tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54783381601747511062024-03-13T04:26:21.017-07:00Ace Hoffman's Nuclear Failures Reportsblogging about potential and ongoing nuclear disasters since 1996.Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.comBlogger398125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-19860494920884898202024-02-01T16:16:00.000-08:002024-02-01T16:31:55.297-08:00Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant should be closed ASAP, NOT extended!<font size=3>February 1, 2024<br><br> Dear Readers,<br><br> Today I spoke at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) online webinar seeking public input regarding extending the license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) another 20 years.<br><br> Various local government electeds insisted they were speaking on their own behalf, but all were in support of extending the license of the plant. Many highly qualified people spoke in opposition to the extension, a few insisted that Unit 1 should be closed immediately due to embrittlement issues.<br><br> At the high point there were a little over 100 people attending the online webinar including several dozen NRC employees, plus phone links. The meeting lasted over three hours: There were still about 70 people online when it ended, plus however many were on the telephone link.<br><br> Due to technical difficulties (Microsoft Teams isn't particularly user-friendly) a number of people were unable to speak (mostly microphones that could not be unmuted, but one pro-nuker had a serious problem with an "open" microphone). I was almost unable to unmute too, but at the last minute, 40+ years of prior personal computer experience saved me. (Truly the last minute: The host had tried various things for at least 10 minutes to unmute me, and there was only one more speaker after me, and the hearing was already running overtime!)<br><br> After introducing myself and stating that I was speaking for myself, and mentioning that I'm "nearing 70" and have had "two cancers and a stroke" I added that I too (like many of the pro-nukers who spoke) have "toured" a nuclear power plant, although I added that it was about 40 years ago, and was Connecticut Yankee, not Diablo Canyon. I described it as follows: "It was clean."<br><br> Then I explained that the rest of my remarks (shown below) were written while listening to the rest of the hearing today, and began to read what I had just written. About 2/3rds of the way through I offered to stop and submit the rest in writing, but the host kindly permitted me to finish. (I decided not to read the last two paragraphs anyway.)<br><br> For those living near the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, there will be a second NRC hearing next Thursday evening, in person, near the plant. Details are available at the NRC web site. I'm sure it will be crowded with plant workers who don't want their jobs to dry up and who have convinced themselves that low radiation doses are harmless, or even beneficial. (This is NOT the position of any official U.S. government agency, as far as I know. They all subscribe to the LNT (Linear, No Threshold) theory of radiation damage. The truth is much more complicated, of course, but LNT is probably a good approximation.)<br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, California USA<br><br> P.S. I forgot to mention that both my cancers have been cured thanks to modern medicine, and the stroke, last year, was "mild." I'm basically in good health. Except for the hernia...well, and a few other things, but nothing life-threatening...except age...and an ongoing pandemic. Will the "public" hearing have high-energy UV air cleaners? HEPA filters (which were originally designed to filter...radioactive particles!)? Will they hand out N-95 masks at the door? Will they wear them themselves?<br><br> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br> February 1, 2024<br> <br> It is amazing to hear the pro-nukers try to justify the continued existence of nuclear power plants.<br><br> Forty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because of political turbulence in the Middle East. But America generally exports far more fossil fuels than it imports.<br><br> Thirty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because we were going to run out of fossil fuels, but more fossil fuels are being pulled out of the ground than ever before.<br><br> Twenty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because wind and solar power "aren't there yet." But had we invested in them, they would have been there then.<br><br> Ten years ago, they finally -- FINALLY -- started to say we need nuclear power because of climate change -- an excuse with no more validity than any of the other excuses.<br><br> And now, they say [DCNPP] will save money while we switch to...something, but they assure us nothing is cheaper than electricity from nuclear power (meanwhile, it is, in fact, the world's most expensive energy). They say nuclear power is "baseload" because wind and solar are "intermittent" but ignore not only the sudden losses of such enormous amounts of power, but also the regular removal of this "baseload" power for required fuel replacement and rearrangement -- those outages might start at a scheduled time, but are often extended for unplanned lengths of time when unexpected problems are discovered during the inspections that always accompany the outages. Hardly reliable!<br><br> And [DCNPP's] emissions include not only regular radioactive emissions, but also significant fossil fuel use in the nuclear fuel cycle and during the operation of the reactor (several tens of megawatts of power come in to every reactor while it is operating, which are often generated with fossil fuels (and of course, the diesel generators burn fossil fuels if they're needed). <br><br> There are enormous risks of enormous emissions: ONE accident can release more nuclear effluents into the environment than all previous nuclear accidents in the United States to date. And there have been bad ones, but nothing like what is possible. Any time. Any day. Any reactor.<br><br> There is no reason to compare the emissions of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant with emissions of fossil fuels as an excuse to keep DCNPP open.<br><br> The question of emissions MUST include a calculation that includes the risk of accidents and their potential emissions. Because accidents do happen. They have happened, they are happening as we speak, and they will continue to happen.<br><br> Accidents have occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Santa Susanna, SL-1, the loss of the Scorpion and the Thresher, lost bombs at Palomares, lost bombs off the coast of Georgia, and thousands of other nuclear accidents have already occurred around the world, each with global consequences.<br><br> The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own oversight failures have caused huge financial losses and risked causing catastrophic accidents, such as when San Onofre Nuclear [Waste] Generating Station (near where I live) installed poorly designed replacement steam generators that the NRC let them consider "like-for-like" when they were substantially and significantly (and poorly) redesigned. The intent of the redesign was to increase profit for the power plant's owner, Southern California Edison. Instead it cost them billions of dollars and risked destroying all of Southern California.<br><br> In Ohio, multiple years of poor inspections on the part of the NRC resulted in a "hole in the head" of the nuclear reactor at Davis-Besse, a problem that was inevitably going to cause a meltdown -- the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head (RPVH) was completely rusted through, and the stainless steel liner was all that was holding back a meltdown -- and it was bulging out. The problem was discovered by a fortunate event: A worker leaned against a control rod during a fuel replacement, and the rod bent over!<br><br> DCNPP Unit One is KNOWN to be at severe risk of destruction from embrittlement, as has been mentioned several times in this hearing.<br><br> Clearly, the main purpose of extending the DCNPP license, either for the five years Pacific Gas and Electric claims they plan to extend the run of the plant, or for the 20, 40, or even 100 total years of operation that the NRC claims are possible for a nuclear power plant... is profit for the corporation. And kudos for Governor Gavin Newsom, a sly pronuker with an eye on the White House.<br><br> Diablo Canyon will be 40 years old soon. Other things that tend to fall apart after decades -- despite regular maintenance -- include buildings, pipelines, dams, computer centers, vehicles, ships...everything wears out.<br><br> And there isn't any reason to risk keeping DCNPP open anyway. Renewable energy includes widely distributed sources including, but not limited to, offshore wind, onshore wind, rooftop solar, industrial-level solar, geothermal, and so on. There is also a phenomenal opportunity within California for increased energy efficiency, which requires adding NO new energy sources. DCNPP could be closed just by increasing energy efficiency within the state.<br><br> Most importantly, after nearly a full century of being told that there is, will be, could be, or might be a solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste, even today we heard -- on the NRC's own hearing looking for comments from the public -- that we could simply rocket nuclear waste "to the sun" where it could harm no one. To call that preposterous, considering the accident rate of launches, hardly does it justice: Financially it's absurd too!<br><br> NRC thanked the person for his comments, which were strongly in support of keeping the DCNPP reactors open.<br><br> In reality there is no solution to the waste problem, and the nuclear waste from DCNPP will probably stay on site at DCNPP for centuries, if not forever. Nuclear waste is extremely hazardous -- millions of times more hazardous than nuclear fuel that has never been used in a nuclear reactor is. Yet making ever-more of this nuclear waste, without ANY solution to the waste problem, seems to be the only thing the NRC ever endorses.<br><br> The NRC could have already rejected PG&E's license application -- and ALL extensions to ALL nuclear power plant licenses -- because the NRC cannot guarantee safety to any reasonable degree of assurance. The NRC has no record to go on. There have been numerous accidents, releases, and near-misses over the years. Nuclear reactors -- let alone nuclear waste containers left out in the open -- are NOT protected against airplane strikes. They are not protected against numerous earthquake scenarios, tsunami scenarios, terrorism scenarios, operator error scenarios, intentional operator actions that can destroy the reactor...or common-mode failures where more than one or two things happen to go wrong at the same time. It is well known that the NRC has not, and CANNOT, evaluate such complex interactions of problems -- problems that can lead to catastrophe.<br><br> Lastly, continuing to operate the DCNPP actually BLOCKS clean energy solutions that do NOT produce millions of pounds of the most toxic substance on earth.<br><br> There is absolutely no safe and reasonable way to operate a nuclear power plant.<br><br> There are truly clean alternatives that are not based on burning fossil fuels.<br><br> Close DCNPP now. Don't wait until there is an accident, don't wait for the license to run out, and absolutely DO NOT extend the DCNPP license for a day, let alone for 20 years. The risks are too great and the alternatives are far cheaper, cleaner, more reliable (NOT LESS), and best of all: Safer.<br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, California USA<br><br> The author, a computer programmer, has studied nuclear power and nuclear weapons independently for more than 50 years, including interviewing numerous scientists, and collecting over 500 books on nuclear topics.<br><br> <br> </font>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-76441240097425075562023-09-18T20:58:00.003-07:002023-09-20T13:52:11.708-07:00Is AI useful in the nuclear industry? Maybe "yes" and definitely "no":<font size=3>Is AI useful in the nuclear industry? Maybe "yes" and definitely "no"<br> by Ace Hoffman<br><br> September 18, 2023<br><br> First the good news: AI really is incredible.<br><br> Last week I heard a NASA spokesperson put it nicely. She said AI helps find "the data inside the noise;" the pattern "inside the wiggly line." AI is used to analyze long-timespan films of industrial machinery so that subtle movement that is causing stress cracking can be viewed. AI can help identify weakening parts, or identify long-term trends that are hard for humans to notice. Great stuff if it's used right. AI can be used to increase reliability of pumps and pipes in a sewage treatment plant. Sure, why not?<br><br> But will the same increase in reliability to pumps and valves in a nuclear reactor actually **prevent** meltdowns? Or just prevent SOME meltdowns? Well of course it's only "some" not "all." It's not a miracle drug. If it was THAT smart, it would tell humans to stop using nuclear power altogether!<br><br> Aside: We live in a world which is far more dangerous than it needs to be. Take air travel, for instance. AI is taking over all sorts of functions in the cockpit, including during dogfights of the world's top fighter jets. It's easing the mental strain on the pilots. It's even removing the pilots entirely. In fact, for 99% of all commercial flights, what do we need pilots for at all?<br><br> The answer, of course, is: Extreme or unusual situations. (Or a computer hardware malfunction, communications malfunction, equipment malfunction, software malfunction (besides the AI software itself), etc..)<br><br> But to be available when needed, the human pilots have to fly the planes themselves regularly, in order to be proficient when the "Scully" moment comes and you lose both engines flying out of a New York airport. Can AI help? Sure, but you know what would REALLY help? High speed rail. Far safer than air travel, ESPECIALLY for innocent bystanders when planes fall out of the sky. Nuclear power plants are NOT protected against large airplane strikes. And nuclear waste even less so. One of these days a terrible thing might happen. About a hundred large jets overfly San Onofre every day. Let's say the FAA manages to have AI software that alerts them instantly whenever a plane has been hijacked. Then how do they know if a nuclear power plant is being targeted? (Many hijacked planes have flown near nuclear reactors, of course, and at least one nuclear power facility has been threatened specifically (in the 1970s, if I recall correctly.)) But let's say the FAA decides to call a reactor and "warn" them that they "might" be targeted. What would a human operator do? What SHOULD they do? What would an AI program do? How easily can any FAA operator contact any nuclear reactor control room operator and what will they do with whatever knowledge has worked its way through the maze of steps, each of which could inhibit the warning going through, that results in whatever action is most appropriate? (SCRAM!).<br><br> We all use various forms of AI multiple times every day. And it helps tremendously.<br><br> But all that aside, one thing's for sure: Taking TWO things, neither of which works very well, and pairing them together is unlikely to yield a more positive result. Neither "nuclear" nor "AI" are properly functioning technologies (safe, reliable, etc.) -- and it's reasonable to assume that neither ever will be. Nuclear can NEVER be benign because it necessarily creates unmanageable waste streams and risks sudden catastrophic meltdowns; AI can never be benign because its mistakes can also cause real damage and, as described briefly below, it's "hit or miss" with no explanation of why it produces the results it gives.<br><br> (Further aside: During the Vietnam era the phrase "we had to destroy the town to save it" appeared. Perhaps AI will decide it has to cause a meltdown to prevent whatever it sees as otherwise unpreventable...)<br><br> I've always called "Artificial Intelligence" "Imitation Intelligence". I haven't changed my mind.<br><br> My wife and I have, together, more years in the computer industry than there are years in the computer industry (we started in our 20s, and are at 42 and 43 years the industry respectively; the industry isn't yet 85 years old (ENIAC was built late in WWII, less than 80 years ago).<br><br> Although neither of us have "officially" worked on AI development, we've certainly studied it, and we can make some qualified observations thus far, having worked near and around it since its inception. In my wife's current job, people use it frequently, for example, to write short code snippets or do research.<br><br> And our opinion of using it at nuclear power plants to help control the reactors? It's horrific!<br><br> The problem with AI is that AI returns a result we have no confirmation of (no "provenance"), and it is frequently wildly **not** what is needed or what will work in a particular situation. It's as if it forgot something obvious, you might say.<br><br> Modern chat AI, for example, simply grabs sources that seem related to the question asked of it based on criteria such as word count and word association, and assembles a response from those sources, with apparently little regard for the quality of the source. Humans try to ignore idiots. AI doesn't seem to know what an "idiot" is (perhaps because, in reality, it is one itself).<br><br> When returning results of a Google inquiry, usually no one really cares if it misses the 10th most-important web page on the subject and the person doing the inquiry doesn't find the information they desperately need, right? That sort of thing happens all the time -- you refine your query and try again.<br><br> But with AI running the show at a nuclear power plant -- controlling the valves, pumps, reading the temperature gauges and calculating the internal flow rates and instant-by-instant deciding whatever adjustments are needed -- well that might work fine for 100 years...and like FSD (Full Self Driving) it PROBABLY will be better at it than human control room operators.<br><br> But will it be perfect? Not likely.<br><br> Will it be "programmed" (or "taught") to know what to do when a meltdown starts? (Side note: If it's "really" AI it will throw its electronic hands up and say: "I CAN'T DO THIS!" and never even touch a nuclear power plant, they are simply too dangerous under ALL circumstances. But if humans aren't going to be that smart, can we expect AI to be?).<br><br> AI software is usually "trained" on vast amounts of existing data. Other AI can continue to "grow:" It can repeatedly go out on the Internet and get more current (but perhaps less accurate) data. Both are limited to what's available online at some time, not what's actually out there in the real world. A lot of past nuclear accidents are kept highly secret, either by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the owner/operator or even the employees involved. AI can't learn what it hasn't been exposed to. National borders block information exchange too, not just language barriers (which AI can -- sort of -- get around) but "proprietary" information and "NATSEC" information is intentionally hidden and unavailable. ("National Security" is regularly used as an excuse to hide reliability problems, embrittlement issues, operator errors, etc. that occur with military reactors.)<br><br> Besides all that, there's this: Will the AI software care if it fails and actually CAUSES a meltdown? NO. NOT AT ALL. And you can't punish an AI program for its failure, either. What are you going to do, turn it off and turn it on again?!? Tracking down the problem is well nigh impossible -- it's unlikely to be one line of code somewhere in the algorithm. AI's logic is, for all intents and purposes, encrypted -- and no one has the key. As a general rule: AI works in mysterious ways. That's kind of what makes it AI. The mathematical calculations are too complex for humans to comprehend. Its appeal is that it comes up with solutions humans have not been able to think of. It's awesome. But not perfect, and nuclear power needs to be impossibly close to perfection to be worth using.<br><br> My recommendation is we shut down the reactors. Thinking AI can be a "last best hope" to prevent operator error causing catastrophic (or expensive) accidents -- or merely improving efficiency -- isn't going to make them safe -- just safer (if we're lucky, and maybe not even that). AI won't eliminate "operator error," especially during critical, unusual or unique situations. It might even be the thing making the errors. And no one will know why it did what it did, possibly even in the aftermath.<br><br> Besides, nuclear energy actually blocks better solutions for Global Warming / Climate Change. Nukes suck up money and make false claims about being reliable "baseline" energy.<br><br> Keep AI where it belongs: Keeping cars on the road, and flying drones into ships and buildings...and into...nuclear power plants?!?<br><br> After the pilot has already bailed out?<br><br> (Also see substack clip shown below.)<br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, CA<br> Professional computer programmer since 1980 (Assembler (LOTS of it!),<br> Cobol, RPG, Animate, HTML, etc. etc.)<br><br>
Some programs I've written over the years (from: <a href="https://www.animatedsoftware.com">www.animatedsoftware.com</a> ):<p/>
<a href="https://www.animatedsoftware.com" target="_blank"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHSSoti3R9q6D0jB39ObwRVsLmRDogxg-d99jlZzqh5JEbEo9Gi_WG_nungnaQZGJpipiiEqA1ZsKZ9iYgNWPFYJ0JAG1A-FdFIV3zTQFT75dKW0VdJPo83SbcPEK_XYzISl-tqneZDQD7QOWXViImER0S3Fb2ru9K8neILQVTb-Dk7AN_2stZDUDmuIE/s1227/Screenshot%202023-09-18%20212821.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="402" data-original-width="1227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHSSoti3R9q6D0jB39ObwRVsLmRDogxg-d99jlZzqh5JEbEo9Gi_WG_nungnaQZGJpipiiEqA1ZsKZ9iYgNWPFYJ0JAG1A-FdFIV3zTQFT75dKW0VdJPo83SbcPEK_XYzISl-tqneZDQD7QOWXViImER0S3Fb2ru9K8neILQVTb-Dk7AN_2stZDUDmuIE/s320/Screenshot%202023-09-18%20212821.png"/></a></div></a>
<hr><br> "What is clear is that Cruiseand its main rival, Waymocoucould do a<br> better job handling emergency situations like this. The memo about<br> Davisâs deadly crash was one of dozens that Farivar obtained via an<br> open-records request and published online. These memos document at<br> least 68 times self-driving cars in San Francisco interfered with<br> first responders or otherwise behaved in ways that emergency workers<br> found disconcerting."<br> Source: Understanding AI <understandingai@substack.com> 12:05 PM Sept 14 2023<br> Do driverless cars have a first responder problem?<br><br> <hr> </font>
<p/>
Addendum (written/added Sept. 20, 2023):
<p/>
After 9-11 there was a San Onofre annual safety meeting, and for the first and only time, there were PRESS galore. Cameras, reporters, everyone was there. Well over 100 people, when they were getting maybe half a dozen people at each NRC annual public meeting about the plant.
<p/>
THAT DAY, before the meeting, mysteriously, I was surrounded by "enthusiastic" NRC personnel, about six of them -- all wanting to talk to me before the meeting. Wow! They're finally paying attention?!?!
<p/>
I was so naive back then.
<p/>
They were there specifically to keep me away from the reporters and news cameras.
<p/>
Because I had blockbuster facts that our reactors are NOT designed to withstand large airplane strikes, and they knew I had the citations and would make some very devastating comments ON THE AIR that were all true, while the national tone was to pretend the reactors were safe.
<p/>
After I wrote this latest piece, that F-35 went missing. An F-35 -- even unarmed -- can do quite a bit of damage to a reactor site, even if it's too small to breach the domes themselves. You really don't need to, though, to cause a meltdown.
<p/>
The missing F-35 did cause me to make one change to the article I had already written -- I simply added the last line ("After the pilot has bailed out")!
<p/>
<hr>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-46147507395440246502023-07-22T10:38:00.008-07:002023-07-25T09:11:26.737-07:00What's wrong with extending Diablo Canyon's license for one day, let alone 1826 additional days (five years)?<font size=3>by Ace Hoffman<br> July 22, 2023<br><br> What's wrong with extending Diablo Canyon's license for one day, let alone 1826 additional days (five years)?<br><br> Everything.<br><br> It's risking everything and gaining nothing. It gets in the way of progress and could be catastrophic. It wastes time, money and resources, and creates permanent problems future generations will have to deal with -- even without an accidental release of radiation, the containers will still need to be maintained at least until a permanent solution is found -- and for hundreds of years AFTER that, since there is so much waste already which will have to be moved there. But where is there? Nowhere. No one wants the waste, and no one ever will.<br><br> We already have a state law in California which should have caused Diablo Canyon to close down years ago. The law forbids "new" nuclear reactors in California until and unless a solution to the waste problem is found -- outside of California. But decades later, mountains of nuclear waste remain on site with NO foreseeable solution.<br><br> Instead, California has had to make long-term arrangements to continue to store the used reactors -- the old reactor cores -- on site at each commercial reactor location. Permanently. Billions of dollars has been spent storing existing waste in multiple locations around the state. The containments are thin-walled and in some cases are likely to be shoddily constructed. Holtec, for example, a major cask manufacturer and decommissioning corporation, has been cited repeatedly for various acts of negligence and non-compliance. So has PG&E.<br><br> None of it is safe from accidental airplane strikes or from terrorism (including using airplanes as weapons), or from war or social unrest, and much of it is also liable to be damaged (and released) in floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, or other natural phenomena. And don't discount asteroid impacts, either! An asteroid the size of the Empire State Building flew by earth (closer than the moon's orbit) just a few days ago!<br><br> These used reactor cores are called "spent fuel" but let's be honest: They ARE nuclear reactors! Nothing else makes a nuclear reactor a nuclear reactor! We could boil water in a pressure vessel a thousand different ways. We can turn turbines likewise! Wind, wave, flowing water...all collect energy safely from the environment and produce...no significant waste, and certainly nothing even a millionth as hazardous as nuclear spent fuel.<br><br> Nuclear reactors, on the other hand, are discarded regularly. They are only used ONCE, and then THROWN AWAY. But there is nowhere to "throw" them (long ago, so-called "experts" even considered launching nuclear waste into space (see my compendium of attempts at handling nuclear waste in the past, linked and included below)).<br><br> Reactors only last about 3 to 5 years. That's right! The reactor cores are "depleted" or "burned up" but they look the same, and weigh almost the same amount, and are still very much in existence. So it's NOT "fuel" or certainly just "fuel" -- it's the reactor itself!<br><br> Used reactors must be stored forever as highly toxic nuclear waste. By far the most toxic substance on earth! It wasn't very pleasant to begin with, but after being "used" it is somewhere between a million and ten million times more toxic, per pound. Or more precisely, per lethal milligram or microgram, and there are already millions of pounds of it. We don't need any more.<br><br> Nuclear power creates nuclear waste. The electricity it can provide for a fleeting moment is practically inconsequential compared to the problems created by the waste.<br><br> So why, if there is a law forbidding "new" nuclear reactors until the waste problem is solved (which can never happen completely) are the old reactors okay?<br><br> Because they were "grandfathered in." That's it. That's the only reason. And yet that was more than 40 years ago! Since then the OLD reactors have been RELICENSED once already -- and that contradicts the spirit and intent and, frankly, the meaning of the state law!<br><br> Besides, not only do we not need Diablo Canyon's power -- we've added many times that much, many times in the past -- but with clean energy alternatives (including "off-grid" alternatives that are becoming more and more commonplace). So have many other countries, and we -- and they -- are doing so now, and can do so easily again and again and again in the future -- not only do we not need Diablo Canyon, it IMPEDES clean alternatives!<br><br> For example, offshore wind in the Diablo Canyon area would be very easy to construct and could easily power the entire state. And the grid connections are already there! But Diablo Canyon is using them at the moment.<br><br> Offshore wind energy in that area could provide at least as many jobs as Diablo Canyon could provide, and if the goal is set soon enough, it would be replacing Diablo Canyon permanently very soon. We could have started yesterday. Instead we are wasting billions on the biggest risk to Californians in history: Two operating old nuclear reactors! Maintenance has been put off because they were expected to close: How many months (or years) of the five-year extension will they be inoperative for? One of them "needs" a new reactor pressure vessel: If that's NOT a "new" reactor, and the "fuel" assemblies are NOT a "new" reactor," then what IS a "new" reactor under the state law?!? And why was relicensing of these old behemoths NOT prohibited by the state law in the first place? (The answer to that is probably because the reactor companies assured the public that wouldn't be necessary since they were ONLY going to be used as an "interim" solution to cleaner forms of energy.)<br><br> Tens of thousands of people protested Diablo Canyon's being built -- for good reason.<br><br> Every day we wait to shut Diablo Canyon risks a Chernobyl or Fukushima (or another Santa Susana) right here in California. For what? To get in the way of renewables!<br><br> Shut it down. Shut it down today. <br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, California<br><br> The author has studied nuclear issues for more than 50 years. He has a collection of over 600 books on nuclear topics and has spoken at several hundred public hearings including the CPUC, CEC, NRC, DOE and other local, state and federal agencies.<br><br> ===============================================================<br> <a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html"> https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a> <br> ================================================================<br><br> [Will add the full text of the above link to the final submission the CPUC]<br><br> To subscribe to this FREE newsletter please send a request to:<br> rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com<br> To view these newsletters online: <a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/" eudora="autourl"> https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/<br><br> </a>###<br> </font>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-44712426209857127192023-02-01T16:18:00.006-08:002023-02-03T12:32:19.437-08:00Experts to talk about SanO safety; comments on the previous newsletter; health report for author<font size=3>Feb. 1, 2023<br><br> 1) Online forum on San Onofre safety with UCS physicist Edwin Lyman this Friday, 11:30 am PST<br> 2) SCE's CEP is useless; citizens plan alternative meeting with highly qualified safety expert(s)<br> 3) Paul Blanch Bio<br> 4) Last week's newsletter refuting nuclear power as "baseload" is available online<br> 5) A few hours after sending last week's newsletter I had a mild stroke ("mild" means no apparent lasting effects)<br> 6) It's always better to be lucky than smart<br> 7) URL for this newsletter<br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, California USA<br><br> ==============================================<br> 1) Online forum on San Onofre safety with UCS physicist Edwin Lyman this Friday, 11:30 am PST:<br> ==============================================<br><br> As part of the First Friday series, the Samuel Lawrence Foundation is hosting a Zoom meeting 11:30 a.m. PST Feb. 3 with physicist Edwin Lyman, PhD, Director of Nuclear Power Safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The online meeting is free and open to the public. <br><br> Lyman, an expert on nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear power safety will address security risks at Southern California Edison's seaside nuclear waste dump at San Onofre. <br><br> Lyman argues that security at nuclear storage sites should be beefed up. <br><br> "We agree with Dr. Lyman that security is inadequate, especially at locations that are so near publicly-accessible areas, like Edison's beachfront nuclear waste dump near San Onofre State Beach," said Bart Ziegler, PhD, president of the Samuel Lawrence Foundation. <br><br> Lyman, coauthor of "Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster" and the 2018 recipient of the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award from the American Physical Society, is a member of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management and past president of the Nuclear Control Institute. <br><br> Zoom link: (this event was recorded and should be available soon) <br><br> First Fridays are made possible in part with the Coalition for Nuclear Safety. <br><br> Friday, February 3, at 11:30 a.m. PST<br> Contact: admin@samuellawrencefoundation.org <br><br> ==============================================<br> 2) SCE's CEP is useless; citizens plan alternative meeting with highly qualified safety expert(s):<br> ==============================================<br><br> The Southern California Edison-funded-and-controlled Citizen's Engagement Panel (CEP) has been completely useless and biased, and complicit in promoting SoCalEd's propaganda while suppressing opposition viewpoints.<br><br> Paul Blanch, on the other hand, is a well-known and highly qualified expert who should have been given a voice at the CEP meetings, but has been repeatedly denied a chance. <br><br> Now, a group of local concerned citizens are organizing a meeting to give Blanch and other experts a forum the CEP will not provide. The Ocean Beach Rag has published an announcement about the upcoming event. The exact date has not been set, but it will probably be in late March, 2023. See:<br><br> <a href="https://obrag.org/2023/01/11-years-ago-today-san-onofre-nearly-became-the-next-fukushima/" eudora="autourl"> https://obrag.org/2023/01/11-years-ago-today-san-onofre-nearly-became-the-next-fukushima/<br> <br> </a>Contact:<br> Gary Headrick gary@sanclementegreen.org<br> Cathy Iwane cathyiwane@yahoo.com<br> Paul Blanch pmblanch@comcast.net <br><br> ==============================================<br> 3) Paul Blanch Bio:<br> ==============================================<br><br> Paul Blanch has more than 50 years of nuclear engineering experience, including management of regulatory issues and safety concerns in the nuclear industry. He has been employed by nuclear licensees for more than 30 years. As a nuclear safety advocate, Blanch's main goal is to assure that US nuclear plants are operated safety and in compliance with federal regulations.<br><br> During Mr. Blanch's career, he has worked for the chief nuclear officers (CNOs) at Millstone, Maine Yankee and Indian Point, including both Consolidated Edison and Entergy Nuclear. He has been a paid consultant for the State of New York. While engaged with these companies, Blanch was heavily involved with decommissioning responsibilities. He has also made presentations to the Pilgrim and the Vermont decommissioning panels. Blanch has interfaced extensively with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on decommission safety issues and recently met with the NRC Chairman, Staff and NRC's Inspector General regarding San Onofre.<br><br> Mr. Blanch has provided consulting services for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). He was named Engineer of the Year by Westinghouse Electric. Blanch has been a Registered Professional Engineer (PE) by the State of California. Blanch has testified before the US Senate on NRC regulatory issues resulting in a significant change to the Atomic Energy Act.