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.
I have blogged about some close calls where we almost destroyed our civilization with nuclear weapons. Since the 1950s, there have been times when World War III was moments away but somehow we managed to survive. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, a U.S. picket ship enforcing the naval blockade of Cuba observed a Russian ship crossing the line that the U.S. had set. While his orders were to notify Naval command that the blockade had been broken which might have resulted in an escalation to nuclear war, he delayed taking action because he thought that the Russian ship might have navigation problems and this ultimately turned out to be true as the Russian ship turned and sail out of the prohibited area. It turns out that that was not the only incident in the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought us to the brink of war.
Vasili Arkhipov was an officer in the Soviet navy. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was second in command of the B-59, a diesel-powered sub that was armed with nuclear torpedoes. The B-59 was stationed in the Caribbean Sea near Cuba. In addition to being second in command of the B-59, Arkhipov was in charge of the entire flotilla of submarines that the B-59 was part of. The flotilla also included the B-4, the B-36 and the B-130. This gave him equal rank with the Captain of the B-59.
On October 27 of 1962, eleven U.S. Navy destroyers and the USS Randolph, an aircraft carrier were on patrol near Cuba but outside the area of the blockade. The U.S. shipped detected the submerged B-59 and decided to bring it to the surface even though it was in international waters. They began dropping weak depth charges used for practice in an effort to force it to surface.
Unlike the other submarines in the group, the B-59 required the cooperation of three command officers in order to fire the nuclear torpedoes. The Captain, the political officer and the second in command. If any of these three disagreed with the decision to fire the submarine would not fire. In addition to his rank, Arkhipov was highly respected because he had taken heroic action the year before when a nuclear accident aboard a Soviet submarine released radiation and endangered the crew. The other two men were ready to launch the nuclear torpedoes at the U.S. ships but Arkhipov objected and the three argued. The sub had been out of contact with Soviet Naval command in Moscow for some time and, for all they knew, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were in a shooting war.
Eventually, Arkhipov convinced the Captain to bring the B-59 to the surface and try to establish contact with Moscow. With its batteries low on power and the air-conditioning system failing, the B-59 sailed back to base. The U.S. Navy claims that they informed the B-59 that they were only using practice depth charges to signal the B-59 but the officers of the B-59 deny that they received that information.
If U.S. ships had been destroyed by Soviet nuclear torpedoes close to Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is highly probable that nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have followed and it would have been the end of our civilization. How fascinating that it was the professionalism and humanity of single officers on both sides of the international dispute who each, in their own way and against pressure and orders from their own command structures, refused to take the action that could have destroyed our world.
Vasili Arkhipov:
Still over 4 μSv/h measured in a park of Nasushiobara city. fukushima-diary.com
Locals protest Canadian nuclear waste site. thetimeshearld.com
Ambient office = 128 nanosieverts per hour
Yesterday, I blogged about attempts of some mining companies to circumvent laws put in place by the Navajo Nation Council to prevent uranium mining or transportation on Navajo lands. There are over five hundred contaminated sites in the Navajo Nation from Cold War uranium mining as well as twenty two wells that cannot be used for drinking water because of radioactive contamination. The Council has overturned a ruling by a Navajo Nation committee that would have allowed uranium miners to transport uranium across the Navajo lands. Currently there is a battle raging in the media and the courts over the plans of a Canadian mining company to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon area to the west of Navajo lands.
Last April, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell denied a request by the Havasupai tribe and a coalition of conservation groups to prevent uranium mining six miles from the Southern Rim of the Grand Canyon, near Grand Canyon National Park. The Chairman of the Havasupai tribe said ““We believe that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Forest Service to consult with us and the other affiliated tribes before they let the mining company damage Red Butte, one of our most sacred traditional cultural properties.” He also said that the Havasupai Tribal Council would appeal the decision.
The Havasupai tribe is working with conservation groups including the Grand Canyon Trust, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club to fight a decision by the U.S. Forest Service to allow Energy Fuels Inc, a Canadian mining company, to reopen an existing mine. The Forest Service decided to issue permission to EFI without consulting with the Tribe and without a new environmental review to update the last environmental review which was carried out over thirty years ago. In the last twenty years, much has been learned about how uranium mining can pollute aquifers and the Forest Service is not taking this into account. The Tribe claims that the proposed mining operation will threaten wildlife such as the California condor which is an endangered species. The Tribe also says that operating the mine will threaten tribal cultural values.
The Tribe fears that the toxic waste from uranium mining will contaminate the aquifers and streams that feed the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. The aquifers are thousands of feet below the surface and will be impossible to cleanup once contaminated. A former superintendent of the Grand Canyon National Park said, ““Uranium is a special concern because it is both a toxic heavy metal and a source of radiation. I worry about uranium escaping into the local water because more than a third of the canyon’s species would be affected if water quality suffered.” A report from the Environment American conservation organization states, “Uranium mining — which often requires vast open pits, spreads radioactive dust through the air, and leaks radioactivity and toxic chemicals into the environment — is among the riskiest industrial activities in the world. Every uranium mine ever operated in the United States has required some degree of toxic waste cleanup, and the worst have sickened dozens of people, contaminated miles of rivers and streams, and required the cleanup of hundreds of acres of land.”
The Tribe and conservation groups intend to continue the fight. The Grand Canyon is a national treasure and should not be permanently polluted with uranium and other heavy metals so one company can profit from the destruction.
Grand Canyon National Park:
