nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Women on the move – into employment in renewable energy

flag-UKAn increasing female presence in Renewable energy By Sarah Brooks Linked In 12 Jan 15 The energy sector has always been regarded as male dominated. As of 2013, females contributed to just 21% of the workforce for traditional energy sources such as oil, gas and petroleum. However in the renewables sector females appear to be getting ahead. In Scotland alone 28% of the employees of the renewable energy industry were female.

As the renewable industry is considered to be a relatively new source of energy and is still continuously undergoing development and investment, it opens up opportunities for females who would not normally be given a chance to work in the energy sector. Scotland are leading in the renewable sector in the UK, in 2012 almost 30% of electricity generated came from renewable sources compared to just 8% in England and Wales.

women-renewable-energy

If the rest of the UK continue to develop similar to Scotland the number of careers for women within the sector will only increase. Although females are beginning to enter the energy workforce, it is questioned whether these are still mainly in sales and business based roles rather than technical. As of 2010, only 6% of the engineering workforce in the UK were female. Granting this, in 2013 16% of the graduates in engineering degrees were female, which was a small improvement from years prior.

This slight growth over the recent years can be shown through the fact in 2013 50% of the females employed by engineering industries were aged 25-30 years old. This is indication there will be a gradual influx of a younger generation of females into technical roles within the renewable sector as engineers begin to graduate and build their careers within the industry. Initiatives are in place to help encourage and support females to pursue engineering and technical roles. A survey carried out by Atkins in 2013 on females in engineering careers found over 50% of the sample felt they were put off at school for pursuing engineering as it being portrayed as ‘too difficult’ and ‘male dominated’………

Despite the renewable energy industry still being largely dominated by males, there is still huge opportunity for females to get on board not only in business support roles but technical too. With females being gradually encouraged to pursue an engineering career we can expect to see a gradual influx of women in the renewable workforce over the next few years…….https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/increasing-female-presence-renewable-energy-sarah-brooks

January 14, 2015 Posted by | employment, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Thorium nuclear reactors – not a good idea at all

