International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 17 Jan 2016 02:49

http://www.newsweek.com/india-pakistan-china-nuclear-arms-416328

Adrian Levy is once again stirring the pot with a lot of stale news about Indian nuclear program. The usual suspects, Ratehalli, some random villagers nearby who think it is bad idea, and the absolute cover of secrecy about an upcoming plant -- the intent of this article seems to be an attempt to get all the anti Indo-US deal people to start rumbling again or something along those lines...why?
For example, this claim India was violating elements of the Indo-US deal while it was still being negotiated.

Starting Work While the Nuclear Deal’s Ink Is Still Wet

Nonetheless, lawyers acting for the villagers living close to Challakere eventually forced some important disclosures. The Parliament’s representative for the region heard about plans for the park from the Indian defense minister as early as March 2007, according to a copy of personal correspondence between the two, seen by the Center.


But as Mr. Banerjee clearly states, there is no violation of civil/military separation outlined in the Indo-US deal, so this is a lot hot air from Adrian Levy once again.

Srikumar Banerjee, the chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, first offered an official glimpse of the project’s ambitions in 2011 when he told CNN’s Indian news channel that the enrichment plant could be used to produce nuclear fuel, or slightly enriched uranium, to power India’s heavy and light water reactors.

However, Banerjee added that the site would also have a strategic use, a designation that would keep international inspectors away.


Then, Adrian Levy pretends all the Uranium India has acquired from the spot markets and deals with other countries is liable to be used in Indian military sites by not explicitly stating that India is not using this uranium in sites that not under IAEA oversight. Use of U from Ratehalli for military program is allowed under the Indo-US deal. Wonder what is inducing Khujli in Adrian Levy to rake all this up.

India has already received 4,914 tons of uranium from France, Russia and Kazakhstan, for example, and it has agreements with Canada, Mongolia, Argentina and Namibia for additional shipments.

In September 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott of Australia signed an agreement to make his country a “long-term, reliable supplier of uranium to India,” a deal that has sparked considerable controversy among Australians.

The International Panel on Fissile Materials estimates that the Arihant class submarine core requires only 65kg of uranium, enriched to 30 percent. Using this figure and the estimated capacity of the centrifuges India is installing in Mysore alone—not even including Challakere—Kelley concluded that, even after fueling its entire submarine fleet, there would be 160kg of weapons-grade uranium left over, every year, or enough to fuel at least 22 H-bombs.

His calculation presumes that the plant is run efficiently, and that its excess capacity is purposeful and not driven by bureaucratic inertia—two large uncertainties in India, a senior U.S. official noted. But having a “rainy day” stockpile to deter the Chinese might be the aim, the official added.
Last edited by member_29325 on 17 Jan 2016 03:21, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18666
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2016 02:59

Paul wrote:My mistake. The F-16s and the Hellfire missiles in the pipeline must be meant for use against Iran then.


Good one.

HNair wrote:Wish they would block those AMRAAMs and JDAMs instead of F16s. The rest of the F16s already with the PAF has become far, far dangerous to Indian lives because of those american sales.


JDAMS, AMRAAMS and this.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Foreign ... s_999.html
Clearly intended against our T-90s.
Last edited by Karan M on 17 Jan 2016 03:10, edited 1 time in total.

member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 17 Jan 2016 03:03

I find it interesting that China is being credited with creating and pushing Thorium technology in all quarters with not a hint about the Indian program that started (in theory) decades before the chinese started to work on Thorium plants in the past decade. What's up with that?

Added later: Just struck me that Adrian Levy is rehashing the same "vertical proliferation" nonsense peddled by the Arms Control jokers while the Indo-US deal was under negotiation. This seems like a "I told you so" article aimed at some audience in the west.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 17 Jan 2016 11:54

Pakistan and North Korea’s Nuclear Extortion
Pakistan and North Korea’s Nuclear Extortion

Two troubled countries. Two similar strategies.

By Seth Oldmixon for The Diplomat

January 16, 2016

Two important and unsettling events took place earlier this month: North Korea claimed to have detonated a thermonuclear bomb, and India’s Pathankot airbase was the victim of an attack by Pakistan-based militants. While seemingly unrelated, the two events have more in common than readily apparent: Each fits a long established pattern of behavior intended to extort international concessions by exploiting global anxiety about nuclear terrorism.

The most immediate connection between these two events is the provenance of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program: Pakistani metallurgist A.Q. Khan, the man who stole nuclear secrets from his employer in Holland and passed them on to Pakistan’s military. In the 1990s, Pakistan sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, as well as Iran, Libya and possibly other states. A.Q. Khan was briefly held under house arrest until he received a full pardon from Pakistan’s military dictator and president Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Yet, there is another commonality between North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and a fidayeen attack on an Indian airbase: strategy.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Sung-Yoon Lee and Joshua Stanton described North Korea’s foreign policy in this way: “Offer a fake overture of peace; raise the stakes for your foes with a provocation; act unstable and threaten to escalate even further; and finally, call for talks and act reasonable. Pyongyang seizes and maintains the initiative from beginning to end and leaves its adversaries anxious for negotiations in the face of provocations.”

