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.
One hundred and twenty two nations came together at the UN last fall to forge a treaty that would ban all nuclear weapons worldwide. The treaty was officially announced on July 6th of 2017. Now it has to be ratified by at least fifty nations before it enters into legal force. None of the nine countries which currently have nuclear weapons attended the conference that drew up the treaty. The Netherlands was the only member of NATO that attended the conference and they voted against the treaty.
Sweden is considering signing the treaty. Sweden is what is called a “Gold Card” member of NATO. They do not have full membership but they are granted some of the privileges of being a member of NATO.
The U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, has notified Sweden that there will be “severe consequences” for Sweden if they do sign the nuclear ban treaty. Sweden recently signed an agreement to increase military cooperation with the U.S. The letter from Mattis said that if Sweden signed the treaty, it could affect Swedish/U.S. military cooperation as well as U.S. military support in the event of a war.
The Mattis letter also suggested that if Sweden signed the treaty, it could affect their participation in NATO. Their status as a Gold Card member faces a renewal in October. Mattis said that they would lose the opportunity to become a full member of NATO if they sign the treaty. A Swedish newspaper also reported that Swedish participation in the treaty could have a negative impact on cooperation between the Swedish and U.S. defense industries.
A Pentagon spokesperson said that while the U.S. “values its defense relationship with Sweden”, it is U.S. policy to discourage other countries from signing the treaty. The spokesperson went on to say that the nuclear weapons ban treaty contains measures that “could potentially affect our ability to cooperate with parties to the treaty on issues of mutual interest.”
Jim Townsend was a U.S. deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy for eight years. He is now at the Center for New American Security. He told a reporter that using threats about defense cooperation to dissuade Sweden from signing the treaty was a “flawed approach.” He added that “They are a close friend in a dangerous neighborhood, and so threatening that important relationship lacks some credibility. Do the Swedes really think we would downgrade our relationship to punish them for signing a nuclear ban treaty?”
Sweden, Finland and Norway currently maintain a stance of military neutrality with respect to confrontations between NATO countries and Russia. They do cooperate with the U.S. and NATO members in Europe on military issues. The U.S. relationship with these three countries is increased in importance as tensions have risen between Russia and European countries. Norway is working on improving its border defenses. It has played host to caches of U.S. military equipment and has just extended the deployment of U.S. marines in Norway. Finland is currently considering the purchase of advanced fighter aircraft and might order them from Boeing.
Yesterday, sensors detected a major seismic event in North Korea. N.K. said that it had just carried out an underground test of a hydrogen bomb. It was known that N.K. had prepared another nuclear test and was ready to fire it by last March. They were waiting for their leader, Kim Jong-Un, to order the test. Commentators say that he waited until yesterday in order to conduct the test when the U.S. would be involved in a three day weekend for Labor Day celebrations and would be less able to respond. It has also been suggested that Kim was timing the test to be of maximum embarrassment to China, its biggest supporter, which is currently hosting the annual meeting of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
The previous nuclear test by N.K. was conducted in September of 2016. The regime claimed that they had tested a hydrogen bomb but the international scientific community rated the blast at about twenty kilotons of TNT. This would be consistent with a regular atomic fission bomb test or the failure of a hydrogen bomb test. Once again, the regime is claiming that it tested a hydrogen bomb. What does the scientific community say about this bomb test?
I recently posted an essay about how underground nuclear tests are detected. An underground nuclear test sends out powerful seismic waves that are different than the waves from an earthquake. They are also much shallower.
There is a term called the body-wave magnitude (mB) that is used to measure the intensity of an underground blast. The scale is logarithmic. There is a network of thirty four detectors scattered around the world in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization’s network that are used to detect underground nuclear tests.
The new N.K. underground test blast was so powerful that it “saturated” the detectors. This means that it exceeded the maximum reading that the detectors were capable of registering. The initial mB esitimations varied widely from different sources between fifty kilotons of TNT and one hundred and fifty kilotons of TNT. There are a number of variables in the equation used for mB and choices of different numbers for type of rock, density, depth, etc. yielded the wide range of the estimate. A subsequent analysis of the possible strength of the mB for a deeper depth than the initial estimations suggested that if the blast went off at a depth of over twenty five hundred feet, it could have been as powerful as three hundred seventy kilotons of TNT. It appears that the North Koreans did actually successfully test a hydrogen fusion bomb.
The successful test of a hydrogen bomb by N.K. is a very troubling milestone in their march to a modern nuclear arsenal. They have been testing missiles that may be able to reach the continental U.S. If they can miniaturize their new bomb so that it can be placed on one of their new missiles, then they would have the capacity to reach and destroy major U.S. cities. The international community has repeatedly said that N.K. could not be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal that could threaten other nations around the world but the North Koreans are close now and getting closer. It is not clear that there is any way to stop them.
Photo from the North Korean Korean Central News Agency of Kim Jong-Un inspecting what is supposed to be a model of the hydrogen bomb that was tested yesterday: