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 = 149 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 106 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 102 nanosieverts per hour
Strawberry from Central Market = 129 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 94 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 80 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient office = 154 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 103 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 100 nanosieverts per hour
Red bell pepper from Central Market = 144 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 92 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 81 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient office = 105 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 92 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 95 nanosieverts per hour
Hierloom tomato from Central Market = 154 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water =78 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 64 nanosieverts per hour
Dover Sole from Central = 13 nanosieverts per hour
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.
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