<br><br> ==============================================<br> 4) Last week's newsletter refuting nuclear power as "baseload" is available online:<br> ==============================================<br><br> Here's the URL for last week's newsletter:<br> <a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2023/01/should-diablo-canyon-ever-be-considered.html" eudora="autourl"> https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2023/01/should-diablo-canyon-ever-be-considered.html<br> <br> </a>Thanks to Dr. Helen Caldicott, Harvey Wasserman, Jane Swanson, Jan Boudart, Judy Treichel, Bob Nichols, Michael Feinstein, Alice McNally, Joe Holtzman, Penny McCracken and others who sent this author kind words, and in some cases reposted the previous newsletter.<br><br> And thanks also to Donna Gilmore, who also doesn't like Diablo Cyn, but nevertheless doubts that offshore wind is feasible (though I never described something that hasn't already been done somewhere in the world) and who is worried about the quality of the grid in terms of reliability.<br><br> Grid reliability is certainly an important issue. But, as Buckminster Fuller showed nearly a century ago, a global energy grid can supply ALL the energy the world needs through clean, renewable sources like wind and sun. The wind doesn't always blow all the time in any particular spot, but it always blows somewhere!<br><br> On the other hand, having an enormous percentage of the "baseload" coming out of one spot and that spot requiring its own offsite power is a recipe for failure. Or for disaster.<br><br> ==============================================<br> 5) A few hours after sending last week's newsletter I had a mild stroke ("mild" means no apparent lasting effects):<br> ==============================================<br><br> TL/DR <br> My first. I'm fine. But if you want the details, read on...<br><br> Of course, a stroke doesn't feel "mild" when it's happening. You only learn that (if you're lucky) later.<br><br> A few hours after sending out the newsletter last week, I had what doctors have determined was a minor stroke in my cerebellum. I spent about 34 hours in the ER of a local hospital.<br><br> All of a sudden, the world started spinning (while I was "on the throne"). The spinning surprised me, but about once a month I see stars there anyway -- ever since I took a really hard punch right between the eyes during karate class about 15 years ago. (It was accidental, but I had eye problems and headaches for a few weeks afterwards. And the stars come out now and then ever since.)<br><br> I closed my eyes for a few seconds, but when I opened them, things were really spinning pretty strangely -- as if they were actually going round and round.<br><br> I closed my eyes again, but when I opened them the second time, things were spinning crazily, like a whirling dervish! I tried to get up a little and realized it was impossible, I was totally dizzy. I dove for the floor and yelled for my wife. By the third or fourth try enunciating the words, I managed to tell her I thought I had a stroke. The right side of my mouth just would not cooperate, which is a pretty good sign it was a stroke. When I tried to use my arms they were shaking like a leaf on a tree, pale and weak. Most of the symptoms subsided within about 20 minutes; thankfully none remain. We've been out biking several times since then. <br><br> I saw stars once in the past week, which is not too surprising, but for the first time, they were only on one side. THAT was strange!<br><br> ==============================================<br> 6) It's always better to be lucky than smart:<br> ==============================================<br><br> My late father, Howard S. Hoffman, was a veteran of World War II with a mortar platoon in the U.S. Army.<br><br> War began for Howard in Italy in March, 1944, and progressed all the way to the Elbe River in Germany, where they met the Russians coming the other way in May, 1945. His platoon was rushed up to take part in the relief of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. <br><br> After the war, with help from the G.I. Bill, dad went to college, earned a Ph.D. in psychology, and in 1957 "Dr. Hoffman" joined the faculty at Pennsylvania State University until 1970, and then at Bryn Mawr College until he retired. Prior to joining PSU, during lean years, he painted and shared a small flat in New York City with the then also-young writer William Styron (they stayed in contact later in life, and he was always referred to as "Bill Styron" in our house).<br><br> Dad taught statistics for nearly 50 years, to students from many disciplines (not just psychology students) and, after he retired, my dad, my wife and I wrote an interactive educational statistics tutorial together (he later told me she's "the best statistician he'd ever met"!).<br><br> My dad always said "it's always better to be lucky than smart." I've been very lucky. But nothing compared to what he went through during his military service in Europe! I've survived cancer twice (bladder cancer about 15 years ago, and Mantle Cell Lymphoma just after the start of the CoViD pandemic). There was a suicidal driver intent on having a head-on collision, and several dozen other "close calls." A year or so ago I actually made a list of over 30 such "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs) -- at least, all the ones I could still remember!<br><br> It may seem like a lot, but my dad probably had that many NDEs each week of combat for more than a year.<br><br> His platoon started with about twenty-four men, and by the Battle of the Bulge, had been "replaced" two or three times, and was down to about eight men, including officers. Losses include both KIA and wounded. According to dad, there were more losses from "bad ammunition" (4.2 mortars) than from the enemy! So-called "bad ammunition" had a nasty tendency of exploding inside the mortar barrel, or just after it left the barrel. Mortar shell problems turned out to be a huge scandal after the war.<br><br> Sometimes government regulation isn't much use. And it's always better to be lucky than smart!<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieHbyyaIs8p9kA2mnCXft6g6a4ejnv_RSaPpEVxx-hA-E0gmn8-WlDfaeTTqfdmTP4G9bajDrCxafYHqBFY5GvjBLpt6XKE3XbemTF303jMYeKSR7Q1UN_d1jDlyybS-fPGbfl-AbE7GnGLxNYNbXCozuozLzLIdX4lfLhreYmSGsICp9RFwThg0LU/s1024/IMG_20220602_080620Rotated.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieHbyyaIs8p9kA2mnCXft6g6a4ejnv_RSaPpEVxx-hA-E0gmn8-WlDfaeTTqfdmTP4G9bajDrCxafYHqBFY5GvjBLpt6XKE3XbemTF303jMYeKSR7Q1UN_d1jDlyybS-fPGbfl-AbE7GnGLxNYNbXCozuozLzLIdX4lfLhreYmSGsICp9RFwThg0LU/s320/IMG_20220602_080620Rotated.png"/></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBI_oLsP9N4sJ0qdX1DDK2hRErLtRvub_r9V0OgpzD6YR58QKoKXJ5SLi-3IuhILlcujn9lClvqKdMP93u3w37eyFJuHQMrNEZrFVUOF6VTMOBiklmTnvJJ-ERxRrg5o0mJ7gfo32lTF85dLUqqmbJe2QAmYJyI4UpsD5nRjqsvZgzvqJZ6kRpXDpg/s800/IMG_20220602_080650.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBI_oLsP9N4sJ0qdX1DDK2hRErLtRvub_r9V0OgpzD6YR58QKoKXJ5SLi-3IuhILlcujn9lClvqKdMP93u3w37eyFJuHQMrNEZrFVUOF6VTMOBiklmTnvJJ-ERxRrg5o0mJ7gfo32lTF85dLUqqmbJe2QAmYJyI4UpsD5nRjqsvZgzvqJZ6kRpXDpg/s320/IMG_20220602_080650.jpg"/></a></div>
<br> ==============================================<br> 7) URL for this newsletter:<br> ==============================================<br><br> <a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2023/02/experts-to-talk-about-sano-safety.html" eudora="autourl"> https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2023/02/experts-to-talk-about-sano-safety.html</a> <br/> <br> ------------------------------------------------------------------<br> ###<br> </font>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-54307255714826909782023-01-24T18:30:00.001-08:002023-02-01T15:10:52.724-08:00Should Diablo Canyon ever be considered "baseload"? Or: Karma is a nuclear reactor...or two.<font size=3>January, 2023<br> by Ace Hoffman<br><br> The California Energy Commission has made it clear that their reason for advocating keeping the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station open an extra five years (or perhaps 20 extra years) has to do with rare, short-lived, peak load periods that can last from mere moments to perhaps a few hours and, very rarely, for a day or so.<br><br> The best solutions for these temporary fluctuations in power requirements are those solutions which can ramp up and down quickly. Nuclear power is not one of them.<br><br> "Baseload power refers to the minimum amount of electric power needed to be supplied to the electrical grid at any given time...Baseload power must be supplied by constant and reliable sources of electricity."<br> -- Source: <a href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power"> https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power</a><br><br> As I write this (late January, 2023), more than half of Pakistan is without electricity -- approximately 220 million people. It's the third time in as many years that a widespread blackout has hit that country.<br><br> When blackouts occur, hospitals immediately start cancelling all non-essential services, and begin running on emergency backup generators (if they start). Street lights, home medical equipment, phone chargers, and emergency services may have to be shut down unless they have access to backup generators or backup batteries.<br><br> If the blackout lasts longer than about eight hours, cell phone towers are likely to run out of fuel for their generators and/or battery power (not all cell phone towers have ANY backup).<br><br> Invariably, the military goes on high alert.<br><br> Being without power is a nightmare in any country. If there's anything that "must be avoided at all costs" it is exactly that.<br><br> But combine a power outage with a nuclear disaster and it gets unimaginably worse. And the one can cause the other, and vice-versa.<br><br> The relevance to granting Diablo Canyon a five-year (possibly 20-year) life extension **as baseload** power is simple:<br><br> Nuclear power should **NEVER** be considered "baseload" power. And not just because it is unreliable, which it very much is.<br><br> There's a more important reason, which is that nuclear reactors ALWAYS operate on externally-supplied power -- tens of megawatts for each reactor. Without it, they must shut down the reaction immediately, and their own backup systems have to kick in to keep the reactor cool, to prevent it from melting down.<br><br> Each nuclear reactor has its own emergency diesel generators (EDGs) or other backup power systems (some have hydroelectric backup instead, or in addition).<br><br> Any disruption to the incoming "offsite" power supply to a nuclear reactor will cause the reactor to have to shut down. Shutting down a commercial nuclear reactor is not just expensive, disruptive, complicated and damaging in large and small ways to the reactor itself -- it's also risky. A LOT can go wrong during a shutdown. In fact, if any reactor has more than a couple of unplanned shutdowns in a year's time, it is subject to intensified inspections by federal regulators. But one or two unplanned shutdowns happen at most nuclear reactors almost every year. And suddenly, a thousand megawatts of so-called "baseload" power is gone!<br><br> The backup system of last resort for all nuclear reactors in America is called the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). But here's the thing: The ECCS has never been tested in real conditions. Small models have been tested, with artificial heating units to replicate the core of the reactors. Why have they never tested a full-scale ECCS under realistic conditions? **Because it's too risky.** Think about that.<br><br> (At Fukushima, the valves to open additional cooling water failed because the power was out, and by the time they realized they needed the valves to open, it was too radioactive in the area where the valves were for humans to go without sacrificing their own lives -- and the valves remained closed, and the reactors melted down. Or something like that. Reports have varied, as with most tragedies.)<br><br> What are our alternatives? Are wind turbines reliable? Yes, very. The wind isn't, but the turbines are, and that's a key factor in reliability -- it's a much simpler technology than a nuclear reactor (which includes one very massive turbine, which occasionally fails in various ways, causing unplanned shutdowns). A fleet of just 70 wind turbines (15 Megawatts each) would be orders-of-magnitude less likely to all fail at once, but can provide the same amount of electricity as one nuclear reactor. One point of failure.<br><br> Are solar rooftops reliable? Yes, very. No moving parts, for one thing. But mustn't we turn to fossil fuels if it's cloudy on a windless day?<br><br> No, not at all -- there are numerous backup options: pumped storage, compressed air, lifted weights, fleets of electric vehicles, and industrial-sized battery storage are all available (or can be). And all are far more reliable than diesel generators. And because they come online far faster than gas "peaker" plants, battery backup allows system operators to "cut it closer to the edge" when deciding if they need to resort to more expensive and/or less clean energy alternatives.<br><br> And not having to worry about losing 1,000 megawatts in a single instant, for an undeterminable amount of time, also makes it much easier to manage the grid -- with greater reliability for everyone, at far lower cost and less damage to the environment -- let alone, potential damage.<br><br> When nuclear power plants are considered baseload, system operators have to be much more careful.<br><br> Oregon has identified two potential significant offshore wind locations that could supply ALL of California's energy needs. The two areas are along the southern edge of Oregon (close to California!) and could be developed to the extent of completely replacing both nuclear units at Diablo Canyon within two years. Similar offshore wind farms have been built that quickly elsewhere in the world. California has lots of offshore wind options available as well. So why can't California build offshore wind? The seventh largest economy in the world -- like all large economies -- depends on cheap, clean, reliable energy to grow, thrive and produce.<br><br> Baseload power refers, by definition, to things that MUST have power for society to function even in an emergency situation. And the #1 thing that NEEDS baseload power -- is a nuclear power plant. And the worst source for reliable baseload power -- is a nuclear power plant. Just about any distributed renewable power source, combined with any assortment of clean energy storage solutions, would be better.<br><br> For example, the Los Angeles area could -- quickly, while boosting the local economy -- have a million more solar rooftops than it currently has. These could power electric vehicles, AND be available (either directly or through those vehicles) as emergency backup or "baseload" power for hospitals and other critical infrastructure in the rare event where other power sources are lost for some reason: a downed transmission line due to a wildfire, or a leak at Diablo Canyon requiring a "SCRAM" (where one or more reactors shuts down unexpectedly ("unplanned")). SCRAMs occur, on average, once or twice a year. But for how long? Could be days, could be months, could be forever, like what happened to San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station near San Diego over 10 years ago.<br><br> What are the chances that ALL the solar panels in the Los Angeles area would ALL fail all at once? It would NEVER happen! And would ALL the cars instantaneously, in unison, all discharge and never work again? No. Massive distribution of energy sources, including storage, is the most reliable system possible. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is the LEAST reliable energy system possible!<br><br> So nuclear power doesn't fit ANY of the definitions of "baseload": It is not reliable, it requires massive amounts of offsite power itself, it is far too expensive (baseload should be the cheapest source of power, NOT the most expensive!). And last but far from least:<br><br> We still don't know what to do with the waste. All the waste from San Onofre, long closed, is still at San Onofre. The federal Department of Energy (DOE) is so desperate to find a national solution to the waste problem that, today, they upped the "reward money" available to communities that simply are willing to **DISCUSS** siting a permanent repository for the nation's nuclear waste in their midst -- from $16 million to $26 million.<br><br> They (the DOE) are desperate, because nuclear waste is so toxic. And after 70+ years, who wouldn't be? California?<br><br> Can we face reality? It's time to stop making nuclear waste, it's time to stop thinking of nuclear reactors as "baseload", or as "reliable", and it's time to get serious about renewable energy.<br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> <a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/">www.acehoffman.org</a><br> Carlsbad, CA<br><br> The author has studied nuclear issues as an independent researcher for more than 50 years. He has a collection nearly 600 books on nuclear war, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear engineering, including several dozen on nuclear waste issues alone.<br><br> <br> </font>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-18191227114457574692022-10-13T08:31:00.012-07:002022-10-27T07:38:50.631-07:00Guest Presentation: The San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump by Roger Johnson<p/>
<h2>Important Issues for the 15 million people who live within 100 km of San Onofre</h2>
<p/>
<p/>
1. Back in 2012, San Onofre’s new steam generators failed and began leaking radiation. Evidence emerged that Southern California Edison knew they were flawed but installed them anyhow. They were shut down because they were too dangerous and it was too expensive to fix them. The ageing reactors were shut down for the last time. This accident appears to be part of a long history of accidents and safety violations at the plant. SONGS has by far the most complaints about safety by plant workers and contractors when compared to all the other nuclear power plants in the country. SONGS is now closed only in the sense that it no longer produces electricity. It is not shut down because the most dangerous part, the nuclear waste storage, remains open indefinitely. SONGS continues to store an enormous amount of deadly nuclear waste which has been accumulating since 1968. This highly radioactive “spent fuel” will continue to be a major threat to the health and safety of all communities in southern Orange County and northern San Diego counties for the indefinite future.
<p/>
2. The entire plant except for the Waste Dump is now being decommissioned and demolished at a cost of 4.7 billion, paid for by taxpayers. About 1.1 billion pounds of rubble will be removed by 2028. Much of the rubble will be buried or shipped away but the dangerous highly radioactive uranium fuel rods will stay here indefinitely.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTqQmrk6sLpIP_2RY-9gfmdm4QBmbZba-UuexzJOflMaqHF84NBxr1GaJigtzF3T43WNXWkQtPx7WO6Vh9tGP2WL8rOBQUX-NR4lbaiP14xjeFNH84Ennbq-S9jcgKKRP92uX-3HMPn8YQZ2Rav6tKfJU_FWTYESfn127AbDBuvjjSG1q3NB8ZFePc/s1200/1665165570513blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTqQmrk6sLpIP_2RY-9gfmdm4QBmbZba-UuexzJOflMaqHF84NBxr1GaJigtzF3T43WNXWkQtPx7WO6Vh9tGP2WL8rOBQUX-NR4lbaiP14xjeFNH84Ennbq-S9jcgKKRP92uX-3HMPn8YQZ2Rav6tKfJU_FWTYESfn127AbDBuvjjSG1q3NB8ZFePc/s600/1665165570513blob.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
3. The domes will disappear but the nuclear waste will remain. The nuclear waste, the most dangerous part, will be placed in temporary storage in the ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation). Some refer to this as the SONGS Nuclear Waste Dump, others call it the San Clemente Nuclear Waste Dump. It is likely to remain here for decades, perhaps the rest of the century, or perhaps until there is an accident.
<p/>
4. Geographically, SONGS is located at the border of Orange and San Diego counties. But few realize that the government officially locates it in San Clemente. According to the NRC, San Clemente is the official location of the San Onofre nuclear power plant: <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/san-onofre-units-2-3.html">https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/san-onofre-units-2-3.html</a>
<p/>
5. The nuclear waste problem is part of a large serious and unsolved national dilemma: how and where can the nation safely store the nearly 100,000 tons of deadly civilian nuclear waste? The country has only one deep underground permanent storage facility. That is WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in Carlsbad, NM but it is licensed only for military nuclear waste. WIPP had a major accident in 2014 with fires and explosions (caused by kitty litter) and it cost taxpayers $2 billion to repair it. The only permanent deep geological storage facility in the world is now under construction in an island off the coast of Finland.
<p/>
6. The Achilles Heel of all things nuclear is the inability to safely store nuclear waste. After three-quarters of a century, there is still no solution in sight. That is a good reason not to produce any more. California wisely recognized this serious flaw way back in 1976. The state passed its now famous Moratorium on nuclear power which declared: No more nuclear power in California until there is a solution to the problem of safely storing nuclear waste. California never allowed any more nuclear power plants to be built (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon were already built) because there has been no solution to the problem of safely storing nuclear waste. There still is no solution. The Moratorium put a halt to President Nixon’s proposal to line the coast of California with nuclear power plants.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU85BjOqmZIfn9F_djNAEWZYj1Dn84WmrWZCewQX__uTN3xqC-2GeyA32ScoYCR30rDr5ElE9Wt7t4ap1AWaiVsFdky9ZfMwSGmBKVowpgJJ11Mvgu_FmEQzIMdH8r73b5g5-t2HxA8MjP4vahN850M3F4FmqClOM1bN-bCajIJWKBBGoOzdsMleGs/s640/1665166427114blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU85BjOqmZIfn9F_djNAEWZYj1Dn84WmrWZCewQX__uTN3xqC-2GeyA32ScoYCR30rDr5ElE9Wt7t4ap1AWaiVsFdky9ZfMwSGmBKVowpgJJ11Mvgu_FmEQzIMdH8r73b5g5-t2HxA8MjP4vahN850M3F4FmqClOM1bN-bCajIJWKBBGoOzdsMleGs/s600/1665166427114blob.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
7. What is “nuclear waste” or “spent fuel?” How can something that is “spent waste” be dangerous? Did the nuclear industry choose these euphemistic terms to make it sound harmless? No one should think that nuclear “waste” or “spent” fuel is safe. Spent fuel means the profitability is spent, not the radioactivity. Nuclear power reactors have to be completely shut down for weeks every 18-24 months because the used or “spent” fuel rods (still highly radioactive) are no longer profitable and have to be replaced. There is no electricity produced for weeks while they reload which is one of the reasons that nuclear power is unreliable. But what to do with the old fuel which remains extremely hot, extremely radioactive, and extremely dangerous? It is so hot and dangerous that it has to go in huge cooling pools for about seven years, even longer if there are no canisters available for subsequent dry cask storage. But once in dry cask storage the dangerous radioactive waste has nowhere to go because currently there are no interim or permanent storage facilities in the United States. This is a major problem with no solution in sight. This problem is a good reason not to produce any more nuclear waste.
<p/>
8. With San Onofre partially closed, California was set to end nuclear power in the state with the closing of Diablo Canyon a few years from now. But Gov. Newsom strangely reversed himself on this issue and now argues that the plant should remain open. The legislature caved in and went along with him. Unfortunately, much of the public representation of this issue was completely distorted by the governor, the legislature, the nuclear industry, and the media. They irresponsibly started calling nuclear power clean, emission free, reliable, environmentally friendly, and cheap. In reality, it is just the opposite. No one seems to know why the governor did a reversal but he certainly deserves a big black eye for bringing back expensive, dangerous, unreliable, and environmentally damaging nuclear power. Instead of being a model for responsible limits on nuclear power, California is now derided as being a leader in the very unfortunate national drift toward what the industry likes to call a “Nuclear Renaissance.”
<p/>
9. Contributing to this decision to revive nuclear power was a report by Stanford and MIT engineering professors and PhD candidates who advocated more nuclear power as a solution for energy needs (<a href="https://energy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9971/f/diablocanyonnuclearplant_report_11.02.21.pdf">https://energy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9971/f/diablocanyonnuclearplant_report_11.02.21.pdf</a>). The report completely ignored the downsides of nuclear power including public health concerns, safety, cost, reliability, environmental damage, and the production of more nuclear waste. The nuclear industry heavily promoted this report to the national and local media. Top DOE officials went on nationwide PR tours to promote the “Nuclear Renaissance.” Former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz went on the Bill Maher show to do the same. He is also a professor at MIT, an institution which profits handsomely from government grants to “study” nuclear issues. It is no secret that both MIT and Stanford receive huge government grants from the Dept. of Defense and the Dept. of Energy. In FY 2020, MIT received about $200 million in grants from these two government agencies. Stanford has also received enormous federal funding for its programs on nuclear issues. This report reflects poorly on both institutions.
<p/>
10. It appears to many that there are powerful political and financial interests that want the nation to continue devoting large resources to all things nuclear. They want to make sure that nuclear funding is a priority and that nothing should be done to cast doubt on its safety. Nationally, they apply intense pressure to make sure that the public sees nuclear as a solution, not a problem. The government agencies that actively promote everything nuclear include the DOD, the DOE, and NRC, and now possibly HHS (see below). Many argue that it is the Pentagon which is propping up nuclear power because it needs the industry to help support its enormous nuclear weapons programs.
<p/>
11. One government agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is devoted to promoting nuclear power. The NRC has become the poster boy for what critics call a Captured Regulatory Agency. It receives over 90% of its funding from the very industry that it is supposed to regulate. No surprise that it spends much of its time promoting the nuclear industry rather than regulating it. The NRC is also closely aligned with the private Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the Washington public relations arm of the nuclear industry. The NEI heavily influences the selection of commissioners which run the NRC.
<p/>
12. The nuclear industry long ago recognized both the risks of storing nuclear waste and the dangers of nuclear power in general. It was reluctant to build nuclear power plants until it persuaded the government to pass the Price Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnification Act of 1957. This act protects and indemnifies the industry in the event of an accident. Taxpayers will cover the huge cost of an accident, not the industry. Many say that not being financially responsible has led to an industry which is sometimes reckless, deceitful, and concerned more about profit than public safety. To counteract this perception, Southern California Edison expends enormous PR efforts with mottos like “safety,” “stewardship,” and “engagement.”
<p/>
13.. In spite of all its investments in nuclear programs, the U.S. government has failed miserably in its promise to provide a permanent repository for nuclear waste by 1998. The government still has no plan. Nuclear power plants now successfully sue the government for every year the government fails to take the waste as they promised in the last century. This cost is passed on to the U.S. taxpayer. Estimates for the cost to tax payers are sometimes estimated as $50 billion. The DOE is in charge of the issue but it continues to fail decade after decade and still has no plan. Their only progress this year was a letter recently sent out offering financial rewards to any community that wants to become a nuclear waste dump. Some (especially Republicans who want to stick it to former Senator Harry Reid) still yearn for Yucca Mountain (near the California border) to be completed, especially since the government already spent $15 billion there. The project was ended because of serious fatal flaws. First, it was dangerously close (about 90 miles) to a major city, Las Vegas. Second, as they dug deeper, they discovered deep underground aquifers which might get contaminated. Third, there was enormous public opposition to the project. This is significant because the DOE has finally agreed that Local Consent is a must when choosing a location for nuclear waste storage. Finally, it is important to know that Nevada has no nuclear power plants and has produced no nuclear waste. In addition, Nevada has already suffered enormously from radioactive contamination from military nuclear testing. Since 1951, 1,021 atmospheric and underground nuclear explosions were conducted in the state.
<p/>
14. When evaluating nuclear energy, the industry generally ignores the human or monetary costs. The front end of the nuclear cycle is the mining and milling of uranium. This dirty operation spreads radioactive contamination which has resulted in entire towns being bulldozed into oblivion. Miners have contracted a host of serious medical problems and many have died of cancer. Read The Uranium Widows which tells the story. <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/13/the-uranium-widows">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/13/the-uranium-widows</a> Any evaluation of nuclear power should include the cost of accidents but usually these are ignored in financial analyses. A recent report in the NYTimes says that the cost of the Fukushima debacle is now approaching one trillion dollars. An accident at San Onofre would likely be much more (and would be charged to the taxpayers rather than those who caused it).
<p/>
15. Locally, some say that we should ignore the nuclear waste problem because it is not in our jurisdiction. Wrong. Part of the reason the waste stays here is because the public is unaware of the magnitude of the problem and because local officials are unwilling to demonstrate leadership to oppose the current state of affairs. All candidates for office within 50 km of SONGS should be expected to weigh in on this important issue. Unfortunately, few say anything. Is it the complexity of the issue, a fear or retribution, or just plain ignorance about what is perhaps the most serious issue for the future of southern California? Should we sidestep the issue and do nothing because it is not in our jurisdiction? True, only the DOE has jurisdiction. But all local, county, and state officials have an obligation to demonstrate leadership, knowledge, and dedicated commitment to educating the public and taking positions on important matters.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGuLs1GyBph0hQkZ63MxETU7N2MyVB1o3SJu5ZViz-ZhE2Hr6zyWc71gbgob5PVmyNDopGGD2EekFm7eFsLKugy7hRswyOsqOXJegcpL0-F3XR6gxzJTo1-VhY2Lt67FE3oAuioWFGbIFLrSrXAJc9pawep5PwRHxGnf5D7c_usc4EjKnSbmCuuVop/s835/1665165775130blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="835" data-original-width="835" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGuLs1GyBph0hQkZ63MxETU7N2MyVB1o3SJu5ZViz-ZhE2Hr6zyWc71gbgob5PVmyNDopGGD2EekFm7eFsLKugy7hRswyOsqOXJegcpL0-F3XR6gxzJTo1-VhY2Lt67FE3oAuioWFGbIFLrSrXAJc9pawep5PwRHxGnf5D7c_usc4EjKnSbmCuuVop/s600/1665165775130blob.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
16. Other hidden costs of nuclear power can be found in your electric bill. Everyone around San Onofre gets a surcharge every month which goes to paying for the huge costs of decommissioning the plant. Most people are not aware that they have been paying this every month for decades. Most people also do not realize all the hidden costs. In the early years of nuclear power, the industry boasted that it would be “too cheap to meter.” Now it is by far the most expensive form of energy production, especially if you count all the costs passed on to taxpayers. It is very expensive to build a nuclear power plant, very expensive to maintain it, and very expensive to tear it down. The cost of the nation’s troubled new Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia has now risen to about $30 billion. As for nuclear waste management nationally, it is estimated that the costs will run close to $100 billion: <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nuclear-power-europe-energy/">https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nuclear-power-europe-energy/</a>
<p/>
17. The cost and difficulty of finding a host for a permanent nuclear repository are formidable. It will take many years to agree on a host (expect fierce political battles) and it may take decades to build if a suitable location is ever found. Some fear that a permanent solution may never happen. Many have therefore suggested one or more interim storage facilities across the country which could be built in a few years at ground level in safer locations at a lower cost. Opponents oppose this because they don’t like the idea of moving the waste twice. But this assumes that a permanent deep underground repository is a certainty which it certainly is not. Some even argue that it is not safe to move nuclear waste anywhere and it should remain where it is even if it is in a dangerous location on a beach in the middle of two of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. Over 15 million people live within 100 km of San Onofre.
<p/>
18. What is in the SONG/San Clemente Nuclear Waste Dump? It now has 1,773 tons (USA tons, not metric tons) of nuclear waste, one of the largest accumulations in the country. The highly-radioactive uranium “waste” is in the form of small pellets about half the length of your little finger. SONGS now has over 300 million such uranium pellets compacted into long fuel rods. Assemblies of fuel rods are lowered into thin stainless steel canisters that were designed only for temporary use. No one knows how soon they will fail and what will happen when they do fail.
<p/>
19. There are now 123 such canisters at SONGS. The older 50 are stored horizontally and newest 73 are stored vertically with the bottom just inches above sea level and located only 108 feet from the Pacific Ocean. Concrete is filled around them with a narrow air space between the concrete and the canister wall to provide air cooling. “Cool” means keeping the canisters about 500-700 degrees. Imagine leaving your oven at its hottest setting for months, years, or decades. Without cooling, the nuclear waste would get much hotter which could cause the canisters to fail with disastrous consequences.
<p/>
20. There cannot be a nuclear explosion at SONGS because the highly-radioactive uranium waste is not enriched to bomb grade. But there could be dangerous releases of radiation ranging from small leaks to massive widespread contamination. It could be even worse than the radiation released by a nuclear bomb. Each of the 123 canisters could release as much radiation as the entire Chernobyl disaster. How much of the radiation is released depends on the force of a rupture. Southern California Edison likes to argue that small leaks are manageable and major ruptures with strong motive forces are not possible. There arguments are based on the assumption that explosions, terrorist attacks, and major forces of nature can never happen. When the industry cannot deal with serious disaster scenarios, they categorize them as Beyond Design Basis. This means that they can completely ignore serious threats just by labelling them as “Beyond Design Basis.”