Such a strategy should sound remarkably familiar to South Asia watchers, as it echoes the strategy employed by Pakistan.

The Hudson Institute’s Aparna Pande has chronicled four recent examples of Pakistan making overtures of peace, followed by a vicious jihadi attack, and finally culminating in the Pakistani government declaring its desire to proceed with peace talks so that the terrorists don’t win. The attack on Pathankot airbase also follows this pattern.

Increasingly, the Pathankot attack appears to have been carried out by jihadi militants associated with Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a transnational terrorist organization founded by Masood Azhar under the patronage of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the country’s premier military intelligence organization. After having been dormant for several years, JeM resurfaced in early 2014 when Masood Azhar addressed a rally well orchestrated in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir shortly after Gen. Raheel Sharif took over as Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff.

Gen. Raheel has declared a policy of “zero tolerance” for militancy, a position that he reiterates after each militant attack. In practice, however, certain militant groups are tolerated, if not directly sponsored by the military. Last year, the State Department praised Pakistan for following through on its international obligations to ban Islamist militant groups including the Haqqani Network and Jamaat-ud-Dawa, only to find out that the groups were not actually banned at all. Even nominally-banned groups, such as the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ), a virulent anti-Shia organization, are expanding.

This is no accident. Pakistani National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz has openly admitted that the state has no interest in shutting down militant groups that it deems friendly to Pakistan’s interests. Well-meaning sympathizers accept the Pakistani contention that they can’t actually go after all militants because doing so would present an insurmountable threat – there are so many militants that taking them all on would destabilize the entire country, putting at risk its ever expanding nuclear arsenal. This conveniently ignores the fact that the problem is one of Pakistan’s own making.

Pakistan cultivated jihadi militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JeM for decades both as force multipliers and proxy forces that can carry out attacks without the clear imprint of the state. The last part is key: Pakistan’s jihadi assets provide the cover of plausible deniability that allows the state to approach India or the U.S. and pretend that it is sincerely working to change the situation. The problem is that Pakistan’s jihadi monster has grown bold enough that it’s turned on its patron. Around 30,000 Pakistanis have been killed by jihadi militants, including over 1,000 in 2015. After militants killed 140 schoolchildren in 2014, Pakistan’s security establishment promised to change its ways, but “pro-Pakistan” militants have continued to flourish.

If North Korea’s international strategy is based on Richard Nixon’s “Madman theory” – the gamble that other countries will not risk provoking them for fear of an unpredictable and disproportionate response, Pakistan uses a slightly more sophisticated technique: “Good Cop, Bad Cop.” The “good cop” being the Pakistani state, the “bad cop” being jihadi militant groups. Pakistan promises to restrain its jihadis if only the U.S. or India will make certain concessions. As a result, the U.S. has provided Pakistan’s military with billions of dollars in cash payments and arms sales. In return, Pakistan has continued to support a variety of jihadi militant groups, including those responsible for attacks on American soldiers.

The White House has cast doubt on North Korea’s claims, saying that early evidence is inconsistent with the detonation of a thermonuclear device. Nevertheless, it is clear that North Korea is once again turning to its tried and true strategy to improve its negotiating position. Regarding Pakistan, White House Spokesman John Kirby told reporters following the Pathankot attack that “the Government of Pakistan has said publicly and privately that it’s not going to discriminate among terrorist groups.” Of course, Pakistan has said this before, and it will continue to so as long as Washington continues to believe them. And the cycle will repeat until either Washington decides to break it, or Pakistan finally loses control completely.

Seth Oldmixon is president of Oldmixon Group, a Washington, D.C. public affairs firm and the founder of Liberty South Asia, a privately funded campaign dedicated to religious freedom and political pluralism in South Asia.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby JE Menon » 17 Jan 2016 12:24

Wotsissain wrote:I find it interesting that China is being credited with creating and pushing Thorium technology in all quarters with not a hint about the Indian program that started (in theory) decades before the chinese started to work on Thorium plants in the past decade. What's up with that?

Added later: Just struck me that Adrian Levy is rehashing the same "vertical proliferation" nonsense peddled by the Arms Control jokers while the Indo-US deal was under negotiation. This seems like a "I told you so" article aimed at some audience in the west.


In that context, this is interesting...about our molten MSR status...

