The difficulty being, your references are estimates based on what dose threshold?
Well, you have to go three citations deep to reach the original model they're working off of. Which turns out to be a conservative application of Linear No Threshold. Which... isn't actually testable for any reasonable value of statistical significance over the populations they're attempting to apply it to.
The BEIR VII risk models are a combination of excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models, both of which are written as a linear function of dose, depending on sex, age at exposure and attained age. The BEIR VII risk models were derived from analyses of data on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors for all cancer sites except breast and thyroid; for the latter, they were based on published combined analyses of data on the atomic bomb survivors and medically exposed cohorts.40, 41 To estimate risks from exposure at low doses and dose rates, a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 1.5 was used for all outcomes except leukemia.
The biological effects of acute radiation exposure >1 Gy are reasonably well-known, are the basis for the linear-no-threshold model, and completely inapplicable to this sitation, as even the most-exposed workers at the Fukushima accident site did even approach this dose, despite the multiple situations where workers were exposed to doses in excess of legal limits.
The biological effects of short term dose less than 0.05 Gy or low-dose long-term exposure are also reasonably well-known, in that there is no statistically significant effect.
Unless you're dealing with the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war, the linear-no-threshold model is nearly useless from an epidemiological perspective, and so are conclusions reached using it.


NNSA and Moldova install radiation detection system at Chisinau Airport
This partnership advances efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism.
The system of 18 radiation portal monitors and associated communications systems will enhance efforts to prevent smuggling of dangerous radioactive materials across international borders.
Since 2011, NNSA, Moldovan Customs, and Moldovan Border Police have jointly deployed radiation detection systems at 22 points of entry along Moldova’s borders and at its main international airport. NNSA has also provided seven mobile radiation detection systems.
NNSA has trained over 200 front-line officers to operate its detection equipment and respond to radiation alarms.
In addition, NNSA has implemented a system that transmits data alerts from designated points of entry to the Moldovan Ministry of Finance’s national and regional headquarters, providing oversight of the system.
This multilayered nuclear detection architecture enables Moldova, a committed partner in a strategically important region, to participate effectively in the fight against nuclear smuggling. ■


The Supreme Court of India directed that the Kudankulam nuclear plant situated in Tamil Nadu could start its operations now. A bench of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and DipakMisra issued the directions to the government on safety as well as security of the plant, along with its operations.
The Supreme Court directed Nuclear Power Corporation of India and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to ensure that all steps were taken for the safety of the nuclear plant.
The Apex Court explained that the Kudankulam nuclear plant was absolutely safe and secure and that it was necessary to start its operations for economic growth as well as welfare of India.
In 2012, the fishermen as well as villagers protested against the fuelling of this plant. Opponents of this plant, People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) complained that it was situated in the area which was affected badly by 2004 Asian tsunami and that there was a fear of disaster like that of Fukushima nuclear plant of Japan in 2011.
The Kudankulam nuclear plant is among those plants which is a part of India’s aim of generating 63000 MW of nuclear power by 2032.
Controversy over Kudankulam nuclear plant
Kudankulam nuclear plant is the under-construction nuclear power plant in Kudankulam in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. The construction of this plant began in March 2002. The delay in the construction of the plant is attributed to anti-nuclear protests by the locals as well as People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE).
The pre-service inspection of the first unit of Kudankulam nuclear plant began by the engineers in 2012. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board completed the inspection of reactor pressure vessel of Unit-1 and it was found that there were no defects at all.


A new technology being developed by U.S. energy company Holtec International, which promises to transform coal-fired power plants into plants powered by small modular reactors (SMRs), is being eyed by Poland as a potential solution to securing the country’s energy supply.
Holtec recently applied for a patent for the innovative technology, which is capable of transforming any coal-fired power plant into a nuclear power plant.
According to World Nuclear News, the company has developed a multi-stage compressor system that can replace the boiler of a coal-fired power plant with a small modular nuclear reactor. This solution will increase the steam pressure and superheat it, which is essential for powering the turbogenerators in coal-fired power plants.
Holtec International highlights the potential to convert thousands of decommissioned coal-fired power plants worldwide into efficient sources of clean energy, supported by research from the U.S. Energy Department. The research suggests hundreds of plants in the United States can be converted to nuclear power.
Nuclear energy remains a hot topic in Poland, with the latest news detailing the locations where Orlen and Synthos plan to build small modular nuclear reactors
The BWRX-300 reactors, based on U.S. technology, will be located near Warsaw, Kraków, Włocaławek and several other places in Poland. Orlen CEO Daniel Obajtek announced that further preliminary locations would be announced later this year.
Moreover, a letter of intent has already been signed with American partners regarding the financing of the investment. U.S. Ambassador Mark Brzezinski stated that the federal EXIM Bank and the International Development Finance Corporation would provide support of $3 billion and $1 billion, respectively.
Small nuclear reactor technology is seen as crucial for Poland’s energy security, providing both electric power and significant heat for local grids. This is especially important for power, heating, and combined heat and power plants that still rely on coal, which is increasingly expensive under the EU’s climate policy.
Nuclear thermal power plants, on the other hand, using SMR technology, benefit from the nuclear fission process, which offers greater reliability and resilience compared to coal-fired units, which are subject to fuel availability and geopolitical risks, as demonstrated during the Ukrainian war. These SMR plants run no matter the weather conditions or fuel supplies.
Building a nuclear power plant or combined heat and power plant is a significant challenge. Both small and large atoms require the installation of a new nuclear block and associated infrastructure. This includes adapting local energy networks or building new connections, which is time-consuming and requires a significant financial investment.
Poland’s adoption of SMR technology requires careful planning, risk management, and adherence to safety standards to ensure effective implementation. SMR technology represents a significant step towards a more sustainable and independent energy policy, promoting a more environmentally friendly and efficient energy sector.


The accusations flew on Wednesday at the local school board meeting, packed with parents worried and angry about radiation levels in this city at the heart of Japan’s nuclear crisis. “Do you really care about our children’s health?” one parent shouted. “Why have you acted so late?” said another. Among other concerns: Isn’t radiation still raining down on Fukushima? Shouldn’t the entire school building be decontaminated? The entire city? Can we trust you? “We are doing all we can,” pleaded Tomio Watanabe, a senior official of Fukushima’s education board.
A huge outcry is erupting in Fukushima over what parents say is a blatant government failure to protect their children from dangerous levels of radiation. The issue has prompted unusually direct confrontations in this conflict-averse society, and has quickly become a focal point for anger over Japan’s handling of the accident at the nearby Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, ravaged in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. At issue are updated government guidelines that allow schoolchildren to be exposed to radiation doses that are more than 20 times the previously permissible levels. That dose is equal to the international standard for adult nuclear power plant workers.
Adding to the anxiety, there is little scientific knowledge of the sorts of radiation dangers that Japan may now be facing. Scientists say readings in most areas are too low to cause immediate illness — even among children, who are more vulnerable — but they have a limited understanding of how low radiation doses over a long period of time can affect health.


SHINE Technologies LLC (SHINE), a next-generation nuclear technology company, and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) announced signing of the first-ever contracts as part of the Department’s Uranium Lease and Take-back Program. The shared milestone for SHINE and the Department’s efforts will help increase domestic production of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), a crucial medical radioisotope used in over 40,000 daily medical diagnostic procedures across the United States to assist in diagnosing life-threatening diseases, including heart disease and cancer.
The NNSA’s lease contract will provide SHINE with the low-enriched uranium necessary to produce Mo-99, while SHINE’s contract with DOE-EM details requirements surrounding the return of any resulting radioactive waste without a commercial disposition path once Mo-99 production is complete.
“Signing these contracts with SHINE is a crucial step toward medical isotope autonomy for the United States,” said Corey Hinderstein, NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. “Once SHINE begins production, our country will be that much closer to creating a reliable and sufficient supply of these life-saving materials right here at home, while also increasing nuclear security by reducing the use of highly enriched uranium.”


by Workers at the Nuclear Institute at Dubna, and the University of California, Berkeley, USA. at 1967 in USSR, United States. Origin of name
: the origin of the name dubnium is the Joint Nuclear Institute at Dubna
", an institute heavily involved in the search for heavy elements.
Dubnium apparently was synthesized by Russian and American workers independently by bombardment technologies. Its actual isolation as the free element has not been accomplished.
In 1967, Flerov reported element 105 after experiments at the Joint Research Institute in Russia involving reactions between 243Am ions with 22Ne ions. In 1970, Ghiorso and others announced their synthesis of dubnium at Berkeley (California) in the USA. This method involved the collsion of 249Cf ions with 15N ions.


Latest Nuclear energy in China Stories
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC today announced it signed two instrumentation and control system cooperation agreements with China’s State Nuclear Power Automation System Engineering Company.
Westinghouse Electric Company and Blue Castle Holdings today announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding to pursue the development of a two-unit AP1000® nuclear power plant at
Westinghouse Electric Company today announced that it has signed a shareholder agreement following consultations with all Bulgarian political parties for the expansion of the Kozloduy Nuclear
MONTREAL, July 24, 2014 /CNW Telbec/ - SNC-Lavalin (TSX: SNC) is pleased to announce that it has signed a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the China National Nuclear Corporation
THE WOODLANDS, Texas, July 16, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- CB&I (NYSE:CBI) today announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding
BEIJING, April 1, 2014 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Hollysys Automation Technologies, Ltd.
Westinghouse Electric Company announced the successful completion of a significant milestone at the AP1000® nuclear power plant currently under construction in Sanmen, China, when the Unit
Westinghouse recognizes Czech Moravian-Silesian region fundamental to Temelin AP1000® reactor success; identifies 28 local companies with the potential to supply the project, including companies
Market Publishers Ltd is announced as a media partner of The 2nd Annual Nuclear Information Technology China Forum 2014 (NITF 2014).
- Stoppage; cessation (of labor).
- A standing still or idling (of mills, factories, etc.).


