nuclear-news

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

Numbers of nuclear warheads in various countries 2013

Think Tank: China Boosts Nuclear Arms Arsenal abc news, By MALIN RISING Associated PressSTOCKHOLM June 3, 2013 (AP)

 “…….Here is SIPRI’s list of the number of nuclear warheads in the world at the start of 2013 compared with the start of 2012.

20132012

Russia  8,50010,000

United States  7,7008,000

France  300300

China  250240

United Kingdom225225

Pakistan  100-12090-110

India  90-11080-100

Israel8080    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/tank-china-boosts-nuclear-arms-arsenal-19309684#.Uaz4K9Jwo6I

June 4, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Uranium and thorium distribution rules, from NRC

NRC Finalizes Rules on Using & Distributing Uranium & Thorium http://smnewsnet.com/archives/66243   2 June 13,  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations for products and materials containing unenriched uranium and thorium, also known as source material. The changes include new requirements for distributing source material and licensing its use.

Manufacturers and importers of products that can be used without a license—such as welding rods and gas lantern mantles that contain thorium, and decorative glassware containing uranium—will now need to apply to the NRC for specific licenses to distribute these products. Such licenses will impose new requirements for labeling, quality control, reporting and recordkeeping.

The new regulations also modify distribution, possession and use requirements for small quantities of source material that can be used or transferred without a specific license. Distributors of small quantities must now apply for specific licenses. For source material being processed or in a dispersible form, such as liquid or powder, the limit on the use or transfer at any one time without a license is decreasing from 15 to 3.3 pounds; the annual limit will drop from 150 to 15.4 pounds. Limits are not changing for anyone possessing source material in a solid, non-dispersible form (such as display samples of depleted uranium metal), removing uranium from drinking water, or determining the concentration of uranium and thorium in a material at a laboratory.

Finally, the new regulations expand the exemption from licensing for optical lenses containing thorium to include lenses and mirrors coated with or containing uranium or thorium. These products are typically used in lasers or other high-technology optical systems.
These new license requirements and possession limits are intended to ensure those who possess source material do so safely, and that the NRC has a better understanding of how much source material is being distributed annually.

June 4, 2013 Posted by | Legal, Reference, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Huge radiation health danger for astronauts going to Mars

Curiosity flew to Mars in a spacecraft that had shielding similar to what astronauts would have on the new crew vehicle being developed by NASA. The detector picked up an average of 1.8 millisieverts of radiation per day. A human being on the surface of the Earth receives only about 3 millisieverts of radiation in an entire year.

“The radiation environment in deep space is several hundred times more intense than it is on Earth, and that’s even inside a shielded spacecraft,”

“The radiation exposure on a trip to Mars would — barring a super-huge solar event — not be lethal. The concerns are mostly about cancer induction (a so-called ‘late effect’) and damage to the central nervous system,”

text ionising

Space radiation would make Mars mission hazardous  WP, By ,   May 30  Of all the hazards facing a human mission to Mars — something NASA and countless space buffs would love to see at some point — one of the hardest to solve is the radiation that saturates interplanetary space. New data, gathered by NASA’s Curiosity rover as it traveled to Mars, have confirmed that interplanetary space is a hostile medium and suggest that engineers need to find a way to speed up space travel significantly if they hope to reduce radiation exposure……

The effects of interplanetary radiation on the human body are not well understood. Until now, scientists had limited information about how much radiation penetrates a spacecraft during an interplanetary journey. But the Curiosity rover, which bristles with instruments, carried along a Radiation Assessment Detector, and it measured the incoming radiation during its 253-day trip to Mars, which began in November 2011. Continue reading

June 1, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Two head CT scans double one’s risk of cancer from radiation

medical-radiation the risk of having soft-tissue sarcoma will be doubled under an exposure equal to radiation from two CT head scans.