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/ ... en-salt-2/

Apologies if posted earlier

member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 18 Jan 2016 02:51

Thanks, JEMji. Heartening to see that India's scientists are ahead of the curve as they would have to given they worked on this when no one else bothered.

This quote

Speaking of which, at first glance someone might speculate that India’s new involvement in MSR research might be reactionary to China’s recent major foray into the field.


As the wikipedia page on molten salt reaction states China started MSR work in 2011, i.e., started the planning of a MSR project, but it also quotes the Indian BARC chairman as saying 2013 that such loops were already operational, which of course means they had been planned well before the chinese thought of this.

Ratan Kumar Sinha, Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission of India, stated in 2013: "India is also investigating Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology. We have molten salt loops operational at BARC."[30]


BTW, I posted this on that weinberg blog to respond to some one who claimed that India was flouting international inspectors and it was not posted after moderation.

“What, kick out the regulators? Well, India did just that, and got away with it.”

I suspect this claim cannot be backed with an actual news link because it is a false claim. The Indo-US nuclear deal, which India has also signed with France and Russia, allows India to separate civilian and military nuclear facilities, in exchange for sourcing Uranium from the market, and in turn allows IAEA inspections on all civilian nuclear facilities to ensure there is no “leakage” of fuel to military facilities. Hence, India does not have to submit its military facilities to international oversight but must submit its civilian programs to such oversight.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Bade » 19 Jan 2016 01:10

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/ma ... /PT.3.3037
Low-dose radiation exposure should not be feared

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 19 Jan 2016 03:03

Bade wrote:http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/69/1/10.1063/PT.3.3037
Low-dose radiation exposure should not be feared

Thanks for posting it, this is what I, speaking as a scientist in the field, have posted MANY Times here.
Quoting above, or the same data. (yes, I know it is not fun to be mocked as "Banana physicist :) but I have consistently try to share this knowledge)

Bottom line, I have NOT seen ANY reputable study ANYWHERE where low radiation (say less than 100 mSV per year - calculated as equivalent full body dose) has shown any effect of any kind (eg increase in cancer etc). One of the biggest mistake is to assume LNT as a proven theory.

Note that there are parts in Kerala, where people get high dose (natural from sands containing Th), yet have shown no signs, in spite of living there for 1000's of year, and hundreds of detail scientific studies.
(If one went by LNT theory there will be millions of additional cancer deaths, I am sure, someone would have noticed)

Again let me post rule of thumb which I posted many years ago, and has repeated again.. for perspective...

Natural background - about 3-10 mSv
Xrays,, Bananas etc... all are less than 1 mSV .. CT Scan, or working in nuclear lab, one may get 10-20mSV
Emergency workers - Trying to save life/ do cleanup - 250 mSV

1000 mSV - you will get symptoms (like high WBC) , and get sick. Risk of cancer increases about 3-4%
over next 20 years..

2000 mSV - Typical dose one gets when one goes for cancer treatment.

4000 mSV - 50% chance one will die, if not get treated.
more - definitely very bad.

Anyway, here let me quote a few excerpts from the above article (read the original for context and clarity):
High-dose radiation can cause cancer, but no such correlation has ever unequivocally been shown at low doses in the range of x-ray and computed tomography (CT) examinations or in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
The proven consequence of high doses of radiation has simply been assumed to apply even at doses near zero, and no threshold has been given below which it is harmless. Consequently, all doses have been predicted to cause cancer. But as many studies prove,1,2 the body responds differently to radiation at high and low doses: At low doses, the body eliminates the damage through various protective mechanisms that have evolved in humans from eons of living in a world bathed in low dose-rate but sometimes high-dose natural radiation.
Based on the Japanese government’s unwarranted fear that any radiation exposure would increase cancer cases, residents were forcibly evacuated from around the Fukushima nuclear plant, a decision that according to the government’s own figures resulted in more than 1600 deaths. { While Radiation Deaths or cancer == 0!!!} The Japanese Cabinet recently decided to lift evacuation orders; whether residents will actually return is uncertain due to the radiophobia instilled in them over the past four years. Reliance on the LNT model has resulted in even larger health and economic impacts at Chernobyl. All such devastating consequences of using the LNT model to form policy and standards have prompted three recent petitions to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the flawed model, whose origin can be traced to the work of Hermann Muller and colleagues. { This is basis of all those "millions will die kind of non-sense" }

Even data from atomic-bomb survivors, the gold standard of dose-response data, do not support the LNT model

Scientists have failed in the science of radiation protection. The accurate LT model must become the basis of radiation regulation. Science must finally arrive at summary judgment that the LNT model is fallacious and thereby alleviate suffering and abate needless, paralyzing public fear. The LT model’s threshold with no low-dose radiation harm can free people from the grip of groundless phobias. No harm, no fear!


