads with yields from five to one hundred and fifty kilotons.     Kristensen said that it is likely that the NASLCM would be equipped with warheads that would deliver similar yields that could be programmed to explode in the air or on the ground. With respect to the notion that a nuclear war could be limited to low-yield nuclear weapons, Kristensen said that this idea is a “dangerous illusion.”
     Kristensen said, “There is no reason to believe that either side would back down after a few detonations but that all would escalate and seek to defeat the other side and win. Limited scenarios are created by warfighters as tactical means of achieving certain war objectives but are over-sold by theorists and advocates who try to make nuclear weapons sound more acceptable.”
     Russian President Putin has already threatened publicly to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield if Russia is losing a ground war with conventional weapons against NATO in Eastern Europe. It is reasonable for the U.S. to have low-yield nuclear weapons in its arsenal.

Ambient office = 95 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 95 nanosieverts per hour

Vineripened tomato from Central Market = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 95 nanosieverts per hour