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGtd4gd8gXD5zOTip8nTQZdb4UNYWAMXJKuBuk2pRpiCpG-uCOVJ0AIuDzSKnl8YRDM-c6y3jCaExI8F9sddUUfL3K1B7gyzbO_c3pPVIkiAVJna9ZgG_DF-iWZfAvCyYyf4kk_8egXsHHt19AuxrpR7_kn-XXWI1da__7POH97dGeNrMfecOSjsoe/s690/1665166130330blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="690" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGtd4gd8gXD5zOTip8nTQZdb4UNYWAMXJKuBuk2pRpiCpG-uCOVJ0AIuDzSKnl8YRDM-c6y3jCaExI8F9sddUUfL3K1B7gyzbO_c3pPVIkiAVJna9ZgG_DF-iWZfAvCyYyf4kk_8egXsHHt19AuxrpR7_kn-XXWI1da__7POH97dGeNrMfecOSjsoe/s600/1665166130330blob.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
21. There are many possible disaster scenarios that the industry deliberately ignores. The possibility of cyberattacks is seldom addressed. Sometimes important dangers are ignored by claiming that they are a concern of another agency such as the Department of Defense. Natural disasters are uncommon, but they do happen. Heavy storms or flash flooding could wash mud and debris from the hills above the plant into the air cooling vents of the canisters. A tsunami could also wash deposits of salt, sand, and debris into the vents and block air cooling. Water alone might actually improve cooling, but when sea water evaporates it would leave behind a foot or more of salt and other solids. These solids would quickly become caked from the heat. Only a few inches of solids would block the small but crucial air intake passage at the bottom. Air cooling would cease. The canisters are already at 500-700 degrees F and loss of cooling would quickly lead to dangerous heat levels that the temporary canisters are not designed to withstand. According to the NRC, canister cladding will degrade if is not kept below 752 F. The NRC goes on to warn that the fuel must never be allowed to reach 1058F even for a short time. It is not possible to pump out the huge amounts of muddy water and solid caked debris from 73 canisters in a matter of hours. With intense heat and possible radioactivity, it is likely that no one could get anywhere near the cannisters in an emergency.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWtB2efjYFmzXM9OMwcDkXM_YlxVOcgdD6f95xseYdIed8YtbzufYE1qqmybTeIlMnXhOEjQO9hG4Yc4qw6DY8FXNOTUIy_gNc5XdK2mvyd_kE2ROah4PzXLBk-4AlXMBodDIn0L5jdpJMdzLIcwZdd9rWOGlLq2ZTiL_jkNFTOJlGmrqP22ux8ySy/s2745/1665166206984blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2227" data-original-width="2745" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWtB2efjYFmzXM9OMwcDkXM_YlxVOcgdD6f95xseYdIed8YtbzufYE1qqmybTeIlMnXhOEjQO9hG4Yc4qw6DY8FXNOTUIy_gNc5XdK2mvyd_kE2ROah4PzXLBk-4AlXMBodDIn0L5jdpJMdzLIcwZdd9rWOGlLq2ZTiL_jkNFTOJlGmrqP22ux8ySy/s600/1665166206984blob.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
22. Another serious disaster scenario has to do with earthquakes. The Fukushima catastrophe was triggered by a large and unexpected earthquake which led to the uncontrollable failures of many systems mistakenly thought to be secure. A decade later, large areas continue to be uninhabitable. The cost of cleanup attempts has already reached one trillion dollars. California is earthquake territory and several earthquake faults run near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant just as others do near San Onofre. Earthquake dangers in both places are now thought to be much more serious and much more likely that previously known.
<p/>
23. A startling new report recently came out in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America: <a href="https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/112/5/2689/615140/Origin-of-the-Palos-Verdes-Restraining-Bend-and">https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/112/5/2689/615140/Origin-of-the-Palos-Verdes-Restraining-Bend-and</a> (For easier reading, here is the LATimes report about it: <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-23/palos-verdes-fault-could-produce-quake-san-andreas-level-quake-study-shows">https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-23/palos-verdes-fault-could-produce-quake-san-andreas-level-quake-study-shows</a>) This research studied in great detail the Palos Verdes Fault Zone which runs south from Los Angeles and terminates only about 13 miles from San Onofre. New calculations reveal that a major quake is overdue and that it will be 4 times more powerful than previously believed (7.8 vs. 7.4). The study warns of possible massive destruction up and down the coast. Keep in mind that San Onofre was designed to withstand a mere 6.5 quake, then retrofitted for a possible 7.0 quake. It is definitely not safe to store nuclear “waste” on a beach near this quake zone yet that is exactly what is being done. We also have to keep in mind that there are built in psychological biases and profit motives which make it attractive to ignore rare events. For example, one Probabilistic Risk Assessment of the Salem, NJ nuclear power plant some years ago concluded that the simultaneous failure of both emergency shutdown systems in a reactor would happen only once every 17,000 years. It was of considerable embarrassment when a double emergency backup system failure actually occurred twice within four days in 1983.
<p/>
24. Decades ago, we learned that the 9/11 terrorist considered attacking a nuclear power plant. From recent events in Ukraine we now learn that nuclear power plants have been weaponized and are now considered choice targets. Nuclear power plants were not designed to defend against terrorist attacks but now this has become a serious issue. Most people don’t realize that San Onofre is extremely vulnerable. With 19 airports in the area, a big worry is deliberate crashes from large airplanes loaded with 50,000 to 100,000 gallons of high octane aviation fuel. SCE recklessly says no problem, the fuel would burn away harmlessly. It completely ignores what would happen if an A380 Air Bus smashed into their thin canisters. The nuclear waste at San Onofre is lightly defended with a skeleton security force and there is easy public access to see and get near the nuclear waste dump. An interstate highway goes past the plant and a public road is even closer. Over 20 public parking lots are nearby and the public beach is only 100 feet from the canisters. Terrorists might use truck bombs. Rockets and mortars could be fired from the parking lots. Organized squads of armed terrorists could easily overpower the small security detail. More serious challenges are bunker busting munitions and shaped charges which could easily penetrate the bunkers and canisters. The NRC has instructed plant guards that if they see a plane with suspicious tail markings they should immediately call the FAA. Steven Dolley, research director of the Nuclear Control Institute, commented “If you can see the number on the tail fin, you have half a second left.”
<p/>
25. On the international arms market there are now ship-to-shore missiles designed to be concealed in standard cargo containers. With 1200 pound warheads and a range of 200 miles, they could be launched from any of the 10 million cargo containers (2% inspected) which pass by every year on their way to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Large multiple explosions could release massive amounts of radiation which would travel inland with prevailing winds. Continuous release of radiation over weeks and months and years is much different and much worse than a one-shot nuclear explosion.
<p/>
26. Few realize that no home, car, or business insurance covers radioactive contamination. It is difficult to impossible to decontaminate homes and cars. Everything you own could be a total loss. Quick and massive evacuations of millions of people would never work. Large areas of southern California could become unlivable. Just imagine rushing home to get inside of your own house. You have to strip naked outside and use a garden hose to wash down. Then you must discard all your clothing, wallets, jewelry, watches, and purses and anything else that got exposed before you can enter without contaminating the inside of your home (remember that you could never use your car again). No pets should be allowed outdoors for fear of spreading contamination when they return. No one should open windows or doors or run heat or air conditioning in their car or home. No wonder insurance companies will not cover anything. If people can’t leave their house or apartment, where will they get food, and will it be contaminated? How will they go anywhere? How will they later find their kids who will be bussed from school to temporary shelters many miles away?
<p/>
27. Some of the dangers from SONGS include a long history of accidents and safety violations. Some are humorous, some are worrisome, and some are really scary. In 2010, the roof covering the Unit 2 diesel emergency generator was experiencing dangerous water leaks. The cause? Dead pelicans and bird dung which clogged the gutters. The solution? Put a tent over the emergency generators. Many still remember back in 1977 when SONGS mounted a 420 ton reactor vessel 180 degrees backward. When the new steam generators began to leak radiation in 2012, SCE tried to conceal what happened and ended up being scolded by the NRC. SCE then tried to blame Mitsubishi which was trying to fulfill the SCE desire to cram in more fuel rods for more profit. Although SONGS has had many more safety issues than most other nuclear power plants, dangerous events plague the entire industry. As of 2014, there have been over 100 serious accidents at nuclear power plants ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents</a>).
<p/>
28. Nuclear power is not reliable power. At Diablo Canyon, for example, one (or both) reactors were down and out of service 40% of the time in the last few years. About half of the nuclear power plants in France are now off-line or not on full power. Nuclear power plants shut down for many reasons, and once shut down they take a long time to restart. Some of the outages are planned, such as when the plants shut down for weeks during refueling operations. Other times there are maintenance issues, severe weather issues, power outages elsewhere, radioactive leaks, overheating, operational mistakes, terrorist threats, sabotage, the list is long.
<p/>
29. How long will the uranium in nuclear waste remain lethal? There are dozens of radionuclides in nuclear waste but the main component is U-238 with small amounts of U-235 and Plutonium. The half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. That means that about half of the lethal radioactivity will decay in 4.5 billion years. But it will take 10 half-lives (some say 20) before it completely decays. These are unimaginable time periods before the nuclear waste becomes safe so it would be extremely conservative to say that the nuclear waste will remain dangerous for millions or hundreds of millions of years.
<p/>
30. How dangerous is radioactivity? Electromagnetic energy is measured in wave lengths of radiation which range from very long radio waves to very short gamma rays. The human eye can detect only a small portion of this spectrum (called visible light). The most dangerous and damaging radiation is ionizing radiation which includes alpha, beta, and gamma rays. They damage cell DNA and can cause death and a wide variety of serious medical issues such as cancer, the number one killer in California and most of the country. The effects may not be immediate and sometimes do not appear for years or even decades. Several thousand Japanese continue to die every year, not from old age but from the effects of the radiation they received as kids in August of 1945 when they were on the outskirts of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1hq2oBPDOSzIx73WYzOJHFONzXwxeKE0sVhPQluSJdXZI0qJ4gayNKK8u6uac1cegf_-jf35rFCBPJvq89Cxc30LlbWNX6hfFFAwiXKFHsfBXZLSQpcJdBzG8hvWIv9pX8Na8NFIWZ6tqMtM_E25MiO_Mrhgh91BHJEbQ9iVSD0EcQkj0pnrLmace/s832/RogerJohnsonStatement20221027A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: right; float: right;"><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="828" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1hq2oBPDOSzIx73WYzOJHFONzXwxeKE0sVhPQluSJdXZI0qJ4gayNKK8u6uac1cegf_-jf35rFCBPJvq89Cxc30LlbWNX6hfFFAwiXKFHsfBXZLSQpcJdBzG8hvWIv9pX8Na8NFIWZ6tqMtM_E25MiO_Mrhgh91BHJEbQ9iVSD0EcQkj0pnrLmace/s400/RogerJohnsonStatement20221027A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
31. Who is most vulnerable to radioactive exposure? Women and children are far more vulnerable to radiation than men. The human fetus (because of rapid cell division) is about 50 times more vulnerable. <b>Most radiation warnings developed by the government and the NRC are based only on the standard statistical adult male</b>, the least vulnerable to ionizing radiation.
<p/>
32. A normal part of the operation of all nuclear power plants is the regular discharge of low-level radiation into the atmosphere and into waterways. SONGS has been discharging radiation for over a half-century. The atmospheric discharges emit radiation which then blows with prevailing winds (usually inland) over populated areas. It also regularly pumps billions of gallons of low-level radioactive waste into the ocean every year through giant pipes 18 feet in diameter. The rise in sea temperatures and the death of marine life is why SCE was forced to build restoration reefs just offshore of the San Clemente public beaches. When the first reef failed to restore the marine environment, SCE was ordered to build a second reef all the way to the San Clemente pier to mitigate the harmful effects.
<p/>
33. Does living near a nuclear power plant cause cancer? The only major study in the US of possible cancer clusters for those who live near nuclear power plants was done way back in 1991 by the National Cancer Institute. The study failed to reach any conclusion, and by today’s standards it was poorly conducted. More recent research in Europe has reported cancer effects. The National Academy of Sciences became involved in 2010 and has issued two major reports. They recommended new research around the country at seven locations near nuclear facilities. One location would be the 50 km radius around San Onofre (everyone from Huntington Beach to Solana Beach). The research was never carried out because the NRC blocked funding. Congressman Mike Levin was instrumental in getting new funding passed in 2022, this time via Health and Human Services. But now HHS secretary Becerra has halted the study saying it was “premature” despite the many lengthy reports scientists have published. Rep. Levin, Porter, and Carbajal have tried to convince him but instead of research Becerra wants more bureaucratic study groups. More public support (and outrage) is needed to get the actual research started. Could it be that the government and the industry is only interested in studying the problem, not actually researching it? Are they afraid of what would happen to the nuclear industry if cancer effects are discovered? Here we have a President who boasts about his “moonshot on cancer” but his departments block cancer research. Read these two reports from the National Academy of Sciences: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Phase 1 (National Academies Press 2012, 412 pages) available on line: <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/13388/chapter/1">https://www.nap.edu/read/13388/chapter/1</a> and Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Phase 2: Pilot Planning (National Academies Press 2014) <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1503/ML15035A135.pdf">https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1503/ML15035A135.pdf</a>
<p/>
34. A new issue is the coastal train connecting Los Angeles to San Diego which has been shut down indefinitely at the Orange and San Diego county border because of beach erosion and coastal instability. The breakdown occurred in south San Clemente, only about two miles from the nuclear waste dump. If simple structures like railroad tracks next to the beach are in danger, how could anyone assume that thousands of tons of uranium on the beach two miles away are safe? At high tides, waves already crash near the top of the seawall with the nuclear waste just inside.
<p/>
35. It is high time for public officials and candidates to weigh in on these issues and to exercise leadership. It is high time for the media to provide serious coverage of these important issues. And finally, it is high time for the public to learn more about the dangers of nuclear waste, probably the most important issue facing all communities in southern California. Everyone needs to pressure local, state, and federal officials and convince them that moving the nuclear waste from San Onofre to a safer location should be a high priority issue requiring widespread attention and immediate action.
<p/>
<p/>
Roger Johnson is a resident of San Clemente, California
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZiNcIPEv6j3N0FGib0Ss5nm8J01a34XC-pWRVMmqBRhtzJgiikrMVfIXQ-xgCLRqOX0NuFHVPhiX7KT_eJWzXAq2x1__jcIk0exF9CEz02kXuqn6MNCnPuqkh3JVLRAXmcDmcfn_Piw5i4BVP6PfO1cwxZL0Rb0ttXa64xC5Au9H_hlvm1Af7Wy1g/s2560/1665165686216blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="2560" data-original-width="1920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZiNcIPEv6j3N0FGib0Ss5nm8J01a34XC-pWRVMmqBRhtzJgiikrMVfIXQ-xgCLRqOX0NuFHVPhiX7KT_eJWzXAq2x1__jcIk0exF9CEz02kXuqn6MNCnPuqkh3JVLRAXmcDmcfn_Piw5i4BVP6PfO1cwxZL0Rb0ttXa64xC5Au9H_hlvm1Af7Wy1g/s320/1665165686216blob.jpg"/></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh78Xun36a2G4W4IfWpsV_Hv1dP_rr7Ffl2L_A158JbhEyKhSCpZ6hKsGOPvZrTGiqHAmTG2uc_0qgSND6IQxvkWvVTSkGSgnlRxfT4uYaY4Klup6iLNPoLJifQwSXMURplbwfn7OoOQex0zQeubQVW0O8AkG7ecz005sOQq-FA6mXfJ58h_rk_6IZy/s2535/1665166009032blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="2535" data-original-width="1852" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh78Xun36a2G4W4IfWpsV_Hv1dP_rr7Ffl2L_A158JbhEyKhSCpZ6hKsGOPvZrTGiqHAmTG2uc_0qgSND6IQxvkWvVTSkGSgnlRxfT4uYaY4Klup6iLNPoLJifQwSXMURplbwfn7OoOQex0zQeubQVW0O8AkG7ecz005sOQq-FA6mXfJ58h_rk_6IZy/s320/1665166009032blob.jpg"/></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9IFJj3XD4zAHlGvnKuftmiLRiijyP9sBXToNRfmYfTtIl7NnuyGrvn9q8xAS_uN6V-XccO4iaHeQUXH8zYOtNEd2DiIhYCComKnEA-2jTvrJYj18kl8LEOUYOl1ngFmzxXbZ8ZfKaRlr-w1hFXujlgeQtUGFVRk1-by6H9hGMpLy3fFQkgtBr-OWm/s550/1665166066806blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9IFJj3XD4zAHlGvnKuftmiLRiijyP9sBXToNRfmYfTtIl7NnuyGrvn9q8xAS_uN6V-XccO4iaHeQUXH8zYOtNEd2DiIhYCComKnEA-2jTvrJYj18kl8LEOUYOl1ngFmzxXbZ8ZfKaRlr-w1hFXujlgeQtUGFVRk1-by6H9hGMpLy3fFQkgtBr-OWm/s320/1665166066806blob.jpg"/></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpIt-__iO_waPA_y3QJowErd8BLX53SuDZ_puTR0a8xEvE08idZbvcp9wznNzGCTznoieNE4UvoZMwhhQOXoGK-IwMIdsD60SuOlXpprEV1OFKfZfuUg-aYjr7S4zdjqTP8MngE3l55_rrg1IupgOMCBjqempXwvVWIbwhLHkzOoETwoIsTJvBynPf/s2745/1665166206984blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="2227" data-original-width="2745" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpIt-__iO_waPA_y3QJowErd8BLX53SuDZ_puTR0a8xEvE08idZbvcp9wznNzGCTznoieNE4UvoZMwhhQOXoGK-IwMIdsD60SuOlXpprEV1OFKfZfuUg-aYjr7S4zdjqTP8MngE3l55_rrg1IupgOMCBjqempXwvVWIbwhLHkzOoETwoIsTJvBynPf/s320/1665166206984blob.jpg"/></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ9lPqGShMH2sI1Tfi8SE6AQlW-SedxQyZm8OIH619-HcThkM4RaTc9n2vVG2G27V62raOG2bT9Qns6S9udN0LhlQKmIXRAD_Bla-Xmc61wCyQCXvqhC6XhXVsgKZtv_jxRZ41TjCLqhYl0t3Vdpt-jv_BM00fpGc5oVkI7zsE-3jM3CfeR0J2WzpD/s923/1665166497753blob.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="575" data-original-width="923" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ9lPqGShMH2sI1Tfi8SE6AQlW-SedxQyZm8OIH619-HcThkM4RaTc9n2vVG2G27V62raOG2bT9Qns6S9udN0LhlQKmIXRAD_Bla-Xmc61wCyQCXvqhC6XhXVsgKZtv_jxRZ41TjCLqhYl0t3Vdpt-jv_BM00fpGc5oVkI7zsE-3jM3CfeR0J2WzpD/s320/1665166497753blob.jpg"/></a></div>
<hr>
The NUHOMS nuclear waste dump, holding Unit 1 reactor assemblies (53 canisters total):
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixm_9iYM-roha9C6H2HgvqMaqGPDdEkOt74EMNVkOXHTMTiY3MTqJ8ifjnzJdz7s7s3mi55EcgaBzPAD0F1JIPZbZwNuIql9L0ixTWbiX2rwhoUiT5ejWaSoVrFMK3nmoYpn6gdoLCF8wYwZobbYjpBHlmrLUuy7qgN2IL4AF8BOcbXHcXEUko-gls/s747/SONGS_ISFSI_NUHOMS_under_construction.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-left: 20px; text-align: left; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="415" data-original-width="747" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixm_9iYM-roha9C6H2HgvqMaqGPDdEkOt74EMNVkOXHTMTiY3MTqJ8ifjnzJdz7s7s3mi55EcgaBzPAD0F1JIPZbZwNuIql9L0ixTWbiX2rwhoUiT5ejWaSoVrFMK3nmoYpn6gdoLCF8wYwZobbYjpBHlmrLUuy7qgN2IL4AF8BOcbXHcXEUko-gls/s400/SONGS_ISFSI_NUHOMS_under_construction.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<p/>
NUHOMS and HOLTEC nuclear reactor assemblies with Unit 2 and Unit 3 domes in the background, Pacific Ocean on the right:
<p/>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAo55YO_ICgnIItCaWtdBxiD5bTWZlsPUdjFFd6xGlNysNzXMpj_QPoeogiPM2TXvNOdcVwg5UdU2I67G1cBNdSkEAB_sUYP_xbdrjMkxYbuiuy52zSYai6O0P3U6lWodONC8GMni3N1YAiLKTXDdwYZhFoFxW4uabJ3NQZ4aSWgMBsuxzDRoLSBfl/s273/SanOnfreBothVerticalAndHorizontalStorageTrimmed.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-left: 20px; text-align: left; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="136" data-original-width="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAo55YO_ICgnIItCaWtdBxiD5bTWZlsPUdjFFd6xGlNysNzXMpj_QPoeogiPM2TXvNOdcVwg5UdU2I67G1cBNdSkEAB_sUYP_xbdrjMkxYbuiuy52zSYai6O0P3U6lWodONC8GMni3N1YAiLKTXDdwYZhFoFxW4uabJ3NQZ4aSWgMBsuxzDRoLSBfl/s400/SanOnfreBothVerticalAndHorizontalStorageTrimmed.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Close-up of the NUHOMS canisters:
<p/><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguoRbSXbbplGmXQbBNv8OaGttSH4rKdEGXX15UJYFvbrnqAdOOICWe909iIXbemuOHxkVemnNMBZJk5omVJivcODpdA4d68mgm49BGleHQQxYR3yfH5kOxnICa9iTCw6TCVjp1e1a4PzhtoGF7zBwVFxvHbEAmZ9-XTGX5hXGNJUS2B9XKzD_fidZv/s620/SanOnofreNUHOMSspentFuel.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-left: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="620" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguoRbSXbbplGmXQbBNv8OaGttSH4rKdEGXX15UJYFvbrnqAdOOICWe909iIXbemuOHxkVemnNMBZJk5omVJivcODpdA4d68mgm49BGleHQQxYR3yfH5kOxnICa9iTCw6TCVjp1e1a4PzhtoGF7zBwVFxvHbEAmZ9-XTGX5hXGNJUS2B9XKzD_fidZv/s400/SanOnofreNUHOMSspentFuel.webp"/></a></div>
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-15230884967345291642022-10-09T15:31:00.002-07:002022-10-11T10:10:14.535-07:00Preventing spent nuclear fuel fires in dry casks (newly updated pdf from 2012)<font size=3>Dear Readers,<br><br> I have just updated a short presentation I created while attending Arjun Makhijani's workshop at IEER in Washington, D.C. in 2012.<br><br> The topic is spent nuclear fuel fires, which can be "worse than Chernobyl."<br><br> <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://acehoffman.org/pdfs/NuclearFuelFires2012_2022update.pdf" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="602" src="http://acehoffman.org/pdfs/DealingWithSpentFuelFiresCoverImage30pct.png"/></a></div> The new update is crammed with over 75 images and several new related items. At only 23 pages, it's a breeze to read and I hope you'll take a look and pass it on to others! Here's the URL:<br><br> <a href="http://acehoffman.org/pdfs/NuclearFuelFires2012_2022update.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://acehoffman.org/pdfs/NuclearFuelFires2012_2022update.pdf<br><br> </a>It's also currently the lead item at my home page:<br> <a href="http://acehoffman.org/" eudora="autourl"> http://acehoffman.org<br><br> </a>Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, California USA </font>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-84830445053186468172022-10-04T13:37:00.007-07:002022-10-05T09:45:25.565-07:00An American Chernobyl, because the California Coastal Commission won't do its job.Re: Th12a (amendment to Coastal Development Permit E-00-014)<br/>
Date: October 4, 2022<br/>
<p/>
To: The California Coastal Commission (sanonofrecomments@coastal.ca.gov):
<p/>
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff report makes the following claim:
<p/>
-----------------------------------------------------<br/>
<b>"When the Commission considered the waste storage facility in 2001, the information available at the time indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy would establish a federal repository for spent nuclear fuel and would begin accepting spent fuel from commercial facilities, including SONGS, by 2010."</b><br/>
-----------------------------------------------------<br/>
<p/>
What "information" was the California Coastal Commission going on in 2001 to make that claim? Yucca Mountain was far from a decided thing then (it has since been cancelled completely). There were hundreds of known problems with it (California alone has dozens of significant objections). Only whimsey and fantasy would have allowed <i>anyone</i> to think it was <b>"the information available."</b>
<p/>
The nuclear industry has survived on waste management promises for decades (see link below to the author's review of waste management attempts in America over the past half century, as well as the attached page from a 1970s book called the Anti-Nuclear Handbook).
<p/>
Page 23 of the CCC staff report claims to have analyzed (or had analyzed for them) a 7.5 earthquake (elsewhere up to 7.44 (an oddly specific number for such an inexact science) was indicated). But a 7.8 magnitude earthquake is three times stronger than a 7.5 earthquake, and perhaps one even stronger than that will strike the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at San Onofre.
<p/>
The CCC staff report repeatedly refers to a "design basis earthquake" and a "design basis tsunami". This conveniently ignores "beyond design basis earthquakes" and "beyond design basis tsunamis" which are certainly possible -- nor does the staff report give any indication of the odds for anything: Instead, they just describe things as "unlikely" or "extremely unlikely."
<p/>
Even if these events are "unlikely" or "extremely unlikely" their impacts could be so devastating that the events must be considered.
<p/>
Beyond Design Basis events are not only possible, but additionally: Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) occasionally considers them and regulates the nuclear industry regarding them. So why can't the California Coastal Commission do so?
<p/>
But what really galls me about the CCC staff report is that they completely ignore consequences of accidents. Not just that they are unlikely, but no consideration of how damaging to SoCal an accident -- however unlikely -- would be. They do this with the excuse that that would be strictly the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- which is absurd. The NRC might "regulate" nuclear reactor safety and spent fuel safety, but the consequences will be OUR problem -- not theirs.
<p/>
Another point: The CCC staff report says the containers should be "transportable" so that at some future time they can be moved to either a safer location on the SoCal Edison (SCE) site (which is actually leased from Camp Pendleton (Marine Corps)) or to a permanent repository somewhere. Yet the enormous number of fuel assemblies allowed in each cask -- to save money by using fewer casks -- makes them extremely heavy and to move them away from San Onofre will require them going over (and under) numerous bridges where a far greater fall than the canisters are designed to withstand might occur (the NRC only requires the casks to withstand a drop of 30 feet, and even then, a "back breaker" accident is not considered (where the middle of the cask takes all the force of the impact with a solid object)).
<p/>
So really, the CCC isn't making sure the canisters can be transported even as far as across the bridge that goes over the (eroding) train tracks and the busy I-5 highway to store them further away from the coast on (borrowed) SCE land slightly further inland. If a bridge fails (perhaps because a truck or train crashes into a bridge abutment just when one of the 123 canisters is being moved) then the fall could exceed the drop height the casks are designed to (possibly) withstand.
<p/>
The CCC staff report earthquake estimates are based on a maximum 7.5 magnitude earthquake. But experts now believe the Palos Verdes Fault (PVF) is capable of producing a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. PVF is nearly 70 miles long and the tip is within about 10 miles of San Onofre.
<p/>
The staff report's sea rise estimates and tsunami estimates could also be way off -- and in instance after instance in the Th12a staff report, the NUHOMS horizontal cask system is just barely safe from their estimated worst case scenario.
<p/>
The CCC staff report's beach erosion estimates might be way off too. Especially note that this week, Surfliner has suddenly been cancelled indefinitely between Mission Viejo and San Diego due to coastal erosion in San Clemente. These tracks were the 2nd busiest route in the country -- until suddenly they weren't available and thousands of people are suddenly severely inconvenienced for who-knows-for-how-long, including both commuter and freight traffic.
<p/>
It is expected that sooner or later the tracks will be repaired. Compare this to what would happen from even a "small" accident involving just one of the 123 dry casks stored at San Onofre: The entire area, including the Cities of San Clemente and Oceanside, Camp Pendleton, I-5 AND the vital rail line would all be permanently unavailable, just over 1,000 square miles are permanently unavailable around Chernobyl for the foreseeable future from an accident that occurred nearly 40 years ago. It should be noted that EACH dry cask at San Onofre contains as much radiation as was released in the Chernobyl accident. This figure has been admitted in a published letter to the editor by the SCE spokesperson, who claimed there needs to be a "motive force" to release it to the environment.
<p/>
Let me suggest a few "motive forces" that might cause a large dispersal of the nuclear waste at San Onofre: An airplane strike, either intentional or accidental. A large ship settling on the cask structure after being washed inland during a tsunami. A high-powered weapon (even a shoulder-fired weapon could go through both the concrete overpack and the dry cask itself, and that's just ONE trigger pull. There is almost no defensive guard requirements for the ISFSI. It is unlikely that ONE guard with ONE pistol would be able to stop even a small group of well-prepared terrorists). An earthquake that bursts open one or more casks during a rainstorm, or followed by a tsunami, would be particularly disastrous.
<p/>
There are many other ways the spent fuel canister can be breached. A breach can cause the fuel to self-ignite by exposing the canisters to air and water. The zirconium cladding, being pyrophoric (self-igniting) could/would entirely burn off, releasing all the fission products currently held in the "gap" between the uranium/plutonium pellets and the zirconium cladding.
<p/>
This would be a local, state, and global disaster, but it might not, in and of itself, cause the uranium/plutonium/fission/product-laden fuel pellets to also self-ignite since zirconium burns at a much lower temperature than uranium. But it would cause the fuel assemblies to disassemble. The fuel pellets would fall to the bottom of what's left of the canister, and then a self-sustaining criticality event could/would quickly reach a temperature which ignites the entire cask of spent fuel.
<p/>
An American Chernobyl, because the California Coastal Commission didn't do its job.
<p/>
Lastly, why is the Th12a staff report coming so late, just a month before the current San Onofre ISFSI license for the NUHOMS casks expires? Why does it cite a 2001 DOE waste management report that proves how poorly the DOE estimates nuclear waste management timelines as a reason that the DOE will (probably, hopefully, possibly) have a national repository by 2035 -- or any time?
<p/>
I recommend the CCC staff report be thrown out, the relicensing stopped, and SCE be required to repack the fuel in much smaller quantities, and that all spent fuel canisters be moved away from the coast (and away from ANY earthquake zone in California (good luck with that)), and that all spent fuel canisters be separated from each other by a minimum of several hundred yards. Local fire departments need to be constantly trained and retrained about how to handle a fire at the spent fuel installation, and all other possibilities for what might happen at San Onofre should be covered. For example, the ability to dump many tons of sand on a spent fuel fire should be practiced by local/state government helicopter pilots on at least an annual basis if not more frequently.
<p/>
All costs for more properly storing the spent fuel should be borne solely by the owners, Southern California Edison (80%) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) (20%), and their shareholders.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, California
<p/>
The author, an independent researcher and two-time cancer survivor, has studied nuclear issues for approximately 50 years and has interviewed and/or worked with dozens of technical experts in all related subjects. All views are his own.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSxTMoXDZPwZoJM8DUze0Cu920CDtbRRgtVIp9FVQOf3yn0__AjP2Z7oig2ogVSr19j4727jsExi9bElXF_gvepfHw7HP5YSP8OZc8fCxiN4JLIbzgMGD8gPLKPE0lyMnJkg_H9E4vdS7C_AuLlumnq1Dtfsu34oJfag0BoAjDR7JTqG6B2-MWszS1/s299/ClarionLedger.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSxTMoXDZPwZoJM8DUze0Cu920CDtbRRgtVIp9FVQOf3yn0__AjP2Z7oig2ogVSr19j4727jsExi9bElXF_gvepfHw7HP5YSP8OZc8fCxiN4JLIbzgMGD8gPLKPE0lyMnJkg_H9E4vdS7C_AuLlumnq1Dtfsu34oJfag0BoAjDR7JTqG6B2-MWszS1/s400/ClarionLedger.jpeg"/></a></div>
<i>Loading a spent fuel canister into the NUHOMS horizontal storage system.</i>
<hr/>
Additional information:
<p/>
Palos Verdes Fault: A serious issue for San Onofre; Recent history of fault research in California:<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/09/palos-verdes-fault-serious-issue-for.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/09/palos-verdes-fault-serious-issue-for.html</a>
<p/>
Extending Diablo Canyon's operating license: A fiasco waiting to happen (contains additional discussion about dry cask accident issues):<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/08/extending-diablo-canyons-operating.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/08/extending-diablo-canyons-operating.html</a>
<p/>
Nuclear Waste Management: The view through the years:<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a>
<p/>
Different types of nuclear radiation and why they are all dangerous (a backgrounder on radiation dangers):<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/07/different-types-of-nuclear-radiation.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/07/different-types-of-nuclear-radiation.html</a>
<p/>
<hr>
Th12a is available online here:<br/>
<a href="https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/10/Th12a/Th12a-10-2022-report.pdf" target="_blank">https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/10/Th12a/Th12a-10-2022-report.pdf</a>
<p/>
<hr>
Addendum: Comment on the above from another independent researcher:
<p/>
Regarding "NRC only requires the casks to withstand a drop of 30 feet",
<p/>
This applies to the transport cask and doesn't consider the contents remaining intact.