There is some push in US congress, finally to take the scientific points into account and make laws which are more sensible. India should also do the same thing.

Public education is a must.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 23 Jan 2016 07:41

Few tidbits from recent news:

China and Saudi Arabia have signed a memorandum of understanding on the construction of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR).

Also: In South Korea's Shin Kori nuclear power plant was connected to the grid.

It was interesting that New York's Public Service Commission yesterday ruled (today), nuclear power plants must be included in that non-carbon-emitting green resources.

member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 23 Jan 2016 19:10

xkcd chart on radiation

The chart by xkcd is excellent in showing what kinds of radiation is harmless and what isn't. Very handy chart to point to anyone who needs to be clued in.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 23 Jan 2016 22:09

Wotsissain wrote:xkcd chart on radiation

The chart by xkcd is excellent in showing what kinds of radiation is harmless and what isn't. Very handy chart to point to anyone who needs to be clued in.

Yes, this is nice. This has been posted here *many* many times since 2011.. Brf (and yours truly) was one of the first to popularize "Banana Equivalent Dose" unit for radiation before it became popular and everyone (including NY Times, etc) started using it. :) ..

Yet many people remain ignorant about this.

member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 27 Jan 2016 09:34

Photos from Fukushima

One of the photos shows the radation reading in a meter as 6.7 micro-sieverts per hour in the contamination zone, which is about 2.25 mSv over 2 weeks, that is more than twice what is mentioned in the xkcd chart which pegs it around 1mSv over 2 weeks.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 30 Jan 2016 22:08

^^^ Nice pictures. A few comments to put this in perspective:

ThiruV wrote:Photos from Fukushima

One of the photos shows the radation reading in a meter as 6.7 micro-sieverts per hour in the contamination zone, which is about 2.25 mSv over 2 weeks,{=55 mSv/year} that is more than twice what is mentioned in the xkcd chart which pegs it around 1mSv over 2 weeks.{ AmberG's comment: but it is still less than what you may see in some parts of Karunagappalli in Kerala}


The radiation levels varies quite a bit even naturally -- some times quite high if you are near some source ( wg houses made out of bricks/stones -- or beach containing sand :!: ). Average background radiation is about 3mSv but can be high - double this value - if you live in Denver, or Chennai. There are parts in Kerala where it is >50mSv/Yr. A place in Iran (<Ramsar> where it is > 250 mSv/yr

In Fukushima, any place where background radiation was high as 10mSv, people were evacuated. There are still a few places where it is still quite high (or the order of 50 mSV), specially if there was some dumping of cleaned-up soil etc.

But more important - we learned a lot from Chernobyl. All places and people are monitored like never before. There are many places where accurate data can be looked up.

From this: (IAEA report(s)

No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened (in 2011).

All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits. (June 2011)

Govt health checks found - 66% of residents received less than 1mSv/yr additional dose.
- 98% were below 5 mSv/yr
- and only 10 people were exposed to more than 10 mSv. (Emergency workers etc)

(Compare this with 761 deaths reported- especially among old - victims of "disaster related death due to forced evacuation from homes and hospitals)
(The psychological trauma of evacuation was a bigger health risk for most than any likely exposure from early return to homes, according to Fukushima Medical University.

- The median thyroid equivalent dose was about 4 mSv - not only safe but also much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (490 mSv in evacuees).

Example - Minamisoma town (23 km north of Fukushima) among 9498 people followed up only one got dose higher than 1 mSv (it was 1.07 mSv!) Note ( The current ambient dose rate in the town is about 3 mSv/yr from external sources) (BTW about 1500 of the town's 70,000 residents lost their lives in the tsunami)

Japan's health ministry set up a special office to monitor the health of workers at the plant. Tepco has employed some 25,837 workers at the site since the accident, keeping records of their radiation exposure as clean-up and remediation proceeded. Of these, over 95% received less than 50 mSv during the 25 month period; 4% received 50-100 mSv and fewer than 1% received over 100 mSv).

BTW 20-50 mSv/yr = "restrict residency", allowing entry for specific purposes with no protective gear.
Over 50 mSv/yr = "difficulty of return", with restricted entry and remediation deferred.