The hype around self-driving taxis…
Oil prices continued to climb…
The abandonment of plans to build or upgrade nuclear facilities in the United States and Europe could prevent the international community from meeting its reduced carbon emissions targets, according to an official from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
In both the United States and the European Union, nuclear energy is the largest low-carbon source of energy. IEA data shows that nuclear produces three times more power than wind and solar energy combined in both regions, with most production coming from plants built more than three decades ago, Reuters reported.
"The ageing of the nuclear fleet is a considerable challenge for energy security and decarbonization objectives," IEA Chief Economist Laszlo Varro told Reuters on the sidelines of the Eurelectric utilities conference this week.
The rapid decommissioning of nuclear plants in the past decade – a 20 percent total loss in capacity - has negated some of the effects of the global shift towards low-carbon or no carbon emissions energies.
"This is just a taste of things to come," Varro said in Portugal.
While Russia, India, and China continue to pursue nuclear power, Japan, the U.S., and Europe have become hesitant to commission new projects after the 2011 Fukushima incident.
"If we do not keep nuclear in the energy mix and do not accelerate wind and solar deployment, the loss of nuclear capacity will knock us back by 15 to 20 years. We do not have that much time to lose," Varro said.
American nuclear plants have also struggled to compete with facilities equipped to run on cheap shale gas from the Bakken and Permian basins. In other cases, the ongoing construction of nuclear plants went over budget, discouraging financiers from funding future projects.
By Zainab Calcuttawala for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
Zainab Calcuttawala is an American journalist based in Morocco. She completed her undergraduate coursework at the University of Texas at Austin (Hook’em) and reports on…


Kazuko Hamada: Lessons Learned from Hiroshima and FukushimaRoundup: Talking About History
Kazuko Hamada is Senior Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Planning and Coordination Office Integrated Support Center for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nuclear Security, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). This article is drawn from a series on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "Perspectives on Hiroshima," published by the Federation of American Scientists. Read the full series here.
Nuclear energy is a double-edged sword with military applications on one side and nonmilitary ones on the other side. Enrico Fermi expressed this double-edged nature of nuclear energy as “an energy source that produces this much radioactivity and that can be subject to diversion of material for bombs.” Lamentably, Japan has undergone tragedies from both sides: attacks with nuclear weapons from one side and the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (Fukushima NPP 1) on the other side. Building on this fact and the occasion of commemoration of the 67th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, I would like to discuss the lessons learned and reconsider what responsibilities Japan should bear for these tragedies.
Sixty-seven years ago, on August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima in Japan was attacked with a nuclear weapon, which made Japan the first country targeted by this new weapon. Three days later, another atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. These two atomic bombings resulted in an immediate death toll of more than 210,000 people in the two cities. Understandably, these tragic events transformed Japan into a strong advocate of the total elimination of all existing nuclear weapons, claiming that Japan should be the last country to suffer from atomic bombing....
In the early 1970s, because of scarce indigenous energy resources, Japan enhanced its energy security by increasing its use of nuclear energy and by establishing a closed nuclear fuel cycle. This move came with more proactive cooperation and transparency to achieve international confidence in the peaceful nature of Japan’s nuclear activities. To this end, Japan promoted several technical projects for effective safeguards to reprocessing and enrichment activities, including the Hexapartite Safeguards Project, the Tokai Advanced Safeguards Technology Exercise, and the Large Scale Reprocessing Plant Safeguards.
In short, while the two tragic experiences in 1945 led Japan to become a proactive advocate of nuclear disarmament, these experiences also reminded Japan of its responsibility to actively demonstrate the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear activities in its need for energy security....
comments powered by Disqus
- Josh Hawley Earns F in Early American History
- Does Germany's Holocaust Education Give Cover to Nativism?
- "Car Brain" Has Long Normalized Carnage on the Roads
- Hawley's Use of Fake Patrick Henry Quote a Revealing Error
- Health Researchers Show Segregation 100 Years Ago Harmed Black Health, and Effects Continue Today
- Nelson Lichtenstein on a Half Century of Labor History
- Can America Handle a 250th Anniversary?
- New Research Shows British Industrialization Drew Ironworking Methods from Colonized and Enslaved Jamaicans
- The American Revolution Remains a Hotly Contested Symbolic Field
- Untangling Fact and Fiction in the Story of a Nazi-Era Brothel


General Fusion announces new fusion demo machine
By Leigh Ann Kesler & Melanie Windridge
General Fusion announced plans to build a new magnetised target fusion (MTF) device on Wednesday 9th August. This new device will be constructed at their Richmond, Canada, headquarters to demonstrate fusion conditions at scale.
So, what have they done and how significant is it?
The plasma injector (PI3) has already achieved the temperature and energy confinement times required by LM26 © General Fusion
What have they done?
General Fusion has made a strategic shift and announced they will be building an intermediate fusion device in Canada before constructing their Fusion Demonstration Plant (FDP) at UKAEA’s Culham Campus in England.
The Fusion Demonstration Plant, which received UK planning approval earlier this year, was due to commence construction this summer, be commissioned in 2026 and fully operational by early 2027. It would be 70 per cent scale of a commercial power plant, designed to create fusion conditions in a power plant-relevant environment, achieving temperatures of over 100 million degrees Celsius.
Now they plan to achieve these key fusion milestones in a new device and delay the UK Fusion Demonstration Plant by a couple of years. When built, however, this device will be closer to a commercial scale facility and incorporate a number of commercial plant features that were not originally planned for this machine.
In their recently completed Series F funding, they raised $25M from both private investors and new grant funding from the Government of British Colombia, which builds upon the Canadian government's ongoing support via the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF). This funding will support construction of the new device, Lawson Machine 26 (LM26) at the company headquarters in Richmond, British Columbia.
Greg Twinney, CEO of General Fusion, said, “Our updated three-year Fusion Demonstration Program puts us on the best path forward to commercialize our technology by the 2030s. We’re harnessing our team’s existing strengths right here in Canada and delivering high-value, industry-leading technical milestones in the near term.”
Why is this impressive?
Like many fusion companies, General Fusion has acquired funding to build an intermediate-sized device that will allow them to “de-risk” on their path to a demonstration device.
General Fusion has been developing Magnetised Target Fusion (MTF) technology since 2002. MTF differs from the approaches of magnetic and inertial confinement fusion, which require large magnet and laser systems, respectively, to generate the temperatures and pressures required for self-sustaining fusion. MTF attempts to incorporate the advantages of both magnetic and inertial fusion designs while avoiding some of the technological challenges.
In General Fusion’s design, the fusion plasma is injected into a spinning liquid-metal cylinder, which is then compressed with pistons, bringing the plasma to the temperature and pressure required for fusion to occur. In a power plant the process would be rapidly repeated as the energy from the fusion neutrons is absorbed by the liquid metal, then transferred to another fluid for electricity generation.
The new device, Lawson Machine 26 (LM26), is designed to about half the scale of a commercial fusion device, similar to the scale of other demonstration devices . LM26 will use the existing operational plasma injector (PI3), developed by General Fusion, with a new lithium liner compression system to reach new milestones on their path to fusion.
LM26 will run deuterium fuel (instead of deuterium-tritium fuel as planned for a power plant) and so is not planned to actually reach energy breakeven, only breakeven equivalent. Instead, it will allow General Fusion to demonstrate the temperatures necessary for fusion (100 million degrees Celsius, around 10 keV) by 2025, and the conditions required for breakeven by 2026.
The fusion demonstration facility designed by architect Amanda Levete. © General Fusion.
Why is it important?
Zoltan Tompa, Senior Partner, BDC Capital’s Climate Tech Fund II said: “The new LM26 machine represents a capital efficient steppingstone to de-risk their Fusion Demonstration Program while accelerating the delivery of critical milestones such as fusion conditions and energy breakeven.”
LM26’s results will validate the company’s ability to compress magnetised plasmas in a repeatable manner and achieve fusion conditions at scale. It aims to fast-track their technical results and go beyond what was initially planned for the UK device.
This step integrates well with the agreement between General Fusion and the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) to build the Fusion Demonstration Plant (FDP) at the Culham campus in England. General Fusion says that, over the next two to three years, the team will work closely with the UK Atomic Energy Authority to validate the data gathered from LM26 and incorporate it into the design of the FDP.
After FDP, General Fusion plans to commercialise their design by building a First Of A Kind power plant to put electricity on the grid in the early- to mid-2030s.
If LM26 is to produce fusion temperatures by 2025, there should be rapid construction at the site in Richmond, which will likely lead to interesting news reports on construction progress as well as components’ and systems’ testing.
The design for the Fusion Demonstration Plant will be largely based on the results of the experiments in LM26, so the details of that design should begin to evolve in the next two to three years. In addition, the collaboration between General Fusion and the UKAEA will likely result in other stepping stones on the path to FDP and beyond.