Low levels of medical radiation can cause cancer, HKU study warns http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1250953/low-levels-medical-radiation-can-cause-cancer-hku-study-warns Even low levels emitted by X-rays and CT scans can cause cancer, and people who often get whole-body checks are at risk, HKU study says, 01 June, 2013  Emily Tsang  emily.tsang@scmp.com Worries have been raised about the overuse of radiation in medicine after a study shows that even low levels of radiation – such as those emitted by X-rays and CT scans – can cause cancer.

The risk of soft-tissue sarcoma is doubled if a person receives an amount of radiation equivalent to two CT head scans, University of Hong Kong researchers say. This means that people who join a growing
trend of getting frequent whole-body checks including X-rays and scans are putting themselves at risk, the researchers say, adding that authorities should also reconsider the risks of nuclear power.

“The study has highlighted that even low to moderate levels of exposure are enough to cause genetic mutation,” study leader Dino Samartzis said. Continue reading

June 1, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, health, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Nevada population was exposed to nuclear bomb tests’ radioactive fallout

atomic test warningAdd this little public service booklet, illustrated with the drawing at left and written by the Atomic Energy Commission to the people of Nevada:

“You are in a very real sense active participants in the Nation’s atomic test program. … Some of you have been inconvenienced by our test operations. At times some of you have been exposed to potential risk from flash, blast, or fall-out. You have accepted the inconvenience or the risk without fuss, without alarm, and without panic. Your cooperation has helped achieve an unusual record of safety.”

As though they were asked.

How Do We Know Nuclear Bombs Blow Down Forests? Because we built a forest in Nevada and blew it down. Slate, By   May 31, 2013, “……. Once the United States had built the first atomic bomb in 1945, it then improved it by building the first hydrogen bomb in 1952. It then began working on building more portable bombs, and since the Soviet Union had done the same, the United States also wondered about the bombs’ effects. So in the early 1950s, the government set up models of all the things that bombs could blow up—houses, bridges, cars, pigs, sheep—and exploded bombs near them. The government did this for at least a decade and didn’t stop until it and the rest of the world banned above-ground testing. The tests, many of them at the Nevada Test Site, were called “shots,” and they had names.

The shot called Encore was on May 8, 1953, and among the many effects it tested was what a nuclear bomb would do to a forest. The Nevada Test Site wasn’t replete with forests, so the U.S. Forest Service brought 145 ponderosa pines from a nearby canyon and cemented them into holes lined up in tidy rows in an area called Frenchman Flat, 6,500 feet from ground zero. Then the Department of Defense air-dropped a 27-kiloton bomb that exploded 2,423 feet above the model forest. The heat set fire to the forest, then the blast wave blew down the trees and put out some fires and started others. Here’s the video. Continue reading

June 1, 2013 Posted by | civil liberties, history, Reference, USA, weapons and war | 2 Comments

Nuclear weapons not an effective deterrent to cyber warfare

Is There A Place For Nuclear Deterrence in Cyberspace? Arms Control Now,  May 30, 2013 by  In recent years, cyber attacks and the threats they pose have grown in sophistication, from low-level disruption and data theft—which are still a majority of cyber attacks—to high-level espionage and destruction.

Stuxnet, a piece of malware believed to be responsible for destroying approximately 1,000 centrifuges in Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility in late 2009 and early 2010, was a game-changer. For the first time, a computer virus was used to destroy a piece of physical infrastructure and the world took notice. The power of such a capability is clear today, but what happens once a wide range of counties and actors acquire equally sophisticated and powerful capabilities and there is no longer a technological gap between the United States, its allies, and the rest of the world?……..

the threat of using nuclear weapons to respond to cyber attacks by other states against U.S. critical infrastructure is not a realistic nor an effective response to cyber attack because:

  • Cyber attacks lack the destructive and existential threat of nuclear weapons;
  • A nuclear response to a cyber attack is not proportional;
  • Threatening to respond with a nuclear weapons lacks credibility in adversaries’ eyes;
  • Cyber deterrence in general is difficult to achieve; and
  • The policy would provide a new rationale for nuclear proliferators…..