(These restricted areas is about (my estimation) half of the 20-km radius evacuation zone and the level is not going to drop below 20 mSv/yr in next few years at least)

*** (Note: background radiation is measured in Gy while it's effect on humans in measured in Sv, I have used the units interchangeably with Gy=Sv as it is done which practically speaking is okay)



member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 31 Jan 2016 08:31

AmberG wrote:*** (Note: background radiation is measured in Gy while it's effect on humans in measured in Sv, I have used the units interchangeably with Gy=Sv as it is done which practically speaking is okay)


Do you mean that all radiation was X-Ray/Gamma ray radiation at Fukushima? because only those kinds of radiation have a "quality factor" of 1, and given "Gy * Quality factor = Sv ". I could not find any references as to the types of radiation, except for some worker exposed to neutron radiation which has a very low "quality factor" and probably very low Sv levels. That geiger counter in the photo list must be capable of calculating the intensities of the different types of radiation if it can output readings in Sv/hour.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 31 Jan 2016 10:59

ThiruV wrote:
AmberG wrote:*** (Note: background radiation is measured in Gy while it's effect on humans in measured in Sv, I have used the units interchangeably with Gy=Sv as it is done which practically speaking is okay)


Do you mean that all radiation was X-Ray/Gamma ray radiation at Fukushima? because only those kinds of radiation have a "quality factor" of 1, and given "Gy * Quality factor = Sv ". {AmberG - Most radiation is gamma, unless the person ate/drank the stuff, alpha and beta will be absorbed in clothes and or skin} I could not find any references as to the types of radiation, except for some worker exposed to neutron radiation which has a very low "quality factor" {AmberG - Actually neutron has a high factor about 10 - that is it is 10 times more harmful so 1Gy will translate to 10 sV} and probably very low Sv levels. That geiger counter in the photo list must be capable of calculating the intensities of the different types of radiation if it can output readings in Sv/hour. {NO, it does not, it just measures ionization per unit of air, and then just uses standard estimation }


ThiruV - Though one sees units of sV in radiation meters etc, in strict sense no radiation meter can measure it directly..sV is unit for "absorbed dose equivalent" radiation in human -- to estimate biological effect. It not only depends on "quality factor" but also what part of the body absorbs the radiation. (skin/hand is less dangerous than say lung or stomach).. As many (may be 99%) reporters do not have any clue of the exact meaning, there is lot of confusion -- Not to mention that even the meaning of terms like "equivalent" dose is some times not clear. (see my notes below)

Most popular articles do not explain how radiation is measured and what the units mean -- not in clear terms. So let me put my professor's hat :)

If one is not interested in technical details, one can skip the rest --***(if not save it for reference :) )
***

When one talks about radiation, there are a few very different units -- (unfortunately many newspapers are extremely sloppy and use wrong units and concepts)..

Radioactivity : This is measured in curie (Ci) and becquerel (Bq). (Radioactivity refers to the amount radiation released by a material. Just a measure of atoms decaying in a given time).

Exposure [/b: ]The amount of radiation traveling through the air. Most radiation monitors measure exposure.
(Geiger counters, just counts the number etc) The units for exposure are the [b]roentgen (R)
and coulomb/kilogram (C/kg). (Most radiation monitors sort of estimate the equivalent dose absorbed by a typical human tissue and give the result in Gy/hr of sV etc)

Absorbed dose: Amount of radiation absorbed by an object or person. (The amount of energy that is deposited in materials through which they pass). The units are Rad (rad) and gray (Gy).

(This one can measure only if you know more about the person (or know the absorbing power of tissue - if the person ate the thing or just happen to be talking a walk - how well she is protected by a cleanup suit etc) - 1 Gy is simply 1 Jules energy absorbed in 1Kg of human tissue)

BTW, one can measure Gray physically, (you need to know physics but not biology). This is unlike Sivert (see below)

Dose equivalent (or effective dose ) combines the amount of radiation absorbed and the medical effects of that type of radiation. (For beta and gamma radiation, the dose equivalent is the same as the absorbed dose. Dose equivalent is larger than the absorbed dose for alpha and neutron radiation, because these types of radiation are more damaging to the human body.

Units for dose equivalent are the roentgen equivalent man (rem) and sievert (Sv)

To cause a little more confusion, some use the above a little sloppily. I (and most scientists) use "effective dose" to account for type of tissue. (gamma on ovaries is about 400 times more risky than on the skin). Some people want to use Ty (Taylor) for the Effective dose.. but most use Sv.

So sV is strict sense can not directly be measured by any meter, one just uses a quality factor for type of radiation, and the organ)

****

In my past posts over years, I have used (and explained) the "total body equivalent" dose to give some perspective to quantify and compare, if only some parts of the body is exposed. For example when I said "2000 mSv" is typical dose one receives in radiation therapy I have taken all such factors into account. ( One small node may absorb much units measured in Gy).

Hope this helps.