Karyoku Genshiryoku Hatsuden, 71(11), p.638 - 648, 2020/11
Development status of next generation reactors is outlined mainly for sodium cooled fast reactor developed in Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). Development strategy in Japan, status of the advanced reactor developments including SMR over the world, and also results of research and development in JAEA are explained.
Ito, Chikara; Maeda, Shigetaka; Inoue, Toshihiko; Tomita, Hideki*; Iguchi, Tetsuo*
Radiation Protection, 40(6), p.491 - 495, 2020/11
A highly accurate and precise technique for measurement of the Nb(n,n')Nb reaction rate was established for the material surveillance tests, etc. in fast reactors. The self-absorption effect on the measurement of the characteristic X-rays emitted by Nb was decreased by the solution and evaporation to dryness of niobium dosimeter. A highly precise count of the number of Nb atoms was obtained by measuring the niobium solution concentration using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. X-rays of Nb were measured accurately by means of comparing the X-ray intensity of irradiated niobium solution with that of the solution in which stable Nb was added. The difference between both intensities indicates the effect of Ta, which is generated from an impurity tantalum, and the intensity of X-rays from Nb was evaluated. Measurement error of the Nb(n,n')Nb reaction rate was reduced to be less than 4%, which was equivalent to the other reaction rate errors of dosimeters used for Joyo dosimetry. In addition, an advanced technique using Resonance Ionization Mass Spectrometry was proposed for the precise measurement of Nb yield, and Nb will be resonance-ionized selectively by discriminating the hyperfine splitting of the atomic energy levels between Nb and Nb at high resolution.
Negishi, Hitoshi; Kamide, Hideki; Maeda, Seiichiro; Nakamura, Hirofumi; Abe, Tomoyuki
Nihon Genshiryoku Gakkai-Shi ATOMO, 62(8), p.438 - 441, 2020/08
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor, Monju, was under decommission since April, 2018. It is the first time for Japan to make a sodium cooled reactor into decommission. It is significant work and will take 30 years. The Monju has provided wide spectrum and huge amount of findings and knowledge, e.g., design, R&D, manufacturing, construction, and operation up to 40% of full power over 50 years of development history. It is significant to utilize such findings and knowledge for the development and commercialization of a fast rector in Japan.
Tsuruga Comprehensive Research and Development Center
JAEA-Technology 2019-007, 159 Pages, 2019/07
This report summarizes the history and achievements of the prototype fast breeder reactor Monju. The development of Monju started in 1968 as a prototype reactor following the experimental fast reactor Joyo. The development covers all the activity related to the fast reactor; plant design, mockup tests, construction, operation, and plant management. This report summarizes the history and achievements for 11 technical areas: history and principal achievements, design and construction, operation test, plant safety, core physics, fuel, plant system, sodium technology, materials and mechanical design, plant management, and trouble management.
Ito, Chikara; Naito, Hiroyuki; Ishikawa, Takashi; Ito, Keisuke; Wakaida, Ikuo
JPS Conference Proceedings (Internet), 24, p.011038_1 - 011038_6, 2019/01
A high-radiation resistant optical fiber has been developed in order to investigate the interiors of the reactor pressure vessels and the primary containment vessels at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The tentative dose rate in the reactor pressure vessels is assumed to be up to 1 kGy/h. We developed a radiation resistant optical fiber consisting of a 1000 ppm hydroxyl doped pure silica core and 4 % fluorine doped pure silica cladding. We attempted to apply the optical fiber to remote imaging technique by means of fiberscope. The number of core image fibers was increased from 2000 to 22000 for practical use. The transmissive rate of infrared images was not affected after irradiation of 1 MGy. No change in the spatial resolution of the view scope by means of image fiber was noted between pre- and post-irradiation. We confirmed the applicability of the probing system, which consists of a view scope using radiation-resistant optical fibers.
Usami, Shin; Kishimoto, Yasufumi*; Taninaka, Hiroshi; Maeda, Shigetaka
JAEA-Technology 2018-003, 97 Pages, 2018/07
The decay heat used for effectiveness evaluation of the prevention measures against severe accidents in the prototype fast breeder reactor Monju was evaluated by applying the updated nuclear data libraries based on JENDL-4.0, reflecting the realistic core operation pattern, and setting the rational extent of uncertainty. The decay heats of fission products, the actinide nuclides such as Cm-242, and radioactive structural materials were calculated by FPGS code. The decay heat of U-239 and Np-239 was evaluated based on ANSI/ANS-5.1-1994. The calculation uncertainty of each decay heat was evaluated based on summation of uncertainty factors, C/E values of reaction rates obtained in Monju system startup test, and so on. Furthermore, the decay heat evaluation method based on the FPGS90 was verified by the comparison of the results of the decay heat measurement of the two spent MOX fuel subassemblies in the experimental fast reactor Joyo MK-II core.
Yamamoto, Takahiro; Ito, Chikara; Maeda, Shigetaka; Ito, Hideaki; Sekine, Takashi
JAEA-Technology 2017-036, 41 Pages, 2018/02
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo, the damaged upper core structure (UCS) was retrieved into the cask in May 2014 The dose rate on UCS surface was quite high due to the activation for over 30 years operation. In order to attain the optimum safety design, manufacture and operation of equipment for UCS replacement, the method to evaluate UCS surface dose rate was developed on the basis of C/E obtained by the in-vessel dose rate measurement in Joyo. In order to verify the evaluation method, the axial gamma-ray distribution measurement on the surface of the cask, which contained UCS, was conducted using a plastic scintillating optical fiber (PSF) detector. This paper describes the comparison results between calculation and measurement as follows. (1) The measured axial gamma-ray distribution on the cask surface had a peak on proper location with considering the cask shielding structure and agree well with the calculated distribution. (2) The C/E of axial gamma-ray distribution on the cask surface was ranged from 1.1 to 1.7. It was confirmed that the calculation for UCS replacement equipment design had a margin conservatively. Then, the results showed that the developed evaluation method for UCS replacement equipment design was sufficiently reliable.
Ashida, Takashi; Nakamura, Toshiyuki*; Ito, Hideaki
JAEA-Technology 2017-024, 198 Pages, 2017/11
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo, the disconnecting of an irradiation test subassembly MARICO-2 (Material Testing Irradiation Rig with Temperature Control) from its holding mechanism was conducted in May 2007. After the operation, the rotating plug was rotated despite the fact that the test subassembly was not disconnected completely. Consequently, top of wrapper tube of the MARICO-2 subassembly was bent onto the in-vessel storage rack. Since the overhanging part of the subassembly was in the height in which contacts with the upper core structure, it had damaged the bottom surface of the upper core structure. As the result, it was necessary to replace the damaged upper core structure and to retrieve the bent MARICO-2 subassembly for Joyo restart. Retrieval devices for MARICO-2 subassembly consist of a gripper mechanism to lift subassembly together with transfer pot, a guide tube built-in a pantograph mechanism to adjust lifting axis and safety mechanisms to prevent or mitigate falling of MARICO-2 subassembly, a retrieval cask and so on. Design of the retrieval devices have been verified in ex-vessel partial or full-scale mock-up tests and in-vessel function tests. In 2014, MARICO-2 subassembly was successfully retrieved from the reactor vessel by applying these retrieval devices. Then, retrieved subassembly was transported to a hot-cell facility for post-irradiation examinations. Devices have demonstrated expected performance under the actual environmental conditions of a sodium cooled fast reactor. This is a synthetic report about the retrieval work of the deformed and irradiated test subassembly in Joyo. This report includes the detail design and fabrication of the special retrieval device, results of tests for confirmation including the mock-up tests in manufacturer's factory, and results of MARICO-2 retrieval work from the reactor vessel.
Maeda, Seiichiro; Oki, Shigeo; Otsuka, Satoshi; Morimoto, Kyoichi; Ozawa, Takayuki; Kamide, Hideki
Proceedings of International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles; Next Generation Nuclear Systems for Sustainable Development (FR-17) (USB Flash Drive), 10 Pages, 2017/06
The next generation fast reactor is being investigated in Japan, aiming at several targets such as "safety", "reduction of environmental burden" and "economic competitiveness". As for the safety aspect, FAIDUS concept is adopted to avoid re-criticality in core destructive accidents. The uranium-plutonium mixed oxide fuel, in which minor actinide elements are included, will be applied to reduce the amount and potential radio-toxicity of radioactive wastes. The high burn-up fuel is pursued to reduce fuel cycle cost. The candidate concept of the core and fuel design, which could satisfy various design criteria by design devisals, has been established. In addition, JAEA is investigating material properties and irradiation behavior of MA-MOX fuel. JAEA is developing the fuel design code especially for the fuel pin with annular pellets of MA-bearing MOX. Furthermore, JAEA is developing oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) ferritic steel cladding for the high burnup fuel.
Ashida, Takashi; Ito, Hideaki; Miyamoto, Kazuyuki*; Nakamura, Toshiyuki; Koga, Kazuhiro*; Ohara, Norikazu*; Ino, Hiroichi*
Nihon Genshiryoku Gakkai Wabun Rombunshi, 15(4), p.210 - 222, 2016/12
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo, it was confirmed that the top of the irradiation test sub-assembly of material testing rig named "MARICO-2" had been broken and bent onto the in-vessel storage rack as an obstacle and had damaged the upper core structure (UCS). As the result, for Joyo restart, it was necessary to replace the damaged UCS and to retrieve the bent sub-assembly. This paper describes in-vessel repair techniques performed in the retrieval work of the obstacle inside of the reactor vessel. The devices which were prepared for this work demonstrated expected performance under the environmental conditions of an SFR such as high temperature and radiation dose, and the work was completed in 2014. The successful operation of this retrieval work of the damaged component inside of a reactor vessel will contribute to the development of in-service inspections and repair technics in an SFR.
Okuda, Eiji; Sasaki, Jun; Suzuki, Nobuhiro; Takamatsu, Misao; Nagai, Akinori
JAEA-Technology 2016-017, 20 Pages, 2016/07
In-Vessel Observation (IVO) techniques for Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs) in service are important for confirming their safety and integrity. Since IVO equipment for an SFR has to be designed to tolerate the severe conditions (high temperature, high radiation dose and limited access route), fiberscopes used to be used in previous IVO for SFRs. However, in order to attain an IVO with higher quality and resolution, IVO using a radiation resistant camera was conducted in the fast experimental reactor Joyo and obtained some results. The demonstration results provided valuable insights for use in further improving and verifying IVO techniques in SFRs.
Ito, Hiromichi*; Ota, Katsu; Kawahara, Hirotaka; Kobayashi, Tetsuhiko; Takamatsu, Misao; Nagai, Akinori
JAEA-Technology 2016-008, 87 Pages, 2016/05
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo, as a part of the restoration work of a partial dysfunction of fuel handling, the replacement of the upper core structure (UCS) was started from March 2014, and was completed in December 2014. In the jack-up test, the UCS was jacked-up to 1000 mm without significant sodium shearing resistance and interference. In the replacement of the UCS, a procedure was prepared with the use of wire-jack equipment assuming the interference. As a result, with the procedure and wire-jack were effectively functioned, the work was successfully completed.
Usami, Shin; Kishimoto, Yasufumi; Taninaka, Hiroshi; Maeda, Shigetaka
Proceedings of International Conference on the Physics of Reactors; Unifying Theory and Experiments in the 21st Century (PHYSOR 2016) (USB Flash Drive), p.3263 - 3274, 2016/05
The present paper describes the validation of the new decay heat evaluation method using FPGS90 code with both the updated nuclear data library and the rational extent of uncertainty, by comparing the results of the decay heat measurement of the spent fuel subassemblies in Joyo MK-II core and by comparing with the calculation results of ORIGEN2.2 code. The calculated values of decay heat (C) by FPGS90 based on the JENDL-4.0 library were coincident with the measured ones (E) within the calculation uncertainties, and the C/E ranged from 1.01 to 0.93. FPGS90 evaluated the decay heat almost 3% larger than ORIGEN2.2, and it improved the C/E in comparison with the ORIGEN2.2 code. Furthermore, The C/E by FPGS90 based on the JENDL-4.0 library was improved than that based on the JENDL-3.2 library, and the contribution of the revision of reaction cross section library to the improvement was dominant rather than that of the decay data and fission yield data libraries.
Takamatsu, Misao; Kawahara, Hirotaka; Ito, Hiromichi; Ushiki, Hiroshi; Suzuki, Nobuhiro; Sasaki, Jun; Ota, Katsu; Okuda, Eiji; Kobayashi, Tetsuhiko; Nagai, Akinori; et al.
Nihon Genshiryoku Gakkai Wabun Rombunshi, 15(1), p.32 - 42, 2016/03
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo, it was confirmed that the top of the irradiation test sub-assembly of "MARICO-2" (material testing rig with temperature control) had been broken and bent onto the in-vessel storage rack as an obstacle and had damaged the upper core structure (UCS). This paper describes the results of the in-vessel repair techniques for UCS replacement, which are developed in Joyo. UCS replacement was successfully completed in 2014. In-vessel repair techniques for sodium cooled fast reactors (SFRs) are important in confirming its safety and integrity. In order to secure the reliability of these techniques, it was necessary to demonstrate the performance under the actual reactor environment with high temperature, high radiation dose and remained sodium. The experience and knowledge gained in UCS replacement provides valuable insights into further improvements for In-vessel repair techniques in SFRs.
Ushiki, Hiroshi*; Okuda, Eiji; Suzuki, Nobuhiro; Takamatsu, Misao; Nagai, Akinori
JAEA-Technology 2015-042, 37 Pages, 2016/02
The reactor vessel of a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) is filled with sodium coolant and cover gas (argon gas). In case of a cover gas boundary open (ie., in-vessel repair), installation of a temporary cover gas boundary and controlling the cover gas pressure slightly positive are required to prevent the cover gas release and the contamination of impurities, and during upper core structure (UCS) replacement in the experimental SFR Joyo from March to December 2014, a vinyl bag was installed as a part of the temporary cover gas boundary. However, because it has inferior thermal resistance, supply a cooling gas too much was required to maintain proper temperature for two months. On the basis of this requirement, a cover gas recycling system with precise pressure control was developed and adopted for UCS replacement. The system has a good pressure controllability and recyclability. The successful results of this system contributed to the certain promotion of UCS replacement. In addition, the insights and the experience gathered in this development are expected to improve the in-vessel repair techniques in sodium-cooled fast reactors.
Morita, Kenji; Morimoto, Makoto; Hisada, Masaki; Fukui, Yasutaka
JAEA-Technology 2015-038, 30 Pages, 2016/02
The Old Waste Treatment Facility for JOYO (Old JWTF) has been operated to treat radioactive liquid waste from the experimental fast reactor JOYO and post irradiation examination facilities. Operation of Old JWTF stopped in 1995, and dismantling & decontamination method has discussed. As a response to discussion results of remote and dismantling method in high dose environment on 2013, its concept examination was discussed on 2014. Results are follows. As a cutting tool for Old JWTF equipment, wire saw is selected from cutting ability (speed and thickness of objects). Discussed the component technology of wire saw remote operation system (handling, monitoring, collection method of secondary waste, else).
Ota, Katsu; Ushiki, Hiroshi*; Maeda, Shigetaka; Kawahara, Hirotaka; Takamatsu, Misao; Kobayashi, Tetsuhiko; Kikuchi, Yuki; Tobita, Shigeharu; Nagai, Akinori
JAEA-Technology 2015-026, 180 Pages, 2015/11
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo, it was confirmed that the top of the irradiation test sub-assembly of "MARICO-2" (material testing rig with temperature control) had bent onto the in-vessel storage rack as an obstacle and had damaged the upper core structure (UCS). The replacement of the UCS was conducted from May to December 2014. The design and manufacture of UCS was started from 2008, and the installation of UCS was completed successfully in November 21th 2014. The major results gained during the design and manufacture of UCS is as follows.
Nabeshima, Kunihiko; Doda, Norihiro; Ohshima, Hiroyuki; Mori, Takero; Ohira, Hiroaki; Iwasaki, Takashi*
Proceedings of 16th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-16) (USB Flash Drive), p.1041 - 1049, 2015/08
Natural circulation is one of the most important mechanisms to remove decay heat in the sodium cooled fast reactors from the viewpoint of passive safety. On the other hand, it is difficult to evaluate plant dynamics accurately under low flow natural circulation condition. In this study, Super-COPD has been validated through the application to the analysis of natural circulation tests in the experimental fast reactor JOYO. Almost all plant components in JOYO including four air-coolers were modeled in Super COPD. Furthermore, the full scale modeling of fuel subassembly was also adopted in this analysis. The natural circulation test after reactor scram from 100 MW full power at JOYO was selected and simulated by Super-COPD. The transient behaviors predicted by Super-COPD showed good agreement with the experimental data.
Koga, Kazuhiro*; Ohara, Norikazu*; Ino, Hiroichi*; Kondo, Katsumi*; Ito, Hideaki; Ashida, Takashi; Nakamura, Toshiyuki
FAPIG, (190), p.3 - 8, 2015/07
no abstracts in English
Ito, Hiromichi; Suzuki, Nobuhiro; Kobayashi, Tetsuhiko; Kawahara, Hirotaka; Nagai, Akinori; Sakao, Ryuta*; Murata, Chotaro*; Tanaka, Junya*; Matsusaka, Yasunori*; Tatsuno, Takahiro*
Proceedings of 2015 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP 2015) (CD-ROM), p.1058 - 1067, 2015/05
In the experimental fast reactor Joyo (Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)), it was confirmed that the top of the irradiation test sub-assembly had bent onto the in-vessel storage rack as an obstacle and had damaged the upper core structure (UCS). There is a risk of deformation of the UCS and guide sleeve (GS) caused by interference between them unless inclination is controlled precisely. To mitigate the risk, special jack-up equipment for applying three-point suspension was developed. The existing damaged UCS (ed-UCS) jack-up test using the jack-up equipment was conducted on May 7, 2014. As a result of this test, it was confirmed that the ed-UCS could be successfully jacked-up to 1000 mm without consequent overload. The experience and knowledge gained in the ed-UCS jack-up test provides valuable insights and prospects not only for UCS replacement but also for further improving and verifying repair techniques in SFRs.


On June 30, another meeting of the scientific and analytical section of UkrNS took place, during which important aspects of the functioning of the nuclear industry of Ukraine during wartime were discussed.
Members of UkrNS took part in the section meeting - head of the atomic energy department of the Institute of Nuclear Power Plant Safety Problems of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Volodymyr Borysenko, nuclear nuclear energy veteran Viktor Shenedrovych, general director of the research and production enterprise "Atomkompleksprylad" Olexander Kazymyrov, doctor of technical sciences, leading scientist of Ukraine Konstantin Semeyko, as well as representatives of OP "UkrNS" Oleksandr Khomych (Khmelnytskyi NPP), Oleg Ishchenko, Ph.D. (South Ukrainian NPP) and Konstantin Lobach, Ph.D. (OP of OO "UkrNS" in Kharkiv).
During the meeting, the scenarios of the development of the energy complex of Ukraine after the victory in the war, taking into account the destruction of energy facilities by the occupiers, as well as the peculiarities of the work of the nuclear industry in the presence of constant threats of nuclear terrorism, were discussed.
The members of the scientific and analytical section paid special attention to the issue of the protection of nuclear facilities in the conditions of military operations and the seizure of the ZNNP, ChNPP, shelling of the the NSI "Neutron Source". In particular, the members of the section decided to conduct a detailed analysis of acts of nuclear terrorism and develop materials that can be used as part of a review of the existing project threat to nuclear facilities.
The participants of the meeting noted that the nuclear industry will continue to occupy a leading place within the general plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war and play a key role in the energy security and energy independence of the country.