…………United States is already investing and should continue to invest in defensive capabilities to build-up the resiliency of its critical infrastructure networks to cyber attack. If critical networks are more difficult to compromise, then adversaries will be less likely to target them. And, the further global integration of information networks makes it less likely that states will seek to disrupt or attack other states’ cyber networks because the economic effects would be too great for both countries.

The U.S. should also engage further the international community to establish acceptable “rules of the road” for state behavior in cyberspace. And, it is important that current international law be recognized as a guide for developing these cyber rules and adjusted in order to make sense in the new and different technological environment. http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/05/30/is-there-a-place-for-nuclear-deterrence-in-cyberspace/

Several states, including the United States, have begun to discuss the establishment of cyberspace norms. The United Kingdom has hosted two international conferences on the subject. In September 2011 Russia and China proposed a code of conduct for cyber behavior. In 2011, the UN re-established the mandate for a group of governmental expertson developments in the field of telecommunications and international security. The United States and China recently discussed the possibility of opening a dialogue on the issue.

The adoption of a policy of using, or threatening to use, nuclear weapons in response to a major cyber attack by other states against U.S. critical infrastructure is not appropriate and is not an effective deterrent. Instead, the U.S. should continue to work with the international community to establish acceptable “rules of the road” that would hold states accountable and help impose some measure of restraint on all states’ cyber behavior.

June 1, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

More radiation exposure when contrast medium is used with CT scans

Contrast use spikes CT radiation dose, BEric Barnes, AuntMinnie.com staff writer, May 30, 2013 –– The use of contrast media during CT scans significantly increases how much radiation patients absorb in amounts that vary by organ, researchers report in the June edition of the American Journal of Roentgenology. Radiologists should account for the expected dose increases when setting scanner protocols, they said.

Radiation dose increased for every organ scanned at CT, particularly in the most vascularized tissues, wrote researchers from the University of Messina in Italy. Average doses rose by one-fifth for the liver, one-third for the spleen and pancreas, and almost three-fourths for the kidneys.

“The results are in agreement with our previous data, confirming an increase in organ radiation dose in contrast-enhanced CT compared with unenhanced CT,” wrote Dr. Ernesto Amato and colleagues (AJR, June 2013, Vol. 200:6, pp. 1288-1293)……

Investigators have also found an increase in the frequency of cellular abnormalities in patients who underwent contrast-enhanced radiographic examinations. But the actual increase in dose for any given scan — which depends on iodine uptake; the shape, volume, and position of the organ; and the emitted x-ray energy spectrum — remains unknown, the authors wrote…….

Confirming dose increases

The results were in line with the group’s previous phantom study, and they confirmed significant radiation dose increases in contrast-enhanced CT versus unenhanced CT, Amato and colleagues wrote. The data showed average dose increases of 19% for the liver, 71% for the kidneys, 33% for the spleen and pancreas, and 41% for the thyroid.

“The kidneys showed the maximum among the average dose [increases] (71%, resulting from an attenuation increment of 139 HU),” the authors wrote.”High renal enhancement is, in fact, due to both their high vascularization because they receive 20% to 25% of the cardiac output and the passage of iodine within the renal tubules. In particular, the level of contrast medium within renal tubules can be up to 50 to 100 times higher than that in the blood because of the mechanisms of tubular concentration and secretion.”

Thyroid tissue showed the second highest dose increase (41%) after contrast injection, based on an HU increase of 87%. Also, the dose increases in the thyroid depended on tissue density on unenhanced CT, the group noted. Denser thyroids showed a lower increase in attenuation and, consequently, lower increases in dose.