Added later:
For practical purposes as far as radiation meters - Alpha rays can be ignored ( will get absorbed by a few inches of air or skin). Beta too. (Few meters in air will absorb most radiation - a thin aluminum foil will too).
Gamma can pass even through bricks/stones and metal (thick lead shielding needed).
Neutron can pass through metal (in some cases it penetrates even more than gamma!) but light nucleus (like water, or plastic) stops it effectively. In other words, for all practical purposes your radiation meter is measuring gammas in the air.

member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby member_29325 » 31 Jan 2016 19:02

AmberG wrote:So sV is strict sense can not directly be measured by any meter, one just uses a quality factor for type of radiation, and the organ


Thanks, that is what I figured from reading the technical definition of a Sievert, i.e., its dependence on so many factors making it pretty much useless as a quantitative measure, so it is bogus to have a meter put out reading in mSv in the first place, making it necessary to use the unit for ionized radiation, rather than the absorbed radiation, which is in line with your mention that it does not actually measure the spread of the radiation, it just measures one type of radiation and maybe multplies it by some constant. The accuracy of the meter reading is suspect if it claims to be measuring radiation in 6.9 mSv -- the literature states sieverts are a probabilitic/stochastic measure that is pretty complicated to figured out requiring actual measurement of radiation absorbed by tissue.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 04 Feb 2016 21:30

Big news item:

The Wendelstein 7-X fusion device at Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP) in Greifswald produced its first hydrogen plasma on 3 February 2016. This marks the start of scientific operation. Wendelstein 7-X, the world’s largest fusion device of the stellarator type, is to investigate this configuration’s suitability for use in a power plant.

Image
Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed the button.


Wendelstein 7-X fusion device produces its first hydrogen plasma

February 03, 2016


Since the start of operation on 10 December 2015 Wendelstein 7-X has produced more than 300 discharges with the rare gas, helium. These served primarily to clean the plasma vessel. The cleaner the vessel wall, the more the plasma temperature increased, finally attaining six million degrees. In addition, plasma heating and data recording were tested, and the first measuring facilities for investigating the plasma were put into operation, viz. complex instrumentation such as X-ray spectrometers, interferometers, laser scattering and video diagnostics. “This makes everything ready for the next step”, states Project Head Professor Dr. Thomas Klinger. “We are changing from helium to hydrogen plasmas, our proper subject of investigation.”

The first hydrogen plasma, which was switched on at a ceremony on 3 February 2016 attended by numerous guests from the realms of science and politics, marks the start of scientific operation of Wendelstein 7-X. At the push of a button by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, a 2-megawatt pulse of microwave heating transformed a tiny quantity of hydrogen gas into an extremely hot low-density hydrogen plasma. This entails separation of the electrons from the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms. Confined in the magnetic cage generated by Wendelstein 7-X, the charged particles levitate without making contact with the walls of the plasma chamber. “With a temperature of 80 million degrees and a lifetime of a quarter of a second, the device’s first hydrogen plasma has completely lived up to our expectations”, states Dr. Hans-Stephan Bosch, whose division is responsible for operation of Wendelstein 7-X.

The American fusion research institutes at Princeton, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos contributed equipment

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 05 Feb 2016 00:59

xpost:
I have a high regard for Prof. Moniz. (A good physicist, decent human being and Obama's right-hand man in recent Iran nuke deal)..
A Statement from U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz on India Joining the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC)

February 4, 2016 - 11:52am

Dr. Ernest MonizDr. Ernest Moniz
Secretary of Energy
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT

202-586-4940
DOENews@hq.doe.gov

India’s membership in the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) is a crucial step toward facilitating the growth of safe, civilian nuclear energy in the world’s second most populous country. In addition, India’s membership is a major step towards the global liability regime called for by the IAEA's Nuclear Safety Action Plan to provide prompt compensation in the event of an accident and to establish a legal framework for commercial arrangements.

“I welcome India to the CSC and look forward to their deployment of civil nuclear energy technologies to help provide reliable, low-cost power to millions of Indians. These efforts will help spur a low-carbon economy to combat climate change. Additionally, we are eager to work with India, and all CSC member countries, to facilitate the use of advanced nuclear technologies developed in the United States.”


(Recent News Item: India ratified an international convention on nuclear energy accident liability, , the final piece in its efforts to address the concerns of foreign nuclear suppliers and draw them into a market worth billions of dollars)

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 05 Feb 2016 01:29

ThiruV wrote:
AmberG wrote:So sV is strict sense can not directly be measured by any meter, one just uses a quality factor for type of radiation, and the organ


Thanks, that is what I figured from reading the technical definition of a Sievert, i.e., its dependence on so many factors making it pretty much useless as a quantitative measure, so it is bogus to have a meter put out reading in mSv in the first place, making it necessary to use the unit for ionized radiation, rather than the absorbed radiation, which is in line with your mention that it does not actually measure the spread of the radiation, it just measures one type of radiation and maybe multplies it by some constant. The accuracy of the meter reading is suspect if it claims to be measuring radiation in 6.9 mSv -- the literature states sieverts are a probabilitic/stochastic measure that is pretty complicated to figured out requiring actual measurement of radiation absorbed by tissue.


