#Tritium Process Monitor

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Protecting high-performance, superconducting magnets

Researchers at Berkeley Lab's Accelerator Technology & Applied Physics (ATAP) Division have developed a method for detecting and predicting the local loss of superconductivity in large-scale magnets that are capable of generating high magnetic fields. These high-field magnets are a core enabling technology for many areas of scientific research, medicine, and energy, where they are used in a range of applications, including in particle accelerators and colliders for high-energy and nuclear physics, diagnostic and therapeutic medical devices, and energy generation, transmission, and storage technologies.

High-field magnets also show promise as an enabling technology for magnetic confinement fusion reactors, which aim to replicate the processes that power the sun by fusing two hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) to produce a carbon-free source of energy. They are used to confine the plasma of deuterium and tritium so that fusion can occur.

To realize the full potential of these reactors "will require high-performance superconducting magnets capable of generating large magnetic fields safely and reliably under the demanding dynamic conditions found in fusion reactors," says Reed Teyber, a Research Scientist at ATAP's Superconducting Magnet Program who is developing diagnostic tools for monitoring the performance of both low- and high-temperature superconducting magnets. The work is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Read more.

[54188qwer]

Japan's nuclear sewage is officially discharged into the sea! How harmful is it to the human body?

For more than two years, the legitimacy, legality and safety of the Fukushima nuclear contaminated water discharge plan have been questioned by the international community. So far, Japan has not addressed the major concerns of the international community about the long-term reliability of nuclear contaminated water purification devices, the authenticity and accuracy of nuclear contaminated water data, and the effectiveness of the monitoring arrangements for sea discharge. China and other stakeholders have repeatedly pointed out that if nuclear pollution water is safe, there is no need to drain the sea, and if it is not safe, it should not be discharged. Japan is improper, unreasonable and unnecessary to push nuclear contaminated water into the sea. Tokyo Electric Power Company held an interim press conference on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant at around 10 am local time (around 9 am Beijing time). Tepco announced at an interim press conference that the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will start at 1 PM local time (12 noon Beijing time). Today's nuclear contaminated water emissions are expected to be 200 to 210 tons, and daily emissions will be announced the next day. The first discharge will be about 460 tons a day for 17 days, totaling about 7,800 cubic meters of nuclear contaminated water. After treatment, the nuclear contaminated water still has a high concentration of radioactive tritium, which cannot be eliminated. After being discharged into the ocean, tritium will also produce low-intensity β -rays, which may affect the biodiversity of fish, plankton, benthos, birds and other organisms in the long term. On neighboring countries Marine environment and public health affect the international atomic energy agency panel assessment report made clear that if the fukushima plant containing tritium waste water into the ocean, will affect the surrounding countries Marine environment and public health, at the same time the existing treated wastewater still contains other radionuclide, need further purification treatment. Greenpeace nuclear experts say the carbon 14 found in Japan's nuclear contaminated water has been dangerous for thousands of years and could cause genetic damage. While the Japanese government officially announced the start of the release on August 24, the Japanese people held a rally in Tokyo. As early as the fukushima nuclear accident, at the end of October 2011, then the cabinet government garden tian had to prove that the processed fukushima nuclear contaminated water "can drink, no problem", in front of media reporters will be half cup is from fukushima nuclear power plant unit 5,6 processed nuclear contaminated water "two drink". Although the radioactive material had been removed from the water, Yuada's hands trembled as the water poured into the cup and his lips looked nervous when he touched it. Later, the media thought that the company's move was like a show, and that the company's behavior was exposed to pressure from reporters. He became deputy minister of the environment in October 2012, but a few years later he quit politics and disappeared from the public eye. His personal social media account update stayed in December 2014. At that time, Garuda Kangbo lost the general election of the House of Representatives, returned home to run for the election again, and did not appear in the public again

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: "IAEA Comprehensive Report On The Safety Review Of The ALPS-Treated Water At The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" (July 4, 2023)

PDF-Download: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

Large volumes of contaminated water accumulated at Fukushima Daiichi site post-accident requiring long-term management.

Water is treated using ALPS system but retains tritium, and is stored in tanks posing safety/volume issues.

Japan's plan is to discharge ALPS-treated water to sea after further treatment via gradual batch discharges over 30 years.

IAEA conducted comprehensive review of technical/regulatory aspects of handling and discharging ALPS water.

Assessments addressed source term, facilities/equipment, occupational exposure, environmental impact, emergency response, protection of people/environment.

Potential failure modes were analyzed and redundant safety provisions incorporated.

Monitoring and response plans established to verify impacts remain negligible.

Japan's nuclear regulator independently authorized activities ensuring compliance with stringent regulations.

IAEA independently sampled/analyzed data corroborating negligible predicted impacts.

Activities were evaluated against latest international safety standards for public, workers and environment.

The document provided high confidence that radiation exposures and environmental impacts would be very low and safety optimized.

Here is a summary of the key points from the document in bullet points:

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in March 2011 resulted in the accumulation of large amounts of contaminated water stored at the site.

In April 2021, the Government of Japan published its Basic Policy on how it would manage this stored contaminated water (called ALPS treated water).

The Basic Policy described that the method selected by the Government of Japan for handling the ALPS treated water was to discharge it into the sea after specific treatment.

Soon after the Basic Policy announcement, the Japanese authorities requested assistance from the IAEA to monitor and review plans and activities relating to the discharge of the ALPS treated water.

The IAEA accepted this request in line with its statutory responsibility and agreed to review the safety aspects of handling ALPS treated water against international safety standards.

The IAEA established a Task Force including IAEA Secretariat experts and independent external experts from various countries to conduct the review.

The IAEA review is focused on assessing whether the actions of TEPCO and Japan to discharge the ALPS treated water are consistent with international safety standards.

The IAEA review includes three major components: assessment of protection and safety, review of regulatory activities and processes, and independent sampling, data corroboration, and analysis.

To date there have been five review missions, six technical reports published, and numerous Task Force meetings to implement the IAEA's review.

This report presents the IAEA's final conclusions that the planned discharge of ALPS treated water is consistent with safety standards.

Here is a summary of the key points made in the document in relation to the accumulation of large amounts of contaminated water stored at the Fukushima Daiichi site:

Groundwater flows into the damaged reactor buildings where it mixes with radioactive debris, becoming contaminated water. This water is collected and stored on site.

Additionally, water used to cool the melted fuel debris keeps it in a stable condition but becomes contaminated. Rainwater also enters the buildings.

Over time, these processes have led to the accumulation of a large volume of contaminated water stored in tanks at the site. As of 2023, around 1.3 million cubic meters of contaminated water was stored in over 1,000 tanks.

Storing such a large volume of highly radioactive water presented increasing risks, difficulties in management, and constrained the pace of broader decommissioning work.

TEPCO developed the ALPS system to remove most radionuclides from the water except tritium. This allowed long-term storage risks to be reduced but led to the issue of how to dispose of the ALPS-treated water.

Japan announced a policy in 2021 to discharge this ALPS-treated water into the sea after further treatment, setting in motion the activities covered in the IAEA's review.

Here is a summary of key points made in the document in relation to ALPS-treated water:

Contaminated water from the plant is treated using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to remove most radionuclides except tritium.

After ALPS treatment, the water is called "ALPS-treated water" and stored in large tanks on site, with around 1,000 tanks containing over 1 million m3 as of 2023.

Japan's 2021 Basic Policy announced the selected method to handle ALPS-treated water was discharge into the sea after meeting regulatory limits, occurring as a series of batch discharges over 30 years.

TEPCO developed facilities and processes for receiving, measuring/confirming, diluting, and discharging batches of ALPS-treated water in a controlled manner.

The Implementation Plan documents the systems, equipment, procedures and controls to facilitate the planned discharges in accordance with regulatory requirements.

A radiological environmental impact assessment was conducted to estimate doses from the planned discharges and assess compliance with requirements.

The IAEA reviewed all aspects of the handling and discharge of ALPS-treated water to assess consistency with international safety standards.