Thorium-dreamThorium – a good idea? WISE, Jan 15  (translation by Noel Wauchope) “………….Now with the fear of further nuclear weapons proliferation  increasing, the nuclear industry looks to another cycle, based on thorium instead of uranium. But with a thorium reactor one can also make nuclear weapons material. The Thorium reactor is not quite there yet. The technique is not yet out-developed, let alone tried. All serious scientists think it will still take several decades before there reactors are available for commercial use.
And so does the whole “climate” argument; if you want to do something about climate change (replace coal plants Thorium power plants) it will have to be done very quickly, not over 20 years. Moreover the many tens of billions of dollars to build a thorium cycle and infrastructure could be better spent on truly clean and endless sources. Moreover, the thorium cycle has serious drawbacks……..
Because plutonium is a chemically very different ftrom  uranium, it is quite easy to identify  from spent fuel rods. Uranium-235 or other isotopes * (U-232 and U-233)are  much more difficult, because they are  chemically indistinguishable from the rest of the uranium………
 Thorium is often mentioned. It is an ore which can be recovered like uranium in large mines. Although thorium itself is not very radioactive, many decay products of thorium are. It expires in stages to include the noble gas 220Rn presenting the risk of contamination. The biggest health threat of thorium is if ingested or inhaled. The alpha radiation can not penetrate the skin, but if ingested accumulates in the liver, spleen, lymph nodes and bones. The “biological half-life ‘of thorium is about 22 years, which in practice means that the alpha radiation damages during the rest of life, and thereby increases the risk of liver cancer and leukemia. This makes mining of thorium a tricky business.
It is not self-fissile but neutron radiation in a nuclear reactor converts it to it fissionable U-233 and U-232 waste product. This is material that can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. So there is indeed in a thorium reactor, not plutonium,  but other proliferation-sensitive material.
Thorium reactors are – according to the proponents of this technique – so also much safer than current reactors. For example, in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) the fuel is not processed as a solid but is dissolved in a molten fluoride salt. This molten salt is also used as a refrigerant and as fuel. It remains stable at high temperatures and controllable. The advocates claim that ‘the runaway of the reactor in a thorium-central’ is impossible. The neutrons released during the reactions can be immediately absorbed by the thorium atoms in the mixture, causing the atoms to be in turn suitable for fission. It is also possible to use materials other than thorium, plutonium, for example, to add to the mixture. Advocates say so; it is a way to get rid of our plutonium; we use it just as a fuel in the thorium plant.
But it is questionable whether the thorium cycle is really a better guarantee against the danger of proliferation. Although no plutonium is produced  there is a method to extract the nuclear material U-233 quite easily and efficiently from irradiated thorium reactor rods. Thorium ie first becomes protactinium (PA-233), which decays with a half-life of 27 days to U-233.  To select from the reactor fuel rods after about a month to, it is possible to separate the PA-233 from the thorium. This can also be in a small lab, there is no need for large or complex factory. Then you just have to wait a few months until all the protactinium is spontaneously transformed into highly pure uranium-233. Eight pounds of this material is already enough to make an atomic bomb.
Hence the thorium cycle can be diverted to the production of atomic bombs. This removes a major advantage claimed. Proponents say of thorium; “There are easier ways to get nuclear material, so terrorists or countries that seek nuclear weapons do not really want to use thorium reactors.” But that’s a rather strange reasoning; it is also easier to commit a murder with a gun than with a knife. Why do not you go do not advocate the possession of a knife?
Nuclear waste
A thorium plant, compared to uranium plants,  produces  little long-lived radioactive waste.  But not even this type of plant is still producing waste that remains dangerous for 240,000 years and people and the environment must be stored and fully protected. The problem of high-level nuclear waste is not so much the volume (quantity) but the toxicity and radiation intensity. Whether you need to find a solution for 100 or 500 pounds is not as relevant, the point is that there is still no definitive accepted method existing to store this hazardous waste safely for thousands of years.
Catch-22
The nuclear industry has a problem; it now fully recognizes that the problems with the current (Uranium) cycle are too large.  So it now looks to a whole new cycle based on thorium The owners of the now hundreds of operating nuclear power plants, the builders of the uranium-based power plants, the thousands of people who earn their living from extracting uranium will not go welcome the call for a Thorium industry. This has resulted in the odd dichotomy between  the people who believe in the Thorium Cycle and the people who believe in the Uranium Cycle. Meanwhile there are the scientists who want to explore new fields of research especially those who advocate Thorium power plants; they want to be assured that they can can certainly do some decades (fundamental) research.
Too late, too expensive
Do not forget; the thorium reactor is not quite there yet, all serious scientists think it will still take several decades before there reactors are available for commercial use. And so does the whole “climate” argument; if you want to do something about climate change (replace coal plants Thorium power plants) that will have to be done very quickly, not waiting over 20 years to begin. Moreover, it will cost many tens of billions of dollars to build a thorium cycle and infrastructure. That   money can be spent  better ongenuinely clean and endless sources.http://www.wisenederland.nl/kernenergie/thorium-een-goed-idee-0

January 14, 2015 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Failure to control radioactive waste water continues, at crippled Fukushima nuclear site

Engineer: Outright failures continue to plague Fukushima plant — “Public may think worst is over… Nothing could be further from the truth” — Japan TV: New method failing to stop flow of highly contaminated water — Experts: ‘Diluting’ radiation in ocean adds to danger; Spreading it out only makes health damages worse (VIDEO)http://enenews.com/outright-failures-continue-plague-fukushima-japan-tv-new-method-failing-stop-flow-highly-contaminated-water-public-thinks-worst-could-be-further-truth-video?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29

Dr. Steve Elwart, professional engineer and expert for Dept. of Homeland Security, Dec 14, 2014 (emphasis added): With most of the media silent about the cleanup, the public may think the worst is over [at Fukushima Daiichi]… Nothing could be further from the truth… [Radioactive water is] leaking out into the ocean, allowing it to spread… around the world through ocean currents [and this has] prompted grave concerns over the impact on sea life in the area and around the world. [Officials] decided to build an “ice wall” around the reactor site… TEPCO conceded defeat and announced the efforts to construct the plug failed… As if things couldn’t get worse, less than two months ago, TEPCO once again came out with an announcement that it was having problems with the ice wall [and] was going to cease operations on the ice wall and pour cement… TEPCO President Naomi Hirose stated officials “will never give up” on the wall…debate continues over how to stop water from leaking into the ocean… outright failures continue to plague the Fukushima cleanup efforts.