Few comments:

While it is true, that what one generally measures is ionization - which is convenient from practical point of view and calibrate it to amount it will be absorbed (in say air, or human tissue) (the unit = Gray = energy absorbed per Kg of material), the results are pretty reliable and meaningful.

For practical point of view, one generally ignores the difference and uses Gy or Sy.
One should note, that for virtually all such meters (and dosimeters) it is gamma rays which matters. (Some meters may have settings for beta rays or neutron but rarely -- virtually none for alpha rays)

(When I worked in nuclear/physics research lab, a dosimeter which one wore like a badge, monitored the total amount of Sv's one received over time. There was huge things - size of a refrigerator - "alpha hand counter" or "beta foot counter", but they were "out of order" more often than working ..:). Mostly one made sure that one monitors all the gamma sources. BTW people in x-ray labs, or working in particle accelerators also wore them)

But the MOST important point, I guess is DDM's and most reporters have no clue, yet they interpret these value..
"30 times the "safe" limit" or whatever... And scare people so much that people unnecessary fear ordinary x-rays, or CT-scan as being "risky".

One should remember - A dose of say 100 mSV over a year, is about 100 times more than that allowed due to a nuclear reactor in normal time, and 5 to 10 times more than those who were forced to evacuate in Fukushima. Yet, even after 60 years of detailed study, one has not found scientific evidence that it resulted in increased risk of cancer. (For comparison, normal AVERAGE back ground radiation is about 3 mSv/year - but it varies a lot where you live -- there are places on earth where the average radiation is 10 mSv/year, or even 200 mSv per year)

Hope this information is useful. Best is use any reliable reputable source.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 14 Feb 2016 05:03

China’s Military Calls for Putting Its Nuclear Forces on Alert
Recent excerpts and quotes from Chinese military sources suggest pressure is building to change China’s nuclear posture away from a focus on survivability, and toward a policy of launch-on-warning and hair-trigger alert. Such a change would dramatically increase the risk of a nuclear exchange or accident—a dangerous shift that the United States could help avert.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 10 Mar 2016 03:01

Kim Jong Un Poses Beside Possible Nuclear Warhead Mock-Up

Image

link
A closer look at the North Korean bomb display. 3 parts: heat shield, cylinder, sphere.


Image

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 11 Mar 2016 18:34



Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Austin » 24 Apr 2016 10:37

[b]FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces[/b

http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/s ... ar-forces/

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 May 2016 03:13

The Secretive Plan to Crack Fusion

Inside a laboratory near Vancouver in British Columbia, an alarm is blaring. In the middle of the industrial warehouse stands what looks like a cannon from a spaceship, about five metres long and festooned in wires.
None of the lab's red-coat-wearing technicians seem fazed by the noise. The siren, which alerts workers to don protective earmuffs in case of a blown fuse, precedes every test “shot” on this prototype nuclear fusion reactor – and these engineers have performed well over 50,000 shots over the past five years.
That speed – currently, 50 to 100 tests a day – would not be possible within the bureaucracy of a public lab, where the most prominent research in long-awaited fusion energy is being conducted. But this is a little-known company called General Fusion – funded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, and free to pursue technological revolution at its own, breakneck pace.
The combination of wealthy moguls and fusion is curiously reminiscent of the 2012 Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises
General Fusion is just one of a pack of private fusion firms to catch the attention of physicists and investors. Unencumbered by red tape, these venture-backed companies believe that they can find a faster, cheaper way to fusion than government-sponsored projects, and some very influential people agree: besides Bezos, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen and PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel are also backing firms at the forefront of fusion development. Some of these enterprises are rather shadowy: the company Allen is invested in, Tri Alpha, operated for years almost entirely in secret – until recently, it didn’t even have a website.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 May 2016 04:06


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Aug 2016 16:50

U.S. allies unite to block Obama's nuclear 'legacy'

Interesting. Was not aware of this development:

President Obama's last-minute drive for a foreign-policy legacy is making U.S. allies nervous about their own security. Several allied governments have lobbied the administration not to change U.S. nuclear-weapons policy by promising never to be the first to use them in a conflict.

The governments of Japan, South Korea, France and Britain have all privately communicated their concerns about a potential declaration by President Obama of a "no first use" nuclear-weapons policy for the United States. U.S. allies have various reasons for objecting to what would be a landmark change in America's nuclear posture, but they are all against it, according to U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and nuclear experts.

Japan, in particular, believes that if Obama declares a "no first use" policy, deterrence against countries such as North Korea will suffer and the risks of conflict will rise. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe personally conveyed that message recently to Adm. Harry Harris Jr., the head of U.S. Pacific Command, according to two government officials.