Here is a summary of key points regarding the discharge of ALPS treated water:

Discharges are planned to occur as a series of gradual "batch discharges" over approximately 30 years into the Pacific Ocean.

A discharge facility was constructed offshore including measurement, transfer, dilution and discharge components.

Batches of ALPS treated water will be sampled/analyzed prior to discharge to ensure compliance with regulatory limits.

Treated water will be diluted with seawater achieving >350x dilution before discharge over 1 km into the seabed.

Annual discharge limit of 22 TBq for tritium based on government policy, with 1,500 Bq/L concentration limit.

REIA assessed doses from discharges would be 0.000002-0.00004 mSv/year, well below 0.05 mSv constraint.

Potential exposure scenarios analyzed doses also well below 5 mSv criterion.

Discharges controlled gradually over decades using robust engineered designs and strict operational controls.

Environmental monitoring will verify safety and support ongoing optimization as key element of IAEA review.

Here is my evaluation of how the document addressed radiological impacts:

Radiological impact assessments were based on established international methodologies and models, ensuring scientific rigor.

Conservative assumptions were applied to activity calculations, exposure pathways, dose modeling to avoid underestimation.

Potential impacts to both public and workers from normal operations and accident scenarios were comprehensively evaluated.

Long-term cumulative impacts spanning decades of planned discharges were realistically predicted.

Dose estimates were benchmarked directly against quantitative regulatory criteria and safety standards for public and environment.

Independent confirmatory monitoring by IAEA experts validated the predicted negligible radiological impacts.

Mitigation through engineered controls and operating restrictions minimized already low predicted impacts.

Ongoing environmental monitoring requirements provide reassurance that impacts will remain extremely low.

Emergency response arrangements instill confidence in managing any unforeseen situations.

Overall, the radiological impact assessments appeared to be robust, scientifically sound, transparently supported by evidence, conservatively bounded and directly demonstrating compliance with international safety expectations. The document provided a high level of assurance regarding radiological protection.

Here is a summary of the key points in relation to the assessment of protection and safety:

The IAEA reviewed technical aspects of TEPCO's Implementation Plan and supporting documents.

This included source characterization, safety aspects of discharge approach, occupational exposure, REIA.

The focus was on verifying consistency with relevant international safety standards.

TEPCO considered numerous potential failure modes and consequences through the safety assessment.

Redundancy was incorporated into facility designs and procedural controls.

Calculated doses from normal operations and potential exposures were below thresholds.

TEPCO optimized protection through the ALARA approach required by NRA.

The IAEA concluded protection and safety were consistent with international standards.

However, the work of the IAEA and Task Force will continue applying standards during operations.

So in summary, the IAEA thoroughly assessed technical documentation against safety standards before operations commence, but ongoing assessment will be required once discharges begin.

Here is a summary of key points regarding potential failure modes and consequences:

TEPCO conducted detailed hazard and operability studies to identify potential failure modes.

These included tank leaks, pipe breaks, power outages, earthquakes, extreme weather etc.

Likelihood and impact of failures were quantitatively analyzed.

Defense-in-depth established through multiple preventive/mitigative controls.

For example, tanks have leak detection and secondary containment.

Piping has auto-shutdown valves and seismic resistance.

Generators ensure power backup even in disasters.

Offshore facilities hardened against tsunamis over 15m high.

Consequence modeling showed even worst failures wouldn't exceed dose limits.

Radionuclide behavior understood through dispersion simulations.

Monitoring and response plans in place for any contingencies.

IAEA review confirmed robustness of safety analysis and controls for potential failure modes through the ALARP approach.

So in summary, potential failures were thoroughly analyzed and protective measures instituted to maintain doses ALARA.

Here is a summary of key points regarding monitoring and response plans:

TEPCO established a comprehensive environmental monitoring program.

This involves routinely sampling water, sediment, biota at discharge site and along coast.

On-site, real-time radiation monitoring of tanks and pipes prior to discharge.

Coastal radionuclide monitoring stations were installed by the government.

Monitoring covers tritium, carbon-14 and other potential radionuclides of concern.

Response plans in place to address off-normal monitoring detections.

This includes thresholds that would pause or adjust discharges if exceeded.

Occupational exposure is also carefully monitored for workers.

Comprehensive records and transparent reporting maintained.

International experts collaborating to help verify monitoring validity.

Monitoring crucial for assessing impacts, validating safety, and supporting continuous protection improvement throughout discharge operations.

IAEA review concluded monitoring and response plans will help ensure safety and support decision making through operations.

Here is a summary of key points regarding the review of regulatory activities and processes:

Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) independently regulates the discharge plans.

NRA established stringent technical regulations and licensing requirements.

Technical guidelines provide specific limits, criteria, and assessment methodologies.

Regulatory activities include detailed review of facility designs, safety cases, plans and monitoring programs.

Multiple levels of authorization required including construction approval and operating license.

Rigorous inspections conducted at various stages to verify compliance.

Operators must demonstrate safety and protection before, during and after each discharge.

Regulator holds authority to immediately halt operations if non-compliance found.

Robust enforcement powers and transparency in decision-making.

IAEA review concluded regulatory framework and processes align well with international practices and provide for comprehensive oversight.

Continued regulatory involvement essential throughout duration of discharge activities.

Here is a summary of key points regarding independent sampling, data corroboration, and analysis:

IAEA experts conducted their own sampling/monitoring during missions to FDNPS.

Samples were independently analyzed at third-party IAEA and JAEA laboratories.

This data was used to directly validate TEPCO's monitoring results.

Monitoring equipment was tested, calibrated and cross-checked.

Isotopic and concentration analyses help corroborate source term estimations.

Independent sampling covered areas like discharge facilities, tanks, seawater.

Data allowed Task Force to autonomously assess impacts beyond TEPCO's analyses.

Sample comparisons found TEPCO's data to be accurate and conservative.

International peer reviewers contribute additional checks of sampling methods.

Continued confirmatory sampling during discharge operations is recommended.

Overall, independent data corroboration strengthened safety conclusions and transparency.

So in summary, the IAEA conducted rigorous confirmatory sampling and analysis to autonomously verify key technical inputs and monitoring data.

Here is a summary of key points regarding safety standards:

The IAEA reviewed activities against the latest international safety standards.

Fundamental standards referenced include International Basic Safety Standards (BSS) and ICRP recommendations.

Technical review guidance documents used include TS-G-1.10 and IAEAs RADWASS program.

Nation specific standards established by Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority also considered.

Standards provide quantitative limits for doses to public and workers as well as discharge criteria.

Standards cover all aspects from facility design to environmental monitoring to emergencies.

Compliance with standards ensures protection of people and environment is optimized.

Conservative margins built into standards to account for uncertainties.

Conclusions state activities are adequately consistent with requirements in safety standards.

Ongoing adherence to standards during operations is emphasized for ongoing safety.

So in summary, the IAEA assessed all technical aspects against the latest global consensus safety standards framework.

Here is a summary of key points regarding protection of people and the environment:

The overarching purpose of the review was to verify protection of people and the environment.

Protection is optimized through compliance with limits and criteria in international safety standards.

Doses to the public and workers from all situations assessed were well below regulatory limits.

Radiological impacts on the local community and along discharge plumes were estimated to be negligibly small.

Potential exposure pathways through air, water, soil, food were comprehensively analyzed.

Safety assessments considered long-term cumulative impacts over decades of discharge operations.

Environmental monitoring programs will confirm negligible effects as verified by IAEA sampling.

Ongoing research continues enhancing understanding of radionuclide behavior in the oceans.

Emergency response plans in place to promptly deal with any unplanned discharges.

Overall the IAEA concluded protection of people and the marine environment was adequate and consistent with standards through all phases reviewed.

So in summary, the review centered on thoroughly demonstrating adequate radiological protection as the overriding priority.

Here is my evaluation of how the document addressed protection of people and the environment:

Protection was the fundamental priority underpinning all technical assessments and regulatory requirements.

A comprehensive and conservative safety case approach demonstrated how risks would be minimized to levels as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).

Potential impacts via multiple exposure pathways and over the long operational time frame were thoroughly quantified.

