BWXT Canada wins key contract from Bruce Power world-nuclear-news.org

France to nationalize EDF, search under way for new boss world-nuclear-news.org

U.S. veterans rescue American scientist living in Ukraine spectrumlocalnews.com

Permit applications submitted for new Dutch research reactor world-nuclear-news.org

First used fuel placed in Garoña storage facility world-nuclear-news.org

South Korea plans 30% nuclear share by 2030 neimagazine.com

Israel to Ask Biden to Strengthen anti-Iran Regional Alliance Amid Nuclear Talks Haaretz.com

Putin stages drills with Yars nuclear missiles capable of reaching UK metro.co.uk

Ambient office = 129 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 156 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 57 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 56 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Moreover, the French nuclear arsenal just isn’t adequate for the job of protecting Europe. France has about three hundred nuclear warheads. If a major war broke out in Europe, an enemy like Russia which possesses thousands of warheads might be able to destroy the French arsenal in a pre-emptive first strike. Deterrence only works if swift and thorough retaliation is assured.
     In addition, French nuclear weapons are the wrong type. They are strategic which means that each warhead is capable of causing many Hiroshima’s worth of devastation. They are only meant to be used in a total-war scenario to utterly destroy entire cities in the homeland of the enemy.
     If Russia were to escalate a war in Eastern Europe such as the current Ukrainian war, it would employ tactical nuclear weapons. These are smaller warheads that can be deployed at short ranges to frighten an enemy into submission or to win specific battles. It is just not thinkable for France or anyone else to retaliate for a limited tactical nuclear strike by going directly to strategic retaliation and nuclear Armageddon.
     The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that all Western nuclear powers must add more tactical nuclear weapons to their arsenals, to keep up with Russia and become capable of flexible responses to its agressions. The European Union, led by Germany and France, could collaborate on this effort. Even if that came to pass, the Europeans would still have to resolve the old questions about command structure.
     Alternatively, countries like Germany could develop their own nuclear warheads. However, in order for Germany to do that, it would have to first withdraw from the international treaty against nuclear proliferation and the agreement that allowed its reunification. In addition, Germany would have to turn its entire post-war political culture upside down. Many of its current leaders grew up protesting against the stationing U.S. missiles and nuclear warheads in general.
     For the time being, the most realistic answer to Russian aggression is to retain and patch the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The only language understood by Russia and China is more U.S. tactical nukes, in more places and deliverable in more ways. Following this course of action is probably the only way to slow the pace of other countries, allies or enemies, going nuclear. However, the entire U.S. political class, on both sides of the aisle must underwrite the U.S. commitment to its allies regardless of whether Trump or another like him comes to power in the U.S.
     Unfortunately, no conclusion could be more depressing. It amounts to entering a new tactical nuclear arms race. It goes in the opposite direction of  the vision behinds the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed by eighty-six non-nuclear countries and meant to ban these horrible weapons altogether. Instead of eliminating all nuclear weapons, we’d have to look for new ways of deterring their use. Putin is to blame for all of this. He attacked Ukraine twenty eight years after Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s security in return for Ukraine giving up its own arsenal of Soviet-era nuclear weapons. He broke the long term taboo against threatening nuclear escalation in conventional warfare. In all these ways. The European Union must prepare for its own self-defense.
Emblem of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces:

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

New center provides nuclear medicine to Jamaican public world-nuclear-news.org

France’s Nuclear Woes Will Worsen Europe’s Power Crisis oilprice.com

New energy policy reverses Korea’s nuclear phase-out world-nuclear-news.org

Jacobs/Multiconsult JV to plan Norwegian decommissioning program ans.org

 

 

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

Germany stands by nuclear phase-out despite Russian energy crunch thenationalnews.com

Finland’s nuclear bunker on standby as Helsinki joins Sweden into NATO accession express.co.uk

EU’s ‘green’ gas and nuclear investment rules head for final vote

All parties appear to want a new Iran nuclear deal arabnews.com

 

 

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.”