U.S. allies in Europe have a separate, additional concern. They don't want any daylight between their nuclear policies and those of the United States, especially since Britain, France and the United States all are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. In the case of an emergency, those differences could cause real coordination problems.

"It's my understanding that the defense ministries of many of our allied nations have lobbied the White House against changing this doctrine, and there's been particularly strong opposition from the U.K., France, Japan and South Korea," said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund , an anti-proliferation advocacy group that supports the policy change. "We have an interest in creating an international norm that no one should use nuclear weapons first. The allies lobbying against it are nervous nellies."

The White House is considering declaring a "no first use" nuclear-weapons policy as one of several ways Obama can advance his non-proliferation agenda in his final months in office. Several options are under debate, and no final decisions have been made on "no first use."

The president wants to roll out announcements on nuclear policy in September to coincide with his final appearance at the U.N. General Assembly, officials said. One administration official told me that, in part because of allied concerns, the internal push on "no first use" was not gaining traction.

National Security Council spokesman Ned Price told me that the administration is "always looking for additional ways to achieve progress" on Obama's Prague agenda — named for the disarmament aspirations the president set out in his April 2009 speech in the Czech capital — "while maintaining a credible deterrent for the United States, our allies and partners."

Foreign officials from multiple allied countries said that their governments were upset about a lack of consultation on the possible declaration of a "no first use" policy, which would affect all allies who live under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Many said that allied governments first learned about the policy debates in The Post.

"While the goal of a 'no first use' policy is correct — to never be the first country to launch a cataclysmic nuclear strike — doing so unilaterally could run the risk of weakening our allies' confidence in our security guarantees. This would not be in our interest," said Joel Rubin, a former Obama administration State Department official.

Diplomats from allied countries argued that if the United States takes a nuclear first strike off the table, the risk of a conventional conflict with countries such as North Korea, China and Russia could increase. Regimes that might refrain from a conventional attack in fear of nuclear retaliation would calculate the risks of such an attack differently.

Moreover, allied governments don't believe that a unilateral "no first use" declaration would necessarily help to establish an international norm, because there's no guarantee that other countries would follow suit. They also believe that nuclear weapons play a role in deterring chemical and biological attacks.

Republicans in Congress also strongly oppose the change and are already upset that the Obama administration plans to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all states to refrain from nuclear testing. They don't believe such moves are appropriate this close to the arrival of a new administration and without legislative advice and consent.

The Obama administration first expressed its desire to move the United States to "no first use" in a 2010 policy document that stated that conditions for such a move were not ripe but pledged that the America would "work to establish conditions under which such a policy could be safely adopted." Since 2010, the world has only grown less stable. Nevertheless, proponents of the new policy say concerns about the change are unfounded.

"North Korea understands that any conventional attack will be met with a devastating response, but it doesn't have to be a nuclear response," said Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball. "If we don't need to use nuclear weapons to retaliate against North Korea, why should we?"

The same question could be asked the other way. If all U.S. allies believe a "no first use" policy weakens deterrence and increases the risk of armed conflict without producing any benefits, why should we do it? Advancing Obama's personal legacy isn't a good enough reason.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2016 06:33

Do we keep track of weapon modernization in the P-5 countries in this thread?

If so France has a new weapon called TNO which is a TN warhead for their seab based M.51.2 missile.
And an accompanying TN for the ASMPA which replaces the old ASMP.

What the UK is doing need to look

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby RoyG » 16 Aug 2016 07:27

Doesn't look like they have put in as much work as the French.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 16 Aug 2016 16:25

Their current warhead is a variant of the US W76.They will probably deploy a variant of whatever the US fields on their next generation of SLBMs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2016 21:30

RoyG, If French are ahead do you think UK will be behind? After all Yes Minister episode says "Tridents are to keep the froggies out!"
So you can depend they are on it with or without help.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Bheeshma » 16 Aug 2016 21:33

They will ask US for the weapons. Doubt they can modify tridents or its warheads without US help.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 16 Aug 2016 22:12

The UK Tridents are leased from the US and taken into service from a common pool. The UK doesn't modify the missiles. Their modifications to the Yankee warheads maintain compatibility. Without the US companies that maintain the missiles and warhead components, UK arsenal would be useless.


Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10255
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 18 Aug 2016 00:51

ramana wrote:RoyG, If French are ahead do you think UK will be behind? After all Yes Minister episode says "Tridents are to keep the froggies out!"
So you can depend they are on it with or without help.

Is there still a possibility of UK France going to war? Over Brittany?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby JE Menon » 18 Aug 2016 15:04

The World Must Prepare for an Sunni Islamic Nuclear Coalition

http://swarajyamag.com/world/the-world- ... -coalition

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 19 Aug 2016 06:31

Anyone familiar with the track record/accuracy of this site (euractiv)?

US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asbchakri and 80 guests