NHK Transcript, Dec 26, 2014: TEPCO is still struggling to deal with contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

NHK, Dec 26, 2014: New method for contaminated water may be failing — [TEPCO] has indicated that a new method aimed at tackling a large volume of highly radioactive wastewater at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has not been entirely successful. TEPCO gave a progress report on its work to a panel of experts at the Nuclear Regulation Authority on Friday. The utility last month began pouring cement into underground tunnels filled with the contaminated water from the reactor buildings to stop the water inflow. The water is believed to be leaking into the sea… officials said that when they pumped water up from one of the pits, the water level at another pit changed. That suggests that gaps exist in the concrete-filled tunnels.

Documentary featuring radiation experts (at 6:30 in):

  • Dr. Alice Stewart, physician and epidemiologist: All recommendations say one big hit is more dangerous than just a little one… It’s the basis of the control of nuclear waste — if you dilute it enough, it will be safe. Well, we say dilute it and it will add to the dangers.
  • Jan van de Putte, radiation safety specialist: There’s a philosophy called the dilution philosophy, which means if you dilute something, then it doesn’t give any harm. But with all the knowledge we have today, we must say radiation is inducing health damage regardless of how little the doses of are. If you dilute radiation… all the health effects will only be more widely distributed. This is the only effect of this dilution philosophy.
  • Dr. Richard Piccioni, biophysicist: Whether you have put it all in one place or have spread it out, the total irradiation of human beings… is the same. In fact if what some researchers like Dr. Stewart are saying is true, it will be even worse.
  • Watch the documentary here

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Fukushima 2015 | 1 Comment

Pentagon secrecy on Israel’s Nuclear Program and Super Computers

see-no-evilflag-IsraelPentagon Refuses to Release Unclassified 1987 Report about Israel’s Nuclear Program and Super Computers http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/pentagon-refuses-to-release-unclassified-1987-report-about-israels-nuclear-program-and-super-computers-150113?news=855360 Noel Brinkerhoff, Danny Biederman A think tank researcher has been fighting with the Pentagon to get a 1987 report on Israel’s nuclear program and supercomputers released despite the fact that the document in question is not classified.

Grant Smith, founder of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., first asked theDepartment of Defense (DoD) to release the report (“Critical Technology Issues in Israel and NATO Countries”) three years ago through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Last fall, after numerous delays by the DoD, Smith went to court to force the report’s disclosure.

Defense lawyers contend it was necessary for officials to ask Israel to review the report before complying with Smith’s request—an unusual move on the part of a U.S. agency involving an American FOIA issue.

Meanwhile, the judge hearing the FOIA case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, has wondered why it has taken three years without a decision by the Pentagon.

“I’d like to know what is taking so long for a 386-page document. The document was located some time ago,” Chutkan said in November, according to Courthouse News Service. “I’ve reviewed my share of documents in my career. It should not take that long to review that document and decide what needs to be redacted.”

The report may contain details about an internal debate nearly 30 years ago among U.S. officials about whether Washington should authorize the sale of a Cray supercomputer to a coalition of Israeli universities. “The United States approved the sale of powerful computers that could boost Israel’s well-known but officially secret A-bomb and missile programs,” wrote the author of a 1995 Risk Report article about the Cray controversy that cited the Pentagon document. “A 1987 Pentagon-sponsored study found that Technion University, one of the schools in the network, was helping design Israel’s nuclear re-entry vehicle. U.S. officials say Technion’s physicists also worked in Israel’s secret weapon complex at Dimona.”

Smith’s effort “to get hold of the Pentagon report is set against the backdrop of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” wrote Janet McMahon at Courthouse News Service. “Israel has not signed the treaty. Iran, on the other hand, has signed the treaty.”

The current negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is part of that backdrop. “The reason this would be seen as controversial is you have this real concerted push for Iran to come clean on its nuclear program and to relinquish its infrastructure,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies VP Jonathan Schanzer told the Washington Examiner. He said he saw “no reason” why the U.S. government would authorize the report’s release, but adding that if it was released, it would probably not affect the Pentagon’s publicly ambiguous stance regarding Israeli nuclear capabilities.