Doses were shown to be not only below regulatory limits but also at trivial fractions of the limits, ensuring large margins of protection.

Engineering and administrative controls along with environmental monitoring provide robust assurance of safety.

Rigorous independent review and sampling by international experts added confidence in the protective conclusions.

Consultation with stakeholders demonstrated inclusive consideration of all societal concerns regarding protection.

Ongoing oversight responsibilities were clearly defined to sustain protection throughout operations.

Overall, by anchoring assessments directly to international safety standards, utilizing a systematic safety case methodology, and subjecting the results to rigorous independent scrutiny, the document provides a high level of assurance that the health and safety of people and environmental protection were comprehensively addressed in compliance with global expectations.

Based on its content and purpose, I would classify this IAEA document as a technical report.

Some indications that led me to this conclusion:

It provides explanations and insights over a broad range of technical topics relevant to understanding the safety of discharging ALPS treated water.

The level of technical detail included is intended to make the conclusions accessible to specialists and those with non-technical backgrounds.

It presents the final review conclusions and findings of the IAEA technical assessment, intended as a comprehensive summary.

It includes references, annexes with contextual/explanatory information, and lists of contributors consistent with a reference/scientific report.

The intended audience appears to include technical experts, regulators, as well as a broader international audience interested in the topic.

Therefore, while also providing a conclusion and findings, the style and depth of content is consistent with a technical report genre seeking to explain the technical review process comprehensively for varied audiences.

Here is an evaluation of the quality of the document based on several factors:

Accuracy:

Details are supported by evidence from documentation reviewed.

Conclusions align with standards and are factually logical.

Completeness:

All key safety topics within scope are addressed in necessary depth.

Relevant international standards are comprehensively considered.

Clarity:

Technical explanations are easy to understand for non-experts.

Structure and flow allow logical following of conclusions.

References:

Supporting documents and technical bases are well cited.

Published guidance documents inform discussions.

Balance:

Multiple viewpoints are represented fairly in discussions.

Uncertainties and limitations are acknowledged.

Overall, I would assess the quality of this technical report as high. It demonstrates a thorough review supported by accurate details and logical conclusions. Complex topics are made accessible, and an inclusive approach has been taken by considering diverse technical perspectives. The document establishes the IAEA's final thorough review of this safety issue at a level consistent with relevant international standards.

Based on its content and purpose, this IAEA technical report falls strongly on the side of science, empirical facts and objective analysis rather than fiction, anecdote, opinion or subjectivity.

Specifically:

The report aims to objectively assess whether planned discharges align with safety standards, not advance an opinion.

Discussions are firmly grounded in technical documentation and empirical inspection/corroboration findings, not speculation.

Conclusions represent syntheses of facts from hundreds of pages of review materials, not personal views.

Diverse expertise is brought to bear ensuring multi-perspective technical rigor, not singular subjectivities.

Stance maintains impartiality/independence as per the IAEA's statutory functions and established review process.

Quantitative data, calculations and technical language are features, not qualitative speculation.

While some assumptions and uncertainties are inherent, the report's focus, depth of analyses, independence and reliance on empirical evidence place it strongly in the domain of objective, factual technical assessment consistent with its purpose and impartial role. Its conclusions represent a reality-grounded synthesis for the international technical community.

In summary, I would evaluate the comprehensive report as being more closely aligned with science, facts and objectivity than personal opinions, fiction or subjectivities, given its mandate, multi-perspective expertise, abundance of evidence-based discussions.

Based on reviewing the content and stated purpose of the document, I would characterize its perspective as neutral and independent.

Some specific indicators that support this assessment include:

The report is published by the IAEA, an internationally recognized technical organization governed by an independent Board of Governors representing Member States.

The review is led by an independent Task Force comprised of IAEA and third-party experts providing objective scientific/technical advice.

Discussions are framed around an impartial assessment of consistency with international safety standards, not advocacy of any position.

Multiple technical perspectives are represented to ensure a well-rounded evaluation that considers diverse viewpoints.

Factual language and objective analysis are used without emotive terms or implied policy endorsements.

Conclusions represent a distillation of evidence rather than predetermined positions.

The scope is clearly defined as technical safety review, not commentary on broader political/social issues.

Overall, the content, structure and stated mandate/purpose of the report suggest it aims to present fact-based technical findings in an objective, neutral manner suitable for reference by a range of international audiences. The document appears to maintain an appropriately independent and impartial technical perspective.

Based on the information provided in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation it describes:

Context:

Large volumes of ALPS treated water accumulated at FDNPS following the 2011 nuclear accident.

Japan announced a policy in 2021 to discharge this water into the sea after further treatment.

Japan requested IAEA review the safety aspects of handling/discharging this water.

Complexity:

Multidisciplinary technical issues spanning treatment systems, discharges, impacts assessment.

Long-term nature of proposed discharges over several decades adds complexity.

Unique circumstances of FDNPS accident and site decommissioning context.

Progress:

Iterative approach taken, incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives over time.

Technical and regulatory topics addressed in depth through review missions/reports.

Planning/reviews demonstrate intention to apply global safety standards.

Outcomes:

Comprehensive documentation of technical review conclusions up to this point.

Findings indicate approach/activities to date align with safety standards requirements.

Provides global evidentiary basis for understanding safety aspects to this point.

In summary, the document effectively evaluates a complex technical situation encompassing multiple interests over time. The iterative approach taken supports continued progress consistent with safety.

The main stakeholders affected by this IAEA comprehensive report include:

Government of Japan - As the requesting party and responsible authority for managing the ALPS treated water and decommissioning activities.

TEPCO - As the licensee responsible for safety of the discharge activities at FDNPS.

NRA - As the independent nuclear regulator that must authorize the activities.

Local communities around FDNPS - As parties most directly impacted by any unintended consequences.

Broader Japanese public - With significant interest in the open & transparent management of the issues.

Neighbouring countries - With interested in verifying negligible transboundary impact.

Global nuclear community - Interest in safety-focused resolution setting precedent.

Environmental groups - Concerned with radiological impact on ecology and marine life.

Scientific community - Interest in data validation and furthering protection knowledge.

This is a reasonably comprehensive list of key stakeholders. Evaluation suggests their interests are also fairly represented through: discussion of technical topics; consideration of perspectives; iterative improvements incorporating feedback; and commitment to transparency. Overall engagement with this diverse set of stakeholders has been thoughtful and considerate throughout the IAEA's review.

In evaluating this document in relation to the known consensus in the international community and technical literature on nuclear safety assessments, I note the following:

The document draws heavily on the IAEA's international safety standards, which are themselves developed through extensive international consensus processes.

The approach taken is consistent with internationally accepted methodologies in key documents like GSG-10 and SRS-19 for REIAs and source terms.

The tools and models used align with those internationally validated and used, such as ORIGEN.

The document appropriately considers international consensus documents like ICRP recommendations on reference animals/plants and other protection aspects.

Results are compared directly to international standards without deviation or subjective interpretation.

International peer reviewers involved throughout strengthens global technical consensus considerations.

Publication under the IAEA's auspices lends credibility through their role as custodian of global standards.

Overall, by directly utilizing input from the international technical community itself and anchoring assessments against the globally harmonized safety standards framework, the document demonstrates a strong correlation to the recognized consensus in the field. No technical discordance was apparent.

After carefully reviewing the document, I did not find any clear instances of logical fallacies. Some notes:

The conclusions drawn appear well supported by evidence presented and discussions held. There are no apparent gaps or leaps made in reasoning.

The process of undertaking expert technical review missions, publishing intermediate progress reports, and facilitating public feedback mechanisms helps reduce the risk of blind logical errors.

Discussions focus on impartial assessments of technical criteria compliance rather than opinions.

Diverse expertise incorporated helps balance any risks of perspective biases, and multiple iterations allow refinement.

Quantitative assessments are data-driven without subjective interpretations of results.

Conservative assumptions used minimize potential of overstating safety case.

Large volume of review materials and iterative approach facilitate identification of inconsistencies.

In summary, given the impartial, evidence-based nature of the analyses, engagement of independent multidisciplinary experts, consideration of diverse technical comments over many iterations, and publication under the IAEA banner - I did not find logical fallacies present in the comprehensive report. The assessment and conclusions appear well-supported and free of substantive logical flaws.

Based on my review, the document appears to have been produced and presents its content in an ethical manner:

Transparency - The approach, sources, assumptions and limitations are clearly explained.

Impartiality - The assessments avoid bias and advocate no particular position or recommendations.

Integrity - The conclusions seem logically consistent with evidence presented and expertise applied.

Accuracy - Factual information is properly distinguished from expert judgment or estimation.

Objectivity - Technical discussions are data-driven without subjective slants or embellishments.

Prudence - Conservative default positions minimize risk of underestimating safety aspects.

Responsiveness - The document reflects multiple interactions and iterations to address feedback.

Inclusiveness - Diverse technical viewpoints are represented to provide balanced perspectives.

Overall, through its evidence-based analyses, transparent discussions of uncertainties, utilization of multidisciplinary expertise, and iterative approach responsive to comments, the document demonstrates ethical conduct of the IAEA’s safety review consistent with its independent and impartial role. No potential ethical issues or violations were apparent to me based on the content and stated purpose of the document.

p2hc4W70tZwOoA8Ne10j

[onestatebusinessnews]

Japan started releasing treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, a polarising move that prompted China to announce an immediate blanket ban on all aquatic products from Japan.

China is "highly concerned about the risk of radioactive contamination brought by... Japan's food and agricultural products," the customs bureau said in a statement.

The Japanese government signed off on the plan two years ago and it was given a green light by the U.N. nuclear watchdog last month. The discharge is a key step in decommissioning the Fukushima Daiichi plant after it was destroyed by a tsunami in 2011.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) (9501.T) said the release began at 1:03 p.m. local time (0403 GMT) and it had not identified any abnormalities.

However, China reiterated its firm opposition to the plan and said the Japanese government had not proved that the water discharged would be safe.

"The Japanese side should not cause secondary harm to the local people and even the people of the world out of its own selfish interests," its foreign ministry said in a statement.

Tokyo has in turn criticised China for spreading "scientifically unfounded claims."

It maintains the water release is safe, noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also concluded that the impact it would have on people and the environment was "negligible."

Japan has requested that China immediately lift its import ban on aquatic products and seeks a discussion on the impact of the water release based on science, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters.

Japan exported about $600 million worth of aquatic products to China in 2022, making it the biggest market for Japanese exports, with Hong Kong second. Sales to China and Hong Kong accounted for 42% of all Japanese aquatic exports in 2022, according to government data.

China customs did not give details on the specific aquatic products impacted by the ban and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DECADES LONG PROCESS

The Fukushima Daiichi plant was destroyed in March 2011 after a massive 9.0 magnitude earthquake generated powerful tsunami waves causing meltdowns in three reactors.

The first discharge totalling 7,800 cubic metres - the equivalent of about three Olympic swimming pools of water - will take place over about 17 days.

According to Tepco test results released on Thursday, that water contained about up to 63 becquerels of tritium per litre, below the World Health Organization drinking water limit of 10,000 becquerels per litre. A becquerel is a unit of radioactivity.

The IAEA also released a statement saying its independent on-site analysis had confirmed the tritium concentration was far below the limit.

"There are not going to be any health effects… There is no scientific reason to ban imports of Japanese food whatsoever," said Geraldine Thomas, former professor of molecular pathology at London's Imperial College.

But Japanese fishing groups, hit with years of reputational damage from radiation fears, still oppose the plan.

"All we want is to be able to continue fishing," the head of the Japan Fisheries Co-operative said in a statement that touched on the "mounting anxiety" of the community.

Separately from China, Hong Kong and Macau have announced their own ban starting Thursday, which covers Japanese seafood imports from 10 regions.

South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo said import bans on Fukushima fisheries and food products will stay in place until public concerns were eased.

Japan will conduct monitoring around the water release area and publish results weekly starting on Sunday, Japan's environment minister said. The release is estimated to take about 30 years.

PROTESTS

In Hong Kong, Jacay Shum, a 73-year-old activist, held up a picture portraying IAEA head Rafael Grossi as the devil.

"Japan's actions in discharging contaminated water are very irresponsible, illegal, and immoral," said Shum, who was among a group of about 100 marchers. "No one can prove that the nuclear waste and materials are safe. They are completely unsafe."

South Korean police arrested at least 16 protesters who entered the Japanese embassy in Seoul, although South Korea's government has said its own assessment found no problems with the scientific and technical aspects of the release.

North Korea's foreign ministry demanded that the water discharge be immediately halted, calling it a "crime against humanity", state media reported.

A few dozen protesters gathered in front of Tepco's headquarters in Tokyo holding signs reading "Don't throw contaminated water into the sea!"

"The Fukushima nuclear disaster is not over. This time only around 1% of the water will be released," 71-year-old Jun Iizuka, who attended the protest, told Reuters. "From now on, we will keep fighting for a long time to stop the long-term discharge of contaminated water." — via #onestatenews

[overhoff-credentials]

ALPHA-7A Alpha Air Monitors

Thermos Scientific™ ALPHA-7A Air Monitor is designed to provide early warning to workers exposed to airborne releases of alpha-emitting radionuclides.

Modern, PC-based continuous air monitor provides faster, more powerful algorithms for the identification and quantification of airborne releases of alpha-emitting radionuclides, primarily transuranic such as 238Pu and 239Pu.

Product overview:

Simultaneously monitors up to 8 isotopes

Advanced peakshape algorithms; calculates isotopic activity by mapping peaks rather than using regions of interest (ROI)

Alpha-spectral data updated every second

Concentration, dose, and activity alarms

Pentium-class PC-based, Windows 2000 operating system

Removable filter holder cartridge

High-speed connections via 10-base T Ethernet connection

4 to 20mA analog input and output capacity

High-visibility display for status and messages

New isotopes easily added from library using any ODBC database manager

Automatic gain control based on naturally occurring peaks

Tracks alpha-emitting daughter products

Full-featured, Windows-based client software presents graphical displays of spectrum and status to any networked or local PC

Two detector designs:

Radial entry head for ambient air monitoring

Inline head for process or stack monitoring applications

Either head may be used remotely from the central display and control un

For More Information: http://overhoff.com/

[newstfionline]

What’s the Difference Between a Hydrogen Bomb and a Regular Atomic Bomb?

By Chris Buckley, NY Times, Sept. 3, 2017

North Korea claimed that a nuclear blast on Sunday was a big advance from its previous five tests because it had successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb. But some experts suspect the North may have tested a “boosted” atomic bomb.

How are a hydrogen bomb and a regular atomic bomb different? And why would that matter to the United States and its allies? Here’s what the experts say.

How do nuclear weapons work? Nuclear weapons trigger an explosive reaction that shears off destructive energy locked inside the bomb’s atomic materials.

The first atomic weapons, like those dropped by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, did that with fission--splitting unstable uranium or plutonium atoms so that their subatomic neutrons fly free, smash up more atoms and create a devastating blast.

How is a hydrogen bomb different? A hydrogen bomb, also called a thermonuclear bomb or an H-bomb, uses a second stage of reactions to magnify the force of an atomic explosion.

The secret to achieving more destructive power is to increase the amount of thermonuclear fuel that an exploding atomic bomb can ignite. North Korea said that Sunday’s test was a hydrogen bomb, but analysts were skeptical of this claim.

That stage is fusion--mashing hydrogen atoms together in the same process that fuels the sun. When these relatively light atoms join together, they unleash neutrons in a wave of destructive energy.

A hydrogen weapon uses an initial nuclear fission explosion to create a tremendous pulse that compresses and fuses small amounts of deuterium and tritium, kinds of hydrogen, near the heart of the bomb. The swarms of neutrons set free can ramp up the explosive chain reaction of a uranium layer wrapped around it, creating a blast far more devastating than uranium fission alone.

The United States tested a hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll in 1954 that was over 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Britain, China, France and Russia have also created hydrogen bombs.