<p/>
In fact, if a [Holtec] canister drops more than 11 inches inside a transfer cask, contents must be inspected (NRC ML003711865, page 3-10 Accidental Drop).
<p/>
<a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003711865.pdf">https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003711865.pdf</a>
<p/>
Regarding ignition/explosion of zirconium, zirconium hydrides (created from burning the fuel) are in small particle or gas form they will ignite in air at any temperature.
<p/>
<hr>
<hr>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-53563705569329868752022-09-29T11:23:00.001-07:002022-09-29T11:43:33.219-07:00Palos Verdes Fault: A serious issue for San Onofre; Recent history of fault research in CaliforniaThe Palos Verdes Fault is a serious issue for San Onofre's nuclear waste dump. Southern California Edison (SCE) refuses to admit it, but facts indicate otherwise.
<p/>
What the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) will be from any earthquake, based on the magnitude of the earthquake as measured by its energy release, is very difficult to calculate and there is much room for error:
<p/>
<b>From Wikipedia:</b><br/>
"Due to the complex conditions affecting PGA, earthquakes of similar magnitude can offer disparate results, with many moderate magnitude earthquakes generating significantly larger PGA values than larger magnitude quakes."
<p/>
Also, PGA is calculated for three dimensions (up/down, and two horizontal directions, usually given as N/S and E/W, but not always). To know what PGA actually occurs during an earthquake, accelerometers for all three directions must be used, and then blended (this is known as a "vector sum") Sometimes, whichever is the largest magnitude is given as the PGA for that earthquake. For example, the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake had a maximum PGA in one direction of 2.70, but the vector sum was 2.99.
<p/>
The depth of the earthquake can have a large effect on the PGA for an earthquake: For example, a 1978 Miyagi earthquake of magnitude 7.7 was 44 kilometers deep and had a PGA of 0.438g and caused 28 fatalities, while the 1999 Jiji earthquake of the same magnitude but only 8 kilometers deep had a PGA of 2.92g and caused 2,415 fatalities. The 2016 Kaikoura earthquake was a 7.8, 15 kilometers deep, and had a 3.23g PGA -- but only caused 2 fatalities. So PGA alone, or magnitude alone, or even both together with depth included, cannot actually predict the potential outcome of an earthquake.
<p/>
The new values for the discovery that the Palos Verdes Fault (PVF) is a connected series of faults are quadruple the previous value, therefore, San Onofre would need to survive four times (4X) the previous estimate. Notice that SoCal Edison's web page does not provide nearly enough data to make any sort of judgement as to whether their ISFSI can survive 4X more forces that originally planned for!
<p/>
Also, they do not mention that they have two completely different ISFII types at the site: Is one better than the other for surviving a 7.8 earthquake nearby? If they are equally good, why did they change to the vertical style? (Note: The answer appears to be simply that Holtec offered to build the new facility quickly, which allows SCE to save millions of dollars on spent fuel pool maintenance and instead get paid millions of dollars by the U.S. Government once the waste is in dry casks.)
<p/>
Also, consider the last phrase is this chart (from Wikipedia again):
<p/>
------------------------------<br/>
<b>0.001 g (0.01 m/s2)</b> – perceptible by people<br/>
<b>0.02 g (0.2 m/s2)</b> – people lose their balance<br/>
<b>0.50 g (5 m/s2)</b> – very high; well-designed buildings can survive if the duration is short.<br/>
-------------------------------<br/>
<p/>
"if the duration is short" is something PGA alone does not consider! SCE does not say "if the duration is short" anywhere, do they? Of course not! But the same PGA might completely destroy the ISFSI if the duration is NOT short! So PGA alone doesn't really prove anything.
<p/>
Regarding the Palos Verdes Fault specifically, I don't think any earthquake experts are saying for certain that they are sure if it will be a thrust or a strike-slip event (or a combination of both -- see LA Times quote, below) when it occurs -- and it WILL occur: The ground movement is from around one to as much as six millimeters per year, a rather large amount (and much larger than previous estimates). And as far as I can determine from researching the PVF, it is probably going to be a very shallow event.
<p/>
SCE's claim about the "low ground shaking potential" in the area is not definitive and should be completely discounted, in my opinion. Instead, the PGA for each of the two types of ISFSIs at the site should be independently analyzed and reported. I doubt that it is the same for each one.
<p/>
Regarding the potential for fire, a large earthquake could certainly cause one of the scores of fully-loaded fuel trucks that probably pass nearby on I-5 to overturn and spill their entire contents, only to have it flow towards the ISFSI and ignite. Combined with even a small tsunami, there could be the combination of fire and water that SCE assures us can never happen.
<p/>
One more important point: Considering that there are more than 50 known active faults in the area, how many others are liable to be four (or more) times stronger than currently estimated? Almost everything about earthquake prediction is very "hit or miss." San Onofre cannot afford to miss (other than the fact that SCE is protected almost 100% from paying for damages caused by San Onofre thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, an archaic piece of legislation that limits any reactor operator to a maximum of about $13 Billion dollars in damages, no matter the actual cost in lives and property).
<p/>
SCE is hiding data, playing with numbers, and ignoring facts (as usual).
<p/>
Particularly egregious in this case is SCE's blatantly false claim that the millions of people who live within 50 miles of San Onofre have nothing to worry about. Each spent fuel canister has about as much radioactivity as was released from Chernobyl, which affected much of Europe as well as, to a lesser extent, the entire northern hemisphere (and the world). A spent fuel fire can be hot enough to melt concrete, meaning a fire in one canister can spread to every other canister at the ISFSI. And putting water on such a fire -- assuming you could get close enough to it without receiving a lethal dose of radiation -- would be a big mistake!
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
<b><i>Sources used for this report:</i></b>
<p/>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_ground_acceleration">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_ground_acceleration</a>
<p/>
<a href="https://news.yahoo.com/fault-along-l-o-c-120031692.html?guccounter=1">https://news.yahoo.com/fault-along-l-o-c-120031692.html?guccounter=1</a>
<p/>
<a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JB011938#">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JB011938#</a>
<p/>
"The PVF appears to die out to the south of Lasuen Knoll..." [so, approximately directly offshore from San Onofre, or at best just a little northwest of the SanO nuclear waste dump]
<p/>
<a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-23/palos-verdes-fault-could-produce-quake-san-andreas-level-quake-study-shows">https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-23/palos-verdes-fault-could-produce-quake-san-andreas-level-quake-study-shows</a>
<p/>
"The Northridge quake, which killed 57 people, had a devastating combined side-to-side and up-and-down motion that proved especially destructive to structures. That same combined lateral and vertical movement of faults is possible along the Palos Verdes network."
<p/>
<a href="https://www.sanclementetimes.com/letter-no-chernobyl-disaster-cannot-repeated-songs/">https://www.sanclementetimes.com/letter-no-chernobyl-disaster-cannot-repeated-songs/</a>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmXHPwJqFBkHEBSNt474lkphYfYC_apl1wy96y58FwaddqkJjrtmurUdkhQgaXrjFwLScVWQiTdvARrpxtwiJOrlKeZkkN0WDmELPWlQSGM71rII-A8jb1My7Oc6WELgJUUzgGSd_uMu1iRIFQMRQPdWaYr8OGuZpV6i0VIaAOe1exLy263P6sDPkq/s1121/PalosVerdesFaultWithTitle.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="1121" data-original-width="1100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmXHPwJqFBkHEBSNt474lkphYfYC_apl1wy96y58FwaddqkJjrtmurUdkhQgaXrjFwLScVWQiTdvARrpxtwiJOrlKeZkkN0WDmELPWlQSGM71rII-A8jb1My7Oc6WELgJUUzgGSd_uMu1iRIFQMRQPdWaYr8OGuZpV6i0VIaAOe1exLy263P6sDPkq/s400/PalosVerdesFaultWithTitle.png"/></a></div>
<div class="image-container" style="display: flex;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvBZasxqsKZkZr6-5g8Hg3QmigGwA7uLQeIZ4XFNG4hlGQDFqiN9KYtoFyRpzauYkF_EK93GjfaGNkIuVWnodDuG9E349nQiFKMZrCK2mPfIqLEAulJSgntfZD7B5wj31G4-uYFFE1HTk1OH4s3P9bRXgqaAkSygKcF5RkmPz0IWAuC2vr-PmD7yY_/s426/SanAndreasFaultWithTitle.png" ><img alt="" border="0" width="200" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvBZasxqsKZkZr6-5g8Hg3QmigGwA7uLQeIZ4XFNG4hlGQDFqiN9KYtoFyRpzauYkF_EK93GjfaGNkIuVWnodDuG9E349nQiFKMZrCK2mPfIqLEAulJSgntfZD7B5wj31G4-uYFFE1HTk1OH4s3P9bRXgqaAkSygKcF5RkmPz0IWAuC2vr-PmD7yY_/s320/SanAndreasFaultWithTitle.png"/></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ZwG3TDsF5RgUJ0KpOIRYfJmLOCmJUNo-n9MDWFD99syh_1mO70VPdzd-DG6Y-W2SaAmLZu230tLxBtxpQwCeh2WQv6WZRzQAdtm1ELHEa43SzaJpnDqW1Ha3l2K2V3lrDqRdP0xE9pz5Fy22Y4QeCfJBwh09CoXz5by0R8uAVep0iR53xZxvpxOw/s547/usgs-map_with_title.png"><img alt="" border="0" width="240" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="547" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ZwG3TDsF5RgUJ0KpOIRYfJmLOCmJUNo-n9MDWFD99syh_1mO70VPdzd-DG6Y-W2SaAmLZu230tLxBtxpQwCeh2WQv6WZRzQAdtm1ELHEa43SzaJpnDqW1Ha3l2K2V3lrDqRdP0xE9pz5Fy22Y4QeCfJBwh09CoXz5by0R8uAVep0iR53xZxvpxOw/s200/usgs-map_with_title.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<div class="image-container" style="display: flex;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj61fUwaq9BMTsgTAVNeQRgLeB1lGSIchu9JvxTtr2rUDKqbkyI2zooeBgrd4Zc9TMgtUdYH6vQDUSp8Avp41wGk3sDL9s_C_Vm0dkFcFguMrKHGr1LbOs_mzpFL9os9F_B7J0YjaoaFTN73anIiIQ3J-KMrokyBhoEUmP1Mv5RRGk9rkknIhYkTqiz/s621/Newport-InglewoodAndRoseCanyonFaults.png"><img alt="" border="0" height="200" data-original-height="621" data-original-width="540" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj61fUwaq9BMTsgTAVNeQRgLeB1lGSIchu9JvxTtr2rUDKqbkyI2zooeBgrd4Zc9TMgtUdYH6vQDUSp8Avp41wGk3sDL9s_C_Vm0dkFcFguMrKHGr1LbOs_mzpFL9os9F_B7J0YjaoaFTN73anIiIQ3J-KMrokyBhoEUmP1Mv5RRGk9rkknIhYkTqiz/s200/Newport-InglewoodAndRoseCanyonFaults.png"/></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIri7xMT1AkYfcantmvHnxs_GN3C9AxR84empT73MxZVJ24dT6uf9wEy4dJzxiikRXyFY9hyWK57L9PuB3cB_SMYcflDdQSHnGhQa7uhGYJniOUcMKpXFZL6mJXCBL6M9hO3PKjveU1JDcQJbpYxV0dz--ihVkYDYpyCleH8C7ffKepGa3sE5anS1/s229/SaltonTroughFaultWithTitle.png"><img alt="" border="0" width="200" data-original-height="130" data-original-width="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIri7xMT1AkYfcantmvHnxs_GN3C9AxR84empT73MxZVJ24dT6uf9wEy4dJzxiikRXyFY9hyWK57L9PuB3cB_SMYcflDdQSHnGhQa7uhGYJniOUcMKpXFZL6mJXCBL6M9hO3PKjveU1JDcQJbpYxV0dz--ihVkYDYpyCleH8C7ffKepGa3sE5anS1/s200/SaltonTroughFaultWithTitle.png"/></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0fay9TtBLww6xreUP_hyzBU01w2pWP_3I32YJ36KKn18oKZKnq9MuCewR4_MZH-CwBFZZX42qLOOc33YzPXg2vtFax37XXrQjTGIpddGzFctVUEeAqZGbP-BsGl7qIOVEQkGXrouAAwCHwdT3ZkR3KYBr3Lktn9zjXMLdKWl1OO71b-mbL9U1Ics8/s558/PolarisFaultWithTitle.png"><img alt="" border="0" width="200" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="558" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0fay9TtBLww6xreUP_hyzBU01w2pWP_3I32YJ36KKn18oKZKnq9MuCewR4_MZH-CwBFZZX42qLOOc33YzPXg2vtFax37XXrQjTGIpddGzFctVUEeAqZGbP-BsGl7qIOVEQkGXrouAAwCHwdT3ZkR3KYBr3Lktn9zjXMLdKWl1OO71b-mbL9U1Ics8/s320/PolarisFaultWithTitle.png"/></a></div>
<hr/>
========================================================<br/>
<b>Recent history of fault research in California:</b><br/>
========================================================<br/>
<p/>
=========================================<br/>
<b>Facts about earthquakes in California:</b><br/>
=========================================<br/>
<p/>
"There are hundreds of identified faults in California; about 200 are considered potentially hazardous based on their slip rates in recent geological time (the last 10,000 years)." (1)
<p/>
"To be exact, there are a total of 15,700 known faults in our state."
and:
"And actually one of the strongest quakes ever felt in the state occurred in the shear zone north of the recent epicenters, when a magnitude 7.8 or 7.9 temblor flattened the town of Lone Pine in 1872." (2)
<p/>
The 1906 SF earthquake: "would have registered as a 7.8 on the magnitude scale." (3)
<p/>
The 1994 Northridge earthquake: "The major shock lasted 10–20 seconds and registered a magnitude of 6.7" (4)
<p/>
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was about 6.9 magnitude and lasted about 20 seconds. "The Pacific plate moved 6.2 feet to the northwest and 4.3 feet upward over the North American plate during Loma Prieta." It was felt as far away as San Diego. (5)
<p/>
=====================================================<br/>
<b>Recently discovered/newly active faults in California:</b><br/>
=====================================================<br/>
<p/>
<b>September 2022:</b> "The San Andreas Fault takes an 11 degree bend south of Stanford. That has created [the Foothill Thrust Belt fault system], which could cause a 6.9 quake every 250-300 years, new research suggests. And we don't know when it last ruptured." (6)
<p/>
<b>March, 2022:</b> "A series of these “sleeping giant” faults was recently discovered in the Long Beach/Seal Beach region" (7)
<p/>
<b>2019:</b> "[A] few miles southeast of Santa Cruz, California, a never-before-seen cluster of faults has been found lurking on the ocean floor." (8)
<p/>
<b>2019:</b> "[T]he Garlock fault, which runs east to west for 185 miles from the San Andreas Fault to Death Valley, has shifted 0.8 inches since July. It marks the first documented movement of the fault in the modern historical record." (9)
<p/>
<b>2017:</b> The Newport-Inglewood and Rose Canyon fault lines were found to be interconnected: "[A] newly identified fault line that could unleash a magnitude-7.4 earthquake" (10)
<p/>
<b>2016:</b> Salton Trough Fault...runs parallel and close to the San Andreas Fault. (11)
<p/>
<b>2011:</b> Near Truckee: "The newly discovered, active, 22-mile-long strike-slip fault is named Polaris"..."'We weren't expecting it at all,' said Lewis Hunter, a senior geologist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District." (12)
<p/>
<b>2008:</b> "[T]he Shoreline Fault...passes less than a mile from the [Diablo Canyon] plant. The [newly discovered] fault has the potential of triggering a 6.5-magnitude earthquake." (13)
<p/>
<b>2006/7:</b> "We discovered a series of prominent faults near Bombay Beach [on the eastern edge of the Salton Sea] during pilot studies..." (14)
<p/>
<b>1998:</b> “Los Angeles is caught in a vise,”..."[An earthquake research team] discovered a large, active crack in the earth, capable of causing destructive earthquakes, under Los Angeles" (15)
<p/>
===============================================<br/>
<b>Changes to faults they already knew about:</b><br/>
===============================================<br/>
<p/>
<b>2022:</b> "A Slow-Motion Section of the San Andreas Fault May Not Be So Harmless After All" (16)
<p/>
<b>2020:</b> "Ominous San Andreas Fault Study: Risk of a Big Quake 5X Higher Than Previously Thought" (17)
<p/>
<b>2019:</b> "A new study by the USGS and Harvard indicates that the [Wilmington blind‐thrust fault] has been active far more recently than we knew." (18)
<p/>
<b>2017:</b> "An Obscure Fault in Southern California Is More Dangerous Than We Thought...the Ventura-Pitas Point Fault, [is] now thought to be capable of producing magnitude 8.0 earthquakes, and even tsunamis." (19)
<p/>
<b>2017:</b> “A powerful quake in the mid- to upper 6s could cause liquefaction around San Diego and Mission bays and locally in Mission Valley..." (20)
<p/>
<b>2016:</b> "San Andreas fault might be stronger than we thought, new study suggests" (21)
<p/>
<b>2016:</b> "Latest research suggests that the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults might have ruptured together in the past" (22)
<p/>
<b>2014:</b> "Recent studies of the magnitude 6.0 Napa quake in August suggest that the fault is longer and thus more powerful than previously thought." (23)
<p/>
<b>2010:</b> "Earthquakes have rocked the powerful San Andreas fault that splits California far more often than previously thought, according to UC Irvine..." (24)
<p/>
=========================================<br/>
<b><i>Sources:</i></b><br/>
=========================================<br/>
<p/>
(1) From: <a href="https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes">https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes</a>
<p/>
(2) From: <a href="https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2019/07/06/not-all-is-quiet-at-the-eastern-front.html">https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2019/07/06/not-all-is-quiet-at-the-eastern-front.html</a>
<p/>
(3) From: <a href="https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2016/04/18/today-in-earthquake-history-san-francisco-1906.html">https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2016/04/18/today-in-earthquake-history-san-francisco-1906.html</a>
<p/>
(4) From: <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Northridge-earthquake-of-1994">https://www.britannica.com/event/Northridge-earthquake-of-1994</a>
<p/>
(5) From: <a href="https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/loma-prieta">https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/loma-prieta</a>
<p/>
(6) From: <a href="https://sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/earthquake-fault-silicon-valley-17468673.php">https://sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/earthquake-fault-silicon-valley-17468673.php</a>
<p/>
(7) From: <a href="https://www.optimumseismic.com/buildings-resilience/new-active-earthquake-faults-found-in-long-beach-and-seal-beach/">https://www.optimumseismic.com/buildings-resilience/new-active-earthquake-faults-found-in-long-beach-and-seal-beach/</a>
<p/>
(8) From: <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mysterious-tectonic-fault-zone-found-off-california-using-fiber-optics">https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mysterious-tectonic-fault-zone-found-off-california-using-fiber-optics</a>
<p/>
(9) From: <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-10-18/major-california-fault-line-moves-for-first-time-in-500-years">https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-10-18/major-california-fault-line-moves-for-first-time-in-500-years</a>
<p/>
(10) From: <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/03/08/california-earthquake-fault-line-san-diego-los-angeles-san-andreas/98903142/">https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/03/08/california-earthquake-fault-line-san-diego-los-angeles-san-andreas/98903142/</a>
<p/>
(11) From: <a href="https://earthsky.org/earth/new-earthquake-fault-discovered-in-california/">https://earthsky.org/earth/new-earthquake-fault-discovered-in-california/</a>
<p/>
(12) From: <a href="https://www.livescience.com/14636-earthquake-fault-california.html">https://www.livescience.com/14636-earthquake-fault-california.html</a>
<p/>
(13) From: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulnerability">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulnerability</a>
<p/>
(14) From: <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727143658.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727143658.htm</a>
<p/>
(15) From: <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/03/discovering-a-new-earthquake-fault-under-los-angeles/">https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/03/discovering-a-new-earthquake-fault-under-los-angeles/</a>
<p/>
(16) From: <a href="https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/02/28/a-slow-motion-section-of-the-san-andreas-fault-may-not-be-so-harmless-after-all/">https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/02/28/a-slow-motion-section-of-the-san-andreas-fault-may-not-be-so-harmless-after-all/</a>
<p/>
(17) From: <a href="https://riskandinsurance.com/ominous-san-andreas-fault-study-risk-of-a-big-quake-5x-higher-than-previously-thought/">https://riskandinsurance.com/ominous-san-andreas-fault-study-risk-of-a-big-quake-5x-higher-than-previously-thought/</a>
<p/>
(18) From: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/05/an-la-area-fault-looked-dormant-turns-out-it-can-cause-magnitude-quake-study-says/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/05/an-la-area-fault-looked-dormant-turns-out-it-can-cause-magnitude-quake-study-says/</a>
<p/>
(19) From: <a href="https://gizmodo.com/an-obscure-fault-in-southern-california-is-more-dangero-1792384199">https://gizmodo.com/an-obscure-fault-in-southern-california-is-more-dangero-1792384199</a>
<p/>
(20) From: <a href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-rose-canyon-20170531-story.html">https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-rose-canyon-20170531-story.html</a>
<p/>
(21) From: <a href="https://www.kpcc.org/2016-06-10/san-andreas-fault-might-be-stronger-than-we-though">https://www.kpcc.org/2016-06-10/san-andreas-fault-might-be-stronger-than-we-though</a>
<p/>
(22) From: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/earthquake-threat-to-california-may-be-greater-than-thought">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/earthquake-threat-to-california-may-be-greater-than-thought</a>
<p/>
(23) From: <a href="https://www.kqed.org/science/25305/next-napa-quake-could-be-bigger-stronger">https://www.kqed.org/science/25305/next-napa-quake-could-be-bigger-stronger</a>
<p/>
(24) From: <a href="https://news.uci.edu/2010/08/20/big-quakes-more-frequent-than-thought-on-san-andreas-fault/">https://news.uci.edu/2010/08/20/big-quakes-more-frequent-than-thought-on-san-andreas-fault/</a>
<p/>
Report prepared September 29, 2022 by Ace Hoffman
<p/>
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-82061133706549880282022-08-30T23:43:00.007-07:002022-09-01T10:42:18.857-07:00Extending Diablo Canyon's operating license: A fiasco waiting to happen...August 30, 2022
<br>
<br>Dear Readers,
<br>
<br>Extending Diablo Canyon's operating license is a violation of carefully debated and long-established agreements to close the reactors after their design life of 40 years.
<br>
<br>Rusted and age-worn parts are a pervasive problem at the aging plant. Numerous large structures would have to be replaced to last another 20 or 40 -- or 60??? years. And since shutdown in the next few years was an accepted and anticipated event, many parts are only being replaced if they fail (known as a "fix on fail" policy). These parts are assumed to not be "mission-critical" but not all multiple- or cascading parts failures have been evaluated. There are literally thousands of accident scenarios that are far more likely because so many parts are being neglected.
<br>
<br>Worker shortages plague the facility, and knowledgeable employees are being paid enormous bonuses to convince them to stay until the planned closure in the next few years. After nearly 40 years of operation, there is probably not a single employee left at the plant who actually helped build the plant, and none of the design engineers are available to confer with if there is a problem. In short, no one really knows how the plant works. Seriously!
<br>
<br>But that's only a few thousand good reasons to close Diablo Canyon today, rather than over the next couple of years, let alone, 20+ years from now (or will it be 40+ years, or 60+...or more?).
<br>
<br>California has a state law that new reactors cannot be built until and unless there is an out-of-state permanent repository for the nuclear waste.
<br>
<br>There's nothing of the sort anywhere, despite more than half a century of looking for such a place. After decades of searching, the federal government "finally" settled on Yucca Mountain in Nevada in 1987. Why Yucca Mountain? It's very dry there, far from population centers, and it was on Nevada Test Site land, which was already heavily polluted with radioactive debris from weapons testing.
<br>
<br>But that didn't work out. And a nearby city -- Las Vegas -- grew from a population of around 600,000 in 1987 to nearly three million permanent residents today. Yucca Mountain is no longer "far from any large population centers" if it ever really was.
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/DoEDraftEISCoverJuly1999VolumeIIAppendixesAthroughL.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" height="200" width="152" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="608" src="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/DoEDraftEISCoverJuly1999VolumeIIAppendixesAthroughL.png"/></a></div>
<br>In July, 1999 the Department of Energy published an enormous document in four thick books called The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County Nevada.
<br>
<br>I have a copy: It takes about half a foot of space on a bookshelf (see Figure 1).
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/TableH4FromJuly1999DoEDraftEISforYuccaMountain.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-left: 20px; text-align: center; clear: right; float: right;"><img alt="" border="0" height="640" width="263" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="329" src="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/TableH4FromJuly1999DoEDraftEISforYuccaMountain.png"/></a></div><br>
The EIS lists the isotopic content of a typical Pressurized Water Reactor spent fuel assembly, such as exists at Diablo Canyon. (see Figure 2 (Table H-4), which also lists the isotopic content for Boiling Water Reactor spent fuel -- but note that the values shown are for "low burnup" fuel. Diablo Canyon has been using "high burnup" fuel for several decades).
<br>
<br>The values in Table H-4 are enormous quantities of nuclear waste -- and that's just for one fuel assembly. A typical PWR will have two to three dozen fuel assemblies in each dry cask, and Diablo Canyon already has over 3 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel, much of it in nearly 100 dry casks -- over 2,000 fuel assemblies. Enormous amounts of additional fuel is also in the spent fuel pools and the operating reactors (approximately 2,000 additional fuel assemblies).
<br>
<br>Of the 3+ million pounds of spent fuel at DCNPP, at least 50,000 pounds of it is plutonium -- an incredibly toxic, man-made element that is virtually non-existent in nature. Enough for approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons. Just one pound of plutonium, if divided evenly and somehow distributed into the lung of every person on earth, is enough to cause everyone on earth to be virtually certain to get lung cancer. A few millionths of a gram is a lethal dose of plutonium.
<br>
<br>Plutonium is incredibly toxic, but it's hardly the only hazard that PG&E has created at DCNPP. Plutonium is considered an "activation product" because it was created when other elements absorbed neutrons, then decayed, creating new protons. Fission products (which result from splitting uranium and plutonium atoms) are also incredibly toxic and highly radioactive -- sometimes thousands of times more radioactive than plutonium, which in turn is thousands of times more radioactive than uranium. Many fission products, such as strontium and cesium, are "bone-seekers," others, such as radioactive iodine, are taken up by the thyroid. Tritium can end up anywhere in the human body, because it is a radioactive form of hydrogen. (Tritium is called Hydrogen-3 in Table H-4).
<br>
<br>Fission products created within the uranium fuel pellets escape from the fuel pellets and lodge -- under very high pressure -- in the gap between the fuel pellet and the fuel cladding (a buildup of fission products is one reason the fuel has to be removed from the reactor after a few years and replaced with "fresh" reactor fuel).
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/Boeing747versusDryCask20220503D.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height = "444" width="600" data-original-height="592" data-original-width="800" src="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/Boeing747versusDryCask20220503D.png"/></a></div>
<br>The fuel cladding (usually an alloy of zirconium) is liable to catch fire if, for example, and aircraft were to crash into a dry cask (see photo (figure 3) for a comparison of the relative sizes of a large jet to a dry cask).
<br>
<br>If the fuel cladding burns, the fission products will be released to the atmosphere. This is a very serious accident, but by no means the worst that can happen. That might come next:
<br>
<br>If the fuel cladding burns away, the fuel pellets themselves will fall to the bottom of the spent fuel cask (see figure 4). As they pile up in a fire, they might just sit there. But whoa to the firefighters who might try to put the fire out with a stream of water! Water slows neutrons down very effectively -- it's used in PWRs and BWRs for that purpose, because "slow" neutrons (also known as "thermal" neutrons) are far more likely to be "captured" but other uranium and/or plutonium atoms, thus causing a self-sustaining nuclear reaction.
<br>
<br>This is known as a "criticality event". Even very old fuel -- hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years old -- can "go critical" under the right conditions -- and a spent fuel cladding fire followed by water intrusion creates the right conditions for a criticality event, although there are other scenarios as well (and what if it's raining when the plane crashes, for instance)? This is all described in the 1999 EIS (see section K.2.5).
<br>
<br>At Yucca Mountain, they had a plan to prevent such a scenario. It was two-fold: Firstly, they gambled that an airplane was unlikely to strike the spent fuel canisters (this was Nevada, after all, the gambling capital of America). Secondly, they intended to store the spent fuel canisters in buildings with very thick cement walls, so that even if a plane did strike the site, they concluded it was unlikely to cause a "significant" fuel release to the environment. And very unlikely to cause a criticality.
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/WhatIsAFuelAssembly20220831A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="600" height="277" data-original-height="370" data-original-width="800" src="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/WhatIsAFuelAssembly20220831A.png"/></a></div>
<br>
<br>Their guesswork (they admit that many numbers were "rough estimates") undoubtedly minimized many potential dangers, but the most egregious was probably ignoring sabotage or terrorism in the form of an intentional airplane strike. Could that be excused since it was before 9-11? And before a GermanWings pilot intentionally flew a planeload of people into a mountain? And before MH-370 was flown off course until it ran out of fuel and dropped into the sea with all souls lost? And before a China Airways plane plummeted nearly straight down for no apparent reason a few months ago? And before Russia threatened to destroy the Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactor site in Ukraine, which they are continuing to threaten to do?
<br>
<br>No, there's no excuse for ignoring intentional air crashes: In the 1970s, at least one hijacker had already threatened to crash the jet he had taken control of into nuclear facilities (fortunately, he did not follow through with that threat.)
<br>
<br>Spent fuel at Diablo Canyon is NOT properly contained. It is NOT safe. It will NOT be going to a permanent repository any time soon -- if ever.
<br>
<br>Can we really afford to double the amount of waste there, if we won't even properly contain what is already there, on earthquake faults, exposed to airplane strikes or other terrorism, from drone swarms to laser-guided rockets?