Smith has grown frustrated over the government’s stalling on the issue, saying: “So what we’ve seen most recently is that the government is now coming up with novel ways to try and delay this by talking about mandatory disclosure reviews. We don’t think it’s meaningful that their captive think tank may have signed NDAs. Perhaps they even have a sock puppet in the Pentagon that signs NDAs on their behalf. It would be the same from our perspective.”

 

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 1 Comment

Custer County: Geologist states risks of groundwater contamination from uranium mining

Uranium foes elated by scientist’s findings http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/uranium-foes-elated-by-scientist-s-findings/article_145c9e0a-7d5e-58e5-914c-8ec00f5f2ef1.html Opponents of a plan to use groundwater to mine uranium in Fall River and Custer counties claimed victory Monday when a federal board made public a geologist’s statements that there are risks of groundwater contamination if mining is permitted.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gave the public access to Hannan LaGarry’s supplemental written testimony about the proposed Dewey-Burdock in situ mine. LaGarry first testified for the opponents of the mine when the board had hearings in August in Rapid City.

After reviewing drill hole data that Azarga Uranium was ordered to open to inspection, LaGarry wrote that earlier Nuclear Regulatory Commission findings were based on a sample size too small to be “scientifically valid or useful in any way.”

January 14, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

Refuting the Barry Brook propaganda for new nuclear power

nuke-bubblenuClear News 15 Jan “………Conservation, Proliferation and Responsible Science A group of academics have argued that nuclear power is essential to save the planet from climate change, and preserve the world’s biodiversity. But there’s a mysterious omission in their analysis, writes Jim Green of Friends of the Earth Australia: nuclear weapons proliferation. And after a major exchange of nuclear bombs, and the ‘nuclear winter’ that would follow, exactly how much biodiversity would survive? (1)
Dr Green also attacks the paper for endorsing fast breeder reactor technology as the solution to climate change. He says that the “fast reactor techno-utopia presented by Brook and Bradshaw is theoretically attractive”, but has already been tried unsuccessfully, and cannot be made to work in the real world. (2)
Greenpeace UK chief scientist Dr Doug Parr commenting on the plea from the academics for environmentalists to support nuclear power said: “The ‘next generation’ of nuclear reactors are always clean, safe, cheap and just over the horizon. But, mysteriously, the reactors that get built are always the exact opposite. By contrast, photovoltaics are clean, safe, getting cheaper by the day and available now. They can be installed in heavily populated cities, on dual-use agricultural land
and even in shallow water. And no-one will lie awake at night worrying about terrorists getting
access to a solar panels or wind farms.” (3)
Put very simply, says David Elliott is Emeritus Professor of Technology Policy at the Open University, the academics argue that nuclear has lower land-use per unit of energy produced than renewables and so will leave more space for biodiversity. This assessment, like some of the other analysis in the paper, is debatable. It’s true that some renewables are land-hungry, biomass especially, but that is not the case for offshore wind, wave and tidal stream or roof-top solar. And although onshore wind farm sites may be relatively large, the land around the wind turbines can be farmed or left wild. It has also been claimed that solar farm arrays on land can actually increase local biodiversity – protecting the area from other uses.
By contrast with nuclear, it is not just the area of the plants and their security zones that has to be considered, but also the impact of uranium mining and fuel production and waste disposal activities. These activities and the operation of nuclear plants also have impacts beyond just land-use. The release of radioactive materials has a significant potential for long term damage to cellular and possibly genetic material and to the health of ecosystems. That is not the case with
renewables. (4)
Norwich Green Party point out (5) that according to recent research published by Stanford University greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear cycle can be up to 25 times higher per unit than wind power. (6) While Ian Ralls of Cambridge FoE says 70 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is not produced by electricity so nuclear power wouldn’t make much difference. How about universal free household insulation for example, or proper integrated public transport? Both much cheaper, more effective and would have a greater positive impact on people’s lives.
1. Ecologist 18th Dec 2014
forget_wmd_proliferation.html
4. ResponsibleSci blog, 9 January 2015
5. Independent on Sunday, 11 January 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/ios-letters-emails-
-online-postings-11-january-2015-9970239.html
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo70.pdf

January 14, 2015 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Radioactive water from Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant may have reached the Tennessee River

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant water leak may have reached the Tennessee River, monitoring shows no increased radiation Al.com  By Brian Lawson | blawson@al.com HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — A worker at TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant doing regular walk-around monitoring Jan. 7  identified a leak of radioactive water at the plant last week.