What would a successful hydrogen test mean? North Korea claimed that it successfully staged a hydrogen bomb test in January 2016, but experts were skeptical.

A successful test this time would show that the North’s nuclear program has become more sophisticated and that the country is closer to making an atomic warhead that could be fitted on a long-range missile able to strike the mainland United States.

The underground blast, which caused tremors felt in South Korea and China, was the first by the North to surpass the destructive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If the North has the capability to build a hydrogen bomb, it could open the way to making warheads that pack much more destructive power in a smaller space. It could also enable North Korea to enhance the threat from its limited stocks of enriched uranium.

What will experts look for? Analysts who advise governments on nuclear weapons will study the shock waves from the blast measured by monitoring stations. They will also look for clues from traces of nuclear gases that could float into the atmosphere.

Those traces may tell if this test was really a hydrogen bomb, or perhaps something less than a full-scale thermonuclear device. But it can take weeks for the gases to leak out and be detected.

[japanese-milk]

I had a hard time pinpointing an environmental issue, but I finally settled on one of Japans most disastrous and dangerous environmental issues is spillage of nuclear waste. In 2011, a massive tsunami struck the eastern coastline of Japan. The massive wave struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant which subsequently caused radioactive material to spill into the basement and caused the plants back up generators to shut down. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As a way to keep the destroyed nuclear reactors cooled, water circulates around them. Unfortunately, this created a surplus of contaminated water that is held on site that eventually must be dealt with.

           The Japanese government has been working on a solution. In 2019, Japan’s Environment Minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, announced that they would be forced to dump large quantities of contaminated water back into the Pacific Ocean. Since the initial nuclear disaster in 2011, more than 1 million tons of contaminated water is being held in large tanks at the plant. Many experts have suggested that the water be released slowly over a ten-year period to ensure proper safety measures. Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owners of Fukushima Daiichi, has stated that the plant will run out of storage space by 2022, which means action must be taken.2

           As of February 2020, an expert panel in Japan released a draft report stating that best way to manage the build up of nuclear waste in Fukushima Daiichi would best be dealt with by either dumping it into the ocean or evaporate it into the atmosphere. While it may sound a bit drastic, to release toxic waste into either the atmosphere or into the Pacific Ocean, the level of radiation in the water is very low. It will actually more harmful and possibly dangerous to contain the water than it would be to dilute it. Dumping the water into the ocean can be monitored more securely than evaporating it.

           As expected, many residents and fishermen are concerned about the possible health effects of pouring radioactive water into the ocean, but it should not worry them. Tokyo Electric Power Company has already treated the water as to remove the harmful radioactive elements it may contain, aside from Tritium, a relatively harmless hydrogen isotope that is hard to separate. Takami Morita of the National Research Institute of Fisheries Science. Insisted that the first step of this process should be ensuring that Fukushima recovers. “Local fishermen and residents cannot accept a release of the water unless Fukushima's recovery makes more progress.” The expert panel is currently finalizing their proposal before submitting it to the Japanese government for review.

           I think that moving forward with this plan of slowly releasing contaminated water that has been treated back into the ocean is the only safe and effective way to deal with this crisis. If the amount of radiation in a gallon of water is basically untraceable, it will dilute even further after being poured into a much larger body of water. There is only so much space that the power plant can supply, and it is nearing the end of its rope. Fukushima has suffered greatly, not only environmentally but also economically. Seafood sales have been staggeringly low since 2011, despite fish caught in the region not having any detectable radiation. I think once they begin the process and people will see that the results are not negative, more people will get behind it. To ensure the safety of the people of Fukushima as well as the environment, it is important to release the water before there is more spillage and possible more damage.

      Bibliography

Conca, James. “Japan's Expert Panel Agrees That Dumping Radioactive Water Into The Ocean Is Best.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, February 3, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/02/01/japans-expert-panel-agrees-that-dumping-radioactive-water-into-the-ocean-is-best/#24d14c18200c.

“Japan Panel Recommends Ocean Release for Contaminated Fukushima Water.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, January 31, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-water/japan-panel-recommends-ocean-release-for-contaminated-fukushima-water-idUSKBN1ZU26G.

Tokyo, Reuters in. “Fukushima Radioactive Water Should Be Released into Ocean, Say Japan Experts.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 1, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/01/fukushima-radioactive-water-should-be-released-into-ocean-say-japan-experts#maincontent.

[inhandnetworks-blog]

PLC access Sandia Chemists Use MOFs to Remove Radioactive Gas from Nuclear Fuel

www.inhandnetworks.com

Sandia chemist Tina Nenoff heads a team of researchers focused on removal of radioactive iodine from spent nuclear fuel. They identified a metal-organic framework that captures and holds the volatile gas, a discovery that could be used for nuclear fuel reprocessing and other applications.

A research team, comprised of Sandia chemists, is researching ways to make nuclear fuel reprocessing cleaner and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. By focusing on the radioactive components that can’t be burned as fuel, the goal is to find a methodology for highly selective separations. By using metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), they are able to capture and remove volatile radioactive gas from spent nuclear fuel.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Research by a team of Sandia chemists could impact worldwide efforts to produce clean, safe nuclear energy and reduce radioactive waste.

Sandia chemist Tina Nenoff heads a team of researchers focused on removal of radioactive iodine from spent nuclear fuel. They identified a metal-organic framework that captures and holds the volatile gas, a discovery that could be used for nuclear fuel reprocessing and other applications. (Photo by Randy Montoya) Click on the thumbnail for a high-resolution image.

The Sandia researchers have used metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) to capture and remove volatile radioactive gas from spent nuclear fuel. “This is one of the first attempts to use a MOF for iodine capture,” said chemist Tina Nenoff of Sandia’s Surface and Interface Sciences Department.

The discovery could be applied to nuclear fuel reprocessing or to clean up nuclear reactor accidents. A characteristic of nuclear energy is that used fuel can be reprocessed to recover fissile materials and provide fresh fuel for nuclear power plants. Countries such as France, Russia and India are reprocessing spent fuel.

The process also reduces the volume of high-level wastes, a key concern of the Sandia researchers. “The goal is to find a methodology for highly selective separations that result in less waste being interred,” Nenoff said.

Part of the challenge of reprocessing is to separate and isolate radioactive components that can’t be burned as fuel. The Sandia team focused on removing iodine, whose isotopes have a half-life of 16 million years, from spent fuel.

They studied known materials, including silver-loaded zeolite, a crystalline, porous mineral with regular pore openings, high surface area and high mechanical, thermal and chemical stability. Various zeolite frameworks can trap and remove iodine from a stream of spent nuclear fuel, but need added silver to work well.

“Silver attracts iodine to form silver iodide,” Nenoff said. “The zeolite holds the silver in its pores and then reacts IIoT   with iodine to trap silver iodide.”

But silver is expensive and poses environmental problems, so the team set out to engineer materials without silver that would work like zeolites but have higher capacity for the gas molecules. They explored why and how zeolite absorbs iodine, and used the critical components discovered to find the best MOF, named ZIF-8.

“We investigated the structural properties on how they work and translated that into new and improved materials,” Nenoff said.

MOFs are crystalline, porous materials in which a metal center is bound to organic molecules by mild self-assembly chemical synthesis. The choice of metal and organic resul din rail mounting  t in a very specific final framework.

The trick was to find a MOF highly selective for iodine. The Sandia researchers took the best elements of the zeolite Mordenite — its por Industrial LTE Router  es, high surface area, stability and chemical absorption — and identified a MOF that can separate one molecule, in this case iodine, from a stream of molecules. The MOF and pore-trapped iodine gas can then be incorporated into glass waste for long-term storage.

This illustration of a metal-organic framework, or MOF, shows the metal center bound to organic molecules. Each MOF has a specific framework determined by the choice of metal and organic. Sandia chemists identified a MOF whose pore size and high surface area can separate and trap radioactive iodine molecules from a stream of spent nuclear fuel.

The Sandia team also fabricated MOFs, made of commercially available products, into durable pellets. The as-made MOF is a white powder with a tendency to blow around. The pellets provide a stable form to use without loss of surface area, Nenoff said.