Because the liver and spleen are richly vascularized, Hounsfield units increased with contrast by 49 HU and 71 HU, respectively, and average dose increased by 19% and 33%……. http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=103565

June 1, 2013 Posted by | radiation, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

Astronauts going to Mars face a radiation cancer death sentence

radiation-warningRadiation on trip to Mars near life limit HERALD SUN, AAP MAY 31, 2013  ASTRONAUTS who travel on future missions to Mars would likely be exposed to their lifetime limit of radiation during the trip, not to mention time spent on the Red Planet, scientists say.

The measurements were made aboard the Mars Science Laboratory, an unmanned NASA rover and mobile lab that set off for Mars in 2011 before landing 253 days later in August 2012, said the report in the US journal Science.

“In terms of accumulated dose, it’s like getting a whole-body CT scan once every five or six days,” said Cary Zeitlin, a principal scientist in Southwest Research Institute’s (SwRI) Space Science and Engineering Division.

“Radiation exposure at the level we measured is right at the edge, or possibly over the edge of what is considered acceptable in terms of career exposure limits defined by NASA and other space agencies.”

Zeitlin said more study is needed to determine the actual health risks — including the likelihood of developing cancer — associated with exposure to cosmic radiation before any human trip to Mars can take place.

The US space agency has said it is aiming for the first-ever astronaut mission to Mars some time in the 2030s…….. HTTP://WWW.HERALDSUN.COM.AU/NEWS/BREAKING-NEWS/RADIATION-ON-TRIP-TO-MARS-NEAR-LIFE-LIMIT/STORY-FNI0XQLL-1226654163809

May 31, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

USA government push for nuclear energy has ended in failure

nukes-sad-It was not supposed to be this way. In 2005 Congress approved subsidies to bolster the nuclear industry and encourage the construction of new plants. It extended a law limiting owner liability in case of accidents and, for the first few new reactors, offered $18 billion in loan guarantees, $2 billion in indemnification against cost overruns and $1 billion in tax breaks.

The NRC streamlined its licensing procedures, hoping to avoid the years of delays that inflated costs for earlier nuclear plants. (Southern ended up paying $8.7 billion for the existing reactors at Vogtle, a far cry from the $660m originally projected.)

None of this has worked as advertised.

Fracked off  Thanks to cheap natural gas, America’s nuclear renaissance is on hold  The Economist, Jun 1st 2013 | BURKE COUNTY, GEORGIA IT IS the sort of thing you would expect to see in China, not in the pine forests of rural Georgia. On the banks of the sluggish Savannah river towers one of the world’s biggest cranes. It is helping build two nuclear reactors, to add to the two already up and running at the Vogtle power plant. It testifies to the mammoth efforts that have been made in recent years to revive America’s nuclear industry—and to the disappointing results. Continue reading

May 31, 2013 Posted by | business and costs, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

URENCO might die, in failing global uranium industry

burial.uranium-industryone of the more important factors, surely, is the projected value of the MOX itself, which in turn is a function of long term uranium prices—there would be no point in completing the plant and then making the MOX, as opposed to just dumping the plutonium, if uranium will be dirt-cheap as far ahead as one can see.

 the fate of the MOX plant is but one indicator of retrenchment in the global nuclear fuels market, post-Fukushima

the Japanese nuclear shut-down, which, the Times went on to note, has reduced global demand for nuclear fuels by close to 10 percent, plus Germany’s planned nuclear exit, have cast a pall that now stretches to New Mexico,
Kentucky, and South Carolina.

Restructuring and Retrenchment in Nuclear Fuels http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/restructuring-and-retrenchment-in-nuclear-fuels By Bill Sweet  29 May 2013 In 2000, the United States agreed with Russia to get rid of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. To that end, it embarked on construction of a large plant at Savannah River, S.C.,where the plutonium would be mixed with uranium to make so-called mixed oxide fuel (MOX), suitable for use in nuclear power plants.

Buried in the president’s fiscal 2014 budget request is a line sharply cutting funding for the Savannah River MOX plant, which “may be tantamount to killing it,” a former National Nuclear Security Administration official told Arms Control Today. Continue reading

May 31, 2013 Posted by | business and costs, Reference, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Europe gives cold shoulder to Russia’s nuclear marketing

One of the main reasons that the Baltic NPP project has run aground is that neither investors nor energy importers that Rosatom has approached in Europe have agreed to come on board…..