4 Aug (NucNet): Ukraine’s State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate approved on 1 August 2017 the start of integrated system testing at the newly built interim spent fuel storage facility on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear power station in Ukraine, project developer Holtec International said in a statement. US-based Holtec said the initial cold testing phase is expected to transition to hot pre-commissioning testing in December 2017, while the first spent fuel deliveries are scheduled for the beginning of March 2018. A programme for the design and construction of the facility, known as ISF2, began in 1997 with international funding managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The facility will store spent fuel from Units 1, 2 and 3 at Chernobyl. In 2007, Holtec took over the project after the withdrawal of France’s state-controlled Areva over construction problems. According to the EBRD, the facility will process, dry and cut more than 21,000 fuel assemblies from Chernobyl-1, -2 and -3. The assemblies will then be placed in double-walled canisters and stored in concrete modules onsite for a minimum of 100 years. The EBRD said the project is costing around €380m ($451m) and is jointly funded by the EBRD and the EBRD-managed Nuclear Safety Account (NSA) fund. The 18 NSA donors have committed more than €280m to safety projects at Chernobyl. The EBRD provided more than €200m of its own funding for the construction of the ISF2. Holtec said when it begins operation ISF2 will be the world’s largest interim spent fuel storage facility. Units 1, 2 and 3 at Chernobyl, all of the Soviet RBMK reactor design, were shut down permanently in 1996, 1991, and 2000. Unit 4, also an RBMK, was destroyed by an explosion in the April 1986 accident.


Pre-operational testing has started at unit 2 of the Ningde nuclear power plant in China’s Fujian province. The CPR-1000 pressurized water reactor is expected to begin operation next year.
The hot tests aim to simulate the temperatures and pressures which the reactor’s systems will be subjected to during normal operation. This important phase ensures coolant circuits and nuclear safety systems are functioning properly before fuel can be loaded.
The tests began at Ningde 2 on 16 August and are expected to take about 45 days to complete. The unit is scheduled to start commercial operation in the second half of 2014.
It is one of four CPR-1000 units being built on the site. Construction of units 1 and 2 started in 2008 and units 3 and 4 started in 2010. Unit 1 began operating in April 2013. All four units will be in operation by 2015.
Continue reading at Hot tests begin at Chinese unit


Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT) shows great promise as a semiconductor radiation detector material. CZT possesses advantageous material properties over other radiation detector materials in use today, such as a high intrinsic resistivity and a high cross-section for x and γ-rays. However, presently available CZT is not without limitations. The hole transport properties severely limit the performance of these detectors, and the yield of material possessing adequate electron transport properties is currently much lower than desired. The result of these material deficiencies is a lack of inexpensive CZT crystals of large volume for several radiation detector applications. One approach to help alleviate this problem is to measure the spatial distribution (or map) the electrical properties of large area CZT wafers prior to device fabrication. This mapping can accomplish two goals: identify regions of the wafers suitable for detector fabrication and correlate the distribution of crystalline defects with the detector performance. The results of this characterization can then be used by the crystal manufacturers to optimize their growth processes. In this work, we discuss the design and performance of apparatus for measuring the electrical characteristics of entire CZT wafers (up to 10 cm × 10 cm). The data acquisition and manipulation will be discussed and some typical data will be presented.


Storing Nuclear Waste
Chris - Now we were talking about Sizewell there. It's not a very big reactor: four metres by four metres they said. That sounds tiny, but they said there's a huge amount of radioactive waste. How much?
Ian - I'm not exactly sure how much is stored at Sizewell. In fact all the nuclear waste that's produced at Sizewell is currently on site there so the UK doesn't actually deal with that waste at the moment.
Chris - How much have we got stockpiled at the moment? We heard earlier how there are 19 functional power stations in this country and a number have been shut down.
Ian - The majority of our waste, the volume is 470 000 cubic metres. To put that in perspective, only a few per cent of that radioactivity is in the vast volumes there and I think 98 or 99% of the radioactivity is in a much smaller volume, and that's what we call high level waste. This is the really really dangerous stuff.
Chris - How dangerous and why?
Ian - It emits beta and gamma radiation. It's extremely harmful and you cannot approach it. It takes many years to cool down and so Anna at Sizewell will have seen the spent fuel ponds. When the fuel rods are removed from the nuclear reactor, they're placed underwater and left to cool for long periods of time. Other reactors leave the rods there for maybe 10 or 15 years and then pull them out into something called dry casks. But it takes about that period of time before you can store them out of the water.
Chris - But storing them: how long are we going to have to store them for before they're considered safe again?
Ian - In the UK we have actually taken many of our nuclear fuel rods and reprocessed them. And in that process you separate out into two main types of waste. You have what's called the fission products which is half of the heavy element or the two halves that have split apart, and then you get the remaining uranium, which is depleted uranium, and plutonium that is generated in the nuclear reactor. So you've got these two parts. The fission products themselves are dangerous for about three hundred years, so the principle elements would have half lives of about thirty years, so ten half lives would be three hundred years. There are a few other problematic elements in there; technicium is one which we will hear about and has medical uses but it exists there and is quite long-lived.
Chris - But some of this waste that we're talking about we say that it needs ten half lives to be safe and that's 300 000 years.
Ian - No, 300 000 years would be something like plutonium 239.
Chris - Which we're producing in these things.
Ian - Yes so there's two types of waste: there's the waste that we call the fission products and in the UK we've separated the plutonium and the uranium from the fission products so the fission products are ok in 300 years. The plutonium and uranium are on much longer time scales.
Chris - So at the moment we've got a considerable amount of material that could be radioactive for a third of a million years.
Ian - Exactly.
Chris - How do we store that?
Ian - In July the government commission called CoRWM reported and said that we should build what's called a geological repository. What they said was that we should dig a hole between 200 and 1000 metres deep. It will be a bit like a mine, so a shaft will go down and then you'll cut out drifts into the surrounding rock and then you'll place canisters of material.
Chris - So does this just mean you put some stuff in a barrel and bury it?
Ian - No. The fission products themselves are treated with some oxides, heated up, and formed into glass. Those are then poured into cans, extremely strong cans, and they're stored at Sellafield at the reprocessing site.
Chris - Now is that stuff stable for a third of a million years?
Ian - That stuff doesn't necessarily need to be stable for a third of a million years because it only contains the fission products.
Chris - But I'm talking about the ones that need storing for a third of a million years, Ian.
Ian - So that material is stored at Sellafield and we've not decided what to do with that yet. Well we've decided what we're going to do with 5%. 5% of that and 100 tonnes of plutonium has been set aside as not useful as a future nuclear. This really depends, Chris, on decisions on whether we build new nuclear power stations and whether those nuclear power stations will then be licensed to burn what we call mixed oxide fuel: uranium plus plutonium. So depleted uranium and then the fissile material will be plutonium.
Chris - But what I'm getting at Ian is how do we work out a safe way to store that stuff with this incredibly long half life that needs a long time in the ground to calm down?
Ian - Well what we're trying to do is to develop some mineral-based ceramics which in a similar way to forming the glass, we mix oxides and we form something which is like a mineral. There are certain minerals that occur on the earth that have been proven to hold uranium and thorium for billions of years in some cases, and so those are the kinds of models for the kinds of materials we want to use. So we would like to isolate these very long-lived isotopes into a mineral before storing it, and hopefully that mineral will be sufficiently durable that it would not decay or be damaged by the radioactive decay that occurs inside it.
Chris - Is that true? Does it?
Ian - We haven't yet found one that's going to last for 300 000 years.
Chris - How long does it last?
Ian - Well the particular case we looked at recently lasted for about 1400 years.
Chris - So that's a fraction of what you need. So at the moment what you're saying is that we have this high level waste and we've got nothing that we can actually do that's going to be a safe long-term prospect for it.
Ian - It's a question of confidence. We know that this material will degrade because of its own internal radiation. Whether that amorphous material will then be dissolved by water is not very well understood.
Chris - Why does it get damaged? Why does it fall apart over time?
Ian - What happens is that there's an alpha particle emitted from heavy nuclei like plutonium and that heavy nucleus then recoils a bit like a howitzer that's just fired a shell. That skittles into all the other atoms and knocks them all over the place, and basically you no longer have a very well-described very durable material at that point because the atoms are all in very high energy positions. They're all knocked out of their usual positions and so could be attacked more readily by water.
Kat - So the challenge is to find something stable. We've had a suggestion here from Keith in Watford who says that nuclear waste could be encased in glass and shot into space. Is there any other way of sensibly getting rid of nuclear waste without putting it somewhere on the planet?
Chris - Yeah David in Chelmsford says why don't we dump it on the moon?
Ian - I think the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which delivered its report last July did consider very quickly putting things in space; firing them into the sun is another option. A feasibility request went to NASA and they could only guarantee, I think, 1 in 35 launches wouldn't result in an explosion, so the idea is that it would be too dangerous to do that.
Chris - It would be similar to what happened with Chernobyl basically in terms of the amount of contamination.
Ian - You would deliver it into the stratosphere and it would be spread around the world.
Kat - That just sounds terrible. So more research is needed quite urgently.
Ian - I think that the research that's being done is to really research the materials we put these things in. We actually form these things into another material and that material is actually very very durable with respect to water. The main problem is that if you put this stuff down deep into the ground, the question is whether this material will come into contact with water. That's the only way that the radioactive isotopes will leak out if it comes into contact with water. So that can be controlled by the geology of where you put, or it can be controlled by the material itself. You obviously need a combination of those two, but the better you can make the material in the first place, the more certainty you have in the disposal process.
Chris - What's the situation in America, because they've invested quite a lot of money in deep burial.
Ian - That's right. They have a repository site in Nevada that's about ninety miles west of Las Vegas. All states in the US except one, which is Nevada, have agreed that nuclear waste should be sent there. At the moment I think there's one legal challenge that is preventing the go-ahead of that project. They will have lots of nuclear waste from their nuclear weapons programmes and from their commercial nuclear generation programme, which will be transported to Yucca Mountain and be set in the type of repository that I described earlier.
Kat - I was writing a blog last year for the Institute of Physics that looked into nuclear energy and those kinds of issues. And it did seem to be that there's a lot of discussion about the right way to build nuclear power stations and how environmentally friendly it is, but no-one seems to have solved what to do with the waste.
Ian - If you ask most scientists who work in the area, we have a gut feeling that it'll probably be ok, but that's not good enough.