A Tennessee Valley Authority spokesman said today the leak resulted in a spill of between 100 and 200 gallons and some of that water, mixed with millions of gallons of cooling water, could have migrated to the Tennessee River.

TVA acknowledged that, while no elevated levels of radioactive pollutants have been discovered at the plant near Athens, the water that spilled exceeded federal guidelines for safe drinking.

The leak took nearly three hours to stop and is blamed on a faulty valve. It occurred in a common area for all three of the plant reactors and involved water that was being re-condensed after serving as steam to power the plant’s turbines.

TVA officials said this morning they are monitoring water going back into the river and have detected no elevated levels of tritium. TVA is still reviewing how the leak occurred. ………http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/01/browns_ferry_nuclear_plant_wat.html

January 14, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

New resource for renewable energy information – REsource, from IRENA

logo-IRENAIRENA Unveils REsource — “Google” For Renewable Energy Information Clean Technica, January 13th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan  The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)* is about to launch an awesome new tool called REsource. While we here at CleanTechnica do what we can to be the world’s leading source of cleantech information, we are always happy to see others to do a great job in this space. IRENA has long been one of the top places I go for renewable energy information, but its resources have gotten better and better in the past couple of years. REsource takes that to another level. ……

“The rapid growth of the renewable energy industry outpaces the information available to monitor and analyse the sector,” IRENA writes. “To date, renewable energy information has been scattered, and is perceived as less accessible, less detailed and less accurate than the information on conventional energy. This lack of information has created a falsely uncertain environment for investors and fuelled misperceptions in public opinion.”

Indeed, if you go looking for some renewable energy fact, there are dozens of organizations where you have to consider searching for it……..

REsource will be launched at IRENA’s 5th Assembly next week. We’ll publish an update at that time.

Also keep an eye on IRENA’s Twitter and Facebook pages. Also keep an eye on #REsourceIRENA — IRENA is going to be releasing a number of reports in the coming weeks and will tag them with #REsourceIRENA on Twitter and Facebook. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/13/irena-launches-resource-google-renewable-energy-information/

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Resources -audiovicual | Leave a comment

Fukushima released 13,000,000,000 times more neutrons than initially estimated — “Obvious implication for human health”

  • We estimated a lower limit of 5.2 × 1021 slow neutrons m–2 sec–1 [m–2 sec–1 = per sq. meter per second] were emitted from the nuclear fuel rods to the sea water injected in the reactors
  • Priyadarshi et al. (2011) have estimated a release amount of 4 × 1011 slow neutrons m–2. The large difference with our estimation [13,000,000,000 times higher] comes from the intrinsic limit of the box model study by Priyadarshi et al.
  • Our model directly estimates the amount of material released from the reactor core
  • The estimated… number of neutron represent a lower limit of the amount of radiation emitted from the nuclear reactors… These values can be used as a proxy to the total amount of radiation emitted since the melt down
  • [The authors] express their gratitude to… the Japanese Ministry of Environment…Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology (MEXT)… [and] the Cabinet Office

Source:  Scientists from Tokyo Institute of Technology, U. of California San Diego & Kyushu U., made available Oct 16, 2014

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253330134_An_estimation_of_the_radioactive_S-35_emitted_into_the_atmospheric_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant_by_using

_a_numerical_simulation_global_transport

Evidence of neutron leakage at the Fukushima nuclear plant… Despite the obvious implication for human health and the surrounding ecology, there are no quantitative estimates of the neutron flux leakage… Heat must be removed by cooling the system to prevent… meltdown, which results in injection of neutrons and other fission products into the atmosphere… [T]ons of seawater were used as a coolant… A consequence is that salts and minerals present in seawater become radioactive by reaction with thermal neutrons… We calculated the total number of neutrons that leaked from the reactor core [and] estimate that a total of 4 × 1011 neutrons per m2 were released before March 20.

Source:  Priyadarshi et al.:

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.full

Slow Neutrons: “In water-cooled reactors like the ones at Fukushima, the right combination of slow neutrons and enriched fuel leads to a self-sustaining process… [Water] acts as a so-called moderator, slowing down the neutrons and keeping the reaction going.”