<br>
<br>The longer spent fuel has been removed from a reactor, the safer it is. It's never safe, but it is several orders-of-magnitude more dangerous in the first few decades immediately after it is removed from the spent fuel pools (where it is so dangerous, if the pools drain for any reason, or circulation is stopped for too long, the worst ecological disaster in American history would occur).
<br>
<br>We should not be making more nuclear waste, since there are clean alternatives that do not add to the risk with every kilowatt of electricity they produce.
<br>
<br>Electricity is not, and never was, the main product of Diablo Canyon.
<br><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/activityInSpentFuelOverTime.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="800" src="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/activityInSpentFuelOverTime.png"/></a></div>
<br>Nuclear waste is, was, and always will be what Diablo Canyon will be most famous for creating (see figure 5).
<br>
<br>Do not relicense the reactors at Diablo Canyon. Enough is Enough!
<br>
<br>Ace Hoffman
<br>Carlsbad, CA
<br>
<p/><hr/>
<br>Figure 1:
<br><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/DoEDraftEISCoverJuly1999VolumeIIAppendixesAthroughL.png">http://acehoffman.org/sano/DoEDraftEISCoverJuly1999VolumeIIAppendixesAthroughL.png</a>
<br>
<br>Figure 2:
<br><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/TableH4FromJuly1999DoEDraftEISforYuccaMountain.png">http://acehoffman.org/sano/TableH4FromJuly1999DoEDraftEISforYuccaMountain.png</a>
<br>
<br>Figure 3:
<br><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/Boeing747versusDryCask20220503D.png">http://acehoffman.org/sano/Boeing747versusDryCask20220503D.png</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>Figure 4:
<br><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/WhatIsAFuelAssembly20220831A.png">http://acehoffman.org/sano/WhatIsAFuelAssembly20220831A.png</a>
<br>
<br>Figure 5:
<br><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/activityInSpentFuelOverTime.png">http://acehoffman.org/sano/activityInSpentFuelOverTime.png</a>
<br>
<br>Figure 5 is from:
<br><<a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0402/ML040200340.pdf">https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0402/ML040200340.pdf</a>><a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0402/ML040200340.pdf">https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0402/ML040200340.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>Enough is Enough! (90-second video about Diablo Canyon):
<br><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/DCNPP_EnoughIsEnough20220829A.mp4">http://acehoffman.org/sano/DCNPP_EnoughIsEnough20220829A.mp4</a>
<br>
<br>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-70627237325763338412022-08-30T09:35:00.003-07:002022-08-30T15:29:08.528-07:00Stop Diablo Canyon relicensing reversal! Vote due in CA state legislature tomorrow (8/31/2022)!<font size=3>Dear Reader,<br><br> Please check out my short (<90 second) video on why Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant should NOT be relicensed:<br><br> <a href="http://www.acehoffman.org">acehoffman.org</a> (top item)<br> or directly:<br> <a href="http://acehoffman.org/sano/DCNPP_EnoughIsEnough20220829A.mp4" eudora="autourl"> http://acehoffman.org/sano/DCNPP_EnoughIsEnough20220829A.mp4<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/EnoughIsEnough20220829StillImage.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="368" data-original-width="680" src="http://www.acehoffman.org/sano/EnoughIsEnough20220829StillImage.jpg"/></a></div>
<br> </a>And, I appologize for the late notice, but below is an announcement of an important press conference which is coming up at noon today (PST).<br><br> Ace Hoffman<br> Carlsbad, CA<br><br>
<p>
Here is a recording of the Press Conference On Newsom’s Diablo Canyon SB 846 <br/>
<a href="https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/uMr2Hx9rBqFe1aUolYAm6c3FIrMIEG9QPBu0ClO9AS-rAjqxrGv7QbI24Gyh8kH4.uT_sh9cD15ixI4Ul?startTime=1661886228000">https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/uMr2Hx9rBqFe1aUolYAm6c3FIrMIEG9QPBu0ClO9AS-rAjqxrGv7QbI24Gyh8kH4.uT_sh9cD15ixI4Ul?startTime=1661886228000</a> Passcode: kVn^4k89
============================================================<br> DIABLO CANYON PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY @ NOON: ALL HANDS ON DECK TO STOP NEWSOM'S PRO-NUKE ANTI-SOLAR BLITZKREIG BY TOMORROW (WEDNESDAY) NIGHT <br> <div align="center"><i>STOP<br><br> <br> NEWSOM'S<br><br> <br> PRO-NUKE<br><br> <br> ANTI-SOLAR<br><br> <br> DIABLO<br><br> <br> BLITZKREIG<br><br> </i></div> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=81cba14da4&e=29c671b571"> <img src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/65367c56467b777f25df30005/images/SolatopiaBanner.jpg" width=422 height=165 alt="[]"> </a></i> <br> </font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=4><b>Tuesday August 30, 2022 Emergency Statewide Press Conference </b></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4><b>To Oppose Governor Gavin Newsom's$1.4 Billion Giveaway to PG&E to Keep the Unreliable Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Open</b></font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>Tuesday August 30, 2022 12:00 Noon PST</font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Zoom <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=16187f9b36&e=29c671b571"> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3290219617?pwd=OTFGZUVKcDd4bzVkVjl5ZS94QmdoQT09</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4> <b>Media Contacts:</b></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Donna Gilmore: 949.204.7794</font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Steve Zeltzer: 415.867.0628</font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Myla Reson: 310.663.7660</font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>There is an emergency press conference on Tuesday, August 30th at 12:00pm PST to oppose Governor Newsom's SB846 scheme to change state law so PG&E can reap billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars to keep the unreliable Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors operating well past their licensed expiration dates. The legislature is slated to vote on the bill this Wednesday, circumventing the democratic process of allowing for a full debate.</font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>The Governor is pressuring the legislature to support this bill by falsely claiming that both reactors must be kept running to prevent blackouts during peak energy demand hours. The fact is that the records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reveal that these reactors have been highly unreliable. One or both reactors have been down an average of 40 percent of the days in each of the last four years.</font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>This bill's real impact will be to unnecessarily burden taxpayers and ratepayers across California. Ratepayers who receive their electricity from other utilities (SDG&E, SCE, PG&E, CCA's) will be forced to pay for Diablo Canyon in their electric bills, too. The bill will also continue to impede deployment of badly needed renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro technologies.</font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>Speakers will discuss these and other problems with this bill at the statewide press conference.</font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>Daniel Hirsch, Committee to Bridge the Gap</font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Donna Gilmore, San <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=4b6bfdcc4b&e=29c671b571"> OnofreSafety.org</a> </font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Andrew Christie, Director, Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra Club</font><font size=3><br> Cathy Iwane, Coalition for Nuclear Safety<br> </font><font size=4>Harvey Wasserman, Author, Historian</font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Arnie Gunderson, Fairewinds Energy Education</font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4>Steve Zeltzer, No Nukes Action Committee'</font><font size=3><br><br> <br> </font><font size=4>Additional Information for SB846</font><font size=3> <br><br> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=3bc9c9ac51&e=29c671b571"> There's only one way Newsom's Diablo Canyon nuclear plan makes sense</a></font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>(<i>SF Chronicle</i>, Editorial, 8/28/22)</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=488912f5d9&e=29c671b571"> We're days away from a Diablo Canyon decision. Here's why one side has a better argument</a> (<i>LA Times</i>, Column, Steve Lopez, 8/26/22)</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=961a7e98ad&e=29c671b571"> California can't count on Diablo Canyon's nuclear power, so it should spend now on renewables</a> (<i>LA Times</i>, Editorial, 8/24/22)</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=f3223ea402&e=29c671b571"> Keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open is a dangerous waste of effort and money</a> (<i>LA Times,</i> Column, Michael Hiltzik, 8/16/22)</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=acc8dbbbdb&e=29c671b571"> Extending the life of PG&E's Diablo Canyon power plant is the problem, not nuclear energy</a> (<i>Sacramento Bee</i>, Editorial, 7/17/222)</font><font size=3> </ul><br> <br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=ca01742693&e=29c671b571"> Senate Testimony of Kim Delfino on Diablo Extension</a></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://nonukesca.net/senate-testimony-of-kim-delfino-on-diablo-extension/" eudora="autourl"> https://nonukesca.net/senate-testimony-of-kim-delfino-on-diablo-extension/</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=db2c53b65f&e=29c671b571"> Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi - Statement on Diablo Extension</a></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://nonukesca.net/assembly-member-al-muratsuchi-statement-on-diablo-extension/" eudora="autourl"> https://nonukesca.net/assembly-member-al-muratsuchi-statement-on-diablo-extension/</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=7bb3b97125&e=29c671b571"> Testimony of Ralph Cavanagh - Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee August 25, 2922</a></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://nonukesca.net/testimony-of-ralph-cavanagh-senate-energy-utilities-and-communications-committee-august-25-2922/" eudora="autourl"> https://nonukesca.net/testimony-of-ralph-cavanagh-senate-energy-utilities-and-communications-committee-august-25-2922/</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=28d673642c&e=29c671b571"> Testimony of Ed Smeloff, Clean Power Campaign on Diablo Extension</a></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://nonukesca.net/testimony-of-ed-smeloff-on-diablo-extension/" eudora="autourl"> https://nonukesca.net/testimony-of-ed-smeloff-on-diablo-extension/</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=8244dbb1a0&e=29c671b571"> Testimony of Mark Tony of TURN on Diablo Extension</a></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://nonukesca.net/testimony-of-mark-tony-on-diablo-extension/" eudora="autourl"> https://nonukesca.net/testimony-of-mark-tony-on-diablo-extension/</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://solartopia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=65367c56467b777f25df30005&id=49c381cbfc&e=29c671b571"> Final Q&A Session re PG&E Profits Assembly Hearing 8-25-2022</a></font><font size=3><br> </font><font size=4> <a href="https://nonukesca.net/final-qa-session-re-pge-profits-assembly-hearing-8-25-2022/" eudora="autourl"> https://nonukesca.net/final-qa-session-re-pge-profits-assembly-hearing-8-25-2022/</a> </font><font size=3><br><br> </font><font size=4>Critical Reasons to Oppose SB846: </font><font size=3></font> <ul> <li><font size=4>NEW FUNDING SOURCES FOR RENEWABLES MAKES DIABLO CANYON OBSOLETE (via the new Federal Inflation Reduction Act): <ul> <li>Distributed renewables are getting not only $50B in direct manufacturing subsidies and ~$200B in renewables supply <li>Nearly limitless tax credits are available <ul> <li>Anybody who needs tax deductions can get them from anybody who buys solar/wind/battery</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>We could literally pay zero federal tax for the next 10 years if we prioritized the energy revolution</font><font size=3> </font> </ul> <li><font size=4>Renewables can power all other priorities and revenue sources when they are not sabotaged</font><font size=3> </ul> </ul> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4>The state legislature *does NOT* need to act immediately on Diablo; rather SB846 is a bad faith deal intended to be forced on Californians secretly at the literal midnight hour end of the legislative session (Wednesday August 31)</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>This rush to extend Diablo's licensing period was pushed by non-registered lobbyists</font><font size=3> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4>Some "environmental experts" covered in the media are utility managers (one was a PG&E CEO!)</font><font size=3> </font> </ul> <li><font size=4>An existing agreement was already negotiated by major interested parties and written into law as SB1090</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>The operator of Diablo (PG&E) cannot be trusted: it is a convicted felon that went bankrupt because of its disastrous safety record</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>Diablo Canyon's poorly maintained reactors are unreliable with 40% down days every year (for one or both reactors).</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>To prevent blackouts due to shortages in grid supply</font><font size=3> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4>1 GW of battery is already coming online to cover both peak hours and downtime of power plants</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>A massive offshore wind project is scheduled to come online at the same time as the Diablo license expires</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>The independent system operator (ISO), CEC and CPUC reports state that we won't have blackouts if Diablo is closed. Governor Newsom has provided no evidence to the contrary.</font><font size=3> </font> </ul> <li><font size=4>Rooftop solar *by itself* already generates *more* power than Diablo (by 20-40% statewide) *and* supports more good paying jobs</font><font size=3> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4>1500 Workers at Diablo, 70,000 Distributed Renewables workers statewide</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>Rooftop solar gets cut off when rolling blackouts happen, and is not even paid its fair share for its contribution to the grid</font><font size=3> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4>Per former CPUC president (Loretta Lynch): ISO prioritizes exports to other states for profit rather than California Ratepayers for reliability</font><font size=3> </font> </ul> </ul> <li><font size=4>Nuclear power impedes the development of adequate safe, clean energy in California</font><font size=3> </ul> </font> <ul> <li><font size=4>SB846 Makes all ratepayers who are in CCA's, SDG&E, SCE, PG&E pay for Diablo Canyon in their electric bills and taxes.</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>CalPERS official position is opposed to the extension of Diablo's license</font><font size=3> </font> <li><font size=4>PG&E is demanding an Open checkbook Repairs and upgrades needed to renew Diablo's license can be in the multiple $billions and will result in higher electric rates <li>In summary: PG&E is panicking about facing actual competition and making a desperate grab for $3.3B in profits on a stranded monolith asset.</font><font size=3> </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> </ul>August 30, 2022<br> </font>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-38646269199305210892022-08-16T14:32:00.006-07:002022-08-25T08:05:39.169-07:00Shut Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant down now. Don't even wait. Don't relicense.August 16, 2022<br/>
by Ace Hoffman
<p/>
Should the state of California and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) seek to relicense the aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant's two reactors, rather than shut them down in 2024 and 2025, as currently planned?
<p/>
Absolutely not! Consider the nuclear dilemmas France is in right now:
<p/>
France's electric supply is in deep trouble as a result of relying on the most unreliable source of energy ever invented: Nuclear Power. France's government-regulated national utility company, EDF, has just declared bankruptcy and been "taken over" by the French government. And what is the French government going to do with a bunch of broken reactors and a bunch more that cannot get enough water to operate because of a continent-wide drought?
<p/>
The French would be better off turning to BOTH of the following: Better efficiency and more renewables.
<p/>
Any other choice is bound to result in more expense and more problems later. Renewables are fully ready to take over, at lower cost and with much higher reliability.
<p/>
Yes, higher reliability. Renewables, combined with battery storage (in electric vehicles (EVs), for example) and other forms of electrical energy storage (such as pumped hydro) is the *most* reliable energy system possible today, because it is distributed and very predictable.
<p/>
The nuclear industry claims to have a >90% "reliability" factor. But they don't want you to consider the impact of sudden unexpected long-term shutdowns. And they'll even take a reactor "off the books" during extended shutdowns to maintain the appearance of higher capacity factors and reliability factors. And many natural disasters (fire, flood, hurricane, earthquake, etc.) require taking nuclear power plants offline just when electrical power is needed the most.
<p/>
Currently, approximately half of France's nuclear reactors are shut down. At least eight of those are shut for stress corrosion cracking of the reactor pressure vessels, which can lead to a catastrophic accident far worse than Chernobyl, Fukushima AND Three Mile Island combined. Those RPVs were built by Creusot Forge, which was discovered to be corrupt, didn't work the metals properly, and failed to do proper testing before shipping the forgings to the reactor sites. Many other French reactors were built by the same company and if they're not suffering from stress corrosion cracking yet...they will.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAAsxJNYpvSsvCbzht7yzOLJn7bULXB-xuTrfne0BnlQosX7xOy4aX91A1Yk66XntgTSHooYnj7M9njQqgJUAYHJAqgAQDWhyp48d87pbf989zJM1m68qooD_EpvOK1lcQjdfzIwLi-XX9NpaKuMUPp1oMr87yJ9J3tD7rS4P-mhiO0XzbX-bdNtAy/s1200/DiabloCanyonRustAndLeakFrom2020.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="200" data-original-height="819" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAAsxJNYpvSsvCbzht7yzOLJn7bULXB-xuTrfne0BnlQosX7xOy4aX91A1Yk66XntgTSHooYnj7M9njQqgJUAYHJAqgAQDWhyp48d87pbf989zJM1m68qooD_EpvOK1lcQjdfzIwLi-XX9NpaKuMUPp1oMr87yJ9J3tD7rS4P-mhiO0XzbX-bdNtAy/s200/DiabloCanyonRustAndLeakFrom2020.png"/></a></div>
Stress corrosion cracking is the same sort of cracking that has been found on one of the Diablo Canyon's reactor pressure vessels. And it's the same sort of cracking which plagues the entire nuclear industry. And one key fact about stress corrosion cracking is that it is difficult to find, even more difficult to repair, and almost impossible to predict how quickly it will spread from a small problem to a catastrophic one.
<p/>
Stress corrosion cracking also affects the thin-walled spent fuel canisters Diablo Canyon uses -- the same kind used throughout the nuclear industry in America. The fewer of those there are in existence, the safer we all are.
<p/>
DCNPP supplies only a single-digit fraction of California's electricity needs, and a far smaller portion of our total energy needs. And on top of that, for years the large utilities have been "fudging the books" to make the percentage supplied by nuclear power seem larger than it actually is. For example, anyone who manages to disconnect from the grid completely...is completely removed from the accounting. Even those who power most of their electricity themselves often have that portion removed. So things are not as they seem, and California is a lot further along to energy independence than the large utilities want to admit.
<p/>
Perhaps more importantly, the technologies needed to transition already exist. EVs exist in abundance now, and can power a typical house for days if needed. Highly efficient solar panels and wind turbines exist. Wave and tidal systems also exist and can be utilized as well. Geothermal systems have barely been tapped in the state. Electricity transmission can and should be a two-way street: Solar rooftops take up zero ground space that isn't already being utilized, and sending excess power to the grid should result in healthy payments. (PG&E should be required to sell ALL their transmission lines to a third party, and just operate large non-nuclear and non-fossil fuel power generating systems.)
<p/>
Replacing Diablo Canyon's sporadic output with clean and reliable renewable systems is only part of the battle, of course. DCNPP's power output can be completely eliminated with greater efficiency and NO additional capacity.
<p/>
It takes a bit more effort on the part of the consumer, but not an undue amount. However, some things might require subsidized assistance to make it happen: For example, homes made of adobe, which is mostly quartz (silicon dioxide) are far better insulated than homes made of gypsum (calcium sulfate). Homes built with adobe walls last longer too -- hundreds of years. They keep you cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. So what's the problem? Quartz is much harder, making it harder to work with, and harder to dig out of the ground. We have few, if any, adobe manufacturing plants in California. But tax breaks could change all that. Building an efficient home that lasts should be cost-effective for the original builder, so that generations of people who live there can save on electricity bills.
<p/>
Electric vehicles can communicate with each other to reduce traffic congestion by taking alternate routes and by safely squeezing more cars at higher speeds into the same lanes. But that takes a lot of regulatory help, including pushing out the older, inefficient ICE cars that spew toxic vapors and are not significantly computerized with modern interconnected systems. Human-operated vehicles would be kept out of the high-speed, dense lanes, and eventually from all the main highways and byways. Sorry, but technology MUST move forward if civilization is to survive!
<p/>
People who want DCNPP to stay open complain loudly that some of these technologies suggested here (and many others) don't exist in fully deployable form right now. This is largely completely false, but for those items for which it might be somewhat correct, I'd like to know why those same pro-nukers ignore the fact that the nuclear power industry has STILL not even begun to solve the nuclear waste problem. Letting the waste sit in deadly piles at widely scattered locations in California is a recipe for disaster: That waste is vulnerable to airplane strikes (accidental OR on purpose), other acts of terrorism, war, earthquakes, and many other hazards (including, for the coastal nuclear waste sites, tsunamis that could be hundreds of feet tall).
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieFQ8HxhaQMqmMLFE7zFJypeR2O5IXQpebgbaO3j4hSBdES27co6bhWkzwP1kB1s48shQtUYOsQbI9DeT6P5YnXPXPoaZLe2Jt_kug9-ORBaI8B4F_e-cBWNjbmw7Q5Og--8j9b3P243vMjYtXPRIrIrV8jykYANyoNkunKvi5NDY87LyMc31soJFX/s937/RadiationVsTime20220423P.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="695" data-original-width="937" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieFQ8HxhaQMqmMLFE7zFJypeR2O5IXQpebgbaO3j4hSBdES27co6bhWkzwP1kB1s48shQtUYOsQbI9DeT6P5YnXPXPoaZLe2Jt_kug9-ORBaI8B4F_e-cBWNjbmw7Q5Og--8j9b3P243vMjYtXPRIrIrV8jykYANyoNkunKvi5NDY87LyMc31soJFX/s320/RadiationVsTime20220423P.png"/></a></div>
Nuclear waste takes millions of years to decay to less toxic, or non-toxic, isotopes, but the rate of decay slows greatly over time. So the sooner California stops making new nuclear waste, the better by far.
<p/>
Do NOT relicense the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Doing so is a recipe for disaster. It sets the stage for a prolonged extreme risk. Although the current "offer" (or rather, "devil's bargain") is that the plant will only remain open for an extra five to seven years so that renewables can "ramp up" in the meantime, that's NOT what the license would be for: That would be 20 years, with another extension possible after that, according to the biased, industry-funded and industry-lapdog federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which has already licensed some reactors for an incredible 80 years of creating nuclear waste (and electricity), with talk of going to 100 year extensions.
<p/>
Embrittlement, rust, stress corrosion cracking -- call it what you will, an aging reactor is a dangerous reactor (so is a new one).
<p/>
Lastly, it must not be ignored that PG&E has been deferring numerous maintenance issues they would have resolved by now if they had expected to keep the reactors operating beyond their current close dates. These repairs will cost downtime and ratepayer money and add to the reactor's accident risk potential unless they are properly handled in a timely manner. The costs of any repairs will be paid with money that would be far better spent building up California's renewables portfolio. And after they are done (at great expense) one can completely expect PG&E to apply to keep the reactors operating for the rest of the license period -- and beyond. PG&E has proven their dishonest intentions time and again. Don't be fooled this time.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, California
<p/>
The author is an independent researcher. Hoffman has studied nuclear power for more than 50 years and has interviewed, and/or worked with, and/or been educated by, dozens of leading experts in and around the nuclear industry, including John Gofman, Ernest Sternglass, Karl Z. Morgan, Marion Fulk, Helen Caldicott, Arjun Makhijani, Arnie Gundersen, Judith Johnsrud, Rosalie Bertell, Daniel Hirsch, Stanley Thompson, Ed Siegel, Kay Drey, Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, Carrie Dickerson, Cecile Pineda, and many others, as well as attending lectures and presentations by Timothy Mouseau, Kate Brown, Mary Olson, Ian Fairlie, and at least a dozen atomic bomb test veterans...the list goes on in an endless quest for information and explanations. Hoffman has a collection of over 500 books on nuclear technology, weapons, regulations...and failures, from 1945 to the present. He has attended over 100 NRC and State of California hearings on nuclear topics, as well as related hearings in New Mexico and Connecticut. All views expressed here are his own.
<br/>
<hr/>
Addendum:
<p/>
As Paul Dorfman wrote on Twitter:
<p/>
"Gosh, there's quite a lot of FR EDF nuclear reactors 're-fueling'.
<p/>
I'm sure it's nothing to do with the corrosion safety problems the FR regulator, ASN, has outed.
<p/>
Also nothing to do with climate impact river heating, compromising reactors cooling/discharge.."
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmPhCKzBsCeD-g8G9kgnuQbYgeQaE-aSk5aeAXk3ge7sFuXicPg5l212Vw3CcYV8kPCgrK-Lw4EX86wdNM0FWyxFYM_8KDkfANeOe5VHDbIx7-0oFZd1gAkwGsktwjWhrCaQtxsPdVIMAFHnkb9lRz-X4wd7fBvDkR41ImEhpdaW0xPVyAyxZjdwGr/s680/FaR92_vXwAQfhuN.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="488" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmPhCKzBsCeD-g8G9kgnuQbYgeQaE-aSk5aeAXk3ge7sFuXicPg5l212Vw3CcYV8kPCgrK-Lw4EX86wdNM0FWyxFYM_8KDkfANeOe5VHDbIx7-0oFZd1gAkwGsktwjWhrCaQtxsPdVIMAFHnkb9lRz-X4wd7fBvDkR41ImEhpdaW0xPVyAyxZjdwGr/s600/FaR92_vXwAQfhuN.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
<hr/>
<p/>
The following statement was submitted to the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Panel of "experts" on Wednesday, August 24, 2022:
<p/>
Diablo Canyon's lifespan should NOT be extended.
<p/>
August 24, 2022
<p/>
Regarding DCNPP and the proposal to extend the life of the reactors, first of all, we need to admit that everything is guesswork. Will there be a catastrophic accident? Nobody knows. But meanwhile, Fukushima proved that as long as there are "beyond design basis" accidents, there are NO experts. Beyond design basis accidents are unevaluated, unexpected, unnatural, and hopefully unlikely -- but they might happen tomorrow, and no one will be able to stop it.
<p/>
And in fact, so-called "solutions" for beyond design basis accidents are actually just mitigation of the catastrophic effects. How quickly can people be informed of the danger? How far from the plant must they be evacuated? When (if ever) can people go back to their homes? All of these (and many more potential actions) are mitigations after a catastrophic beyond design basis accident. They do not prevent that accident.
<p/>
Shutdown does.
<p/>
Also, to make the right decisions for future generations, we would need to know what to do with the nuclear waste it generates. While we might get some electricity today, future generations will have to manage the waste without getting any benefit, but with great risk and cost all their lives.
<p/>
The less we leave them, and the cooler it is, the better for them.
<p/>
Regarding the money Joe Biden has offered the nuclear industry, it is blood money. It is a bribe. Don't accept it. Let some other state take it if they want it, let them be the sucker.
<p/>
Regarding the embrittlement of Unit 1, while it might be true that the steel pressure vessel is "ductile" when it is very hot, the question is: Can it be cooled properly? Nobody knows. But we do know that at Fukushima, they decided to pour ocean water on the reactor. Cold, salty, and millions of gallons were needed. Can Unit 1 survive that?
<p/>
Regarding earthquakes, for some reason the "worst case scenario" is being considered in isolation. It is just a guess. It does not consider what happens if, say, the San Andreas fault causes the Hosgri fault to also snap. The reactor might be only slightly damaged from the first quake -- but will be hanging by a thread when the second quake happens, from another fault line, in a different direction.
<p/>
Lastly, there is no reason to consider Diablo Canyon to be a good "baseload" system. Unscheduled shutdowns in older plants are far more common than in the middle of their lifespan. Diablo Canyon has already entered that phase.
<p/>
Shut it down and keep it shut. Don't tempt fate.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, California
<p/>
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-82393726225940673412022-08-05T16:54:00.013-07:002022-08-07T13:08:38.211-07:00A response to pro-nuker James Conca by Ace HoffmanA response to pro-nuker James Conca's highly biased opinion piece posted at the Southern California Edison web site July 26, 2022 (shown below)
<p/>
by Ace Hoffman<br/>
July 29, 2022
<p/>
Nuclear proponents are eager to denigrate the SCIENCE and the SCIENTISTS of the opposition.
<p/>
They are equally eager to believe their own dogma, such that they'll misread their own studies and make claims those studies don't support! Dr. James Conca, in his letter to the Voice of OC from July 26, 2022 (posted at the SoCalEdison web site, I don't know if VOC published it), makes this mistake with his very first footnote, which he uses to claim no harm, while the footnoted document itself states very clearly that the interaction between ionizing radiation and living tissue "can cause damage."
<p/>
Dr. Conca claims that low levels of nuclear radiation are harmless, using "oxidation" as some sort of analogous proof, by claiming that radioactive emissions do "exactly" the same damage. But there are a number of crucial additional considerations, most importantly, where inside the body the effects might take place. There are also physical differences between an oxidizer and a radioactive emitter (a point Conca seems to have missed completely). Both oxidative stress and radioactive stress are underlying factors in heart disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disease. Oxidative stress can and should be reduced by changing one's diet, stopping smoking, and many other ways. Radioactive elements, once they are in the environment, are essentially impossible to avoid.
<p/>
Mysteriously, Conca ignores thousands of studies that have proven him wrong, starting with Alice Stewart's research in the 1950s, showing that even ONE x-ray of a pregnant woman increased the risk of leukemia later in the life of the fetus. Just one. Not a cumulative effect of a hundred or more x-rays over a lifetime.
<p/>
Modern dental x-ray equipment creates about 1/5th of the radiation per x-ray that older x-ray machines created. Thus, they are much safer.
<p/>
To "prove" radiation is safe, Conca describes a few unnamed random scientists he has known who have *not* died of provable radiation exposures they received during their lab work. That's not how statistics works (what he's doing is called "confirmation bias"). In most cases it is nearly impossible to prove that radiation caused a particular cancer. Nuclear proponents get enormous political mileage from this fact.
<p/>
Conca completely dismisses the thousands of studies done in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine that show unequivocally that hundreds of thousands of people have already died because of the Chernobyl accident -- even Russia has admitted that dozens of "first responders" have died.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgYVESnnCXLR6HONi3BWCRUJ0RZBvVu_cjCFyI4XYpwTKFD9oWBGG_iHtn1TKCgBEzaQFRXeAm-JCXYeh42K22cry_CXkLt3IIru6BBXYQ_dyxm5bK-2VeO-IGW4TgarixORgX_fyXRtjKjtKPaSfykjyJVnYWKLYOuWB8TvY5Iwr9bJt5gZyIl_hx/s3840/ChernobylBooksAndPhotosThenAndNow20220426B.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2160" data-original-width="3840" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgYVESnnCXLR6HONi3BWCRUJ0RZBvVu_cjCFyI4XYpwTKFD9oWBGG_iHtn1TKCgBEzaQFRXeAm-JCXYeh42K22cry_CXkLt3IIru6BBXYQ_dyxm5bK-2VeO-IGW4TgarixORgX_fyXRtjKjtKPaSfykjyJVnYWKLYOuWB8TvY5Iwr9bJt5gZyIl_hx/s400/ChernobylBooksAndPhotosThenAndNow20220426B.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzJWdo4Sv6spj3KLFbTi_-1Tz-aPR8M8x71gXkxIzn--BE0oWF-6oNZQe9qJBtoUot3Qx7h7_Ei5mPJdcenoEpYIwvdBfKtz9ETbExnm_6sfZV8e-hXVpWVkZC_vhhMVFnI6waI9NoYs27o2-CCPHKFwpS-VLozjP4Fuh9BfkI65ig_q-clkk4X9-p/s2148/ManualForSurvival_KateBrown.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-left: 20px; text-align: center; clear: right; float: right;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="2148" data-original-width="1431" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzJWdo4Sv6spj3KLFbTi_-1Tz-aPR8M8x71gXkxIzn--BE0oWF-6oNZQe9qJBtoUot3Qx7h7_Ei5mPJdcenoEpYIwvdBfKtz9ETbExnm_6sfZV8e-hXVpWVkZC_vhhMVFnI6waI9NoYs27o2-CCPHKFwpS-VLozjP4Fuh9BfkI65ig_q-clkk4X9-p/s320/ManualForSurvival_KateBrown.png"/></a></div>Conca should read Manual for Survival, by MIT historian of environmental and nuclear history Kate Brown. She writes that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimated that fallout from Nevada weapons testing "caused an extra 11,000 to 200,000 thyroid cancers among Americans." This was due to the release of approximately 20 billion Curies of radioactive Iodine, about three times *more* radioactive Iodine than was released by the Chernobyl disaster, and which was hardly the only hazardous radioactive substance released from either the Nevada tests, the Chernobyl disaster, or any other accidental or intentional release.