Being the president of the United States comes with the responsibility of making tough decisions that aren’t always perceived as the best, especially when it involves the war. In 1945, President Harry Truman had to make a difficult decision that ultimately gave americans a leg up in the war. President Harry Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII is surrounded by much controversy but holds many positive advantages that helped end the war. Presidents Harry Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb posed nearly no significant dilemmas overall.
Highly, debatable topic President Truman’s decision on dropping atomic bomb on Japan during World war II. Many questions arise when this topic is raised like the world was introduced to the nuclear bombs, it was racist to drop bombs in japan, was Truman’s main target Asian or was it for the political reestablishment between Soviet Union, as German was America’s first attack why he did not drop atom bomb on them and so on. As it has already become more than seventy years it is still amongst the debated ones. It was best decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan by President Truman considering different factors like ending the war as soon as possible, responding to the pearl harbor, to impress the Soviet, lack of having incentives not to use bomb and justify the cost of Manhattan project.
Evaluate and discuss President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, which ultimately killed ten of thousands of Japanese citizens. I researched the different views that people have dealt with this subject. On August 6, 1945, American bomber Colonel Paul Tibbets dropped more than a 9,000-pound uranium-235 bomb known as “Little Boy” on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Within seconds, the bomb killed 80,000 people, with tens of thousands dying weeks afterwards due to wounds obtained from the blast and radiation poisoning.
Truman and the A-Bomb The most powerful weapon America had in WWII, was also the most secret. The Atom Bomb was capable of wiping out an entire city with a blast radius of 3.5 miles. It was truly a killing machine. With such power comes the question, does anyone deserve such a fate?
1. Source B mentions that the reason for Truman dropping the bomb was to save American lives, but it was a speech to the nation. Source A transmits a completely different message. It mentions that “the end of Japanese war no longer depended upon the pouring in of [the Russian] armies.” They way this phrase is interpreted is that Truman dropped the bomb because he no longer wanted the help of the Soviets so he didn’t have to share the reward, which was Tokyo.
It is no doubt that politics evolve, as do the political leaders of our world and their individual viewpoints. Particularly their viewpoints on major global topics like use of the atomic bomb, and all other weapons of mass destruction. Out of all of the difficult decisions presidents are required to make, President Bush and President Truman had two of the hardest and handled them both in inevitably controversial ways, however these decisions shared both similarities and differences that affected the opinions on the use of all mass destruction weapons. In 1945 to 1953 Harry S Truman was president of the United States.
Dear President Truman, I am writing to you about dropping an atomic bomb in Japan that could potentially kill people. I understand that making a decision like this can be difficult which is why I have a few suggestions on why you should attack Japan with an atomic bomb. Japan wanted certain pacific islands such as Pearl Harbor and so they attacked on December 7th, 1941.
It has been 71 years since the Second World War and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans. With recent visit on May to Hiroshima by the US President Obama and on December to Pearl Harbour by Japanese PM Abe, the wound between the two countries are healing. However there has not been a clear apology being said by neither of the leaders during their visits. Having the atomic bomb killed or wounded at least 150,000 in Hiroshima and 75,000 in Nagasaki (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html) , the US president’s responsibility of an apology towards the victims is debated. Ethically, and politically, there are reasons to why the US should, and should not apologise for the decision made in 1945.
Envision having to make a decision that could end 220,000 lives. President Truman had to make a decision of this magnitude. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city, Hiroshima. When Japan did not surrender, the United States dropped another atomic bomb three days later. President Truman made this decision because he believed it would end World War II, which it did.
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki In an attempt to end World War II early, Harry Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to save thousands of American lives at any cost. It has been categorized as the current deadliest bomb at that time, bringing terror to everyone and killing about 220,000 people, most of them innocent in both cities combined. During the war, the U.S. had lost a few battles against Japan, also losing thousands of American lives. And if the U.S. wouldn’t have dropped that bomb who knows maybe thousands of more American lives could have been lost and god knows when World War II would end.
The Decision to Drop the Bomb In the Battle of Okinawa 1941, Japanese Kamikaze suicide pilots targeted the US in Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor. Over 2,400 American and British lives were taken from this world, an additional 1,178 wounded. The President of the United States, Harry Truman, was faced with an ethical dilemma of whether to use the atomic bomb against Japan that could end WWII. My goal is to try to answer this moral question using the philosophical views on the morality of Held, Kant, Aristotle, and Mill.
The Japanese military still refused to give up their fight in World War II. Harry S. Truman was the President of the United States of America. These two countries had been fighting for four years, and Truman was pressed with a decision to use one of the most massive bombs known. The American forces had already invaded Okinawa, and Iwo Jima, but the Japanese military had over 2 million soldiers. Americans had asked Japan to surrender, and if they refused it would result in destruction.


- Is Chernobyl elephant’s foot?
- How many people did Chernobyl kill?
- How did Chernobyl affect animals?
- Is Chernobyl reactor 4 still burning?
- Was Fukushima worse than Chernobyl?
- Did they really kill dogs in Chernobyl?
- Who photographed the elephant’s foot?
- Why did Valery hang himself?
- Will Chernobyl ever be habitable?
- Is the Chernobyl reactor still hot?
- Is anyone still alive from Chernobyl?
- Is Chernobyl abandoned?
- Did Chernobyl kill animals?
- Did Chernobyl Cause Birth Defects?
- Is Chernobyl safe now?
Is Chernobyl elephant’s foot?
The Elephant’s Foot was created after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 when reactor 4 exploded, releasing a lava-like mass of radioactive material called corium.
In April 1986, the world experienced its worst nuclear disaster yet when a reactor at the Chernobyl power plant in Pripyat, Ukraine, erupted..
How many people did Chernobyl kill?
31 peopleDeaths from Chernobyl 31 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed.
How did Chernobyl affect animals?
According to a 2001 study in Biological Conservation, Chernobyl-caused genetic mutations in plants and animals increased by a factor of 20. Among breeding birds in the region, rare species suffered disproportional effects from the explosion’s radiation compared to common species.
Is Chernobyl reactor 4 still burning?
Early in the morning of April 26, 1986, the fourth reactor exploded at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. 34 years later, Chernobyl radioactivity is still circulating. They are now the biggest fires ever recorded in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. …
Was Fukushima worse than Chernobyl?
Both of these accidents released radiation; their impacts were far-reaching and long-lasting. Only one reactor exploded at Chernobyl, while three reactors experienced meltdowns at Fukushima. … And Chernobyl released far more cesium-137 than Fukushima did, according to Lyman.
Did they really kill dogs in Chernobyl?
Likely figuring some might have thought he played up this tragic scene for more drama, one of Chernobyl’s creators, Craig Mazin, addressed the show’s dog deaths on Twitter on the same day the episode aired. “I know that was hard. Just so there’s no confusion— the story of the liquidators is real. It happened.
Who photographed the elephant’s foot?
Now in his late 60s, Korneyev no longer visits the Elephant’s Foot, having been banned after years of irradiation. But the photograph of him standing beside the Corium spewing from the pipe remains one of the most interesting images of the Chernobyl disaster.
Why did Valery hang himself?
He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery in Moscow. This was not Legasov’s first suicide attempt. David R. Marples has suggested that the adversity of the Chernobyl disaster on Legasov’s psychological state was the factor that led to his decision to die by suicide.
Will Chernobyl ever be habitable?
More than 30 years on, scientists estimate the zone around the former plant will not be habitable for up to 20,000 years. The disaster took place near the city of Chernobyl in the former USSR, which invested heavily in nuclear power after World War II.
Is the Chernobyl reactor still hot?
The corium of the Elephant’s Foot might not be as active as it was, but it’s still generating heat and still melting down into the base of Chernobyl. Should it manage to find water, another explosion could result. Even if no explosion occurred, the reaction would contaminate the water.
Is anyone still alive from Chernobyl?
Contrary to reports that the three divers died of radiation sickness as a result of their action, all three survived. Shift leader Borys Baranov died in 2005, while Valery Bespalov and Oleksiy Ananenko, both chief engineers of one of the reactor sections, are still alive and live in the capital, Kiev.
Is Chernobyl abandoned?
Chernobyl (/tʃɜːrˈnoʊbəl/, UK: /tʃɜːrˈnɒbəl/), also known as Chornobyl (Ukrainian: Чорнобиль, romanized: Chornobyl’; German: Tschornobyl or Tschernobyl; Polish: Czarnobyl), is a partially abandoned city in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, situated in the Ivankiv Raion of northern Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine.
Did Chernobyl kill animals?
A large swath of pine forest killed by acute radiation was named the Red Forest. The dead pines were bulldozed and buried. Livestock were removed during the human evacuations. … Animals living in contaminated areas in and around Chernobyl have suffered from a variety of side effects caused by radiation.
Did Chernobyl Cause Birth Defects?
Children are still being born with severe birth defects and rare types of cancer in areas near to Chernobyl, according to a British charity, three decades on from the world’s worst civil nuclear disaster.
Is Chernobyl safe now?
Despite all the effort invested in the area to make Chernobyl safe, its clean-up still continues today as scientists from the State Radiation Ecological Reserve frequently test radiation levels to check whether people and wildlife can safely return to the area again.


It is the purpose of this standard to establish functional design requirements of safety related structures, systems and components to provide a degree of assurance that boiling water reactor plants will be designed and constructed so that they can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. It is intended that this objective be accomplished in this standard by defining existing practices which are consistent with the licensing requirements of the NRC and with appropriate industry codes.
- ANSI Approved
- Number of Pages:
- File Size:
- 1 file , 48 MB
- This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus


Online Fuel Inspection
A Proven Method
- A proven on-line method for identifying fuel failures in boiling water reactors
- Potential for avoiding costly ($3 to $8 million) plant shut down
- Offers off gas activity reduction through local power suppression
RSI's patented method for precise fuel rod leak detection has been established as "the state-of-the-art" methodology. It is a proven technology having been successfully used at many BWR's. The method is fast, reliable and can be applied with minimal impact on normal plant operations. RSI's team has the ability to quickly respond when the first sign of a potential leak is observed by a plant. The RSI method enables a plant to avoid a costly shutdown or long-term operation at reduced power levels.
Failure of fuel cladding in a BWR has been an industry problem for many years. These failures have been primarily caused by one of three mechanisms: debris (fretting), manufacturing defect, or the interaction of the fuel pellet and the rod inner cladding surface.
Ameliorating the effects of fuel cladding failure by early detection has the potential for saving a utility millions of dollars during a fuel cycle. In addition, with early detection larger secondary ruptures of the cladding may be avoided. Fuel vendors have determined that the best way to prevent the onset of a secondary failure is early identification of the primary leak and power suppression for the associated cell containing the leaking fuel bundle.
Traditionally, there have been two methods to detect leaks while the plant is still operating. The first method is to use the station offgas radiation monitors to observe changes while control rods are manipulated. This method is useful for large leak rates, but if the leak is very small, the change in offgas radiation levels may go undetected. In addition, the fuel vendors suggest reducing plant power to about 65% to prevent power spiking within a cell during rod manipulation testing. This power reduction further reduces the ability of the station radiation monitors to detect small leaks.
The second method involves obtaining samples of the offgas and analyzing them in the station laboratory. This method can be quite time consuming as the analyses must be delayed to allow the overwhelming radioactive nitrogen and oxygen components to decay. Furthermore, sample acquisition must be precisely timed to any control rod movement because only a relatively small sample of the total offgas flowing stream (15 cc) is sampled.
RSI’s proven method for detecting leaking fuel rods involves manipulating the control rod in the area of the suspected leaking fuel rod. The variation in power in the associated fuel causes a change in the internal energy of the rod, forcing or allowing any gases inside the cladding to escape through the failure point. These gases are sampled and analyzed for specific indication of the leaking fuel.
A special chamber fitted with a shielded and collimated gamma spectroscopy detector is installed in the plant's offgas sample line. By detecting the various gamma ray energies, the precise composition of the offgas stream is determined. The observed changes in the composition and quantities of the fission gases during control rod manipulation in a fuel cell (four fuel assemblies plus one control rod) can be used to determine whether or not a leaking fuel assembly exists. For example, there are six gamma emitting fission gases of particular interest. Measuring the yield (relative amounts produced) and distribution of these gases, allows the magnitude and characteristics of a leak to be determined. This accurate methodology allows for quantitative measurement of all the gases in the offgas stream. Therefore, fast and reliable determination of the precise location of a leaking assembly can be made.
While the testing sequence is being performed, real time assessment of the analytical data is performed for immediate feedback to the plant. Thus, the sequencing can be optimized to isolate the leaking fuel assembly and return the plant to full power operation as rapidly as possible. Testing an entire core can be done for most plants in about 60 hours by structuring the test sequence to include multiple control rod movements.
By accurately identifying and suppressing a leaking assembly(s) using the proven RSI technology, a utility can avoid costly unplanned shutdowns, saving from $3 to $8 million dollars . On-line identification of the defective cells can also assist in limiting the scope of future fuel off-load and sipping operations. Moreover, successful suppression of failed fuel assemblies allows for continued operation at 100% power.


At the International Atomic Energy Agency general conference in Vienna representatives of Uzbekistan issued a statement which said discussions had begun to sign commercial contracts for the building of a plant.
The statement said Uzbekistan is building capacity for the use of nuclear technology and science in its universities.
It said Uzbekistan is working hard to join the Vienna Convention on Civil Responsibility for Nuclear Damage. “The depository for the Convention is the IAEA and shows Uzbekistan is committed to adhering to best practice international standards in this area.”
Uzbekistan has formally asked the IAEA for an Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) to assess its infrastructure for the introduction of nuclear power. A meeting will be held in the Uzbek capital Tashkent next month, in conjunction with the IAEA, to prepare for the review.
Energy minister Alisher Sultanov told the general conference that “nuclear energy will play a core role in ensuring the energy security of Uzbekistan for years to come”.
Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom has said it will build two Generation III+ VVER 1,200-MW plants in Uzbekistan with the first unit to begin commercial operation by 2028.
In September 2018 Russia and Uzbekistan signed a preliminary agreement to cooperate on the construction of a nuclear power station in Uzbekistan.
In May 2019 they signed a contract to perform engineering surveys at a proposed site for the country’s first commercial nuclear power plant.
Roatom said the contract would allow survey work to start at the site, in the Forish district in the region of Jizzakh, southwest of Tashkent.


Rolls-Royce, a British engineering company, is developing a nuclear reactor that could be used to power a moon base. The company is working on the project in partnership with the UK Space Agency and the European Space Agency (ESA).
The news about Rolls-Royce developing a nuclear reactor for a moon base has been making headlines. People around the world are curious to know more about this project, which could be an important stepping stone in our journey towards space exploration and colonization. Here are all the details you need to know about this ambitious project.
Here are the details of the project:
1. The reactor is called the “KiloPower” reactor and it is a small, lightweight nuclear reactor that can generate up to 10 kilowatts of electrical power continuously for at least 10 years.
2. The Rolls-Royce team is currently in the development phase, where they are designing the reactor and its components to ensure safety and reliability. The reactor is expected to be operational by 2025, with the lunar base being up and running shortly afterwards.
3. The Rolls-Royce team has already started testing the reactor on Earth, where they are assessing its performance in a simulated lunar environment. This is an important step in the development process as it will help to ensure that the reactor can withstand the extreme temperatures and radiation of space.
4. The reactor will be built to withstand the harsh conditions of space and will be able to operate autonomously with minimal maintenance.
5. The team is also working on advanced control systems for the reactor, which will allow it to be monitored from Earth. This is a crucial feature since maintenance of the reactor will be difficult in an environment like space.
6. The KiloPower reactor will be used to power a moon base that is being developed by ESA. The base, which is currently in the planning stages, will be used for scientific research and exploration.
7. The reactor will be transported to the moon by a spacecraft and will be installed on the surface of the moon by a robotic rover.
8. The reactor will be powered by uranium-235, which is a type of nuclear fuel that is commonly used in nuclear power plants on Earth.
9. The reactor will not produce any greenhouse gases or other pollutants, making it a clean and sustainable source of energy for the moon base.
10. The development of the KiloPower reactor is part of a broader effort to establish a sustained human presence on the moon and to eventually send humans to Mars.
Overall, the development of the KiloPower reactor is an exciting development in the field of space exploration and could help pave the way for future missions to the moon and beyond.
Rolls-Royce’s nuclear reactor is an important step in humanity’s journey to explore and colonize the moon. It is a complex project, but Rolls-Royce has the expertise and experience to make it happen. With their help, we could soon be living on the moon!


Texas – A state report is recommending that Texas legislators clarify the funding method for a commission that oversees low-level radioactive waste disposal in Texas.
The recently released Sunset Advisory Commission report says legislators need to establish a dedicated fund so that the low-level compact panel has money to operate. Currently, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission and its eight members are reimbursed for expenses through a contract with the state's environmental regulatory agency.
The compact commission earlier this month voted to publish rules that if adopted will be used to consider on a case-by-case basis low-level waste from 36 other states that would be buried at a privately run facility in West Texas near the New Mexico border.
The compact commission is not a state agency.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.


Tetra Tech has provided multi-discipline engineering, consulting, and licensing services to clients in the commercial nuclear industry for the past 40 years. Tetra Tech has internationally recognized credentials in the areas of nuclear licensing, analysis, regulatory program support, design, and project management, as well as expertise in many other areas. We are able to harness the services and skill sets as part of the broader Tetra Tech, with more than 14,000 staff in 350 offices worldwide.
today to find out what we can do for you and your project.
Our nuclear expertise provides insights into the challenges and difficulties being faced by the operators and support crews at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station as they recover from the effects of an earthquake, tsunami, and the resulting extended loss of external ac power to the six nuclear units. At the same time, we recognize the robust nature of commercial nuclear power plants in areas of:
- defense-in-depth (multiple barriers to fission product release),
- redundant safety systems with appropriate diversity,
- margin in design to allow safety functional performance in beyond design basis scenarios,
- operator and emergency planning training in beyond design basis scenarios, and
- flexibility to address all manners of externally induced severe accident events.