………The story of the Baltic NPP is an illustrative account of Rosatom’s incapability of landing anything other than rebuffs in Europe, earning trust in the safety of its reactor technology, and winning over foreign investors.

Europe has given a cold shoulder to Rosatom’s brilliant plan to quell its energy security concerns with power streaming from nuclear reactors built in its backyard

highly-recommendedRussian-BearGAZETA.RU: Nuclear failure Gazeta.ru, May 24, 2013 – Moscow’s resigned willingness to consider reduced capacity for the future Baltic Nuclear Power Plant is testimony to the Russian nuclear industry’s failure to overcome criticism it has been facing in the European market, convince potential customers of the reliability of its technologies, or attract foreign investors so it could get a foot in Europe’s door. By Vladimir Slivyak Continue reading

May 29, 2013 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, marketing, politics, Reference, Russia | Leave a comment

In 1983, nuclear war was only just avoided

atomic-bomb-l

While historians have previously noted the high risk of an accidental nuclear war during this period, the new documents make even clearer how the world’s rival superpowers found themselves blindly edging toward the brink of nuclear war through suspicion, belligerent posturing and blind miscalculation.

 

The USSR and US Came Closer to Nuclear War Than We Thought A series of war games held in 1983 triggered “the moment of maximum danger of the late Cold War.” The Atlantic, DOUGLAS BIRCHMAY 28 2013 An ailing, 69-year-old Yuri Andropov was running the Soviet Union from his Moscow hospital bed in 1983 as the United States and its NATO allies conducted a massive series of war games that seemed to confirm some of his darkest fears.

Two years earlier Andropov had ordered KGB officers around the globe to gather evidence for what he was nearly certain was coming: A surprise nuclear strike by the U.S. that would decapitate the Soviet leadership. …

The Western maneuvers that autumn,called Autumn Forge, , were depicted by the Pentagon as simply a large military exercise. But its scope was hardly routine, as Americans learned in detail this week, for the first time, from declassified documents published by the National Security Archive, a Washington-based nonprofit research organization. Continue reading

May 29, 2013 Posted by | history, Reference, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russia’s unsafe new nuclear reactors, the Baltic NPP and others

safety-symbol1flag_RussiaGAZETA.RU: Nuclear failure Gazeta.ru, May 24, 2013 “……..In fact, Kaliningrad Region’s neighbor Lithuania has been vigorously protesting the construction, voicing not just political complaints but also concerns regarding the future station’s safety. For instance, the Lithuanian government has charged that the VVER-1200 reactors that Rosatom planned to build at the site have never been subjected to safety tests in accordance with the criteria adopted in the European Union. And safety concerns are far from frivolous or irrelevant here. Let’s take a moment to look at the technology improvements that we are told have been implemented in the design.

The VVER-1200 reactor, on which the project of the Baltic NPP was based, includes a novelty called a “core catcher.” This contraption is meant to mitigate the consequences of an accident that evolves according to a Chernobyl or Fukushima scenario – namely, leads to a core meltdown. For one thing, the very presence of a core catcher would imply that such an accident is possible in principle. For another, all a core catcher can do is simply “catch” the highly radioactive mass of a molten reactor core as it burns through the bottom of the reactor vessel. What it cannot do is help contain the accompanying massive release of radioactivity of the kind that poisoned the environment far and wide during the catastrophe at Chernobyl. So what would be the meaning of this expensive new enhancement? Put a tick next to a budget item called “That new fancy gizmo we have – our reactors are the best!”?

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad: VVER-1200s are being built at the second Leningrad nuclear station, near St. Petersburg, and at the new Novovoronezh site, in Central European Russia, and are being planned for a number of other sites across the country – not to mention the export reactor projects in Belarus, Vietnam, Turkey, and other foreign states.