Sandia has applied for a patent on the pellet technology, which could have commercial applications.

The Sandia researchers are part of the Off-Gas Sigma Team, which is led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and studies waste-form capture of volatile gasses associated with nuclear fuel reprocessing. Other team members — Pacific Northwest, Argonne and Idaho national laboratories — are studying other volatile gases such as krypton, tritium and carbon.

The project began six years ago and the Sigma Team was formalized in 2009. It is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy.

Sandia’s iodine and MOFs research was featured in two recent articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society authored by Nenoff and team members Dorina Sava, Mark Rodriguez, Jeffery Greathouse, Paul Crozier, Terry Garino, David Rademacher, Ben Cipiti, Haiqing Liu, Greg Halder, Peter Chupas, and Karena Chapman. Chupas, Halder and Chapman are from Argonne.

“The most important thing we did was introduce a new class of materials to nuclear waste remediation,” said Sava, postdoctoral appointee on the project.

Nenoff said another recent paper in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research shows a one-step process that incorporates MOFs with iodine in a low-temperature, glass waste form. “We have a volatile off-gas capture using a MOF and we have a durable waste form,” Nenoff said.

Nenoff and her colleagues are continuing their research into new and optimized MOFs for enhanced volatile gas separation and capture.

“We’ve shown that MOFs have the capacity to capture and, more importantly, retain many times more iodine than current materials technologies,” said Argonne’s Chapman.

Image: Randy Montoya; Sandia National Laboratories

smart vending, InHandGo, retrofit, touchscreen vending, cashless vending, cloud VMS, Transformer Monitoring, Transformer Monitoring, substation monitoring, grid LTE router, wireless communication, smart grid, Remote Automation, Remote Automation, Secure remote networks, web SCADA, Remote Diagnostics, Remote PLC programming, Intelligent Traffic Enforcement, Intelligent Traffic Enforcement, wireless networking, cellular router, Wireless ATM Solution, Wireless ATM, ATM Remote Diagnostic, prestashop 多语商城, opencart 外贸商城, 网页设计, 网站建设, 企业建站, 商城网站, 集团网站, 海外网站, 营销网站, 网站推广, 华人网站建设, 华人网站维护, 华人网络兼职, china webdesign, webdesign, seo, joomla web design, 香港網頁設計, 網站建設, 企業建站, 商城網站, 集團網站, 海外網站, 營銷網站, 網站推廣, web design, joomla webdesign, wordpress webdesign, opencart webdesign, magento webdesign, durpal webdesign, vtiger crm, adempiere erp, compiere erp, hosting, domains, vps, email marketing, joomla 网页设计, wordpress 建站, magento 大型外贸商城, durpal 门户网站, seo 网站推广, 网站自然排名, joomla 網站製作, wordpress 定制開發, opencart 維護修改, prestashop 模板修改, magento 培訓實施, durpal 定制修改, seo 營銷推廣, 外鏈收錄排位, joomla, wordpress, opencart, prestashop, magento, durpal, zencart, crm, erp, edm, marketing, joomla template, wordpress themes, magento themes, opencart themes, prestashop themes, 崀山, 崀山科技, 崀山科技全球服务中心, LangShan Technology Global Service Center, LangShan Technology, langshantech, LangShan, china webdesign, 網頁製作, 網頁設計, 企业建站, 企業建站, 在線商城, 營銷網站, 網站推廣, 網站營銷, 排名推廣, 產品推廣, 主機維護, 公司兼職, 網站SEO, joomla seo, wordpress seo, joomla 網站推廣, opencart 網站推廣, prestashop 網站推廣, wordpress 網站推廣, magento 網站推廣, joomla 網站排名, prestashop 網站排名, wordpress 網站排名, opencart 網站排名, prestashop 多语商城, opencart 外贸商城, 网页设计, 网站建设, 企业建站, 商城网站, 集团网站, 海外网站, 营销网站, 网站推广, 华人网站建设, 华人网站维护, 华人网络兼职, china webdesign, webdesign, seo, joomla web design, 香港網頁設計, 網站建設, 企業建站, 商城網站, 集團網站, 海外網站, 營銷網站, 網站推廣, web design, joomla webdesign, wordpress webdesign, opencart webdesign, magento webdesign, durpal webdesign, vtiger crm, adempiere erp, compiere erp, hosting, domains, vps, email marketing, joomla 网页设计, wordpress 建站, magento 大型外贸商城, durpal 门户网站, seo 网站推广, 网站自然排名, joomla 網站製作, wordpress 定制開發, opencart 維護修改, prestashop 模板修改, magento 培訓實施, durpal 定制修改, seo 營銷推廣, 外鏈收錄排位, joomla, wordpress, opencart, prestashop, magento, durpal, zencart, crm, erp, edm, marketing, joomla template, wordpress themes, magento themes, opencart themes, prestashop themes, 崀山, 崀山科技, 崀山科技全球服务中心, LangShan Technology Global Service Center, LangShan Technology, oowebdesign, LangShan, china webdesign, 網頁製作, 網頁設計, 企业建站, 企業建站, 在線商城, 營銷網站, 網站推廣, 網站營銷, 排名推廣, 產品推廣, 主機維護, 公司兼職, 網站SEO, joomla seo, wordpress seo, joomla 網站推廣, opencart 網站推廣, prestashop 網站推廣, wordpress 網站推廣, magento 網站推廣, joomla 網站排名, prestashop 網站排名, wordpress 網站排名, opencart 網站排名, inhandnetworks, InHand Networks Global Leader in Industrial IoT, Global Leader in Industrial IoT, android-computer, iot, industrial iot, industrial internet of things, m2m, industrial m2m, m2m communication, remote communication, wireless m2m, remote connectivity, remote access, m2m connectivity, iiot, industrial networking, industrial wireless, m2m iot, smart vending, touchscreen vending, cloud-vms, telemeter, vending telemetry, cashless vending, light industrial,

[overhoff-credentials]

Radiation Monitoring Software

Overhoff Overvie

Features:

Stores all instrument data to a database (Microsoft Access) at user-definable intervals Displays all instrument data in table and graphical form (summary and real-time)Limit checks incoming data of all types; each instrument can have its own set of limits of desire Displays over limit or alarm status to security personnel at a terminal and sends email/phone alerts Generates reports on stored data: shift reports, or daily, weekly, and monthly reports can all be generated automatically and in hardcopy.  Graphs can also be included Identifies upward or downward trends in data Identifies non-transmitting instruments Tracks maintenance due on instruments and tracks locations of all instruments within your facility Displays video/images from webcams Overhoff Overview is a customizable software package for networking multiple Overhoff instruments together or modeling a facility graphically in a series of views.

For More Information: http://overhoff.com/

[gmsciencein]

The sub-atomic world is flooded with a number of fundamental particles. They are categorized into various families or classes depending on some properties like spin, mass etc. possessed by them. Among them, Neutrino is the one with extremely small mass. The existence of Neutrino mass was first established by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 using the Beta decay of nuclear reaction to explain the conservation of energy and momentum. Previously they were known as massless particles. Now, we can look at the situation where the most abundant population was believed to have no mass at all. How strange that was!!

A representation of the naked photon interaction with ghost particles which slows down its speed from infinite to limited speed C (Credit: Changshen | Wikimedia).

This fact introduces the ghost nature of this particle. Thanks to various neutrino oscillation experiments (Sudbury Neutrino Observatories and Super-Kamiokande Observatory), which grabbed the 2015 Nobel prize in Physics confirming the oscillation phenomenon and which in turn indirectly says that the said particles are massive. The fundamental principle lies in the fact that some of the electron neutrinos produced in the sun are transformed into muon and tau-neutrinos as they travel across the Earth. The phenomenon is familiar as neutrino oscillation. After we got through the fact of massive neutrinos, particle physics community has started thinking about other aspects associated with neutrino mass, such as what is the absolute neutrino-mass scale, the hierarchy of the three kinds of neutrinos (which among the three is heaviest and which is lightest) and so on. Along with all these queries, we are also worried about the smallness of neutrino mass.

a physical proton-proton chain (where a positron and neutrino is produced in the final reaction) (Credit: Wikimedia)

Neutrinos pass through our bodies with a billion in number, in every second. The production of this tiny but very abundant particle occurs via a chain reaction continuously taking place on Sun. From the very beginning, i.e., since the period of Bing Bang, the universe is left with innumerable numbers of this particle. The neutrinos are a billion times smaller than any other sub-atomic particle. But their huge population let Physicists think about their role in cosmology also. On the largest scales, neutrinos act as “Cosmic Architects” and participates in forming the visible structures in the Universe, as they encourage the formation and the distribution of galaxies. Hence there must lie some unexplored cosmological consequences drawn by the combined effect of this huge abundant particle.