<p/>
(I could recommend hundreds of other professionally researched books if space permitted.)
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP9WgkL5P6pXd4AKTTLs8vORxg8TFs2BoMM4N4jpnXgl7r6ywSRy2PUOatzYgX7wGcl5-a8bfVFDkvdPXtZxa52USdNJvnR1z2rPcGBMOqEbdV94BvU2gq3pqw9bxAcce691xGSOPhatnusL2y8-6U7ZFkiSTJhln_zad9oWPT9iZjO6eLSTaBTZM3/s2100/SourceCoversTogether20220121C.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="2100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP9WgkL5P6pXd4AKTTLs8vORxg8TFs2BoMM4N4jpnXgl7r6ywSRy2PUOatzYgX7wGcl5-a8bfVFDkvdPXtZxa52USdNJvnR1z2rPcGBMOqEbdV94BvU2gq3pqw9bxAcce691xGSOPhatnusL2y8-6U7ZFkiSTJhln_zad9oWPT9iZjO6eLSTaBTZM3/s600/SourceCoversTogether20220121C.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOTi56ygIuQveXsWKSjO6UrVVtKb3y8dkEw21CvlZnT5Q372Ig8jIjG7f4OUW0ibz6UEO4ymFH7DSFgKfds-BEdGB9DksedhMWDZq56z6mtKRE6zXW5wLvj0nk2itD7FJy1Lbc_mt_7h3YtzDgNbDkBcDKnfplKL5uxsg993kx4r8UfqEaXrzPcMZj/s3666/Plutopia_KateBrown.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="3666" data-original-width="2460" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOTi56ygIuQveXsWKSjO6UrVVtKb3y8dkEw21CvlZnT5Q372Ig8jIjG7f4OUW0ibz6UEO4ymFH7DSFgKfds-BEdGB9DksedhMWDZq56z6mtKRE6zXW5wLvj0nk2itD7FJy1Lbc_mt_7h3YtzDgNbDkBcDKnfplKL5uxsg993kx4r8UfqEaXrzPcMZj/s320/Plutopia_KateBrown.png"/></a></div>
Conca dismisses Chernobyl because -- he claims -- it was a "weapons reactor" with electricity production only as a side business. Although it was undoubtedly a dual-purpose reactor, Conca doesn't mention that it was based on stolen U.S. designs for reactors, nor does he mention that early U.S. reactors at Hanford were of the same design. In particular, the doomed Chernobyl reactor was "a close replica" of the N-reactor at Hanford. The Department of Energy closed the N-reactor permanenetly a few months after the Chernobyl disaster began (see page 291 of Plutopia by Kate Brown).
<p/>
Conca also completely ignores the harm and the risk of nuclear catastrophes that might occur in the future, due to sabotage, war, airplane impacts, maintenance failures, operator error, or even asteroid impacts. Too rare? Maybe you can make that claim for asteroids, but all of the others are closer to "inevitable" than to "impossible."
<p/>
Claiming no one died because of Three Mile Island or because of Fukushima defies logic and all the statistical evidence which highly qualified scientists have uncovered.
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWrTIBRAgFoCr_bw0jEEHzXVjXlH8eIwMdh8Cpg5Kg3iCuPKOs3g88hBPDRur4i9gyY4ZqMBKJbP-57MjxY3Fymh6fIJsj3cfBEBgdnUaJjdXT4oKNmK6h2hEsjFdnZlU0UFxkkrTn9fR_xdOWZDD46u1JAdyQs9xIjwWnXfFlAojXw4ZB-7Ag9bad/s3486/ConfessionsOfARogueNuclearRegulator_GregoryBJaczko.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" height="300" data-original-height="3486" data-original-width="2184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWrTIBRAgFoCr_bw0jEEHzXVjXlH8eIwMdh8Cpg5Kg3iCuPKOs3g88hBPDRur4i9gyY4ZqMBKJbP-57MjxY3Fymh6fIJsj3cfBEBgdnUaJjdXT4oKNmK6h2hEsjFdnZlU0UFxkkrTn9fR_xdOWZDD46u1JAdyQs9xIjwWnXfFlAojXw4ZB-7Ag9bad/s400/ConfessionsOfARogueNuclearRegulator_GregoryBJaczko.png"/></a></div>Conca claims that Gregory Jaczko was "put on the NRC by the late Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada to kill the Yucca Mountain Project." Jaczko was appointed head of the NRC after being carefully scrutinized by the nuclear industry and by Washington. Yucca Mountain killed itself with technical problems that remain unsolvable to this day: Approximately 300 of them!
<p/>
And Dr. Jaczko was *removed* from the NRC's board of commissioners after Fukushima because his recommendations terrified the nuclear industry in America, so they pressured the NRC to have Jaczko removed. Jaczko was being reasonable in light of what we were learning as Fukushima unveiled numerous fatal flaws in reactor backup plans, government and industry response plans, and control systems, training, and equipment. For example, ALL GE BWR Mark 1 reactor designs should be closed permanently and immediately. We already knew that because of two whistleblowers, but Fukushima drove the lesson home. Yet more than a dozen BWR Mark 1 reactors are still operating in the U.S.A..
<p/>
Dr. James Conca is a highly biased supporter of nuclear power. That he should be so dismissive of the numerous scientific studies that have proven him wrong about nearly everything he claims should give everyone pause.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
The author has studied nuclear power and nuclear weapons for approximately half a century as an independent researcher.
<p/>
<hr>
Below is Dr. Conca's "guest editorial" posted at the Southern California Edison web site:
<hr>
With Nuclear Waste, Science Matters
<p/>
Guest editorial by Dr. James Conca
<p/>
The following is a guest editorial written by Dr. James Conca in response to an Op-Ed that appeared in the Voice of OC by an anti-nuclear activist.
<p/>
Dr. James Conca
<p/>
I read with interest an Op-Ed this month in the Voice of OC on nuclear energy and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Having recently retired from 35 years in nuclear, mainly as a research professor at New Mexico State University and Washington State University, and as a scientist at National Laboratories like Los Alamos, Pacific Northwest National Lab, and Lawrence Livermore, I was struck by the technical errors in her discussion. I was also impressed by how well she understands and executes obfuscation. In the following discussion, my references and links will not be to anti-nuclear activists or YouTube videos, but from the scientific literature and official reports from CDC, IEA, EIA, IAEA, UN, EU, DOE and NRC.
<p/>
Repeated claims that nuclear energy and its waste is dangerous are not true, these claims from another anti-nuclear activist notwithstanding. No one has ever been harmed by nuclear energy or nuclear waste in this country (1,2,3,4). No one was harmed by Three Mile Island. No one was killed from radiation from Fukushima (5), though Fukushima was listed as the cause of death for a worker who, sadly, died from a lifetime of heavy smoking. Few remember that Chernobyl was a weapons reactor that could also produce lots of power, and that was the reason for its failure (the reactor had no containment structure like Western reactors).
<p/>
Nuclear workers throughout history have had a lower cancer rate than the general population (6,7,8,9). People living near nuclear plants show no effects from living near them (10,11). This really says it all about safety.
<p/>
Further, nuclear is the safest form of energy. Its death print is the same as wind and solar (12) which are very low globally (0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity production for wind, 0.03 for nuclear, 0.02 for solar). In the U.S., nuclear and hydro are the lowest (13).
<p/>
I have handled and disposed of nuclear waste for 35 years. Disposing of nuclear waste of any kind is simple and safe. We are just not allowed to do it, in large part because of the fear generated by anti-nuclear activists, case in point the piece in the Voice of OC. Contrary to its assertions, there are no technical hurdles to disposal of spent nuclear fuel, only political ones.
<p/>
In fact, we have an operating deep geologic nuclear waste repository in New Mexico, called WIPP, that has shown it is safe and cost-effective to dispose of nuclear waste. It takes both high and low-radioactivity waste. WIPP was designed and built to dispose of all nuclear waste from any source. Later, it was only permitted to dispose of nuclear weapons waste, called TRU, and that was because of politics. WIPP is ten years ahead of schedule and a billion dollars under budget, a testament to how well this facility is working and how thoughtfully the host rock was selected.
<p/>
In its 23-year history, there was only one event, in 2014, not caused by WIPP itself, that released the Am-241 equivalent of 100 smoke detectors. SONGS' waste should eventually go to WIPP or a WIPP-like repository, we’ve already designed it. But no politician wants to touch this issue. These activists' efforts should be to champion WIPP or a WIPP-like repository so that SONGS waste could be removed from California, as it was always intended. Instead, they are slowing that process down.
<p/>
Examining the “Facts”
<p/>
Most facts presented by the writer are not facts, but rather anti-nuclear dogma. The claim that “Inhaling just a tiny speck of dust containing plutonium can kill you” is absurd. I have worked with many scientists who have inhaled many particles of Pu, and U, and many other radionuclides. They never showed any effects, and many have died of old age from health issues irrelevant to radiation. The others are still alive. I was Director of the CEMRC facilities near WIPP for six years. We had the instrumentation to track inhaled radioactive particles and detect them in the body, and we often detected them, including Pu, Am, U, Cs and Sr.
<p/>
Harold McCluskey, nicknamed the “Atomic Man” up here at the Hanford Site in Washington state, is the person who has inhaled the most radioactivity in history. In 1976, he was blasted by an enormous amount of Am-241, which is much more dangerous than Pu, breathing in so much he had to be handled by medical personnel in rad suits. But he lived to a ripe old age and died of a heart attack, something radiation does not cause. It just takes a huge amount of radiation to kill anyone.
<p/>
But even minor facts presented in that Op-Ed were off. The claim that the water table is 18 inches below the waste pad at SONGS is incorrect. It’s twice that. Maybe that’s minor, but it is an easily-obtainable number from the SONGS website if one had bothered to look.
<p/>
Similarly for their claims of thin-walled canisters at SONGS. These are the thickest-walled canisters in the industry. They were definitely designed for long-term storage and are not easily susceptible to stress corrosion. The writer continues to confuse these with France’s recycling canisters, which are thicker but built for a completely different purpose, that of storing waste prior to reprocessing.
<p/>
The most egregious claim is that there was “the blockbuster joint statement issued in January by nuclear authorities from the United States, France, Germany and Great Britain detailing strong opposition to any expansion of nuclear power as a strategy to combat climate change.” First, the people cited were not nuclear authorities from these countries. They are avowed anti-nuclear activists. I know Greg Jaczko, he was put on the NRC by the late Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada expressly to kill the Yucca Mountain Project. The same with the others: they do not represent the nuclear authorities nor the governments in those countries, as cleverly implied by the author.
<p/>
And all leading climate scientists from Jim Hansen and Kerry Emanuel on down, forcefully speak for nuclear, saying we cannot achieve our climate goals without it. Plus, the European Union just categorized nuclear as clean in order to meet its climate goals.
<p/>
Finally, the health effects from radiation are not cumulative. Again, the writer can be forgiven for not doing her homework, but she confuses global regulations developed during the Cold War, primarily to stop America’s above ground nuclear tests, with actual science. We adopted LNT, ALARA and Cumulative Effects to be conservative, not to reflect the scientific knowledge, even at that time. Those hypotheses assumed we did not have an immune system. But our immune system effectively repairs all radiation damage up to about 20 rem (0.2 Sv) acute. Radiation does not cause inheritable genetic effects, it is not a mutagen.
<p/>
For clarity, radiation acts as an oxidant in biological systems. Either as a gamma ray, a beta particle or an alpha particle, radiation acts exactly as oxygen in the body, by knocking an electron off a molecule, usually water as that is what we are mostly made of. But oxygen is a thousand times more effective at oxidizing than radiation, so our immune system can handle it easily since our cells (as with all eukaryotic cells) evolved about 2.3 billion years ago when oxygen first entered the atmosphere and background radiation levels were ten times what they are today. This is why we have become focused on anti-oxidants in our foods.
<p/>
And this is why it takes an acute dose of over 20 rem (0.2 Sv) to have any health effects—our immune system is very efficient—until it is overwhelmed.
<p/>
But the idea of cumulative effective dose is especially weird and has been used in areas outside of radiation, such as in medicinal drugs. Cumulative effective dose states that the risk of death from one person taking 100 aspirins a day is the same as 100 persons taking one aspirin a day. Anyone knows this is absurd, but it is ingrained in our radiation regulatory institutions, along with the false assumption that we don’t have a functioning immune system.
<p/>
Again, this is not intuitive stuff, and takes years of study in these areas of science. Absent that, one gets what one would expect: unsupported claims not based in science.
<p/>
Dr. James Conca is Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, Richland, Wash. He is a retired scientist and research professor with a master’s and PhD. from the California Institute of Technology (CalTech).
<p/>
The opinions expressed are those of the author.
<p/>
(The above opinion by James Conca was posted at the Southern California Edison web site July 26, 2022)
<hr>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-78625031224037089422022-07-31T16:40:00.008-07:002022-08-17T10:30:51.321-07:00Nuclear waste isn't an isolated problem with nuclear power...Nuclear waste isn't an isolated problem with nuclear power...
<p/>
July 31, 2022
<p/>
Prior to SanO's shutdown, few SoCal residents, including most activists, worried much about the waste, only about shut-down.
<p/>
We know the waste is a problem, but even for us, here in Southern California, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant being open is STILL a far more likely cause of our own problems, let alone California's and America's. DCNPP should be closed *immediately*, not in two or three years, and should certainly not have its license extended under any circumstance. I would estimate that right now, DCNPP is at least a hundred to a thousand times more likely to be the cause of our having to move, or suffering health effects, than San Onofre's waste is. An operating reactor is incredibly more dangerous than ten year old spent fuel.
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS2B-ON2VfRpdSaNJsXUYCgcOR3VVfcrGIW9NwbpZDXmn0UvTc_pRuRyPY_6Xd_FeVCbpIaXLMReNpEIIVsdsbLuKBFM-VRjIBEl-dHtyt767439IdcUDH-kuxptv2lPSR3vG7Rcb5Nrz9c8LqPGilXS4lbZcLQf1KPUr2H0lSwHyYYAi-3xtTRcjW/s2148/ManualForSurvival_KateBrown.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 10px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" height="200" data-original-height="2148" data-original-width="1431" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS2B-ON2VfRpdSaNJsXUYCgcOR3VVfcrGIW9NwbpZDXmn0UvTc_pRuRyPY_6Xd_FeVCbpIaXLMReNpEIIVsdsbLuKBFM-VRjIBEl-dHtyt767439IdcUDH-kuxptv2lPSR3vG7Rcb5Nrz9c8LqPGilXS4lbZcLQf1KPUr2H0lSwHyYYAi-3xtTRcjW/s200/ManualForSurvival_KateBrown.png"/></a></div>Read up on how far Chernobyl radiation spread in Kate Brown's Manual for Survival. We can use the problem with San Onofre's waste to push for closure of DCNPP. Once DCNPP is permanently closed, the entire state will finally (hopefully) be interested in solving the waste problem. Until ALL the reactors in America (and globally) are closed, "solving" the nuclear waste problem only helps to keep the reactors operating!
<p/>
Nuclear waste scattered throughout the country is a major problem for many reasons, including terrorism, accidental airplane strikes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. etc..
<p/>
Transporting nuclear waste multiple times is also a major problem for many reasons, including accidents, terrorism, human error, etc.. It should be moved at most only once, if possible.
<p/>
Neutralization of the Pu and U isotopes is possible on-site. It's even a patented process! Read up on it in case you missed my report (see link, below). The industry doesn't like the idea because they want to reprocess the waste. That's ALSO why the industry is pushing so hard for one central location.
<p/>
Moving nuclear waste through highly populated areas is a major problem which the U.S. government is well aware of. That is the reason they wanted to build a direct route from San Onofre to Yucca Mountain.
<p/>
As a 20% owner of Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona, Southern California Edison (SCE) could either move the waste there (except for the problems mentioned above, plus the fact that AZ doesn't want our waste, only their own). SCE could at least pull out of PVNPP entirely if AZ won't take the waste.
<p/>
There are many bridges, close to or even more than 100 feet high, between San Clemente and the Chocolate Mountains location that Roger J. is recommending. Moving 123 canisters over those bridges is extremely risky since the containers are NOT designed to withstand a drop of that height. It's unlikely, IMO, that they can even survive the claimed drop heights of a few dozen feet. I drove over the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut twice daily, when it "suddenly" collapsed, killing three people. Bridge collapses DO happen. And maintenance is shoddy at best. I HEARD the Mianus River Bridge screech in the days before the pin fully sheered off. Residents had been calling the (ir-)responsible state agencies about the noise for weeks prior to the collapse.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
What is spent fuel neutralization and why is it the best solution?<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html</a>
<p/>
Also don't forget where we've been on these issues:<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a>
<br/>
<hr>
Roger responded as follows:
<p/>
On 07/31/2022 11:01 PM PDT RJ wrote:
<p/>
Ace,
<p/>Where are the data on how many bridges there are? I may be wrong but I think you could get there without crossing any bridges.<br/>
<p/>I read that the max weight a helicopter can lift is about 25 tons which is about half of the weight of a canister. Does anyone know if it is possible to airlift a canister on a helicopter? Wouldn't it be nice if a helicopter could scoop it up at San Onofre and take it directly to a storage site? I suspect that some consider consider helicopter transport more dangerous than truck transport. Could the canisters be reloaded into twice as many canisters at half the weight?
<p/>Cargo planes can easily carry that but where would they take off and land?
<p/>If aircraft are too dangerous, we need to figure out truck tor train ransport routes. There are rail lines right to Chocolate Mt.
<p/>Of course, all of this is worthless if the military refuses to do it.
<p/>
rj
<hr>
<p/>
Hi Roger,
<p/>
YOU could get there without going over the bridges on I-8 but they would have to use treacherous mountain roads; roads that aren't designed for such heavy vehicles so no.
<p/>
You want to AIR LIFT the canisters? No to that, too. And no to the extra steps needed for repackaging. And half the fuel load would still require the enormously heavy container. So you'd need way more than twice as many loads.
<p/>
No rail lines go direct to Choc. Mtn, you'd have to go through very heavily populated areas.
<p/>
Heavily populated areas are enormous security risks as well as impossible to evacuate after an accident.
<p/>
Ace
<p/>
<hr>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-21435388630457001862022-07-07T20:09:00.003-07:002022-07-25T19:36:29.127-07:00Different types of nuclear radiation (and why they are all dangerous).Different types of nuclear radiation and why they are all dangerous.
<p/>
By Ace Hoffman
<p/>
July 7, 2022
<p/>
NOTE: It is presumed you are looking at my Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum graphic as you read this explanation, so here it is:
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQkgyL1NPMFUtLuw7HnOzOtFm5gk4Fan8KMhuHZNCNmuWeaGQ-wBBIlNijAI0TC-cEl33UQnLsHWgfth_ZFZdK7PZtwoBVE5aKR2NPRxekkYagxQmz1pBbiOInvvaGNGuqkd-UeuBt-P9fd0_wTGcLWy5VVFrCzjky-UJZdDWL6W-vBaQe1TYC4fXS/s4379/particles%20rays%20mass%20and%20energy20100331EcroppedTrimmed.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1931" data-original-width="4379" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQkgyL1NPMFUtLuw7HnOzOtFm5gk4Fan8KMhuHZNCNmuWeaGQ-wBBIlNijAI0TC-cEl33UQnLsHWgfth_ZFZdK7PZtwoBVE5aKR2NPRxekkYagxQmz1pBbiOInvvaGNGuqkd-UeuBt-P9fd0_wTGcLWy5VVFrCzjky-UJZdDWL6W-vBaQe1TYC4fXS/s600/particles%20rays%20mass%20and%20energy20100331EcroppedTrimmed.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
When radioactive isotopes decay, they release high-energy rays and/or particles. In this essay we examine the four types which are most significant for humans and other living things, because we inevitably are impacted (literally!) by these rays and particles. (There are several other types of emissions during radioactive decay, but these four are the most influential on human health.)
<hr>
What is the difference between alpha particles, beta particles, x-rays and gamma rays? Why is each one dangerous? And why are alpha "particles" and beta "particles" also considered to have "wave-like" behavior?
<p/>
This document gives a brief description of what atoms are comprised of (the three main subatomic particles: electrons, protons and neutrons). A glance at a Periodic Table of the Elements will enhance that portion of the discussion for those who need a review.
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc3F4g96iElrAdqgZik56QcDPEGhF0GW801SPeiNyZ1__r22pjPs-nQaDrqS3ZUgD4X5mda-YpVI8PAk-Sa4SPN_LGwHmeUWeOeaKpyJ9ujd0N-plPwd88rUH5nkqktfx1xCB7ihiJtLfctDJhPHwRZA4KOjiIsM87Q0xa0OSLf4Xs4ZVjU76rIUJT/s4942/PeriodicTable20220503L.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="3660" data-original-width="4942" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc3F4g96iElrAdqgZik56QcDPEGhF0GW801SPeiNyZ1__r22pjPs-nQaDrqS3ZUgD4X5mda-YpVI8PAk-Sa4SPN_LGwHmeUWeOeaKpyJ9ujd0N-plPwd88rUH5nkqktfx1xCB7ihiJtLfctDJhPHwRZA4KOjiIsM87Q0xa0OSLf4Xs4ZVjU76rIUJT/s600/PeriodicTable20220503L.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
The Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum graphic is arranged in three rows For some reason, most illustrations of the Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum only show the top two rows. The top row is labeled "Frequency in Hertz."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvtc0-0OeUZCSBQqwy1vkwg-QHdRrmDfYYn6BlKLiv1vpgX0EJpyeL_SplROxn_9jtOcdJzP9RtnS3xkpczXgmsGDL-LDXsJEKOwVnJQuoP1kyw4S7yA0m8XVeIJa7TzX3SJxklrHcoXKWgfOsJTGl6WOlD428ROH3INMnP_dvJk8sIOXFfKGmISFM/s9249/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumTopRowIsolated20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1488" data-original-width="9249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvtc0-0OeUZCSBQqwy1vkwg-QHdRrmDfYYn6BlKLiv1vpgX0EJpyeL_SplROxn_9jtOcdJzP9RtnS3xkpczXgmsGDL-LDXsJEKOwVnJQuoP1kyw4S7yA0m8XVeIJa7TzX3SJxklrHcoXKWgfOsJTGl6WOlD428ROH3INMnP_dvJk8sIOXFfKGmISFM/s320/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumTopRowIsolated20220725A.png"/></a></div>
The middle row is called the "Wavelength Equivalent."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnwMerFHSZ09hbq058X3GXMGJ1uwFt0aVRlibwAe8UMyEnr-3INJtHxIHOp7Vit0W-HGK-DU7yXvHeWdIIghY9Uvz5C2Bga-4MuebLvW9h5pU-2nJ20p3uwwMTkQ5QAh6pOuHclUpDO4Uff3PmRLL0TZHANWUmPwHveEwkB7kTvU8xFFAwepryAKlw/s9243/WavelengthEquivalents20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1050" data-original-width="9243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnwMerFHSZ09hbq058X3GXMGJ1uwFt0aVRlibwAe8UMyEnr-3INJtHxIHOp7Vit0W-HGK-DU7yXvHeWdIIghY9Uvz5C2Bga-4MuebLvW9h5pU-2nJ20p3uwwMTkQ5QAh6pOuHclUpDO4Uff3PmRLL0TZHANWUmPwHveEwkB7kTvU8xFFAwepryAKlw/s320/WavelengthEquivalents20220725A.png"/></a></div>
The bottom row -- in many ways the most important, and yet the one most illustrations of the Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum ignore -- shows the "Energy Equivalent."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiON5VPI_I4zly0QdQNCcezmH568YPpr3UNQrPuOnslQXWmE8XxZvR0DAz5GM3o4HgqyEv73GF1nS5vkDbih2YDqxTCtEzXH-YtJM8IMErv1JAgJj36Ct2QZ0k9tXZYcQy9Fc1s9RJlepxoNzm7yZWlf2UUkhtZo2CjInlmXroqqbr28ovmtbhvJwcO/s9269/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumBottomRowIsolated20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1214" data-original-width="9269" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiON5VPI_I4zly0QdQNCcezmH568YPpr3UNQrPuOnslQXWmE8XxZvR0DAz5GM3o4HgqyEv73GF1nS5vkDbih2YDqxTCtEzXH-YtJM8IMErv1JAgJj36Ct2QZ0k9tXZYcQy9Fc1s9RJlepxoNzm7yZWlf2UUkhtZo2CjInlmXroqqbr28ovmtbhvJwcO/s320/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumBottomRowIsolated20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
For the top and bottom two rows ("Frequency in Hertz" and "Energy Equivalent") the chart is arranged in exponentially increasing values from left to right. The middle row ("Wavelength Equivalent") has exponentially increasing values going from right to left.
<p/>
Each row has a range of 22 orders of magnitude. 22 orders of magnitude is an enormous difference! Here it is written out:
<p/>
10000000000000000000000. Or if written with commas: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
<p/>
Orders of magnitude can be difficult to grasp. But as an example, consider musical tones. The lowest bass notes are about 20 Hertz, or cycles per second. The highest notes are under about 10,000 Hertz. That is a range of about three orders of magnitude, and most music is actually only within just two orders of magnitude. The limit of human hearing is under 20,000 Hertz. 22 orders of magnitude is not just 19 times broader, it is 10^19 times broader (10000000000000000000 times broader, if written out. 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 times broader, when commas are included!).
<p/>
Energy, in the form of Beta particles, Alpha particles, X-rays and/or Gamma rays is released ("ejected" or "emitted" if you prefer) when a radioactive (or "unstable") atom decays. (Please see other documents for how to determine when a particular atom will decay if it is radioactive. Suffice to say here, it is at some future, unpredictable, semi-random, moment.)
<p/>
One beta particle, if released by a radioactive atom (such as Tritium), can damage thousands of chemical bonds because it is thousands of times more powerful than ANY chemical bond -- and not just in living things, but ANY chemical bond. Any metal alloy made, no matter how strong, is bonded together with chemical bonds less than approximately one thousandth (<1/1000) as strong as one beta particle's energy when it is ejected during radioactive decay.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDvoO2CnBR-PTxiEYqaM3TtBUiLki9iQ7xdGWApipRIuUwrv4PWPXzVgpOUyP3eFGvlH-pEcJJaL-CUbILIRd1TMURhsauYFBJi_n5XXF_WH1VtSP10rufMJxC44njFXUryev0bfgXB0NDWisrHfGUGjV9XewbtdK5VH2EJKF0yCJ4Tz6OzVpP7b1v/s1261/HydrogenAndCovalentBonds20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" height="120" data-original-height="1261" data-original-width="1141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDvoO2CnBR-PTxiEYqaM3TtBUiLki9iQ7xdGWApipRIuUwrv4PWPXzVgpOUyP3eFGvlH-pEcJJaL-CUbILIRd1TMURhsauYFBJi_n5XXF_WH1VtSP10rufMJxC44njFXUryev0bfgXB0NDWisrHfGUGjV9XewbtdK5VH2EJKF0yCJ4Tz6OzVpP7b1v/s320/HydrogenAndCovalentBonds20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
It does not even take a full electron volt to destroy a chemical bond: Many atoms have outer electrons which are only held relatively loosely to the atom's nucleus.
<p/>
If an electron is knocked out of an atom's orbit, the atom will appear to other atoms as a different element unless it is able to find a replacement electron -- which it might take from another atom that is holding its outermost electrons less tightly. Thus, a "chain reaction" of sorts can let one beta decay damage perhaps 10,000 or more molecular bonds, even though it is "only" a few thousand times more powerful than a typical chemical bond.
<p/>
Beta particles have another feature which can also be very damaging: They are charged particles, with a negative charge of one electron volt. (Beta particles "become" electrons when they slow down from nearly the speed of light to "terrestrial" speeds.) Other electrons are repelled by a beta particle.
<p/>
Alpha particles are thousands of times more powerful than beta particles. That is why they are so damaging if released inside a living organism. They are also very large and highly charged: Plus two electron volts, because they are composed of two protons, each with a positive charge of 1 eV, and two neutrally-charged neutrons.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1wciFYSvymXFJNBwuZpcxje-fb4Ct15jgbLr6m6Wfb-3E82au48jHsDbeBrC7-2q-TrFkZaVYOc2_hCYP_Y8pXMLpEup5zDoxM6ZOG-dFQ6vzJgCpuKEAtyuuI0GrvdMBPCMaIjt6R2aOiG-_qJgnV0sh0pJpBy_6A4JuYQcCWO1TH3A2Gwpb5dsN/s3091/HighEnergyEmissions20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="480" data-original-height="1284" data-original-width="3091" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1wciFYSvymXFJNBwuZpcxje-fb4Ct15jgbLr6m6Wfb-3E82au48jHsDbeBrC7-2q-TrFkZaVYOc2_hCYP_Y8pXMLpEup5zDoxM6ZOG-dFQ6vzJgCpuKEAtyuuI0GrvdMBPCMaIjt6R2aOiG-_qJgnV0sh0pJpBy_6A4JuYQcCWO1TH3A2Gwpb5dsN/s320/HighEnergyEmissions20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Electrons are attracted to alpha particles, and it will grab two from somewhere when it slows down, and that's only after doing a lot of damage along its track. (After grabbing two electrons, it becomes a stable helium atom.) Even if alpha particles just pass near something, they can do a lot of damage. Alpha particles are roughly a thousand times more powerful than a beta particle, and about a million times more powerful than ANY chemical bond.
<p/>
Gamma rays are similarly powerful but since they are neutrally charged and massless, an individual gamma ray can pass completely through the body without doing any damage and often does, since atoms are mostly empty space. But if a gamma ray does hit something (a electron or a nucleus of an atom) gamma rays can be very damaging.
<p/>
It has been known since the 1950s that X-rays can cause cancer. Gamma rays are thousands of times more powerful than X-rays. Both are massless, without any electrical charge, unlike beta particles, with a -1 eV charge, and alpha particles, with a +2 eV charge.
<p/>
Now let's look a little more closely at the Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum.
<p/>
First, let's look at the top area, to the right of the heading. A significant portion of the chart is marked as the "Ionizing" portion.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPM7tDjqV9eJwYMVSVJSZCPkeMnEtIwUAWut9aGr7ogxJNM-PvUuc2vyirfXVyaFsv4K_sguqDizW4dJrX10dKX3AChO7j9YlZQhNFAlGAks0qEbD5hSICEwXfGCKO6pLmmNZtRUgoYmq3dwlcQn3ZMQXpe7xahESOGMSQoEA11jPYnOBLvrL-8M_t/s3813/IonizingRadiation20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="480" data-original-height="1488" data-original-width="3813" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPM7tDjqV9eJwYMVSVJSZCPkeMnEtIwUAWut9aGr7ogxJNM-PvUuc2vyirfXVyaFsv4K_sguqDizW4dJrX10dKX3AChO7j9YlZQhNFAlGAks0qEbD5hSICEwXfGCKO6pLmmNZtRUgoYmq3dwlcQn3ZMQXpe7xahESOGMSQoEA11jPYnOBLvrL-8M_t/s320/IonizingRadiation20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
"Ionizing" means forces in that region are strong enough to knock an electron out of its shell and/or away from the atom it belongs to.
<p/>
Atoms are comprised of a very small nucleus with protons and neutrons (except for one variety of hydrogen, with only one proton and no neutrons in the core). Every atom also has an outer portion outside the nucleus, which is mostly empty space, plus one or more very small subatomic particle(s), known as electrons, with an isolated atom having one electron for each proton in the nucleus (we say "isolated" because when atoms get together, they often share one or more electrons).
<p/>
The shared electrons are what form bonds with other atoms to form molecules such as Oxygen (O2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and DNA.
<p/>
DNA is the most complex molecule known to humans (our own is not even the most complicated, or at least, not the longest). Virtually every human cell has DNA except mature red blood cells. Amazingly, the body has mechanisms to repair some types of damage to DNA molecules. But repair is not always done perfectly. If an electron is knocked out of a DNA molecule, the damage might be repairable, but it might not be. If several electrons are knocked out, the damage is much less likely to be repairable. The DNA molecule might even be broken into independent strands, which are useless (or even detrimental). Every human body has trillions of cells that each have their own copy of that person's DNA. We are all susceptible to "ionizing" radiation damage.
<p/>
We've been discussing what gets impacted (or "ionized") when a moving object (beta particle or alpha particle) or packet of energy (gamma ray or x-ray) impacts something. Now let's go back to the Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum itself again.
<p/><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDr2OfHH1V7ieK7R8xAl7PzbdLrncQSJvYaApJzrIHAhLAkXWz476FierSmsjZPyyO5Nn3lE9I0KwX2SiYAIP5EdpMMDQ6s_jgtRqIci8hE1d-h96GV4uJ-960NRdD9oGo1Jar-DskC6rtgBREKjJPG_QTdgpEL0J74U3riFLg65ZONBVT9rRQZu0K/s1600/VisibleLight20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="100" data-original-height="1251" data-original-width="1207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDr2OfHH1V7ieK7R8xAl7PzbdLrncQSJvYaApJzrIHAhLAkXWz476FierSmsjZPyyO5Nn3lE9I0KwX2SiYAIP5EdpMMDQ6s_jgtRqIci8hE1d-h96GV4uJ-960NRdD9oGo1Jar-DskC6rtgBREKjJPG_QTdgpEL0J74U3riFLg65ZONBVT9rRQZu0K/s1600/VisibleLight20220725A.png"/></a></div>
The top row lists various types of waves: Radio Waves on the left, through Microwaves, Infrared, Visible Light (expanded because it is a very tiny portion of the entire spectrum), Ultra Violet, and then, on the far right, X-rays, Gamma Rays (with a symbol for "Gamma") and Cosmic Rays.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiz-j4szEQ8QEKXRsPiy_j-x---a3Nc9g2KDHknZ796VfW6EOWB1PQI2Ke8sg4Owj8vyD-UwQRQlt9NlbTr6S7IAQ4WvKymSdDdLGNpKpZ7_CdDXh7tDep1RKR0TmXY_SFyLy0xA7ii5OKRvH3451npA7XGtv5tqStBp4pzVWP93dfh-Ul1GcS-amC/s9249/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumTopRowIsolated20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1488" data-original-width="9249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiz-j4szEQ8QEKXRsPiy_j-x---a3Nc9g2KDHknZ796VfW6EOWB1PQI2Ke8sg4Owj8vyD-UwQRQlt9NlbTr6S7IAQ4WvKymSdDdLGNpKpZ7_CdDXh7tDep1RKR0TmXY_SFyLy0xA7ii5OKRvH3451npA7XGtv5tqStBp4pzVWP93dfh-Ul1GcS-amC/s400/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumTopRowIsolated20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
These last four groups are powerful enough to be Ionizing, although Ultra Violet is about 100 times less powerful than X-rays, which are in turn another 100 times less powerful than Gamma Rays. Cosmic Rays are the most powerful, and may be responsible for some cancers, but unfortunately, they are unavoidable.
<p/>
Lets now look at each of the three rows individually.
<p/>
The top row, "Frequency in Hertz (cycles per second)" indicates how many peaks and valleys would pass by a given point in space in the span of one second.
<p/>
The middle row, "Wavelength Equivalent" indicates the distance between successive peaks (or valleys). At the left, the wavelengths are as long as a blue whale. Different images that are about the size of various wavelengths are shown, getting smaller and smaller from left to right.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQvsFTJ1PqMggm9Trt0F6gCbPMLlVKJ9vlrUOaGo55KKIJeWWgsRMBlRl1MsI9QZ-d0nJYecCL2eHo9mUmwAthaYiaQkZ3ykfJLhDfcJ92ySDddcJ10-NZXJY1JUAHIkKnM0WwEXtsy3EHTAe0tu16oyX8tU72yD5es4bRFxiutlccyXFZWmH9RG01/s9243/WavelengthEquivalents20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1050" data-original-width="9243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQvsFTJ1PqMggm9Trt0F6gCbPMLlVKJ9vlrUOaGo55KKIJeWWgsRMBlRl1MsI9QZ-d0nJYecCL2eHo9mUmwAthaYiaQkZ3ykfJLhDfcJ92ySDddcJ10-NZXJY1JUAHIkKnM0WwEXtsy3EHTAe0tu16oyX8tU72yD5es4bRFxiutlccyXFZWmH9RG01/s600/WavelengthEquivalents20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
The bottom row is the most important. How much energy does an energy packet (x-ray, gamma) or particle (beta, alpha) have? And how does it do its damage? It breaks chemical bonds, and the particles also do physical damage as they plow through DNA and any other molecules in their way.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieHxQybN0Pu59F40FHs5Ogm5tBIdKct3Jz29gILszNmQLpHYbOIRujY-u1co1hVVArBwKZIyiwqJmcWr0r0sqR06Y1dK6Hbg4n4k-DZh9NVU_CvAGlGlWpuMfLWXvDDzjwUFd05aO8y6BqhpHiDg7JyT72ewPYhwtW1shWjIQK9EigbwgQ7oUMknx_/s9269/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumBottomRowIsolated20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="10" width="600" data-original-height="1214" data-original-width="9269" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieHxQybN0Pu59F40FHs5Ogm5tBIdKct3Jz29gILszNmQLpHYbOIRujY-u1co1hVVArBwKZIyiwqJmcWr0r0sqR06Y1dK6Hbg4n4k-DZh9NVU_CvAGlGlWpuMfLWXvDDzjwUFd05aO8y6BqhpHiDg7JyT72ewPYhwtW1shWjIQK9EigbwgQ7oUMknx_/s600/ElectromagneticWaveSpectrumBottomRowIsolated20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg676SeHgKZ8Zd1rOn3h-w2WJ72RjLl2B7ZGmifHpJuggrew4NMWWoYSkjX4bgSU7Vbdaauf3bcKSChwKaDHHZKmPermWS7SlV_MAOfbDkSRYkA47e5mRdwmc49r9u4zfu_bpGQMkBcyPopPZPpK9nIiT--ycqO4XZhYcZtYzYxDXhkxPnQkkCMVQfy/s1600/ThermalNoiseIsolated20220725B.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="140" data-original-height="1265" data-original-width="970" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg676SeHgKZ8Zd1rOn3h-w2WJ72RjLl2B7ZGmifHpJuggrew4NMWWoYSkjX4bgSU7Vbdaauf3bcKSChwKaDHHZKmPermWS7SlV_MAOfbDkSRYkA47e5mRdwmc49r9u4zfu_bpGQMkBcyPopPZPpK9nIiT--ycqO4XZhYcZtYzYxDXhkxPnQkkCMVQfy/s1600/ThermalNoiseIsolated20220725B.png"/></a></div>
Along the bottom row of the Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum graphic are shown various objects: On the left is a beaker labeled "Thermal Noise" at around 12 millielectron volts (basically, "thermal noise" is background movement of everything on earth, as viewed at the atomic level. Two liquids in the beaker would tend to mix because of "thermal noise" (and perhaps for other reasons as well).
<p/>
Hydrogen Bonds and Covalent Chemical Bonds at around 1 electron volt. All molecules are held together by such bonds.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvTMlmHrunzEExlaQBB_ePXNWSK8NaFYChJQtEXkmDjnBwGSzhjLBkpfX-5HAorP70Z6YzLKZzNn8grnIWB7Wq8y6WEFHRhbhcFthkaOLtlwCLvrtXNwWNeC5NJNf48GK6zA9FtutvUqyRCh6a1oxG_H0wBAUXKk-ECTPxrKu0N91YaHnEuinMupO7/s1600/HydrogenAndCovalentBonds20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; padding-right: 20px; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="140" data-original-height="1261" data-original-width="1141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvTMlmHrunzEExlaQBB_ePXNWSK8NaFYChJQtEXkmDjnBwGSzhjLBkpfX-5HAorP70Z6YzLKZzNn8grnIWB7Wq8y6WEFHRhbhcFthkaOLtlwCLvrtXNwWNeC5NJNf48GK6zA9FtutvUqyRCh6a1oxG_H0wBAUXKk-ECTPxrKu0N91YaHnEuinMupO7/s1600/HydrogenAndCovalentBonds20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Far to the right of those bonds is the energy of a beta decay, which is several thousand times more powerful than a chemical bond.
<p/>
An alpha decay at another thousand times more powerful than a beta decay.
<p/>
X-rays and gamma rays are also very powerful. Gamma rays can even be more powerful than an alpha particle.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgGypgbfUq1lie1P76sYa7aMrPfK6BSAiPQFNraHZeeIDxj7wzbnRmDGK8fq1n91-t4YC8SB9zAeMM8UipJBx_kKO4qEz8BXpnPnhs2GXG3--tUBsGn6xmcZAOjxyhLexBxRAxVCEiFS4HBNnqo198mr7QNDH158QmLANuEAIDYOQOiawIXY1iaD7j/s1600/HighEnergyEmissions20220725A.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="480" data-original-height="1284" data-original-width="3091" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgGypgbfUq1lie1P76sYa7aMrPfK6BSAiPQFNraHZeeIDxj7wzbnRmDGK8fq1n91-t4YC8SB9zAeMM8UipJBx_kKO4qEz8BXpnPnhs2GXG3--tUBsGn6xmcZAOjxyhLexBxRAxVCEiFS4HBNnqo198mr7QNDH158QmLANuEAIDYOQOiawIXY1iaD7j/s1600/HighEnergyEmissions20220725A.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
At the far right is the energy released when a plutonium atom is split. This energy release is usually dissipated among several smaller particles, and results in two "fission fragments" -- smaller atoms with each having about half the protons of the plutonium atom. (Both fragments are almost always also radioactive.)
<p/>
About half -- or more -- of the radiation the average person in America absorbs in a lifetime is not natural, but is the result of medical procedures, global accidents such as Fukushima and Chernobyl (and thousands of smaller accidents), and from atomic weapons testing. Even one radioactive decay, even at the lowest energy level, can be very damaging to human and other living things. This is why experts long ago declared that "any dose (of radioactivity) is an overdose." Maybe it won't result in anything serious. But then again: Maybe it will.
<p/>
----------------------------------------------------------
<p/>
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons: A Beginner's Guide -- in pictures and diagrams:
<a href="https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2022/BeginnersGuideToNuclearPowerAndWeapons.pdf">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBdnvaoX-EuyeR9-9VaD4DnGdxELMQwTnROWH-b5YDgPHQK1gXn310DZF4JnXT5dxSDJQ_w0x0kWYRqOBGq27Jbax7PHltHyULX_MB6wbtbGTgNcbE8tJL5edqFwpV7DL9ab24wuXNksfIilu1BE--6zKuLm8f2vH_wFaB2siNphTFI_HvWy-NAQeH/s1236/BeginnersGuideCoverPage25pct.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="915" data-original-width="1236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBdnvaoX-EuyeR9-9VaD4DnGdxELMQwTnROWH-b5YDgPHQK1gXn310DZF4JnXT5dxSDJQ_w0x0kWYRqOBGq27Jbax7PHltHyULX_MB6wbtbGTgNcbE8tJL5edqFwpV7DL9ab24wuXNksfIilu1BE--6zKuLm8f2vH_wFaB2siNphTFI_HvWy-NAQeH/s400/BeginnersGuideCoverPage25pct.jpg"/></a></div>
<p/>
https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2022/BeginnersGuideToNuclearPowerAndWeapons.pdf</a>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-70989539812828712152022-05-20T06:32:00.002-07:002022-05-20T10:00:50.381-07:00Tritium's "Low Energy" beta release is not "low danger"!In many conversations with LLNL's former #1 tritium expert (retired), I learned a lot about tritium and wrote extensively about it.
<p/>
Calling it a "low energy" beta emitter is playing into the pro-nuker's hands and nobody should do that. Oh yes, it *is* "low energy" compared to other beta emitters. Here, in brief, is why that A) doesn't matter, and B) in aggregate, makes things worse.
<p/>
Beta particles are dangerous because they are charged particles: They have a charge of -1 electron volt.
<p/>
They do their damage by pushing other negatively charged things away and by pulling positively charged things towards them.
<p/>
But when first released from the nucleus of an atom, they are moving extremely fast -- fairly near the speed of light.
<p/>
Imagine a magnet moving that fast past a piece of iron filing. Nothing will happen. But if you move the magnet slowly past iron filings, they'll all move. So it is with beta particles. They do virtually all their damage at the end of their tracks, when they've slowed down sufficiently to be near other charged particles longer.
<p/>
So ALL beta releases do their damage when they've slowed down significantly. Down well past speeds that they are ALL released at. A single tritium beta release can damage thousands of atoms and molecules, ionizing them and rearranging molecular structures -- basically just like any other beta release. They ALL do all their damage at the end of their tracks.
<p/>
"LOW ENERGY" is still thousands of times more than the amount of energy in a molecular bond. (See attached chart).
<p/>
As to B, why tritium is worse "in aggregate", that's simply because one standard method of determining the "danger level" of a radioactive release is to determine the total energy being released. But from tritium, that means many more particles are released compared to something with a "high energy" beta release. So you'll get more damage from more particles for the same total energy release from an aggregate of particles, if measured by total energy being released -- a common way for pro-nukers to minimize the apparent health dangers from tritium, in addition to simply calling it "low energy" as if that makes it safer.
<p/>
Please look carefully at this energy spectrum chart, which I developed on my own but with enormous assistance from the aforementioned tritium expert.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, CA<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmC_kwvOwzHeU8gDSPgDPiZKkw9gParOjJc4eaBjZDTiiRvx_IfDFuA5IyHXVz4C5dEoSfeCVu_EFt3vDuIer2scutFUu1ZFkfwxYiywpoqD2rPPzB7M27Gx7Yl7o4MJ-gaffIYJB5qvVhVfXisDGlLwHYnhbEPgcY08y4jcB4ynda2rOYywEnzKN2/s4379/particles%20rays%20mass%20and%20energy20100331EcroppedTrimmed.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1931" data-original-width="4379" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmC_kwvOwzHeU8gDSPgDPiZKkw9gParOjJc4eaBjZDTiiRvx_IfDFuA5IyHXVz4C5dEoSfeCVu_EFt3vDuIer2scutFUu1ZFkfwxYiywpoqD2rPPzB7M27Gx7Yl7o4MJ-gaffIYJB5qvVhVfXisDGlLwHYnhbEPgcY08y4jcB4ynda2rOYywEnzKN2/s600/particles%20rays%20mass%20and%20energy20100331EcroppedTrimmed.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Authorship note: It was the LLNL expert's idea to include energy equivalents: He said these charts never include that, but should. So I did. He wanted it to show why Tritium can be so damaging: Because this so-called "weak" beta emission is thousands of times stronger than a normal chemical bond.
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-50520670138069684512022-05-05T09:47:00.005-07:002022-05-06T06:24:52.586-07:00Please Shut Diablo Canyon today!
<p/>
Letter to Governor Newsom
<p/>
May 4, 2022
<p/>
(Gov. Newsom has a "pro" and "con" tab at the web site; I checked off "con" since I disagree with his stance. But I'm pro-clean energy!)
<p/>
=================================================
<p/>
Subject: Build wind, solar, tide power, geothermal...anything but nuclear!
<p/>
Dear Governor Newsom,
<p/>
Some years before you became governor, I spoke at a hearing you were chairing. It was an all-day event, and I was actually quite sure we (the "anti-nuclear" people) had won the day...but much to my amazement, despite your thoughtful questions and remarks throughout the day, you put the kibosh on my hopes when you announced your decision -- which, if I recall, was to give SoCalEd the money needed to replace the steam generators. How'd that work out?
<p/>
Now, Ukraine is in a bloody war that everyone is afraid will go nuclear at any moment...and Putin keeps threatening NATO, Britain, and yes -- the U.S. with escalating the war to nuclear levels. He has already flown missiles over three reactor sites in Ukraine, and taken over the largest reactor site in Europe, as well as the defunct Chernobyl site. Nuclear power makes us weak and vulnerable. Nuclear WASTE makes us weak and vulnerable. And we already have more waste than California can deal with.
<p/>
Recently I created a short (28 page) online booklet based on my own 50+ years of studying nuclear power, interviews with dozens of scientists over the years, and my collection of over 500 books and videos, as well as thousands of pdfs and other documents on nuclear issues.
<p/>
I hope you will read it (link below) and stop this nonsense about keeping Diablo Canyon open any longer. Any day California might enter the realm of Fukushima or Chernobyl, and even if not, the additional waste DCNPP will create over the next few years is hot, dangerous, poisonous, and an expensive legacy to leave for our descendants.
<p/>
Please feel free to contact me any time if you have any questions.
<p/>
<a href="https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2022/BeginnersGuideToNuclearPowerAndWeapons.pdf">https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2022/BeginnersGuideToNuclearPowerAndWeapons.pdf</a>
<p/>
Best regards,
<p/>
Ace Hoffman
<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
<a href="https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2022/BeginnersGuideToNuclearPowerAndWeapons.pdf">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuu-fPvRuGjmRtVz2eIvuZPgW_oqUfDRvg6pTQ2eW3XTiLNYTzyigG6XP5-TaLdaXzr7bYmRQyZOvAxQNaZnXB25cltRi67PQdpwJ2SKKY3iGyFkX6KFVm1DkKj7dDyu0ptyzrqAnzhwtVuzNTqMAR4z_O-NaWD57h5hqP6Nyp6wEPXwsB2i80ZaJf/s4942/BeginnersGuideCoverPage20220501R.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="3660" data-original-width="4942" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuu-fPvRuGjmRtVz2eIvuZPgW_oqUfDRvg6pTQ2eW3XTiLNYTzyigG6XP5-TaLdaXzr7bYmRQyZOvAxQNaZnXB25cltRi67PQdpwJ2SKKY3iGyFkX6KFVm1DkKj7dDyu0ptyzrqAnzhwtVuzNTqMAR4z_O-NaWD57h5hqP6Nyp6wEPXwsB2i80ZaJf/s400/BeginnersGuideCoverPage20220501R.png"/></a></div></a>
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhomhmK6O-8zGTsfNw-IQlHVHRY64upWRzLKY8LQTSjpuLW9WOr6pjUOR7ItsTCvAJpZ2RaiKocES31Rlz0mIe6fAYYUYOS4TkG_P0_w6sKehARyD2CIE856s4YExYWx8HMeDKLmk73z2X5Ii_g4tIeQ2wX34mvFn6BxHUJUJePenAKZOYJ2jit2b_Y/s4942/DiabloCanyonRustAndLeakFrom2020_20220503C.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="3660" data-original-width="4942" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhomhmK6O-8zGTsfNw-IQlHVHRY64upWRzLKY8LQTSjpuLW9WOr6pjUOR7ItsTCvAJpZ2RaiKocES31Rlz0mIe6fAYYUYOS4TkG_P0_w6sKehARyD2CIE856s4YExYWx8HMeDKLmk73z2X5Ii_g4tIeQ2wX34mvFn6BxHUJUJePenAKZOYJ2jit2b_Y/s400/DiabloCanyonRustAndLeakFrom2020_20220503C.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
That rust hole in the Emergency Core Cooling System meant the plant had to shut down for a week for repairs, because it can't operate with a non-functioning ECCS. The ECCS hadn't been inspected for many years, by either PG&E or the NRC. Both were lax/lazy and falsified records.
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-20198762179145917022022-03-16T18:01:00.009-07:002022-05-05T10:47:02.963-07:00Virtual Museum of Nuclear Events<h1>Virtual Museum of Nuclear Events</h1>
<p/>
March 16, 2022
<p/>
Proposal for a nuclear history museum presenting the unbiased, unvarnished, unpopular, unpolished truth about nuclear power and nuclear weapons and their sordid past, hidden present, and troubled future:
<p/>
Ace Hoffman
<p/>
<hr>
America exploded 1151 nuclear bombs before testing was abandoned by most countries.
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDB9PNj8Z6rd0qUdV0_TQlsNushMPsrVjMieEW0OQ4HTnNX3dKXTTjxT1DUl5Jz0HNxY6hUxQgTVBXeF07M1UFbWrtUwPy9ucclpDgLIkZgtjrHF3X005qqbwpu5Vm-T3TF1yHum5tpo5lr4vOViz8VsHfwlWsaepQctHvyqenRvZLpYjg1ROmfQP0/s3604/Nuke_Walls_In_Nuke_Museum20220315H.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2108" data-original-width="3604" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDB9PNj8Z6rd0qUdV0_TQlsNushMPsrVjMieEW0OQ4HTnNX3dKXTTjxT1DUl5Jz0HNxY6hUxQgTVBXeF07M1UFbWrtUwPy9ucclpDgLIkZgtjrHF3X005qqbwpu5Vm-T3TF1yHum5tpo5lr4vOViz8VsHfwlWsaepQctHvyqenRvZLpYjg1ROmfQP0/s600/Nuke_Walls_In_Nuke_Museum20220315H.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Trinity was the first of many atmospheric, underwater, and underground explosions.
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1cPEPkCcGhXpxJzxoy0GftUrWSrLZ5gVX51uWpvaZW_fLRZKHPHCcpPMxulu5tDiC_vGmvTt3vfqO1BQOG6YnCVzoF7Hhi1LKi0B-iHPaK3fjXcherMx9wh39dmvx3wUUI80E2pTn5HO7UFKMv9j8wH0_KCbAWAakmxAYkOZDWtNTjHksw3bHQXPC/s4028/Nuke_Wall_Museum_Room_twoIMG_3188S.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2478" data-original-width="4028" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1cPEPkCcGhXpxJzxoy0GftUrWSrLZ5gVX51uWpvaZW_fLRZKHPHCcpPMxulu5tDiC_vGmvTt3vfqO1BQOG6YnCVzoF7Hhi1LKi0B-iHPaK3fjXcherMx9wh39dmvx3wUUI80E2pTn5HO7UFKMv9j8wH0_KCbAWAakmxAYkOZDWtNTjHksw3bHQXPC/s600/Nuke_Wall_Museum_Room_twoIMG_3188S.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Many precise measurements have already been made...
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrPqDulNgIm-tNXFcWvxHOmhYwuC78Non9phvdMjSX04tjVy1fGdV89hdZtUMBn-8bhUfKGXedimwI-KKgSiaCXVAr7jmNkV2t3vpTCngGQfKq6xw3dMAYY-9elyYuVJWIgANlEnpcXwyErbN0aYeTliabWtNjSLbCim1j3INqXoB70mY8eFLkwjmh/s4032/NukeWallRoomThreeIMG_2269S.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2305" data-original-width="4032" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrPqDulNgIm-tNXFcWvxHOmhYwuC78Non9phvdMjSX04tjVy1fGdV89hdZtUMBn-8bhUfKGXedimwI-KKgSiaCXVAr7jmNkV2t3vpTCngGQfKq6xw3dMAYY-9elyYuVJWIgANlEnpcXwyErbN0aYeTliabWtNjSLbCim1j3INqXoB70mY8eFLkwjmh/s600/NukeWallRoomThreeIMG_2269S.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
From Hiroshima to Three Mile Island to Chernobvl to Fukushima to...San Onofre?
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj15xx4Is0lRM060oWtXyEZRVnp0Cj-n_4-0N1-4gCLiEE5dzlbaInUjiB75QZDunVWiQvJlS9F1O_QKVzR6QBvH3GrU32iICyN1km-32K4N9zOitYjCGhoXjNgFI8Tg8h67OzUVo-ZgbKBtknMBQTpimoRZnZtMBic-ynOtlwf9PHVDSk20Mxqek6m/s3851/NukeWallRoomFourIMG_216V.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2488" data-original-width="3851" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj15xx4Is0lRM060oWtXyEZRVnp0Cj-n_4-0N1-4gCLiEE5dzlbaInUjiB75QZDunVWiQvJlS9F1O_QKVzR6QBvH3GrU32iICyN1km-32K4N9zOitYjCGhoXjNgFI8Tg8h67OzUVo-ZgbKBtknMBQTpimoRZnZtMBic-ynOtlwf9PHVDSk20Mxqek6m/s600/NukeWallRoomFourIMG_216V.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Despite decades of global opposition, money and power still make the wrong choice.
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFPOamCccatWYBAo1-gdptf1Iy0GKKy8Aq5q8OSiyCgzKSYfxcPX97Fc78i1XI0ji-LKCdcujfzrZioo8g4qLm9CaF1AqfrbpNPbp3kbxW97TSZlmLOk5pl3uL8DUVIhn5DjrLeqA7LOl5z3dRdhV9onGSPZF1Fkj1aRvyVhbn70crC8iShyJRHYeX/s3776/NukeWallRoomSix20220405T.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2236" data-original-width="3776" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFPOamCccatWYBAo1-gdptf1Iy0GKKy8Aq5q8OSiyCgzKSYfxcPX97Fc78i1XI0ji-LKCdcujfzrZioo8g4qLm9CaF1AqfrbpNPbp3kbxW97TSZlmLOk5pl3uL8DUVIhn5DjrLeqA7LOl5z3dRdhV9onGSPZF1Fkj1aRvyVhbn70crC8iShyJRHYeX/s600/NukeWallRoomSix20220405T.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Thank you for visiting our virtual museum!
Here are some misc additional images:
<br/>
<hr>
<p/>
Electromagnetic Energy Spectrum (designed by the author with a lot of help from a retired LLNL scientist):
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8Ix-x8BEueu7kHS-4H5UEXyY7U4a8H_NYXejmxw9_F4ejVmwUN6g9aK8s0pb3nLQFyxtoMxjVC1s1rcqcdrEtSrs20wAiDvIqaV1SHNAeNKG3MCGXQUdP4yF2MEmhJqc7eMIXzw3w8-akZehFUUKV0X6evHxIlmYW2Gl_vCjv6Nr_V7iyswg8bp0R/s4379/particles%20rays%20mass%20and%20energy20100331EcroppedTrimmed.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1931" data-original-width="4379" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8Ix-x8BEueu7kHS-4H5UEXyY7U4a8H_NYXejmxw9_F4ejVmwUN6g9aK8s0pb3nLQFyxtoMxjVC1s1rcqcdrEtSrs20wAiDvIqaV1SHNAeNKG3MCGXQUdP4yF2MEmhJqc7eMIXzw3w8-akZehFUUKV0X6evHxIlmYW2Gl_vCjv6Nr_V7iyswg8bp0R/s600/particles%20rays%20mass%20and%20energy20100331EcroppedTrimmed.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
An interesting thing about nuclear bomb explosions is that no two descriptions are the same. The colors, shapes, sizes...all different. And so...1151 explosions by the US alone, and hundreds more by Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKxxQaXZGjDEOVUPnU4MK4eWgQXi22kRJQJV-UkRfbRMZ2ZGn8hDnP-BlYNbrKr_y5jLlmRkrsLDAKKTIUVgR18xivkzK9rL71x7MIKiQB3altxsH0zwaBk2QM_G-ee1o9L0IpWa-B7QpPQpglCknqVEM5b28YDmbiwPQvX6O1F-8kTDJAWM2V52ik/s4942/LotsaBombsTogetherWithHeading20220503B.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="3660" data-original-width="4942" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKxxQaXZGjDEOVUPnU4MK4eWgQXi22kRJQJV-UkRfbRMZ2ZGn8hDnP-BlYNbrKr_y5jLlmRkrsLDAKKTIUVgR18xivkzK9rL71x7MIKiQB3altxsH0zwaBk2QM_G-ee1o9L0IpWa-B7QpPQpglCknqVEM5b28YDmbiwPQvX6O1F-8kTDJAWM2V52ik/s600/LotsaBombsTogetherWithHeading20220503B.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
Putin has stated many times that he might "go nuclear" in his attack on Ukraine...
<br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-L4N7E4LCNc5QT1M3SaQSaJgjtsGpTCPUWP-KqbvE9BRzCTpbuXFPiLDVRyQQfhMEZI6GDw93va0hqvDwOTB-J60ErXkHjeTqMTuR70icUhJPV7lXxbPrmI7GOyhpN8kgHwQBKTsgnB5UrAjm1v7GLZ_Q0ujxYAWP4rGFAdf1QdgNKEn8N508Jx0Y/s1200/PutinRidingAHydrogenBomb20220504C.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="794" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-L4N7E4LCNc5QT1M3SaQSaJgjtsGpTCPUWP-KqbvE9BRzCTpbuXFPiLDVRyQQfhMEZI6GDw93va0hqvDwOTB-J60ErXkHjeTqMTuR70icUhJPV7lXxbPrmI7GOyhpN8kgHwQBKTsgnB5UrAjm1v7GLZ_Q0ujxYAWP4rGFAdf1QdgNKEn8N508Jx0Y/s600/PutinRidingAHydrogenBomb20220504C.png"/></a></div>
<p/>
<br/>
<p/>
<br/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-80240264466505861112022-02-19T12:33:00.001-08:002022-02-21T18:15:23.146-08:00Nuclear Waste: A problem today, tomorrow, and far into the future...
<p/>
February 18, 2022
<p/>
I live in Carlsbad, less than 20 miles south of San Onofre Nuclear Waste Dump, and have been studying nuclear power for more than 50 years.
<p/>
Along the way I have interviewed, studied with, or read the books and articles by, numerous nuclear experts including metallurgists, engineers, nuclear physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, epidemiologists, medical professionals and many others.
<p/>
A nuclear power plant's main product is radioactive waste. Not "electricity"! Yes, electricity is created and immediately distributed; but the waste that is created remains, and must be very diligently stored for many eons afterwards. The effort required is enormous, is not cheap, and will not get cheaper over time.
<p/>
Imagine having to repackage nuclear waste 100 years from now -- about the longest the current containers might last. Who would want to have that burden, just because 100 years earlier, people refused to use clean renewable sources for electricity?
<p/>
Before use, nuclear fuel is "mildly" radioactive (you can hold a fresh fuel pellet in your hand with just a thin glove). After use in a reactor, the same -- but now "used" -- fuel pellet is **millions** of times more toxic. You can't go near it for even a second and it will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, mainly because of the presence of plutonium (often described as "the most hazardous stuff on earth).
<p/>
The millions of pounds of used nuclear fuel at San Onofre is extremely dangerous and absolutely MUST NOT ever get released to the environment.
<p/>
In addition to the plutonium, other highly toxic elements in the used nuclear fuel include radioactive strontium, cesium, iodine and many other elements. Living things mistake many of these radioactive elements for biologically useful, stable atoms, but when the radioactive elements decay, the energy released is extremely damaging. A single radioactive decay can damage thousands of chemical/biological bonds inside the body.
<p/>
Despite these dangers, the United States has never found a solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste. (See below for a link to a review of past attempts.)
<p/>
Nuclear waste has several properties which make it extremely difficult to safely store: It is extremely toxic, it is thermally hot, radioactively hot, and perhaps most importantly, over time it degrades any container you put it in, and accelerates anything else that causes degradation. There is no chemical bond which cannot be broken by a radioactive decay. Metal alloys weaken as they are bombarded night and day with radioactive emissions.
<p/>
Nuclear waste is also a potent potential target for terrorists.
<p/>
Additionally, any number of environmental disasters -- from earthquakes to tsunamis to meteors -- can destroy any container that is used to store nuclear waste.
<p/>
Accidents also can happen: There are hundreds of locations where radioactive waste is stored in America, including about 70 spent nuclear fuel locations. All are vulnerable to some degree or other.
<p/>
How safe is San Onofre? In my opinion, not very safe at all! The containers are incredibly thin: About 5/8ths of an inch on the sides, a few inches on top, and a few more at the bottom. An RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) would be able to breach a nuclear waste canister. It would only take a few "bad actors" to overwhelm the typical security force that protects the waste. Guards only carry pistols.
<p/>
Southern California is a very precious place! I have lived here for more than three decades and cannot imagine having to move and never come back because one -- just one -- of San Onofre's nuclear waste casks was breached for any reason. But that is entirely possible: Each canister holds more radioactive cesium, for example, than was released by the Chernobyl accident.
<p/>
We all can see the trouble Japan is having with the waste from the triple meltdowns at Fukushima. Far more radioactivity is being stored at San Onofre than has been released at Fukushima. Three reactor cores worth of nuclear fuel melted down at Fukushima. At San Onofre, one third of each reactor core was replaced every 18 months to two years for the entire operating period of the reactors. Nearly all used reactor cores remain on site, so San Onofre's spent fuel dump contains dozens of reactor cores, and their radioactivity is extremely high even though the reactors have not operated for more than 10 years.
<p/>
There is only one reasonable, long-term solution for the world: Stop creating nuclear waste.
<p/>
But as to what should be done with San Onofre's nuclear waste, that is *our* problem right now, and that is the risk we are forced to take thanks to SoCalEd making poor energy decisions.
<p/>
Their first poor decision was to build Unit 1, which never ran very well but created mountains of waste. Then Units 2 and 3 suffered serious vibration problems which resulted in a primary coolant leak, and which could have been catastrophic if the failed steam generators had been just a little more severely damaged than they were in 2011. The plant never ran again.
<p/>
Prior to that event, there had been numerous sudden shutdowns and extended outages. Over the years, Californians narrowly avoided catastrophe a number of times at San Onofre. Must we continue to risk destruction without even getting any benefit anymore? The answer is disturbing: Yes, we must.
<p/>
I advocate for the use of much stronger casks, but this leads to the next problem: Stronger casks are much heavier, and transporting them is therefore more risky, considering the poor state of so many roads, bridges, underpasses, etc.. We would need many more casks and the fuel would need to be transferred from the current casks to the better, stronger casks, but any transfer operation is also risky, and exposes workers to additional radioactivity.
<p/>
The fuel is likely to remain on site, in the current thin-walled casks for at least dozens -- and more likely hundreds -- of years.
<p/>
So what is the best thing to do?
<p/>
Californians should insist on two things: First: There must be radiation monitoring of EACH cask individually, as well as for the entire site as a whole, including radiation detectors with real-time public data streams so the public can know immediately if there is a problem, since evacuation, at least temporarily, is likely to be the only option if there is a problem, and the sooner the evacuation starts, the better. Second: A transfer facility needs to be available for immediately repackaging a leaking or damaged nuclear fuel canister.
<p/>
The current system is NOT designed to be able to handle many very serious potential problems.
<p/>
For example, if a tsunami were to flood the ISFSI* there is a real possibility that adequate cooling will not be possible, especially if debris clogs the vents. This could be catastrophic. There are underwater canyons offshore in the area around the nuclear waste dump which could collapse at any moment, and a wall of water hundreds of feet high could result (there is evidence in the hills to the east of San Onofre that sea water has reached such heights in the geologically recent past).
<p/>
Another potential catastrophic hazard is from earthquakes: The ISFSI does not have "rebar" except on the bottom and on the top -- NOT in the part in-between. This was a serious design flaw, because it is entirely possible, in some earthquake scenarios, for the entire top to shift differently from the bottom, resulting in ALL casks bursting at the same time. (This would make the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters seem like a stubbed toe in comparison.)
<p/>
Of course, such an event is "unlikely" in the extreme. But it IS possible, because the fuel exists, and the ISFSI was poorly designed.
<p/>
All the money in the world can't make San Onofre safe, but SoCalEd is actually being paid to store the fuel because the U.S. federal government promised to take it away for permanent disposal somewhere, and cannot keep that promise. San Onofre should be made to pay for the problem they created, and they should be required to do a better job than they have done.
<p/>
I've listed only a few ways they could greatly reduce the risk. There are many more, but SoCalEd only does the absolute minimum that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires. (The NRC has sole authority for "safety" at nuclear installations, which is a travesty in itself, since they are a "captured agency" which does what the nuclear industry wants them to do, not what the people need in order to be safe.)
<p/>
Please see link, below, for a review of the first three quarters of a century of looking for a solution to the nuclear waste problem, including nearly two dozen quotes from my collection of over 500 books on nuclear power issues.
<p/>
Best regards,
<p/>
Ace Hoffman
<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
Nuclear Waste Management: The view through the years...<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html" rel="nofollow">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a>
<p/>
* ISFSI: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (as nuclear waste dumps like San Onofre are referred to by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
<p/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEirPNs_Ys8orCE-9BkQ2kSbTyxtQgSYA_p6BLeCmpMA2p4vjy5CfsY4fGkZ3UN1xq9ncVXe1eR9ZprqH-7Dda8o6BnVILVI7JsjqN0j8xMkbJDvjQnHwiPoZJ6_qd71tUNR0rRj7BVx1iFINoFpv6YfjT7faTG9zyyIDdtTAV4iKhInDMLY4ydzOUE4=s2100" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="2100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEirPNs_Ys8orCE-9BkQ2kSbTyxtQgSYA_p6BLeCmpMA2p4vjy5CfsY4fGkZ3UN1xq9ncVXe1eR9ZprqH-7Dda8o6BnVILVI7JsjqN0j8xMkbJDvjQnHwiPoZJ6_qd71tUNR0rRj7BVx1iFINoFpv6YfjT7faTG9zyyIDdtTAV4iKhInDMLY4ydzOUE4=s400"/></a></div>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-11667939093643148002021-11-17T15:33:00.004-08:002021-11-17T16:01:44.217-08:00Nuclear Waste Problems are Unsolvable Today, Tomorrow, and ForeverThe nuclear waste problem is *growing* by several canisters' worth of waste *every week* around the country. The problem is getting enormously larger every year. It remains the #1 reason to close Diablo Canyon now rather than later, and majority owner Southern California Edison (SoCalEd or SCE, 80%) and co-owner San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E, 20%) should be the most vocal to the California Public Utilities Commission about that! Of course, that would require SoCalEd and/or SDG&E admitting the whole operation was a mistake from start to finish, which they'll never do. But it was!
<p/>
I think it is vital that we keep reminding the country that operating nuclear power plants are creating this dangerous waste needlessly. There are clean alternatives that are much closer to zero carbon impact, and of course, that don't produce nuclear waste.
<p/>
In the meantime, the public needs to be reminded what they are creating. Otherwise they won't think about the waste problem until their local plant closes. After all: We (the citizens around San Onofre Nuclear [Waste] Generating plant, aka "SanO") didn't (okay, a few of us did, but not many people -- even among activists -- gave it much thought)!
<p/>
We need to consider how we ended up with all these dry casks in the first place. Right now, between three and four thousand of them already exist nationally, and more than 10,000 canisters worth of fuel already exists in America: In the spent fuel pools, already in canisters, or still in operating reactors.
<p/>
How did this happen? About 20 years ago, the nuclear industry realized they had a problem with the Spent Fuel Pools (SPFs) -- largely thanks to a few researchers (Frank von Hipple, for one, as I recall) who noticed that triple-packed and quadruple-packed SPFs weren't nearly as safe as the industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) were claiming, especially if the pools were drained for any reason.
<p/>
One logical solution would have been to turn off the reactors and some of us (raises hand!) argued for that, and SoCalEd would have had to do that, but some nuclear nutcase invented dry cask storage and nearly *everyone* -- including the Union of Only Slightly Concerned Scientists (David Lochbaum, especially) -- supported their use as a way to reduce the "overcrowding" in the pools.
<p/>
Oh sure, it did that -- although shutting off the reactors and letting the used fuel cool would have reduced the risk just as well or better -- but it also did more than that: It enabled the plants to not just finish out their 40-year planned lifespans, but to apply for 60- and even 80- year extended operating licenses.
<p/>
SoCalEd, specifically, cut out at least half a billion dollars' worth of upgrade work, in order to make the deal with the state agencies to go ahead with the replacement steam generators. When the price tag (to the ratepayer) was well over a billion dollars, they whittled it down to something closer to a billion by putting some of the maintenance items into a separate account (the ratepayer, of course, still paid). The place was falling apart: It needed reactor pressure vessel heads, new piping, new control systems...
<p/>
They lied about how thick the canisters would be (they told us they would be two inches thick stainless steel with a 1/4 inch lead lining). They are just over a quarter inch thick, with no lead lining at all.
<p/>
They -- of course -- completely fabricated how much money the replacement steam generators would "save" ratepayers over the next 20 years -- years that were to be made possible by the use of dry casks. But as it turned out, those extra years did happen because of the shoddy workmanship on the replacement steam generators -- OR it's been rumored (but never proven or disproven) that SanO operators tried to run the reactors too hot. For more profit.
<p/>
What does all this history have to do with current events?
<p/>
We, the locals, need to be careful what we wish for. Both for the sake of the world, and of the country, and for our own locality.
<p/>
If nuclear waste starts to be successfully transported around the country, it will not *just* go on for decades -- it will do that in any case. But it will go on *forever*. Every day, spent nuclear fuel will be transported around the country, from somewhere to somewhere else (perhaps for reprocessing, a filthy industrial procedure).
<p/>
And SoCalEd and PG&E will seek to overturn the California state law forbidding "new" nuclear power plants until a "permanent" nuclear waste site outside the state has been found and is operational, on the grounds that a temporary site which won't send it back is the de-facto same as what the intent of the law requires. Once some place accepts the waste, it's legally their problem, not SanO's or ours. That's part of any deal SoCalEd will make -- that they are no longer liable in any way for what happens to the waste after it leaves their fence. That means during transit as well as once it gets somewhere. Anywhere.
<p/>
And what will SoCalEd put at the (by then) leveled and empty San Onofre site?
<p/>
Small Modular [Nuclear] Reactors. At least a dozen of them.
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-62334958930830805272021-10-27T17:15:00.002-07:002021-10-28T06:08:50.619-07:00Date: October 27, 2021<br/>
To: Editor, Los Angeles Times
<p />
This letter is in response to a column by your misguided columnist Jonah Goldberg:
<p />
As someone who has had two different cancers 15 years apart, and whose wife has only one breast because the other was lost to cancer, I would like to know if there is anyone who can prove that nuclear weapons and nuclear power was **not** the cause.
<p />
In all three cases, it might be. There is no way to say for sure that it isn't.
<p />
Millions of Curies of radioactive nuclear fission products (such as strontium) and activation products (such as plutonium) have been released into the environment over the decades since the first reactor went critical in Chicago in 1942.
<p />
There is no minimum radiation dose which is considered to be "safe" according to most experts, including government scientists. All radiation exposures carry some risk -- even the medical ones (I've had countless dental x-rays, four CT scans and two PETs).
<p />
In addition to over 1,150 nuclear explosions (many in the megaton range) by the U.S., and hundreds more nuclear "tests" by other countries, accidents have happened in the so-called "commercial" nuclear industry and they will always continue to happen, because nobody is perfect, and nuclear workers have proven time and time again that they become complacent over time, and lie and cheat with regularity as well. They overestimate their abilities and underestimate the consequences of their failures.
<p />
Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, SL-1, Santa Susanna, the leaks at Hanford, and radioactive messes in thousands of other places in America (and thousands more around the world) all add up. Two US nuclear subs (the Scorpion and the Thresher) and at least half a dozen Russian nuclear subs have been lost at sea.
<p />
The cost in human lives from all these accidents is incalculable, especially when every accident results in someone such as Goldberg saying: "nobody died from [whichever one is being mentioned].
<p />
The cost in money is equally incalculable, but it is expensive: Nuclear weapons cost America trillions of dollars, and so-called "commercial" nuclear power plants invariably require various forms of direct or indirect payment: Subsidies, price guarantees, and practically free insurance with very low maximum payouts to victims.
<p />
No nuclear utility pays for the indefinite time the waste they create will need to be managed. Somebody else (the taxpayers of the future) will pay for nuclear waste storage, as well as for nuclear waste accidents, which are inevitable over time.
<p />
So-called "spent" or "used" nuclear fuel is so toxic that mere millionths of a gram is a fatal dose for many of the isotopes. Radioactive isotopes have been used for political assassinations in quantities smaller than a pinhead. It is an invisible killer.
<p />
There is no room for nuclear power in any responsible energy future. It is unnecessary, unaffordable, and uncompetitive compared to truly renewable and emission-free energy systems such as wind turbines, tidal energy systems, and solar energy (the sun is a convenient nuclear energy source safely located 93 million miles away). Battery backups and many other energy storage systems such as pumped water storage are also available to cover "baseline" needs during slack renewable energy times.
<p />
Electricity can be easily transported thousands of miles by transmission lines, so local short-term renewable energy shortages don't have to impact America's infrastructure. When nuclear plants "go down" they remove a lot of energy from the system because even the planned "Small Modular Nuclear Reactors" are several hundred megawatts, if they have any hope of being cost-competitive with real renewables. Most plans call for there to be clusters of SMNRs at each site.
<p />
And note this: Fukushima, Chernobyl and ALL the other nuclear accidents have actually not been nearly as bad as nuclear power can have.
<p />
There is no need for nuclear power, no need for risking so much when clean, green alternatives exist.
<p />
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, California
<p />
The author, 65, has been studying nuclear issues for more than 50 years (he has a collection of over 500 books on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy).
<p />
-------------------------------------------------------<br/>
The letter below was sent to the San Clemente Times a few days before the LAT letter was sent:<br/>
-------------------------------------------------------
<p />
To: San Clemente Times
<p />
To The Editor:
<p />
This letter is in response to the SanO Public Information Officer's recent letter in your paper:
<p />
Mr. Dobken states that nuclear fuel canisters at SanO have a "service life" of 100 years. Two points: First: Why are they only guaranteed by their manufacturer for 20 years? Second: The nuclear waste within them will be toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. What are we leaving for our progeny?
<p />
Also, while there have been no (admitted) leaks of canisters (YET), there have been a number of incidents of bad welds, as well as a nearly-dropped canister at San Onofre last year, and in a minor earthquake at an east coast reactor, the canisters shifted about four inches. At SanO there is no rebar in the cement between each canister. Furthermore, there is no adequate way to inspect the canisters for microscopic cracks which can encircle the entire canister unnoticed. Removing them (perhaps 100 years from now, and certainly not for at least several decades) can be extremely dangerous if the canister splits open during removal. There is no way to lift them from the bottom, and fully loaded they are extremely heavy.
<p />
Nuclear waste is the most hazardous stuff on earth and it is inadequately protected at San Onofre. For a rundown of the previous decades of attempted nuclear waste management in America, I've reviewed dozens of books here:
<p />
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a>
<p />
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, California
<p />
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-21339945828830736992021-09-17T10:30:00.001-07:002021-09-19T17:35:07.865-07:00My previous PET was a different isotope.I had a PET/CT last Friday. I HOT -- but only for about 24 hours! I have a radiation detector, and the LED that normally blinks
every couple of seconds -- or less -- was solid red (I kept the sound off, it would have been a constant buzz)! I was about three or four orders of magnitude above background (I took some pictures of the readings). This isotope has about a 50 minute half-life. So a lot of people would say I was "clean" after ten half-lives -- in this case then: By dinner time.
<p/>
But the best nuclear physicists I've met (and I've met dozens) prefer to speak of 20 half-lives. You could watch the numbers dropping every time I put the radiation detector up to my body in the same place. Blinking was also elevated if it was simply in the same room, but less and less the further from me the detector was placed, of course.
<p/>
My previous PET, November 2020, was a different isotope: I was "hot" for about three days* because it had a half-life of about eight hours.
<p/>
Last time, they wanted to see how much of the cancer was in the bones (LOTS). This time they wanted to see how much my lymph nodes would take up, a few months after chemo was over.
<p/>
The answer? None!
<p/>
Here's what the doctor just sent me minutes ago:
<p/>
"The PET/CT confirms that you have achieved a complete remission. This is great news!"
<p/>
Blood tests and a bone marrow biopsy a month or two ago had already come out negative. Next blood test is next month -- just to be sure.
<p/>
Not a bad result after spending two one week visits in the hospital getting 13 or 14 (I lost count; might have been 15) units of blood during the two lengthy hospital stays, plus a dozen additional trips to complete my chemo treatments and another two dozen visits to get blood tests -- all during the worst pandemic in modern history! I only saw ONE professional medical person with her mask below her nose, and that was a year ago. the medical staff have been marvelous from start to finish.
<p/>
Radiation has its benefits for mankind. Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are not among them. (Medical isotopes can be made with at most one or two reactors in the entire world, and many isotopes can be made without a reactor (perhaps from all the Spent Nuclear Fuel lying around in hundreds of locations around the world).
<p/>
Today Joe Biden announced he is giving Australia the designs for our nuclear submarines so that Australia can build at least eight nuclear submarines of their own. Says it has nothing to do with China. Uh huh.
<p/>
And today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a "temporary" nuclear waste repository in Texas, that almost nobody in Texas wants -- not even the Governor, who loves nuclear power. But doesn't want to deal with the waste.
<p/>
We all have a lot of work to do!
<p/>
*A small addendum:
<p/>
After the first PET I probably should have isolated for closer to a week, rather than just three days, in keeping with the 20 half-lives standard that the best radiation experts suggest rather than the pro-nuker's standard 10 half-lives number.
<p/>
After 10 half-lives about 1 thousandth of the original amount remains.
<p/>
After 20 half-lives about 1 millionth of the original amount remains.
<p/>
Sometimes I think pro-nukers are just really bad at math.
<p/>
(Note: Anonymous comments will not be printed. All comments must include author's name and contact information (contact information is for verification purposes only and will not be published. Name will be published).
<p/>Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-39076096826276069232021-09-08T11:19:00.003-07:002021-09-08T12:05:35.853-07:00Presentation to the CA Coastal Comm (CCC) Sept. 8, 2021:
<p/>
Commissioners,
<p/>
For decades you accepted the production of thousands of tons of nuclear waste. Why? Because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told you it was "safe" and ALSO told you you cannot make any restrictions based on "safety." They also promised to take the waste away.
<p/>
I've been at hearings here in California where the moment a citizen mentions "safety" they are cut off.
<p/>
So I won't talk about safety.
<p/>
Rather I'm going to talk about consequences, and you CAN make rulings based on ANY potential consequences of any possible accident -- even the rare ones -- the so-called "beyond design basis" accidents.
<p/>
You have an obligation to consider financial, environmental, and health risks to Californians from any and all possible accidents, ESPECIALLY including events which no reasonable person can responsibly predict the "odds" of them happening.
<p/>
Extreme weather, terrorism, even just poor work attitudes or mismanagement -- all are unpredictable.
<p/>
You MUST plan for worst-case scenarios. And if you do, you'll force Diablo Canyon to be permanently closed immediately, because any fool can see what might go wrong at any moment there, by looking at Fukushima or Chernobyl -- or at Hanford. Nobody wants a severe nuclear accident in California. We rebuild after fires, because we can. But areas of Fukushima will be uninhabitable for thousands of years.
<p/>
To prevent a catastrophic event here, you must insist on better management of the waste at San Onofre and at other sites in California.
<p/>
Some nuclear waste has been here for decades already. It isn't going anywhere because nobody wants it. Nobody needs it, and the infrastructure -- roads, tunnels and bridges -- is too dilapidated to move it anyway.
<p/>
Most of the nuclear waste in California is in thin-walled canisters, much of it far too close to earthquake faults and tsunami threats.
<p/>
It's your obligation to protect Californians, our health, and our economy.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
postscript:
<p/>
I've been continuing to listen to the CCC meeting, and a very interesting presentation by Patrick Barnard from "OCOF" talked about groundwater rise that will accompany rising sea levels over the coming decades.
<p/>
It was a very interesting presentation -- but they did not discuss what might happen at San Onofre if the water table rises AND the ocean storms overtop the puny "sea wall" at the nuclear waste site. It would be good for the CCC to discuss that issue specifically when thinking about the environmental problems they are already thinking about. The ISFSI "island" is not designed to float and might crack, splitting open one or more of the thin-walled canisters (or thick-walled ones, if we had those in that ISFSI) and of course, the current canisters might not be able to cool properly if loaded with sand and debris after a tsunami (perhaps caused by a local underwater landslide or even a nuclear offshore attack)...
<p/>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-16478137366533368132021-08-29T19:48:00.002-07:002021-09-01T15:25:32.035-07:00Stranded Nuclear Waste: What future does the industry have?Open letter to local activists:
<p/>
I don't doubt some of you opposed SanO when it was running...but I doubt any of these officials ever thought about how dangerous it was when it was thousands of times more dangerous than it is right now. For ~2200 Megawatts of power they gladly accepted thousands of tons of nuclear waste. Now they want to give it to someone else. And oh, does Edison love them! Nothing will keep the nuclear industry generating more waste than if SanO's waste can get shipped to someone else...the whole bottleneck for the entire industry will be broken! Dangerously overcrowded spent fuel pools used to pose that problem -- a new pool would cost a billion dollars, and they couldn't possibly justify that to any accountant or state committee. So someone invented dry casks, and that broke the spent fuel pool crowding bottleneck, and SanO and other reactors could keep generating waste: More than 10,000 dry casks worth of waste exists (probably close to 4,000 casks are now in existence). Not one nuclear power plant has ever been closed because of a waste problem -- they just put it in canisters: Cheap, thin-walled canisters that will maybe last 20 years if they're lucky, and if they are, they'll push 40, 60, 80 years...until they start to leak all around the country.
<p/>
Not only do the dry casks allow them to not build additional spent fuel pools, SanO and every other PWR started replacing their steam generators and applying for (and getting) additional decades of licensed operation. And we know how that went for SanO. (Crystal River didn't have any luck with it, either.)
<p/>
Helping SanO solve its waste problem helps the nuclear industry keep making more waste.
<p/>
Insisting SanO's experts (such as they exist, which is basically not at all) propose a safer solution would make a lot more sense. Thicker casks. A better sea wall. An ISFSI further back and higher up from the coast.
<p/>
And we are able to testify that Diablo Canyon should be closed TODAY because the waste it generates TOMORROW might be in the cask that a plane crashes into, or that a terrorist is able to get to, or that an earthquake crushes. Or that fails during transport. Or that fails 1000 years from now. Or 100,000 years from now.
<p/>
SanO should be the most vocal voice telling PG&E to shut that dangerous behemoth.
<p/>
SanO just wants to destroy the evidence of their failures. How worn are the main steam pipes? How close to failure were they? SoCalEd doesn't want to know. The industry doesn't want SanO to study it and find out. How close did we come to a meltdown because the reactor pressure vessels themselves have degraded and the steel isn't as strong as it used to be? SoCalEd doesn't want to know.
<p/>
There are no interim storage locations and there is vigorous local opposition to every one that's ever been proposed. But it takes years to decide it won't work -- about 20 years before Yucca Mountain was discarded for scientifically sound reasons that scientists knew about years before the final decision (but "politics" are always blamed for its failure, which is a myth).
<p/>
Not only is there vigorous opposition to all the interim ideas, they are dangerous and barely kick the can down the road, other than to move the waste from one person's problem to somebody else's problem. And the transport, which would presumably have to happen at least twice, is extremely dangerous, especially over America's decaying infrastructure. Moving the waste even half-safely will not be cheap. And then: 10,000 thin-walled canisters in one place is incredibly dangerous.
<p/>
SanO should be investigating neutralization (as I wrote about several years ago) which destroys about 99% of the fissionable material in the waste. Neutralization (which can be done with lasers) destroys the U-235 and Pu-239, which would make the nuclear industry cry (proving it's a good thing!) because they want to REPROCESS all that waste -- so any interim waste site won't be an interim waste site for long. It is absolutely planned to become a reprocessing center at some point in the future. It is NOT a stopping point between the reactors and a permanent repository, it's just being sold to the public as that. No way is that the real plan. No way at all.
<p/>
Ace Hoffman<br/>
Carlsbad, CA
<p/>
Previous related essays:
<p/>
Nuclear wast management through the years:<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html" rel="nofollow">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a>
<p/>
Can spent nuclear fuel be transported?<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2020/09/can-spent-nuclear-fuel-be-transported.html" rel="nofollow">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2020/09/can-spent-nuclear-fuel-be-transported.html</a>
<p/>
What is spent fuel neutralization and why is it the best solution?<br/>
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html" rel="nofollow">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html</a>
<p/>
External link:<br/>
New Mexico’s nuclear rush<br/>
A massive nuclear waste site near Carlsbad is seemingly on a fast track. Can the company behind it be trusted?
<br />
By Sammy Feldblum and Tovah Strong|February 3, 2021<br/>
<a href="https://searchlightnm.org/new-mexicos-nuclear-rush/" rel="nofollow">https://searchlightnm.org/new-mexicos-nuclear-rush/</a>
Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478338160174751106.post-28364885393574523662021-03-17T11:11:00.003-07:002021-11-17T15:46:56.671-08:00The nuclear industry won't admit they have a problem they can't solve.If you have a problem, the first step towards solving that problem is to admit you have a problem.
<p />
The nuclear industry hasn't done that. They won't admit that nuclear waste is an UNSOLVABLE problem. SoCalEd won't admit that the nuclear waste at San Onofre poses an unsolvable problem for California, for America, for the world, and for all of humanity AND ALL LIVING THINGS for all time to come.
<p />
So for them, this is all a game to get the local activists (that's us) to support "solving" the waste problem HERE, by giving it to someone else THERE. And they don't care where "there" is, and neither do most of the local citizens.
<p />
What they should be doing is going bankrupt and telling the rest of the nuclear industry that they cannot solve an unsolvable problem and they wish they had never made the waste in the first place. That is what activists in SoCal should be pushing for. To get SoCalEd to tell PG&E and all the other nuke blowhards that they messed up, and very badly at that.
<p />
Until SoCalEd and the nuclear industry admits they have an expensive, dangerous mess that CANNOT be solved safely AT ANY PRICE, instead of blaming the Feds for not simply taking the waste off their hands and off their lands, nothing good can be gained from helping SoCalEd solve THEIR problem alone, without consequence for the nuclear industry. Their statement even starts by saying they want the problem solved cheaply. They want the impossible and have always wanted the impossible.
<p />
Just beefing up the nation's infrastructure alone so that we can "safely" (sort of) transport the waste will cost trillions of dollars to strengthen bridges and underpasses nationwide. Recall several instances of bridges falling down in the past few decades, including the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut (which I was going over twice a day at the time and HEARD the destruction of the pin that held the bridge several times before it fell). Also I-35 West. Also recall the Baltimore Tunnel Fire, which burned so hot and for so long, that any nuke waste containers that might have been being transported at the time would have burst and released ALL of their contents.
<p />
Some of the best scientific minds in the world have struggled with the nuclear waste problem since the dawn of the nuclear age. I outlined their decades-long failure in a newsletter from October, 2017:
<p />
Nuclear Waste Management: The view through the years...
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/10/nuclear-waste-management-view-through.html</a>
<p />
Probably the best thing to do with nuclear waste is to neutralize as much of it as possible on-site, a concept developed and patented by Dr. Peter Moshchansky Livingston and described in this newsletter from November, 2017:
<p />
What is spent nuclear fuel neutralization and why is it the best solution?
<a href="https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html">https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-spent-nuclear-fuel.html</a>
<p />
Even neutralization won't be cheap, won't be easy, and won't be 100% successful. But it's still the BEST solution for the reasons outlined in the newsletter.
<p />
To pretend that there will ever be a solution is a fantasy -- a denial of science. A pipe dream. And helping SoCalEd solve THEIR problem without solving the REAL problem (the continued production of nuclear waste) is counterproductive in the extreme.
<p />
Ace Hoffman<br />
March 17th, 2021
<p />
###
<p />
Why does the nuclear industry want to store its highly toxic radioactive spent fuel in "below grade" storage facilities, even though they believe it will be moved to a consolidated interim storage facility soon?
<p />
Out of sight, out of mind!
<p />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SYu49FBwFvM/YFNrPVAOvnI/AAAAAAAAHiU/pCz7DJg7woEP4TBC-kA5jRBwRSC_9U7QACLcBGAsYHQ/s1001/DryCasksAreNotPretty.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="522" data-original-width="1001" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SYu49FBwFvM/YFNrPVAOvnI/AAAAAAAAHiU/pCz7DJg7woEP4TBC-kA5jRBwRSC_9U7QACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/DryCasksAreNotPretty.png"/></a></div>
<p />Ace Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15783994798725897466noreply@blogger.com0