Health effects of neutron radiation:

  • Wikipedia: [Neutron] radiation is considered to be the most severe and dangerous radiation to the whole body when it is exposed to external radiation sources [and] roughly ten times more effective at causing biological damage compared to gamma or beta
  • Dr. Robert Gale, MD (In 2011 Gale was called to Japan to deal with medical consequences of the Fukushima disaster): All  three  types  of  particles… can  harm humans. Neutrons are the most dangerous because they are very energetic, can penetrate deeply, and deposit large amounts of energy into tissues.
  • US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Neutrons… have an exceptional ability to penetrate other material… neutrons are the only [type of ionizing radiation] that can make objects radioactive… neutrons can travel great distances in air.
  • Dept. of Health & Human Services: Neutrons… are significantly more potent carcinogens [and] induces… chromosomal aberrations, mutations, and DNA damage… more efficiently

Source: Enenews

http://enenews.com/fukushima-released-13000000000-times-neutrons-initially-estimated

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Japan | | 1 Comment

Report that Syria is developing a nuclear weapon.

Great news: Bashar al-Assad still developing nuclear weapons Hot Air JANUARY 12, 2015 BY NOAH ROTHMAN There is some troubling news out of the Levant this week, as if the West needed any more of that. According to a thorough report in Der Spiegel based on documents obtained from “Western intelligence agencies,” Bashar al-Assad’s Syria is busily developing a nuclear weapon.

“Analysts say that the Syrian atomic weapon program has continued in a secret, underground location,” Der Spiegel reported. “According to information they have obtained, approximately 8,000 fuel rods are stored there. Furthermore, a new reactor or an enrichment facility has very likely been built at the site — a development of incalculable geopolitical consequences.”

ccording to intelligence agency analysis, construction of the facility began back in 2009. The work, their findings suggest, was disguised from the very beginning, with excavated sand being disposed of at various sites, apparently to make it more difficult for observers from above to tell how deeply they were digging. Furthermore, the entrances to the facility were guarded by the military, which turned out to be a necessary precaution. In the spring of 2013, the region around Qusayr saw heavy fighting. But the area surrounding the project in the mines was held, despite heavy losses suffered by elite Hezbollah units stationed there.

The most recent satellite images show six structures: a guard house and five sheds, three of which conceal entrances to the facility below. The site also has special access to the power grid, connected to the nearby city of Blosah. A particularly suspicious detail is the deep well which connects the facility with Zaita Lake, four kilometers away. Such a connection is unnecessary for a conventional weapons cache, but it is essential for a nuclear facility.

But the clearest proof that it is a nuclear facility comes from radio traffic recently intercepted by a network of spies. A voice identified as belonging to a high-ranking Hezbollah functionary can be heard referring to the “atomic factory” and mentions Qusayr. The Hezbollah man is clearly familiar with the site. And he frequently provides telephone updates to a particularly important man: Ibrahim Othman, the head of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission……….http://hotai

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Syria, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Cumbria’s call for clean-up of Sellafield’s ‘Legacy’ spent nuclear fuel ponds

text-radiation Sellafield Ltd’s announcement of two ‘unusual finds’ on West Cumbrian beaches in May and June 2014 (the discovery attributed to the new Groundhog Synergy 2 monitoring system introduced in May) should be ringing public health alarms in the corridors of those tasked to protect beach users from the radioactive materials routinely washed up on local beaches from Sellafield’s historic discharges to the Irish Sea.
Whilst the discovery of a radioactive stone in May – bearing the highest level of Caesium 137 yet discovered in over a
decade of local beach monitoring – is of grave concern, the subsequent discovery in June of a radioactive particle discovered on the more publicly accessible beach at Seascale requires immediate action to be taken by the Authorities to protect the general public.
highly-recommendedflag-UKSellafield Catch Up 2015  nuClear News Jan 15  Eddie Martin of the Cumbria Trust wrote to Stephen Henwood chair of the NDA in November about the spent fuel ponds. He said, given that the Sellafield “Legacy Ponds” are over 60 yearsold, contain significant amounts of spent Magnox nuclear fuel and other radioactively
contaminated nuclear waste items, are covered with water for cooling purposes, were originally
pronounced, in the mid 1970’s as for “short term storage until it can be reprocessed”, are open to
the elements, known to be leaking into the ground and, in the case of B30, are located within
150m of the River Calder, we would be obliged if the NDA would state what action it is taking
to:-
Prevent transfer of radioactive contamination, by birds or other creatures that may have
access to the open contents of such ponds, to members of the public and/or property,
outside the boundary of the nuclear licensed site.
 Prevent leakage, through the ground surrounding these old and known -to-have-leaked,
ponds, to areas outside the nuclear licensed site and, specifically, into the River Calder.
 Recover the contents of these ponds for assay and assessment of their nuclear and
radioactive status.
 Commence reprocessing of appropriate items of the recovered Magnox fuel
 Compact, encapsulate or vitrify, as appropriate, and the safe storage, of the contents of
these ponds.
 Decommission, demolish and safely dispose of the existing outdated and insecure pond
buildings, structures and equipment. (15)
In response Stephen Henwood said “we categorically refute the suggestion … that insufficient
attention or resources are being put into addressing this national priority which we inherited in
2005. Whilst we cannot turn the clock back to decisions that were made or not made in the past
and which have left us with the challenges we now face, we are determined to be the people that
resolve those challenges.” (16)

