Ambient office = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 3 Parts
    Prominent figures from across the nuclear fuel cycle say they are ready to meet increased demand, but pointed out areas where change is required to help make it happen, in a World Nuclear Symposium session.
     Over one hundred and twenty nuclear energy and technology companies and twenty-five countries have signed up to the pledge to aim to at least triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. One main question is how fuel supplies will be able to expand if such a goal is to be achieved. Here are extracts of what some key sector figures said during a discussion on the subject.
     Nicolas Maes is the CEO of Orano. He said that with respect to mining Orano’s current strategy was to expand existing projects, while in the medium term it was “revisiting our exploration policy and the means that we are allocating to exploration … we believe that there are many areas in this world that have been vastly unexplored”. Orano was also developing “mining techniques to make deposits that were today not so accessible, accessible – or non-conventional deposits that could make sense now”. Maes used the analogy of “peak oil” saying that it was talked about in the 1920s “people were already fearing they would miss oil, and then techniques developed, and they found new deposits and all the rest, and peak oil still hasn’t materialized. We believe that in investing in exploration and exploration techniques as well as in mining techniques” will increase the uranium sources available and will cater for the “medium term”, which he categorized as the next forty to fifty years. In the longer term, he said that recycling was a big focus.
     With respect to conversion and enrichment he said that production had been expanded over the past few years.  Orano plans to extend enrichment capacity at its Georges Besse II uranium enrichment plant in France. Maes continued that the aim is for first concrete for the extension in October this year, targeting the start of production in 2028. He said that expanded capacity required a “massive investment compared to our scale and that can only be done if we’ve got visibility, and the utilities support us in doing that”. For LEU and HALEU, he said that the technologies exist, but it was “chicken and egg stuff from the market”, and transport issues need to addressed. For MOX-fuel based fast breeder and molten salt reactors he said that the designers should be “thinking from the very early days about the fuel supply chain because that fuel supply chain doesn’t exist yet” and also that “standardization is key”.
     He added that “we need strong decision-making and timely decision-making from politicians. We need creative financing schemes, and we need the industry to deliver on time and on budget”.
     Jonathan Chavers is the Director of Nuclear Fuel and Analysis at Southern Nuclear. He said that there was a chicken and egg situation between the suppliers and end users. “Utilities desire firm pricing, predictable scheduling. The suppliers want firm contracts before they’ll make the capital investments to get you the material you want on the schedule you want” and that the question is how to get people “to take the big bet”. He mentioned as a success the accident-tolerant fuel program “where you have policymakers, utilities and suppliers all aligned and working together”.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 81 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 75 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 67 nanosieverts per hour

The U.S. Air Force is planning a tabletop exercise to gauge U.S. readiness to react to a wide spectrum of nuclear-related scenarios. This will be part of a larger effort to prepare for them, a service leader said on Wednesday.
     Lt. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara is the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. “What if, God forbid, there was a low yield [nuclear weapon] use in Europe tomorrow?” he asked at the Air & Space Forces Association conference outside Washington, D.C. “Or what if there was a demonstration of nuclear use, or a nuclear test? What if we had to adapt the INDOPACOM regional fight because a nuclear power had a red line [that meant] we couldn’t fly in certain areas? These are the kind of things that our warfighters need to understand from the beginning. It doesn’t need to be just at the presidential level with no other discussion.”
     That question represents a big change in the way the U.S. military has historically talked about the possibility of nuclear war. It used to be that intelligence or analysis about the effects of such weapons on a given conflict was carried out at the highest possible, “strategic” level. That emphasis was a reflection of the times when two great powers were locked in a largely conventional arms race with knowable “rules” or at least principles of play. It no longer represents the modern role of nuclear weapons in conflict. They may include far more players and means of delivery of nuclear effects.
     Gerber said, “When I was younger, at the end of the Cold War, the biggest threat we had was no-notice-1,000 ICBMs just coming over the North Pole, and how would you handle that? That’s horrific to even think about. But it’s actually a pretty simple tactical problem. There’s only a couple things you can do with something that bad.”
     Today, ICBMs look quaint compared to new types of missiles and weapons that can deliver nuclear effects. They include some that don’t even appear to be weapons at first. If the Soviet Union’s one hundred-megaton Tsar Bomba was the pinnacle of the Cold War arms race, the new arms race is best represented by the lower-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons that Russia has threatened to unleash on Ukraine or, possibly, in space.
     Gerbera remarked that weapons instructors at Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base are already teaching these kinds of lessons to more pilots. He said, “So what does it mean if you’re flying through this area and there’s a radiological threat? What’s it mean for the airplane?”
     Now, Gebara said, he’s working to broaden training for such scenarios across the U.S. Air Force. “I think at all levels we need to build that experience, not just at the tactical level and not just at the strategic.”
     The tabletop exercise is slated for later this month. The results of the exercise will be briefed at a CORONA commanders conference.  CORONA conferences are held for the most senior Air Force leaders to discuss strategy and policy.

Ambient office = 138 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 86 nanosieverts per hour

     The U.K., U.S. and Canadian nuclear regulators have revealed high-level principles for deploying artificial intelligence (AI) in the nuclear sector while maintaining adequate safety and security.
     The regulators say that “AI could benefit nuclear safety, security and safeguards in a variety of ways. These include the analysis of large volumes of data to better manage risks and improve efficiency and accomplishing tasks in hazardous areas to decrease the risk to workers and potentially reduce error. AI could also be dynamically retrained to benefit from new information and experience so it can rapidly improve moving forwards.”
     The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) have just published a new trilateral paper. The title of the paper is Considerations for developing artificial intelligence systems in nuclear. It describes principles that all participants in the AI lifecycle should consider. These include developers, licensees and regulators. The paper marks the first time international regulators have collaborated to draft principles addressing AI in the nuclear sector.
     The paper covers a variety of topics. Common areas of focus for regulators when approaching AI are recommended. Understanding how to manage systems based on the consequences of AI failure and the level of AI autonomy is urged. The importance of human and organizational factors in the use of AI is emphasized. Integrating AI into existing nuclear systems is discussed. Managing the AI lifecycle from design to deployment is reviewed. Considerations for safety cases for AI in nuclear applications are mentioned.
    The paper continues that “The nuclear industry benefits from decades of operational experience, mature and rigorous design and operation protocols, and a strong safety and security culture. The rapid pace of recent AI development is somewhat antithetical to the slow and methodical change process that the nuclear industry traditionally follows. Nevertheless, the primary goal for the nuclear industry and regulators with respect to AI systems will be maintaining adequate safety and security while benefiting from their deployment.”
     Among its conclusions, the paper states that “The fast pace of AI development means it is unlikely that AI-specific consensus standards for the nuclear domain will be available to support regulatory activities within the near future. In the interim, existing nuclear-specific standards remain a starting point coupled with considering the unique attributes introduced by AI.”
     The regulators conclude that “While there are hurdles to consider to successfully deploy AI, there are also potentially significant benefits to using AI. If effectively managed, negative consequences could be avoided or mitigated for many applications. This document recognizes this position and describes features the Canadian, UK, and US nuclear regulators consider important in managing risks arising from the use of AI.”
     Shane Turner is the Technical Director of the ONR. He said that “This significant collaboration between CSNC, NRC and ONR will support the wider international nuclear community to understand what is important when considering the application of AI. ONR is open to innovation and is committed to enabling the safe and secure deployment of AI and other innovative technologies within the nuclear sector.”