Now to get into the nature of neutrino in detail one has to know about their interaction with some known particles, which is very feeble in rate. They rarely interact with other matters and this fact has created many difficulties to bring out some unexplored truths and facts regarding their properties. Majority of the particles get their mass by interacting with a particle called Higgs boson, a spin-zero bosonic particle, the existence of which carried the 2013 Nobel prize in Physics. We may think that like the other particles the neutrino also procures its mass by the same mechanism, but its smallness motivates us to search for some other non-trivial mechanism by which neutrinos get mass.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Therefore after a period of ten years of planning and building ideas, a giant extraordinary machine has been designed and built which is familiar as Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment or KATRIN situated in the South-West of Germany for an extensive study of the behavior of neutrinos and electrons which are emitted by a hydrogen isotope, tritium. The machine consists of a huge and perfect vacuum chamber with the provision that the inside air pressure is lower than that on moon’s surface. The experiment is designed in a way that it becomes possible to study the variations in their trajectories when they fly through the machine’s vacuum chamber. We hope that these variations can shade some light on the precision limit of some physical properties associated with neutrino mass. Apart from creating a perfect vacuum, one also has to keep eye on the temperature of the tritium which acts as the source of the neutrino in the entire experiment. Then the whole building where the apparatus has been placed is demagnetized. The decay of a tritium nucleus is carried out by the emission of a He-3 nucleus, an electron, and a neutrino. However we cannot measure the neutrino mass directly, we can determine it by looking at the energy distribution of the electrons emitted in the decay process. Inside the vacuum chamber, electrons are allowed to flow very closely by applying a powerful magnetic field in the same direction towards a powerful electric field.

The energy spectrum of the electrons emitted in tritium beta decay. Three graphs for different neutrino masses are shown. These graphs differ only in the range near the high-energetic end-point; the intersection with the abscissa depends on the neutrino mass. In the KATRIN experiment, the spectrum around this end-point is measured with high precision to obtain the neutrino mass. (Credit: Zykure | Wikipedia)

The gigantic apparatus consists of a rear section which is responsible for monitoring and calibrating pieces of equipment. The neutrino source of the experiment, i.e., the tritium source is positioned in a device called a windowless gaseous tritium source. Superconducting magnets are used to generate such a powerful magnetic field (70,000 times more powerful than Earth’s one). Among the spread out electrons inside the huge vacuum chamber, only those with the highest energy are allowed to reach the electric force set-up. Then by counting the number of electrons that reach the detector, scientists can measure the endpoint of their spectrum and hence determine the neutrino mass.

Probably after some years, the particle physics community can draw a realistic figure of these queries.

Source: The Guardian, Katrin

KATRIN - A Curiosity about the tiny Ghost Particle of the Universe The sub-atomic world is flooded with a number of fundamental particles. They are categorized into various families or classes depending on some properties like spin, mass etc. possessed by them. Among them, Neutrino is the one with extremely small mass. The existence of Neutrino mass was first established by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 using the Beta decay of nuclear reaction to explain the conservation of energy and momentum. The sub-atomic world is flooded with a number of fundamental particles. They are categorized into various families or classes depending on some properties like spin, mass etc.

[furynewsnetwork]

Ryan Pickrell

Displayed with permission from Daily Caller News Foundation

Thermal images of North Korea’s nuclear research center indicates increased production of nuclear material for Kim Jong-un’s nuclear weapons stockpile, a U.S.-based think tank reports.

Scans of the Radiochemical Laboratory at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center reveal marked increases in thermal activity, hinting at plutonium production, 38 North, a Washington-based North Korea monitoring project, reported. Researchers also detected increased thermal activity, possibly the result of centrifuge operations, at another facility dedicated to uranium enrichment.

North Korea ramped up uranium enrichment in September, leading experts to conclude that the North could produce six nuclear bombs per year, and the International Atomic Energy Association reported in March that North Korea has more than doubled the size of its uranium enrichment facility in recent years, pushing nuclear material production into a “new phase.”

Observers also noticed possible activity at the Experimental Light Water Reactor, which could be “cause for concern.”

If the rogue state is processing plutonium and uranium, it is very likely the North Korean regime intends to expand its nuclear arsenal, a deeply concerning discovery given North Korea’s recent test of an intercontinental ballistic missile that some experts assess could strike the U.S., specifically Alaska, parts of the Pacific Northwest, and possibly even the West Coast.

The good news is that the Isotope/Tritium Production Facility appears inactive for the time being, suggesting that North Korea is not producing tritium, an important isotope essential in the production of boosted yield nuclear weapons and hydrogen bombs. While the facility is not currently operational, experts believe that North Korea has the ability to produce tritium.

“I believe they have made tritium,” Siegfried Hecker explained to reporters in South Korea last month, although he expressed doubts about the North’s ability to develop a hydrogen bomb now. “They can make tritium so they have the basic element for a hydrogen bomb. But it takes much more than that to weaponize hydrogen bombs. I don’t believe they can do that.” North Korea claimed the successful test of a hydrogen bomb last January, but experts are skeptical.

North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests since 2006, with two successful tests last year. With each test, the explosive yield increases, enhancing North Korea’s ability to rain down devastation on those countries it considers enemies.

The Trump administration, like its predecessors, is pursuing denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. Having abandoned the Obama-era policy of “strategic patience,” the president and his team are applying “maximum pressure and engagement,” which involves military deterrence, economic sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, to rein in North Korea.

Follow Ryan on Twitter

Send tips to ryan@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Kim Jong Un Appears To Be Churning Out Plutonium For His Arsenal Of Nukes appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

via Headline News – The Libertarian Republic

[verschwoerer]

FPL Wins Battle to Store Radioactive Waste Under Miami's Drinking Water Aquifer

Environmental activists have started a petition urging Florida lawmakers to prevent FPL from storing waste underground.

South Florida sits atop two gigantic underground stores of water: the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers. Miamians get most of their drinking water from the upper Biscayne Aquifer, while the government has used the lower portion of the Floridian to dump waste and untreated sewage — despite the fact that multiple studies have warned that waste could one day seep into the drinking water.

So environmentalists are concerned that Florida Power & Light now wants to dump full-on radioactive waste into the that lower water table, called the Boulder Zone. A small group of activists called Citizens Allied for Safe Energy (CASE) tried to stop FPL's plan, but their legal petition was shot down this past Friday.

According to NRC documents, CASE's petition was dismissed for being filed "inexcusably late" in FPL's application process.

"This was thrown out on procedural grounds," says CASE's president, Barry J. White. "The science is still there."

CASE had filed a petition with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the NRC on Friday threw out CASE's complaint, saying the environmental group had filed too late in FPL's approval process.

The fight stems from the energy company's plan to build two nuclear reactors at the controversial Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station south of Miami by roughly 2030. The towers might not be operational for a decade or two, but that doesn't mean the public should stop paying attention to them. FPL is submitting numerous proposals about the project to the government.

As part of that package, FPL told the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it plans to store contaminated water used to clean the reactors, as well as radioactive waste ("radwaste") in the Boulder Zone. In October, the NRC issued a report, stating FPL's plan would pose "no environmental impacts" to the South Florida environment.

Roughly a month later, on November 28, CASE filed a legal petition demanding that the NRC hold a hearing on FPL's radioactive waste plan. CASE alleges the government failed to address a host of concerns about the power company's plan.