Continue reading →

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Reference, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Unsafe, unreliable- Vladimir Slivyak’s verdict on Russian nuclear reactors

safety-symbol1flag_RussiaReactors from Russia are unsafe and unreliable, India shouldn’t buy them: Russian environmentalist Vladimir Slivyak DiaNuke.org, 9 Jan 15 “………….Over a dozen incidents and failures have already occurred at the newly built VVER at Kalinin NPP, including one involving a hydrogen explosion.

The Russian fast breeder reactor – the only commercial unit of this type in the world – has in its over 30 years of operation experienced almost as many various accidents, including fires involving radioactive substances and coolant leaks.

Further development of the breeder technology planned by Rosatom in Russia includes experiments with plutonium fuel. VVER-1200s are also designed to operate with plutonium fuel. Introducing this nuclear material into electricity generation on an industrial scale will likely lead to new accidents that will result in plutonium contamination.

Additionally, eleven old RBMK units – all variations on the Chernobyl design – still remain in operation in Russia.

Rosatom continues to reprocess spent nuclear fuel at the disastrous Mayak facility. Not only is the stockpile of extracted plutonium growing, but there is also a constant significant increase in volumes of radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing. The Mayak nuclear facility in Chelyabinsk Region was a place of a devastating nuclear accident of 1957, which caused widespread radioactive contamination and led to the resettlement of about 20,000 of local residents in the subsequent years.

Unfortuntely, several thousands of local residents still have to  live in contaminated area because Rosatom doesn’t take responsibility for their resettlement and people themselves are too poor to move away. That’s best illustration of what is safety culture and social responsibility in understanding of the Russian nuclear industry.

Russia has no realistic and viable plan for the disposal of radioactive waste. The risk of radioactive leaks from the aging radioactive waste storage facilities is increasing. Rosatom’s attempts to build new disposal sites for radioactive waste in several regions of Russia have been met by harsh opposition from local populations and environmental groups. But even if such sites were ultimately built, their capacity would be enough to take care of only a small fraction of the waste accumulated over many decades.

How strong is the nuclear safety regulation in Russia? What have been post-Fukushima changes?

Unfortunately, it’s far from strong. In 1990s we had special safety regulator, Gosatomnadzor (or GAN). It was reporting directly to the president of country and was able to confront Rosatom on the most important safety issues. I mean there is certain difference in mandates  of operator and regulator, and they must be in confrontation to improve the safety. When regulator becomes a friend to operator we are getting into Japanese situation which in the end bring us to another Fukushima sort of disaster. But that’s not the way it went in Russia. Rosatom successfully lobbied for dissolving of independent GAN. And finally it became just the department inside of another bigger structure, without any ability to control. After Fukushima, regulator proposed to close several old reactors down but that was easily ignored by Rosatom who said Russian reactors are best in the world and Fukushima would never happen in Russia. Something like that was said by Western industry after Chernobyl and all wanted to believe in it until Western-designed Fukushima exploded several times.

The Russian nuclear giant, Atomsroyeport, has been clearly unwilling to abide by the Indian liability law which has a clause on supliers liability in case of an accident. What does it say on their claims of safety?