There are other problems with the Baltic NPP. Its price tag was estimated at around EUR 6 billion, and that’s not counting the very costly transmission networks that the plant would badly need. The very electricity export idea was not duly thought through: Kaliningrad Region lacks the modern and reliable transmission and distribution networks that would be required to carry the station’s electricity to consumers either inside the region or abroad. New power lines could – according to a 2009 estimate by the Russian electricity generation and foreign and domestic power trading company Inter RAO – set Rosatom back by an additional nearly EUR 3 billion, driving the station’s cost up by another 50 percent………http://anti-atom.ru/en/node/5185

May 29, 2013 Posted by | Reference, Russia, safety | Leave a comment

Hitachi, Toshiba and Mitsubishi General Electric, Westinghouse, Areva will make Japan keep nuclear power

flag-japanIs it safe? Ruling party pushes nuclear village agenda BY JEFF KINGSTON  JAPAN TIMES, 26 May 13,  “…..The election of the pro-nuclear Liberal Democratic Party to power in December 2012 was not about energy policy, but has revived prospects for the nuclear village; citizens may favor phasing out nuclear energy, but they will not get to decide. Hitachi, Toshiba and Mitsubishi tie-ups with General Electric, Westinghouse and Areva mean that Japan stands at the nexus of the global nuclear-energy industry. The recent award of a $22 billion contract by Turkey to a Japanese-led consortium indicates how high the stakes are, explaining why domestic firms’ nuclear-policy preferences are fully reflected in government policy.

exclamation-If Japan terminated nuclear power, the pain would extend beyond the utilities and vendors; lenders and investors, including Japan’s major banks and insurance firms, would also face huge losses. Pulling the plug on nuclear power could also drive some of Japan’s 10 utilities into insolvency. In addition, there have been strident voices from the political right calling for the retention of nuclear energy because it leaves available the nuclear-weapons option. Washington, too, has warned Tokyo that phasing out nuclear energy would harm bilateral relations because it would raise concerns about Japan’s large stockpiles of plutonium and uncomfortable questions about the consistency of U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts targeting Iran and North Korea…….http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/05/26/commentary/is-it-safe-ruling-party-pushes-nuclear-village-agenda/#.UaPpE9JwpLs

May 27, 2013 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, politics, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties | 1 Comment

Kentucky’s dangerous, toxic, nuclear brew and the failure of USEC Inc

eyes-surprisedThe Paducah plant cannot legally stay open, and it can’t safely be shut down—a lovely metaphor for the end of the Atomic Age and a perfect nightmare for the people of Kentucky.

highly-recommendedCountdown to Nuclear Ruin at Paducah  EcoWatch May 22, 2013 by Geoffrey Sea Disaster is about to strike in western Kentucky, a full-blown nuclear catastrophe involving hundreds of tons of enriched uranium tainted with plutonium, technetium, arsenic, beryllium and a toxic chemical brew. But this nuke calamity will be no fluke. It’s been foreseen, planned, even programmed, the result of an atomic extortion game played out between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the most failed American experiment in privatization, the company that has run the Paducah plant into the poisoned ground, USEC Inc.

As now scheduled, main power to the gargantuan gaseous diffusion uranium plant at Paducah, Kentucky, will be cut at midnight on May 31, just nine days from now—cut because USEC has terminated its power contract with TVA as of that time [“USEC Ceases Buying Power,” Paducah Sun, April 19, page 1] and because DOE can’t pick up the bill.

DOE is five months away from the start of 2014 spending authority, needed to fund clean power-down at Paducah. Meanwhile, USEC’s total market capitalization has declined to about $45 million, not enough to meet minimum listing requirements for the New York Stock Exchange, pay off the company’s staggering debts or retain its operating licenses under financial capacity requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Continue reading

May 25, 2013 Posted by | Reference, Uranium, USA, wastes | 1 Comment