From Professor Melanie Brownridge, NDA Technology and Innovation Director Last month I attended the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Conference on Nuclear Decommissioning in Vienna. The event brought together around 450 decommissioning experts from around the world to discuss achievements, …
RWM’s Principal Geoscience Manager Sally Thompson and Stakeholder Engagement Manager Jane Cantwell visited Switzerland’s Mont Terri underground rock laboratory to join international colleagues in marking the 25th anniversary of this pioneering facility for research into geological disposal.
On World Digital Preservation Day tomorrow, Jenny Mitcham, Head of Good Practice and Standards for the Digital Preservation Coalition, is spreading the word about digital preservation. Here, she reflects on her work for the NDA and provides an update on progress.
The NDA and two of its major contractors are sharing experience gained at Dounreay to help dismantle an experimental fast breeder reactor in Japan. Commercial manager Sarah Groves discusses the work, and how it’s helping to foster dialogue between the two communities.
The NDA’s National Waste Inventory Manager Hannah Paterson reflects on a recent international meeting to discuss status and trends in radioactive waste management.
Marie Berggren, from the Swedish municipality of Östhammar, shares her thoughts on the journey her community has taken within the Swedish geological disposal programme.
As the final instalment of Sky TV’s powerful Chernobyl drama came to an end, scientist Dr Claire Corkhill welcomes the interest it’s sparked in nuclear and says we need to talk more openly about the industry's global legacy.
NDA Inventory Manager, Martin James, outlines how international nuclear agencies are working together to report, for the first time, on global trends in how radioactive waste and spent fuels are managed.


It has been 33 years since the Chernobyl disaster – the worst nuclear catastrophe in human history.
Subscribe to our channel here: https://goo.gl/31Q53F
In the early hours of 26 April 1986, one of four nuclear reactors at the Chernobyl power station exploded. Chernobyl is north of Kiev, Ukraine.
Since the explosion an area of more than 4,000 square kilometres has been abandoned.
There is no official account of how many died and suffered as a result of the meltdown, and the health implications of the disaster have long been debated.
Newsnight is the BBC’s flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.


ArmInfo.At a meeting of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, an appeal was made demanding that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) take measures regarding the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant in Armenia, located 16 km from the borders of Turkey. This was reported by the Turkish Anadolu Agency.
The Turkish Parliament emphasizes that the nuclear power plant, due to the end of its operational life, poses a danger to the entire region.
The Petitions Commission of the Turkish Parliament, which analyzes petitions and complaints submitted to parliament from citizens, received a request to take action against the risks posed by nuclear power plants. The response noted that the city of Igdir has developed a Radiation Emergency Action Plan, defining the principles of planning and action in the event of a radiation emergency that could cause health consequences for people outside the nuclear installation site or in Igdir.
The response from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalls that the Metsamor nuclear power plant is under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the TR emphasizes that the IAEA and the European Union have determined that the safety state of the plant does not meet modern technical standards. The agency continues to work to correct safety deficiencies related to the plant's structural deficiencies. IAEA staff periodically conduct visits and inspections to Armenia, and after each safety mission a detailed report is compiled. The Turkish Foreign Ministry emphasizes that the closure of the nuclear power plant is the exclusive responsibility of Armenia. However, review meetings of the Nuclear Safety Convention, to which Armenia is a party, the Nuclear Safety Conference and other relevant forums emphasize that the nuclear power plant is located in a region prone to natural disasters. "The nuclear power plant was built very close to our border and is a facility operated using old technology. The station represents a risk factor for the entire region. Our country speaks about these risks both at the IAEA general conferences and when making the necessary appeal to the international community. Our region and the world cannot afford a second Chernobyl. Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant must be closed. In this regard, this problem will continue to be under the close attention of our country," the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Commenting on this requirement, Doctor of Political Sciences, President of the Energy Security Institute Vahe Davtyan noted that the IAEA is an organization within the UN system. "The same UN that actually legitimized the crime committed by Azerbaijanis in Artsakh. The Armenian nuclear power plant has been under the radar of Baku and Ankara since 1995, when the second power unit of the station was restarted. During these years, Turkish-Azerbaijani propaganda spared no effort and energy for anti-nuclear lobbying. It has been repeatedly stated about the environmental risks of the station, the spread of cancer in Turkish settlements in the border zone, and even about children born with anomalies. Yerevan has always easily refuted this nonsense at the scientific, political and public levels. Today, more than favorable conditions have been created for the implementation of Ankara's strategy. Taking into account the liberalization of the Armenian electricity market, the mothballing of nuclear power plant could make Armenia an electricity importing country. At the same time, we may lose the strategic status of the only country developing a "peaceful atom" in space. It should also be recalled that Turkey is currently building a huge nuclear complex, and Baku is negotiating with Rosatom on the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Azerbaijan. The mothballing of the Armenian nuclear power plant can seriously affect the safety of our energy sector and national security as a whole," Davtyan emphasized.
In September of this year, the RA government decided to re-extend the operating life of the second power unit of the Armenian NPP. According to Gera Sevikyan, Advisor to the Director General of the Armenian NPP, the project will require about $150 million.
It is planned that about 45-50 million dollars of this amount will be allocated in the form of a Russian loan, and the rest will be drawn from the state budget. At The station is currently undergoing a comprehensive inspection of major equipment and components as part of scheduled maintenance, but there is no talk yet of concluding agreements with suppliers of equipment and services.


Iran halts some commitments under nuclear deal
Iran has officially stopped some commitments under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers following an order from its national security council, an informed official in the country’s atomic energy body told the ISNA news agency on Wednesday.
Last week, Iran notified China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom of its decision to halt some commitments under the nuclear deal, a year after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the accord and re-imposed sanctions.
Under the nuclear deal, Tehran was allowed to produce low-enriched uranium with a 300-kg limit, and produce heavy water with a stock capped around 130 tonnes. Tehran could ship the excess amounts out of the country for storage or sale.
The official said Iran has no limit from now for production of enriched uranium and heavy water.


Why is the US in conflict with Iran?
The United States attributes the worsening of relations to the 197981 Iran hostage crisis, Iran’s repeated human rights abuses since the Islamic Revolution, and its growing influence in the Middle East. Since 1995, the United States has had an embargo on trade with Iran.
What is the conflict between Iran and US 2020?
The U.S. and Iran nearly entered into an open conflict on 8 January 2020 when the IRGC launched missile attacks against two U.S./Iraqi military bases housing U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the killing of Soleimani, a rare direct IranU.S. confrontation and the closest to the brink of war between the two nations in …
What was the agreement between us and Iran?
The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Councilthe United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Chinaplus Germany) and the European …
Did us kill Iranian nuclear scientist?
According to NBC, two US senior officials confirmed that the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) was “financed, trained, and armed by Israel” in killing Iranian nuclear scientists, although a Senior State Department Official later confirmed that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian …
Who was assassinated?
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865), James A. Garfield (1881), William McKinley (1901), and John F. Kennedy (1963). Additionally, two presidents have been injured in attempted assassinations: Theodore Roosevelt (1912; former president at the time) and Ronald Reagan (1981).
Does Iran have nukes?
Iran is not known to currently possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and has signed treaties repudiating the possession of WMDs including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
When did the Iran deal start?
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک, romanized: barnāmeye jāme’e eqdāme moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)), known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on , between Iran and the P5+1 (the five …
Who gave Iran nuclear technology?
Iran’s nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran’s nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the last Shah of Iran.
What did the Iran nuclear deal do?
Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs. But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb.
When did Iran start enriching uranium?
2012. January 2012: Iran announced it had begun uranium enrichment at the Fordu facility near Qom. The IAEA confirmed Iran started the production of uranium enriched to 20%.
Is Iran rich in uranium?
Uranium. Iran is believed to have large reserves of uranium to use as nuclear fuel in different parts of Iran including Bandar Abbas, Yazd, North Khorasan and Iranian Azerbaijan.
Who supplied Iran with uranium?
November 1967: Iran’s first nuclear reactor, the U.S. supplied five-megawatt Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) goes critical. It operates on uranium enriched to about 93 percent (it is converted to run on 20 percent in 1993,) which the United States also supplies.
Why is it so hard to enrich uranium?
Before the uranium can be used in nuclear reactors or atomic bombs, it has to be enriched. This is because natural uranium contains too little uranium-235, the form of uranium that is easily split to release energy in the process known as fission.
Who has hydrogen bomb?
Only six countries—United States, Russia, United Kingdom, China, France, and India—have conducted thermonuclear weapon tests. Whether India has detonated a “true” multi-staged thermonuclear weapon is controversial. North Korea claims to have tested a fusion weapon as of January 2016, though this claim is disputed.
Why is U 238 not used as a fuel?
Uranium-235 (natural abundance 0.71%) is very scarce and difficult to separate from uranium-238 (natural abundance 99.28%). The much more abundant uranium-238 does not undergo fission and therefore cannot be used as a fuel for nuclear reactors.
How much uranium is in a nuke?
Nuclear weapons typically use a concentration of more than 90 percent uranium-235. 15 kilograms: weight of a solid sphere of 100 percent uranium-235 just large enough to achieve a critical mass with a beryllium reflector.
Will we ever run out of uranium?
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet’s economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.
Which country has the most nuclear weapons?
Countries with most nuclear warheads: US is not No 1; with 135 weapons India at 7th spotThe world’s nuclear-armed countries possess a combined total of nearly 14,000 nuclear warheads with more than 90 percent belonging only to Russia and the United States. No 9 | North Korea: 15 nuclear warheads. (
Which is better plutonium or uranium?
Plutonium-239, the isotope found in the spent MOX fuel, is much more radioactive than the depleted Uranium-238 in the fuel. Plutonium emits alpha radiation, a highly ionizing form of radiation, rather than beta or gamma radiation.
What will happen if you touch uranium?
Uranium in its natural state is 99.3% U-238 isotope, which has a very long half life and hence decays very slowly. Also, while it decays it emits alpha radiation, which can be easily blocked by a piece of paper or your skin. So nothing is going to happen if you touch it.