It just confirms old fact that there is no 100% safe reactors. Which means, sooner or later, new Chernobyl or new Fukushima (or both) will happen again somewhere in the world. Russian industry knows very well that their reactors have vulnerabilities. And they don’t want to pay in case of another Chernobyl which they know is possible. Just like the owner of Fukushima is not paying to Japanese people……….http://www.dianuke.org/russian-reactors-are-unsafe-and-unreliable-india-shouldnt-buy-them-russian-environmentalist-vladimir-slivyak/

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Reference, Russia, safety | Leave a comment

Radioactive contamination level jumped over 57 times outside of underground wall

Radioactive-contamination-level-jumped-over-57-times-outside-of-underground-wall-800x500_c

January 13, 2015

Cs-134/137 and all β nuclides (including Sr-90) density showed the rapid increase in groundwater, according to Tepco.

The sample was taken in the seaside of Reactor 2. Sampling date was 1/12/2015.

Compared to the previous measurement of 1/8/2015, Cs-134/137 density rose up by 57 times, all β nuclides density also rose up by 57 times.

This is the highest reading measured from this boring. Tepco hasn’t identified the reason. This boring is located outside of the underground wall to stop contaminated groundwater flowing to the sea.

TEPCO groundwater plume mapping assumed the contaminated water released from the unit 1 turbine building would eventually reach this area.

TEPCO said within recent weeks that the portions of this trench that were not yet filled in with concrete were seeing contaminated water re-fill the trench as they pumped it out and that both ends of the trench seem to rise and fall with each other.

The concreting of the unit 2 trench that had been full of highly contaminated water since 2011 has caused leaking contaminated water to divert over to this area.

Theoretically, it is natural to assume the high level of contamination is flowing to the sea without anything to stop.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2015/images/2tb-east_15011202-j.pdf

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2015/1247139_6818.html

Source: Fukushima Diary

Radioactive contamination level jumped over 57 times outside of underground wall

January 14, 2015 Posted by | Japan | | Leave a comment

Danger of transporting nuclear weapons through Glasgow, especially in extreme weather

radiation-trucksafety-symbol-SmMinistry of Defence blasted for transporting nuclear weapons through Glasgow city centre during extreme weather by Scottish CND and SNP  Daily Record, Jan 13, 2015 By 

A CONVOY believed to be carrying city-destroying warheads drove through the middle of Glasgow on the M74 and M8 on Sunday night and crossed the Erskine Bridge during high winds. THE Ministry of Defence has come under fire from anti-nuclear campaigners and politicians after reports that a convoy carrying nuclear weapons travelled through the centre of Glasgow despite weather warnings.

The convoy drove through the middle of Glasgow on the M74 and M8 between 11.35pm and 11.55 pm on Sunday night and crossed the Erskine Bridge during high winds.

While the Scottish CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) maintain the convoys, which transport nuclear warheads between the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to the UK’s fleet of nuclear-armed submarines at Faslane, are always unsafe, the campaigners condemned moving the weapons during extreme weather as reckless……….

SNP MSP for Glasgow Anniesland and co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Bill Kidd added: “This practice is deeply worrying and poses an unacceptable risk to the people of Glasgow.  The idea that weapons of mass destruction are being transported through our city while we sleep is absolutely chilling – and shows the utter folly of basing nuclear weapons just 30 miles from our biggest population centre.

“The impact of any safety breach during one of these convoys does not bear thinking about. It’s time that these immoral and unsafe weapons were removed from Scotland for good.”

Glasgow Now has reached out to the Ministry of Defence for comment. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/ministry-defence-blasted-transporting-nuclear-4970433

January 14, 2015 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant has Tritium Leak

Tritium leak reported at nuclear plant in northern Alabama http://www.sunherald.com/2015/01/13/6015166/tritium-leak-reported-at-nuclear.html BY ASSOCIATED PRESS January 13, 2015  ATHENS, Ala. — A newspaper reports that radioactive water leaked from a tank at an Alabama nuclear plant, releasing tritium into the environment.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports (http://bit.ly/1BbmIs2) that the leak occurred last week at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant near Athens, Alabama.

A spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the plant, said the leak was quickly contained and presented no public risk.

The TVA said a drain line leaked 100 to 200 gallons of water containing tritium levels above acceptable drinking water standards.

In a report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the TVA said it increased monitoring of water around the plant but hasn’t detected elevated tritium levels outside the plant.

Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs in nature and also as a byproduct of nuclear fission.

January 14, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »