This site requires a lot of work. We hope you find our efforts valuable and rewarding. Please consider offering your support. There is no minimum amount. Feel free to donate as you see fit, without restriction. Thank you...

Fukushima Commentary (blog)


Op-Ed on whether or not the Fukushima accident is ongoing and has the potential for world-wide apocalyptic disaster. In addition, a regular hosting of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers.

"Fukushima : The First Five Days"...a book taken from the records kept by the operating staff at Fukushima Daiichi during the first crucial days of the crisis. It is now available at all E-book outlets. For the PDF and bundle... (click here)

"Kimin: Japan's Forgotten People" - A book about the untold story of Japan's 300,000 tsunami refugees, ignored by the world's news media. For availability... (click here)

  Please make a Fall donation.

October 23, 2016

331st  Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Hiroshima Syndrome’s Fukushima Commentary is proudly hosting the latest edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. This week, we have postings by Dr. James Conca, Meredith Angwin, Jessica Lovering, Dan Yurman, and Dr. Gail Marcus.

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) quiz for this week… Guacamole almost as radioactive as bananas.


Now…for this week’s Blogs. To read the full articles, please click on the individual links. Blog topics for this edition include… Fukushima apples featured in a world cocktail competition, how the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund helps schools, why Britain’s Hinckley Point C is not a stealth military project, the case for a nuclear energy investment bank, and how replacing CFCs with HFCs might not be a good choice.

*              *              *

From Dr. James Conca at Forbes Magazine

Fukushima Apples Are Dynamite In Cocktails

The 42nd World Cocktail Championships kicked off in Tokyo this week It is an unusual event for discussing a Fukushima accident topic, but that is exactly what Yoshikazu Suda is doing. He’s a a bartender in Tokyo’s Ginza district who hails from Fukushima. During the contest, several varieties of fruit will be used, but only Fukushima-grown apples will be used in the fruit-cutting event. Contrary to fears, Fukushima-grown food has no detectable radiation from the accident.


From Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee Decomm Fund Supports Local Schools

(guest post by Guy Page)

When Entergy announced that Vermont Yankee was closing, the company made a Master Settlement Agreement with the state of Vermont. It included a $5.2 million donation from Entergy to the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund.  Part of this money is now being used to help Vermont schools convert to advanced wood-heating systems. (Guy Page is involved with the Vermont Energy Partnership)


From Jessica Lovering of The Breakthrough Institute

Britain’s Civilian Nuclear Program Is Not a Stealth Military Program

Last week, Peter Wynn Kirby, a social anthropologist at Oxford, wrote in the NY Times that the United Kingdom promoted the Hinkley Point C project as “a stealth initiative to bolster Britain’s nuclear deterrent.” The author’s argument was entirely dependent on a “painstaking study” authored by the Science Research Project at University of Sussex. While the study offers up self-described circumstantial evidence for links between British civilian and military nuclear suppliers, their main argument is that there can be no other explanation for the United Kingdom’s support for nuclear power.


From Dan Yurman at Neutron Bytes

The Case for a Nuclear Energy Investment Bank

America needs a government-backed investment bank to secure capital at reasonable interest rates for development of advanced reactors. This blog post describes the kinds of mechanisms that could be developed to provide the capital and financing mechanisms that are the missing links in the chain of events that need to be completed for nuclear start-ups to get the one thing they need most – customers.


From Dr. Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk

More Unintended Consequences: Air Pollution versus Climate change

Gail Marcus reflects on a meeting she recently attended that identified some unintended consequences of the effort to save the ozone layer by eliminating the use of CFCs.  One replacement, HFCs, may be good for the ozone, but is a potent greenhouse gas.  She draws parallels between this case and other times when one technology replaced another.

*                      *                      *

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) answer for this week… Fact.

A recent scientific study found that many common household items are detectibly radioactive, including foods. Most people already know that bananas are radioactive, as well as potatoes, carrots, lima beans, red meat, low sodium table salt, beer, and brazil nuts, But, no we know that guacamole must be added to the list. Researchers from North Carolina State University found that the avocado is almost as radioactive as the banana: 0.16 micrograys per hour vs. 0.17 µGy/hr. Is this a lot? Of course not. It is trvial, and much, much less than any reasonable level of concern. By the way… carrots top the list as perhaps the most radioactive food, at more than double the level of avocados and bananas, closely followed by brazil nuts. -- 

September 18, 2016

326thCarnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers
The Hiroshima Syndrome’s Fukushima Commentary is proudly hosting the latest edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. This week, we have postings by Meredith Angwin, Dr. James Conca, Gail Marcus, and Dan Yurman.
Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) quiz for this week… James Chadwick was the first to theorize the existence of the neutron, an –uncharged sub-atomic particle.
Now…for this week’s Blogs. To read the full articles, please click on the individual links. Blog topics for this edition include… Comparing the French failure to build the Panama Canal with the "renewable mandates" requirement in Vermont, how Asia may be the reason behind the variability in oil prices, self-driving cars and nuclear power, and UK’s Hinkley Point gets a “green light”.
*              *              *
From Meredith Angwin’s Yes Vermont Yankee
The Panama Canal and the Renewable Mandate: Guest post by Guy Page
From Dr. James Conca at Forbes Magazine
Wobbling Asian Demand Is a Problem for Oil Industry
From Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk
Self-Driving Cars and Nuclear Power
From Dan Yurman’s Neutron Bytes
UK’s Hinkley Point Nuclear Project Gets Green Light
*                      *                      *
Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) answer for this week… Fiction.
Chadwick is credited with the discovery of the neutron, but his mentor, Ernest Rutherford, is believed to be the first to theorize on its existence. Rutherford discovered the proton in 1919, but protons-alone could not account for the mass of atomic nuclei. Many researchers had pondered this problem, but Rutherford was the first to postulate there was another, albeit uncharged particle in the nucleus. He called it a neutron, and imagined it as a closely paired proton and electron. Chadwick published his “Possible Existence of a neutron” in 1932, and was awarded the Nobel Prize on 1935.
September 4, 2016
NY Times Needs To Get Its Fukushima Facts Straight
On August 29th, the New York Times the article Japan’s $320 Million Gamble at Fukushima: An Underground Ice Wall. (1) The report is fraught with speculations and FUD – appeals to Fear, Uncertainty, and/or Doubt - with respect to Fukushima’s impermeable “ice wall” project. The Times is usually a source of reliable information, but the newspaper fumbled this one.
In the fourth paragraph, the speculations begin. While correctly stating that the ice wall will act as a dam to keep groundwater from flowing into the basements of the four damaged F. Daiichi units, it incorrectly says,  “It will also help stop leaks of radioactive water into the nearby Pacific Ocean.” Actually, the ice wall has nothing to do with the assumptive leakage of contaminated groundwater into the Pacific. Either the Times failed to keep up with Tepco postings about the ice wall over the past year, or the news outlet doubts the utility’s reports. Actually, a steel and concrete impermeable wall has been sunk deeply into the earth along more than 700 meters of the shoreline to prevent contaminated groundwater reaching the sea; not the inland ice wall.
The Times report mentions that Tepco’s shore-line wall has stopped all “measurable leaks” to the open sea. But, uncertainty and doubt are immediately injected with the statement, “Some scientists say that radioactive water may still be seeping through layers of permeable rock that lie deep below the plant, emptying into the Pacific far offshore.” As we shall soon see, this is not true. No such permeable layer exists that extends far out to sea, and never has existed.
The Times says Tepco built the power station by cutting away the shore’s hillside, which is true. But, this was not done “so that the plant could pump in water more easily.The hillside was actually lowered (not removed) to facilitate building a break-walled harbor so that large, heavy plant equipment (like the reactor pressure vessels) could be shipped in without use of roads or railroads. Thus, we have a completely unfounded speculation.
Immediately following is the false assumption about the plant being built on permeable rock. The Times says the hillside removal “…put the buildings in contact with a deep layer of permeable rock filled with water…” The underlying bedrock beneath the plant is impermeable metamorphic ge0ology (granitic)! (2,3) There was some sandstone above the bedrock that terminated at the cliff along the pre-construction shore-line, but it did not extend “far out to sea”. The sandstone was removed to effect the port’s construction, then backfilled with soil and gravel which now surrounds the basement walls. The groundwater flow is above the bedrock through the mixture of soil and gravel. The rock under the reactor buildings is not permeable, so it cannot be filled with water.
Next we have two overlapping fallacious statement. The first concerns the in-leakage of ground water (plus leaks from the damaged units), “The continual flood of radioactive water has prevented engineers from searching for the (formerly molten) fuel.” The actual reason for not yet making a physical search is the high radiation levels inside the Primary Containments of units #1, 2 & 3! Staff could only spend a precious few minutes in such an environment before exceeding an exposure limit. In addition, the Times says no-one knows where the re-solidified fuel (corium) is located. Muon tomography has shown that the greater majority of the corium for unit #2 is inside the reactor Pressure Vessel’s bottom head, while a small fraction still remains in the core barrel above the head. It did not melt “…through the reactor’s steel floors and possibly into the basement underneath.” It seems the NY Times is trying to keep uncertainty and doubt alive concerning location of the corium at F. Daiichi.
Subsequently, The Times tries to connect the constant build-up of stored water in nearly 1,000 large tanks to the ice wall. To the contrary, the massive storage problem has nothing to do with the ice wall. About 95% of the water now stored in these tanks has been purified, removing all but one of the contained radioactive contaminants. The remaining isotope is Tritium; a biologically-harmless, albeit naturally-occurring form of Hydrogen. The only reason these hundreds of thousands of gallons of cleansed waters are not being released to the sea is radiation-based misconceptions and rumors about “tainting” the food-fish caught off the Tohoku coast. Nothing of the sort would happen if it were all released, but extreme radiophobia is a powerful hurdle to overcome in Japan.
Next, the Times continues the onslaught of uncertainty and doubt. While freezing large volumes of soil has been successfully used to bore massive tunnels around the world, the Times adds, “…but not on this scale. And certainly not on the site of a major nuclear disaster,” which really makes no difference. But, anything associated with a nuclear plant is always made to seem unique and inordinately iffy. In addition, the Times evokes unidentified “skeptics” who infer that the ice wall is actually “more like a sieve” because a fraction of a percent of the wall has yet to fully freeze and Tokyo requires that a half-dozen sections must not be solidified.  
Then, unidentified critics are evoked who say the ice wall is merely a temporary fix, the refrigerant is corrosive and could fail catastrophically, and (of course) no-one knows how the technology will hold up “in a high radiation environment”.! The Times obviously doesn’t know that a high radiation zone is defined as having exposure levels in excess of 100 millisieverts per hour. (4) None of ice wall comes close to this level.
In closing, the Times cites a former construction minister (I cannot find a listing for a Construction Ministry in Japan) who makes the following provocative statement, “Why build such an elaborate and fragile wall when there is a more permanent solution available?” He wants a 100 feet deep, mile-long trench dug around the four buildings and filled with “liquid concrete that is commonly used to block water.” Thus, a speculation is offered as the ultimate solution! But, the article overlooks the fact that flow of contaminated water into the four damaged unit’s basements will continue because of leaks cooling water pumped into units #1, 2, & 3! The ice wall might stop the influx of groundwater, but not the hundreds of gallons per day from system leaks!
The waste water problem at F. Daiichi is not what the Times purports. The problem is, was, and will continue to be Japan’s widespread fear of the radiation bogeyman.
1 -
2 -
3 -  
4 -

August 20, 2016

Does the Asahi Shimbun Comprehend the F. Daiichi Ice Wall’s Purpose?

On Friday, August 19, 2016, the NRA said the F. Daiichi “ice wall” is failing. (1) Nuclear Regulation Authority panel member Yoshinori Kitsutaka explained, “The plan to block groundwater with a frozen wall of earth is failing. They need to come up with another solution, even if they keep going forward with the plan.”

The Asahi Shimbun alleges that the report of failure is because the amount of groundwater flow on the ocean-side of the wall remains constant. The Asahi fails to understand that the ice wall is only supposed to change flows inside, not outside the wall. This should be self-evident by reading the first bullet on the cover page of Tepco’s weekly report on the thermal status of the wall, “The purpose of the Landside Impermeable Wall construction lies not in freezing soil to form an underground wall but in keeping groundwater from flowing into the reactor/turbine buildings and preventing new contaminated water from being generated.” (2)

The Asahi’s materially-incorrect assertion is analogous to someone building a tall fence to keep deer out of their garden, but calling it a failure because the number of deer seen outside the fence has not changed! The F. Daiichi “ice wall” is designed to keep the groundwater inside the fence from flowing outward and possibly contaminating fresh groundwater flowing from the mountains to the sea. Thus, it makes no rational sense to assume that the NRA’s judgment of “failure” is because groundwater flows outside the ice wall have not changed.

So, where did the Asahi get this incorrect idea from? Is it merely an inability to correctly decipher Tepco’s statement of purpose posted with each and every weekly report? That seems unlikely, to say the least. Surely the staff at the Asahi can read and comprehend! Or, is the Asahi continuing its aversion to statements posted out of the Tepco Press room? Perhaps, but the data being used by the newspaper to make its “failure” rationale is entirely coming from Tepco! In this case, the Asahi would be accepting the data but rejecting Tepco’s statement of purpose, which would be contradictory. This would also suggest a most egregious form of cherry-picking.

The only remaining option is that the Asahi has garnered the incorrect notion from the NRA! If this is the case, we are faced with a far worse situation. The NRA is supposed to have sufficient engineering and technical expertise to regulate with expert capability. But, if it promotes this sort of misinformational speculation - and proffers it as fact - then we have a regulatory failure!

The reason for our critical questioning of the Asahi is that it has the second-largest, circulation of all newspapers in Japan (12 million), exceeded only by the Yomiuri Shimbun (14 million). The Asahi is read by at least 10% of Japan’s adult population, thus it is an important source of information in the minds of a significant number of Japan’s citizens. That this news outlet provide its readership with correct information, seems essential. Utterly false reporting should be avoided like the plague! It doesn’t matter where the untrue information came from. The Asahi is historically an antinuclear bastion, without question. But, an on-going pursuit of the nuclear-critical persuasion, which flies in the face of truth, is unforgivable! The people of Japan deserve better.

1 -  
2 –

July 30,2016

It’s Official: F. Daiichi Unit #2 was not a Melt-Through

On July 28, 2016, Tepco posted a detailed handout showing Unit #2’s previously-molten fuel (corium) is re-solidified and remains inside the reactor vessel (RPV). This conclusion was drawn as a result of muon imaging, with a dark “shadow” covering the interior of the RPV’s bottom head. (1) One obvious deduction is drawn by the Asahi Shimbun, which says that past speculations of a unit #2 melt-through are probably incorrect. (2) It says, “The latest finding negates past studies that have suggested that most of the nuclear fuel inside the reactor had melted through the vessel.”  Unfortunately, the Asahi has been the only news outlet in Japan to make such a flat statement. Could the Asahi be incorrect?

On page four of the handout, we can see that most, if not all of the corium remains in the bottom head of the RPV. The image also shows that some of the damaged fuel is still in the core area, where it was located before the March, 2011, tsunami-spawned nuclear calamity. If we compare the unit #2 core barrel image with the March 19, 2015, image of unit #1, we see a drastic difference. (3) Unit #1’s core barrel showed brightly, indicating full meltdown and core relocation. The core was no longer there. However, the unit #2 image does not have a nearly as bright core barrel appearance. In fact, it is quite possible that a small-but-significant fraction of the original core remains in its original location. In fact, Tepco admits that at least 20 tons of material remains. Based on the relative density of the shadowing in the unit #2 core barrel region, with literally no brightness to indicate complete degradation from top to bottom, it is entirely possible that the maximum estimation of fuel (50 tons) remains in the core barrel region.

Where do these numbers come from?

Page six of the handout states that of the 210 tons of fuel and support structures that originally comprised the undamaged core, 20-50 tons remain in the core barrel area and “about 160 tons” is collected in the RPV’s bottom head. The inherently limited resolution with muon imaging compels an approximation of the respective masses. The 20-50 tons estimation leaves the door open for continuing speculation that as much as 14% of the core might possibly have worked its way through the bottom head and re-solidified on the base-mat beneath the RPV.

At this point we might ask… why leave the door of worst-case speculation open? If there had been any significant melt-through of the bottom head - and as much as 30 tons is pretty significant – the molten condition of the corium would possibly have cascaded through the breach. That there is a substantial pooling in the bottom head strongly suggests that if there were any melting-through, it must have been a mass much less than 30 tons. In fact, it suggests the possibility that there was no melt-through at all.

So why is Tepco leaving the door open for partial melt-through speculations?

Tepco has long-succumbed to Press and political pressure to accommodate worst-case scenario speculations. This is one time its “conservative” reporting has shown them to be timid and unwilling to draw a firm conclusion that flies in the face of their previous computer-based speculations. For more than three years, Tepco and the Nuclear Regulation Authority have made status reports that entirely cater to worst-case speculation, no matter how thin the evidence for such conjecture might be. In the case of the unit #2 muon image, worst case assumption ought to be rejected.

It is time for Tepco and the NRA to assert themselves and draw a conclusion that is most likely. When compelling evidence emerges that literally demands rejection of the low-probability worst-case scenario, there should be no room left for the worst-case scenario to perpetuate!

The Fukushima Daiichi Unit #2 muon scanning image virtually demands that we conclude that there was no compromise in the lower RPV head. It is likely that none of the corium, while still molten, made its way through the head or any of the penetrating control rod drive mechanisms (CRDM). To conclude otherwise make no sense to this reporter!

July 6, 2016

No Melt-through at F. Daiichi Unit #2 Suggests the Same with Unit #3

It can no longer be said that no-one knows where any of the F. Daiichi melted fuel is located. On June 30th, NHK World reported that the corium (formerly molten and re-solidified fuel core) for unit #2 is in the reactor’s (RPV) bottom head. (1) High-tech muon imaging for unit #2 included the bottom head, which was not possible with the earlier imaging for unit #1. NHK reports the still-in-process image now shows a “large, black shadow” inside the 8-inch thick steel bottom head of unit #2, strongly indicating that the corium was contained. No melt-through, if you will.
When the unit #1 imaging was reported, it made major headlines across Japan and many popular news outlets world-wide. This was because the image showed, not surprisingly, that the entire unit #1 core was gone. Where it ended up is still a matter of debate, though it is this reporter’s opinion that much, if not most of the corium remains pooled inside the unit #1 RPV bottom head. Unfortunately, the geometry of the scan for unit #1 could not include the bottom head of the RPV. So, the “nobody knows where it is” rhetoric was part-and-parcel to all news reports, continuing the uncertainty and doubt concepts historically common to reporting about nuclear power plants.
The new unit #2 discovery was reported by only one news outlet…NHK World. It is nowhere else to be found, neither inside nor outside Japan. We can be reasonably sure that if the unit #2 muon image showed the bottom head to be empty, it would have made headlines everywhere; especially in the Japanese press. But, with the exception of NHK World, the discovery of the contained corium hasn’t seen the journalistic light of day!
Finding the re-solidified mass in the bottom head of unit #2 literally dashes the “nobody knows” speculations to ashes. We can be assured that we know where the unit #2 fuel core ended up, at the very least. Further, the unit #2 discovery suggests that unit #3’s corium is also cooled and pooled inside its RPV bottom head.
Here’s why…
According to operator records, Unit #2 fuel uncovery began at approx. 4:30pm on March 14, and remained in a deteriorating condition until 7:54pm. Operator records for unit #3 say fuel uncovery began at 4:15am on March 13, and recovery started at 9:25am. Even though unit #3’s core appears to have been uncovered for about 100 minutes more than with unit #2, it seems unlikely that unit #3 would have experienced complete melt-through of the bottom head. On the other hand, unit #1’s fuel core was probably uncovered for more than 10 hours. Also, with core uncovery beginning about six hours after automatic shutdown (SCRAM), unit #1 had a higher decay heat rate than both units #2 and #3. Thus, the unit #1 notion of bottom head melt-through remains possible.
Finding the fuel core of unit #2 remaining inside its RPV, verifies one of this reporter’s assertions late in 2012. (See – “Fukushima Melt-throughs: Fact or Fiction”) I said that there was no way that unit #2 experienced a bottom head melt-through, and likely the same for unit #3. My 2012 prediction that unit #2 suffered a partial meltdown similar to Three Mile Island now seems incorrect. Unit #2 appears to have experienced a full meltdown. The same probably occurred with unit #3, but with no melt-through.
The point is that any further speculation of bottom head melt-through for F. Daiichi unit #2 must be ignored. The Muon imaging proves that it did not happen. Further, speculation of a unit #3 bottom head melt-through must be considered questionable.
Finding the mass of re-solidified corium with the Muon scan of unit #2 is the most significant news to come out of F. Daiichi this year. But, there has been an utter lack of Press attention given to the locating of unit #2’s corium. It clearly demonstrates that the only “newsworthy” information is that which keeps Fukushima fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) alive. Once again, some “good news” concerning F. Daiichi is intentionally ignored by the world’s news media.


July 3, 2016

316thCarnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Hiroshima Syndrome’s Fukushima Commentary is proudly hosting the latest edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. This week, we have postings by Nick Thompson, Rod Adams, Dr. Jim Conca, Dan Yurman, and Brian Wang.

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) quiz for this week… The earliest Asian conception of empty space can be found in the Tao Te Ching.

Now…for this week’s Blogs. To read the full articles, please click on the individual links. Blog topics for this edition include… More opinion on the 2025 closure of Diablo Canyon, whether or not proxy campaigns against nuclear energy are funded by non-nuclear competitors, the possible impact of “Brexit” on nukes, Uranium in seawater is 100% renewable, and the latest big news on the fusion front.

*              *              *

From Nick Thompson at Thompson

When nuclear is closed in California, what takes its place? 


From Rod Adams at Atomic Insights and Forbes Magazine (2) –

Corporate environmental contributions: Greenwashing or worse? (Atomic Insights)


How Will Brexit Affect UK Nuclear Energy? Variety Of Views (Forbes)


From Dr. Jim Conca at Forbes Magazine -

Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable


From Dan Yurman at Neutron Bytes (2) -

What about nuclear energy in UK after Brexit?


Renewables cannot replace the power of Diablo Canyon 


From Brian Wang at Next Big Future (2) –

LPP Fusion can consistently achieve the ion energy to ignite hydrogen boron in an average shot



Third Generation Laser Uranium Enrichment Technology is likely over 5 times more energy efficient and more compact than the best centrifuges

*                      *                      *

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) answer for this week… Fact…probably!

The Tao Te Ching is credited to Lao Tze (i.e. Tzu) about 400 BCE. In Chapter 11, we find what is understood as perhaps the first notion of inner space. --   However, at about the same time, Buddhism’s Dvadasanikaya Sastra was written down (408 BCE). It says that the greatest wisdom is found in emptiness (sunyata).

May 22, 2016

310thCarnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Hiroshima Syndrome’s Fukushima Commentary is proudly hosting the latest edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. This week, we have postings by Dr. Jim Conca, Rod Adams, Dr. Gail Marcus, Steve Alpin, Dan Yurman, John Dobken, and Meredith Angwin.

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) quiz for this week… The Fukushima nuclear accident occurred the same year as the 50th anniversary of the world’s first nuclear-powered satellite being launched.

Now…for this week’s Blogs. To read the full articles, please click on the individual links. Blog topics for this edition include… Australia as a global nuke waste repository, natural gas is the energy source actually replacing nuclear, the economic challenges facing nukes, why mixed oxide fuel is so expensive, and a brief history of the antinuclear persuasion.

*              *              *

From Dr. Jim Conca at Forbes Magazine (3) -

Australia Should Cash In On A Single Global Nuclear Repository

Natural Gas, Not Renewable, Is Replacing Nuclear Power

Children Win Another Climate Change Legal Case In Mass Supreme Court


From Rod Adams at Forbes Magazine

(Note; Rod has become a new contributor to Forbes. This gives the nuclear blogging community another voice at Forbes, in addition to Dr. Jim Conca.)

Addressing Economic Challenges Facing Nuclear Power Plants


…and from his home website, Atomic Insights -

How Did the MOX Project Get So Expensive?


From Dr. Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk

Positive Signs for Nuclear Power: Views from ANS Officers


From Steve Alpin at Canadian Energy Issues

Ideology, altruism, and money: a brief history of the anti-nuclear movement


From Dan Yurman at Neutron Bytes -

Surrender at Ft. Calhoun


From John Dobken at Northwest Clean Energy

It's about value (and the future)


From Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee (2) –

Cesium in the biosphere: Guest post by Stewart Faber


Payments on the Grid: What Every Citizen Should Know

*                      *                      *

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) answer for this week… Fact.

On June 29, 1961, the Transit 4A satellite became the first test flight of a nuclear power source developed for use in spacecraft. The drum-shaped satellite weighing about 175 pounds was launched by a Thor-DM21 Able-Star rocket. The U.S. Navy's Bureau of Naval Weapons used Transit 4A as one of four navigational satellites used by ships and aircraft. It was a primary tool in regular updating of the navigation systems on Polaris missile submarines. Transit 4A used Plutonium-238 isotopic decay as the source of heat, which was converted to electricity by an array of thermocouples.

Transit 4A remains in orbit and its path can be tracked at

April 17, 2016

305thCarnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Hiroshima Syndrome’s Fukushima Commentary is proudly hosting the latest edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. This week, we have postings by Dr. Gail Marcus, Dan Yurman, Rod Adams, Brian Wang, and Meredith Angwin.

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) quiz for this week… Democritus, the ancient Greek natural philosopher, was the first to theorize the concept of the atom.

Now…for this week’s Blogs. To read the full articles, please click on the individual links. Blog topics for this edition include… confusing correlation with causation, roadmap for SMR operation at INL, metallic fuels for LWRs, EMC2 Fusion’s advances in “Wiffle Ball” plasma, and a course on what may be hidden in the electric bill.

*              *              *

From Dr. Gail Marcus’ Nuke Power Talk

Drawing the Right Conclusions


From Dan Yurman’s Neutron Bytes

NuScale announces roadmap for SMR operation at Idaho site by 2024


From Rod Adams’ Atomic Insights

Lightbridge metallic alloy fuel provides upgrade path for LWRs


From Brian Wang’s Next Big Future (2) –

2013 Independent Review declares EMC2 Fusion's progress to be most significant advances made in plasma physics and magnetic fusion over the past 50 years 


World Energy Mix in 2035 will have more nuclear because China will build it

From Meredith Angwin’s Yes Vermont Yankee

The Grid: My Course at OSHER Dartmouth

*                      *                      *

Here’s the Fact or Fiction (?) answer for this week… Fiction.

Democritus is often credited with the first promulgation of atomic theory, but he attributed the notion to his predecessor, Leucippus. Leucippus supposedly wrote The Big Cosmology, which has been lost to history. However, Democritus’ Little Cosmology (also lost) was referenced by Aristotle, who opposed atomic theory and the notion of space being empty. Aristotle tells us that Democritus got his idea from Leucippus and defined the atom as the irreducible minimum quantity of matter, each type of atom differing only in shape. To Democritus, space was infinite in extent and atoms infinite in number. His only attributable statement to have survived is, "Nothing occurs at random, but everything happens for a reason and by necessity."