"Everything will be put into a supposedly 'hermetically sealed' Boulder Zone," White told New Times in December. "But anybody who lives in South Florida knows nothing below us is hermetically sealed." Environmentalists say the plan could leak carcinogens such as cesium, strontium 90, and tritium right into the drinking-water aquifers.

An FPL spokesperson Friday provided the following statement to New Times:

After an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 project, including the plans to safely use reclaimed water for cooling, the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s staff concluded '…there are no environmental impacts to preclude issuing Combined Licenses to build and operate two reactors next to the existing Turkey Point nuclear power plant."

But CASE's November complaint cited both government data and FPL's own engineers, who admitted in separate hearings that waste could leak upward from the Boulder Zone into the Biscayne Aquifer.

For one, the United States Ground Water Atlas, a government document, warns the Boulder Zone "is thought to be connected to the Atlantic Ocean, possibly about 25 miles east of Miami, where the sea floor is almost 2,800 feet deep along the Straits of Florida." CASE's petition says the NRC failed to address this issue.

Likewise, "an upward hydraulic gradient from the Floridan [Aquifer] to the Biscayne [Aquifer]," an FPL engineer testified in January 2016. "The Floridan is under pressure. Therefore, you have flow from the Floridan into the Biscayne and not vice versa."

Since filing that complaint, CASE also uncovered yet another government study, which confirms the Boulder Zone can leak into "underground sources of drinking water" in South Florida.

The 2015 study, from the United States Geological Survey, says that numerous tectonic faults and other fissures exist under Biscayne Bay and the "Miami Terrace," the seafloor immediately east of the Miami shoreline.

The report states flatly:

Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey of seismic-reflection profiles acquired in onshore canals and offshore in Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic continental shelf have indicated the presence of tectonic faults (one strike-slip fault and multiple reverse faults) and karst collapse structures, and these studies substantiate the utility of this approach for locating feasible vertical-fluid flow pathways. The strike-slip fault and karst collapse structures span confining units of the Floridan aquifer system and could provide high permeability passageways for groundwater movement. If present at or near wastewater injection utilities, these features represent a plausible physical system for the upward migration of effluent injected into the Boulder Zone to overlying U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated underground sources of drinking water in the upper part of the Floridan aquifer system.

"The evidence is so strong that it's doubtful the zone is 'hermetically sealed,'" White says.

FPL contends that any radioactive-waste discharges will be carefully monitored to ensure they won't leak. But the company's credibility with the public is not in good shape. Early last year, Miami-Dade County officials said cooling canals from Turkey Point were already leaking waste into Biscayne Bay — the ordeal, and FPL's alleged refusal to take proper responsibility for the damage, led to a lawsuit.

Now, White says, he and CASE plan to lobby state lawmakers to try to outlaw injections into the Boulder Zone through state law. To put things mildly, CASE is fighting an uphill battle: FPL is one of the largest campaign donors in Florida politics.

. . . 

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fpl-wins-battle-to-store-radioactive-waste-under-miamis-drinking-water-aquifer-9059210

[overhoff-credentials]

FHT 63 D Tritium Noble Gas Monitor

Related applications: Radiation Detection Measurement

Thermo Scientific™ FHT 63 D Tritium Noble Gas Monitor is used to continuously monitor tritium in workplace or effluent air.

The counting gas and the sample air are blended and measured inside a triple proportional counter tube.

Product Overview: Measurement of tritium is taken from air sampling combined with counting gas; detection is made possible by a triple proportional counter tube. The measurement system is capable of compensating for interference from other noble gas isotopes.

Used in stack emissions monitoring systems Offers maintenance-free long-term operation with easy systems integration via RS232 serial interface Uses low-cost methane gas supply; high-level spectroscopy-quality counting gas not required Direct read-out of measured values in physical units of Bq/m3 LAN coupling optionally available Gas flow triple proportional counter tube Aerosol filter Measuring electronics FHT8000 operable under Windows™ Menu-driven calibration check procedure with complete track record of detector data Low-noise maintenance-free membrane pump For More Information: http://overhoff.com/

[overhoff-credentials]

Ensuring Healthy Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) – The New Standard

A New Normal

COVID-19 has become an unfortunate part of all our lives. Finding ways to combat its spread, and that of similar viruses, has become a top priority worldwide. As we roll into the winter months when the common cold and flu also become rampant, it becomes imperative for building owners and operators to have the ability to implement the recommendations of the ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force (ashrae.org) and to demonstrate compliance with all regulatory and statutory requirements such as ASHRAE 62.1, etc.

Can I Operate My Building in a Way That Reduces Risk?

Yes, you can! But you will likely need to make a few changes. ASHRAE has identified several, core, interrelated, functionalities that are needed to operate buildings in a way that reduces occupant exposure to infectious aerosols.Effective air-cleaning, air distribution, system commissioning, ventilation rates, humidity levels, and building pressurization.📷The Air Monitor OAM II is the only AMCA certified system that is designed to measure outside air using the fixed orifice method with ±5% of reading accuracy and flow rates as low as 150 FPM.Under-supplying outside air by 62% could have direct impact on the health of building occupants.Four of these six functions require effective, accurate control to accomplish; a level of control that is not possible without accurate measurement of multiple airflow streams, etc.The guidance provided by ASHRAE encourages building operators to increase outdoor air ventilation, while at the same time maintaining humidity levels within a limited range. These recommendations include:Increased-ventilation control Pressure control Purge control Humidity control strategies Precision measurement of outside airflow rates is required to implement these recommendations in a way that does not compromise the core functions of the air conditioning systems.Measurement, With Certainty The most effective way to ensure delivery of the required amount of outside air is by measuring it directly. Inferring outside airflow rates based on the difference between measured supply and return airflow rates can lead to significant error. Consider the effect this has in a typical example with 20,000 CFM Supply Air, 17,000 CFM Return Air, and 3,000 CFM Outside Air. Assuming an overall +/-5% uncertainty for each measurement point…20,000 CFM Supply x 5% = 1,000 CFM 17,000 CFM Return x 5% = 850 CFM …this is a maximum uncertainty of 1,850 CFM associated with 3,000 CFM of Outside Air (+/-62%)! Under-supplying outside air by 62% could have direct impact on the health of building occupants.Fixed Orifice Method For “Real World” Accuracy Principal of Taylor Engineering, Steve Taylor, recognizes the difficulties in measuring outside air in the “real world” due to low velocities, asymmetric velocity profiles, dirt, and moisture. His recommendation for outside air measurement is to use the differential pressure across a “fixed orifice method”.The Air Monitor OAM II is the only AMCA certified system that is designed to measure outside air using the “fixed orifice method” with 5% of reading accuracy.Peace Of Mind According to the COVID-19 Pulse Study published by Johnson Controls, more than 70% of organizations plan to increase outdoor air ventilation to help ensure healthy IAQ. Taking proper measures will give building owners piece of mind that they have mitigated the risks to the health and safety of occupants while maintaining comfort and building integrity.Air Monitor Corporation offers a full line of airflow measurement technologies to directly measure outside air as well as supply, return, and exhaust airflow rates. Visit: https://overhoff.com/ or contact your local representative to find the product that fits your healthy IAQ needs.

[overhoff-credentials]

Model 400SBDyC - High Performance Tritium in Air Portable Survey Monitor

High Performance Tritium In Air Portable Survey Monitor. The Model 400SBDyC is a high-performance Tritium in air monitor, useful for measurements as low as 2µCi/m3. This model features an OTC electrometer, which measures below 10-16 amperes, and combines low noise and high zero stability. Unlike other instruments, the Model 400SBDyC no longer requires front panel zero control. The thermally induced zero shifts of the electrometer and associated electronics have been eliminated.

Product Overview

Tritium is the most difficult radionuclide to detect and measure. It requires a unique detection process different from all others. US Nuclear Corps’ Overhoff Technology Corp is recognized as the premier Tritium detection and measurement company globally. Nuclear power plants, hospitals, laboratories, EPA, the biotech industry, fusion power research and all industries handling radioactive materials in their manufacture are subject to the direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to detect, measure, and monitor Tritium.

For More Information: http://overhoff.com/