Nuclear Futures Meeting (J Cuttler, E Jelinski, J Maldifassi, B Comby, G Lomonaco, B Leyland)

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA

Canada

Do away with the arbitrary Linear No-Threshold Model, LNT, for radiation safety guidelines. By extension also do away with the Collective Dose Corollary and As Low As Reasonably Achievable, ALARA radiation safety guidelines. Replace with guidelines based on science.

The following is from a 2014 article, “LNT – The Guide for the Perplexed.”

Jerry Cuttler, nuclear scientist and professional engineer. After 10 years of research and development work, using nuclear radiation detectors, he was employed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for 25 years to design, procure and support to construction and operation of more than 20 nuclear reactors. From 1995, he has been investigating the health effects of nuclear radiation, in particular the beneficial effects of low radiation doses and exposures to low levels of radiation.

E-mail: jerrycuttler@rogers. com

September 4, 2017

What is wrong with using the LNT hypothesis to predict cancer risk?

First, there is no statistically significant data that supports the use of this hypothesis to predict cancer risk at low dose, which is why it is still a hypothesis 58 years after it was adopted. The LNT hypothesis is employed to calculate hypothetical risks. It creates uncertainty and great fear about potential cancer risks from low radiation doses.

Second, there are enormous amounts of data on the biological effects of: a low radiation dose, repeated doses of radiation, and low radiation levels, which contradict the predictions of the LNT hypothesis.

These data were recorded over more than 115 years, from the late 1890s until the present time. Compliance with the requirements of The Scientific Method should have led the NAS to reject the LNT hypothesis instead of adopting it in 1956.

Third, it continues to be defended as being a "conservative" means of radiation protection by requiring the minimizing of radiation exposures to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). This policy has led to precautionary measures, such as emergency forced evacuations, which cause many premature deaths and enormous psychological suffering due to fears of cancer.

Page 1

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Here is a important recent article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534 7275/ It has good evidence and good discussion that support the net health benefit of low dose-rate radiation and the absence of apparent harm, until the dose-rate threshold for onset of harm is exceeded.

My “take� on the problem is that we are paralyzed because we are forbidden to release small amounts of radioactive materials because the media, radiation protection and the anti-nukes will scream about increased risk of cancer deaths. We keep doing probabilistic safety analyses on every possible accident scenario that might occur and release radioactive materials. Then we must change the design to prevent each scenario from happening. The design becomes more and more complex, and more and more detailed procedures are added.

September 4, 2017

Page 2

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA

Canada

Part 1 Reprocessing technologies for spent nuclear fuel do exist. The French do reprocessing, and so did the US until some comedian politicians stopped it.

Reprocessing is being considered today by both the Chinese and Korea. Russia has been doing reprocessing for a long time.

Eric Jelinski, Mechanical and Chemical Engineer Professional Engineer with over 30 years in nuclear station engineering.

Lecturer, University of Toronto in nuclear engineering, plant design, and project engineering.

President of Environmentalists for Nuclear – Canada.

Farmer.

E-mail: eric_jelinski@symp atico.ca

There are two pivotal issues: 1) The nuclear program is going to grow…not necessarily because of the ‘glowbull’ man-made global warming scare fiasco, but because of air quality, ie.

NOx, quality of life and carrying capacity of the earth.

2) Until we convert a lot of the entire fleet of existing LWR’s, and Gen 3 Candu’s to Fast Spectrum Reactors in a timely fashion, we will be creating way more spent fuel than what can be safely stored for the 60 to 100 year life of above ground concrete canisters at the stations.

I look forward to achieving the goals of Generation IV reactors given in the roadmap, but, with one reservation, and Thorium is not specifically listed as a fuel, and one of the major countries with Thorium as a resource is not part of the Gen IV committee of countries, ie. India. While some of the Gen IV reactors may be able to use Thorium, the bulk of the discussion always rests upon the premise that we continue to depend on the seed U235 (except for a few countries that have stockpiles of Pu239).

It is ridiculous to be burning only 1% of any fuel, and then having to discard 99% of it into elaborate concrete and metal containers back into bedrock because of concerns about: a)

September 4, 2017

The plutonium that was generated Page 3

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA b)

The decay radiation

An interesting paper to read is D. A. Meneley, http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/G uests/Dan%20Meneley%2006_06.htm It explains how little energy we get from mining Uranium ore and using it in Light Water Reactors. The paper points to the solution, ie. neutron economy, not enriching to compensate for lack of neutron economy, mainly light water moderator, and then batch loading in 2 to 3 year cycles and using neutron absorbers to compensate for the excess reactivity due to enrichment of each of the batch fuel loads, and doing this on a world wide scale of some 400LWR’s, and building more LWR’s.

(If you shoot yourself in the foot once, why keep doing it over and over again?)

Sadly, it was a band of ‘enlightened environmentalists’ who shut down the EBR by presidential decree, and we ended up with another 30 years coal and oil, and several wars, the root of which was for oil. It will take a long time for those losses to humanity to be made up for by advances in nuclear power.

Maybe, just maybe the path forward will be illuminated by Russia, China and India, http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionSto re/_Public/41/070/41070038.pdf After 70 years of successful nuclear industry, liberal democratic governments have unfortunately demonstrated the inability to manage something as routine as finances, e.g. The sub-prime meltdown of 2008, and the Westinghouse bankruptcy.

September 4, 2017

Page 4

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA I often remind folks about the Physical Sciences Study Committee of the 1950’s and the resulting textbook used throughout high schools and colleges in the 1960’s that was the foundation for teaching in science necessary to produce intelligent people for industry, including especially space exploration and nuclear.

This was at a time before “political science” got invented as a college and university syllabus; and, maybe this is the crux of the problem in the western world.

On understanding fossil fuels and nuclear.

Oil came from dead trees and exists in the ground in rock (shale) or sand (oil sands). Nobody has ever complained about the oil that is in the ground, but some people are pure bull s… hypocrites when they protest against oil, especially those college boys and girls who have forgotten that their latte cup has a plastic liner and lid made from oil, their fancy nylon shirts and blouses and shoes are made from oil, even the money they spend is printed on sheets made from oil. Their contemporary furniture is made from sawdust glued together with glue that is made from oil, and so are their carpets made from oil. In case they go camping, their tents, tent poles, mattress and any ropes they use are made from oil. They drive in their SUV’s using oil, fly in to where they protest against fossil fuels in airplanes that use oil, sitting in seats made from oil, and kept safe by seatbelts made from oil (Kevlar). Their fancy bed sheets are made from oil.

They’re not so smart smart-phones are made from oil.

September 4, 2017

Page 5

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Canada

Part 2 I summarize my priority recommendations as follows; 1) For public to recognize the importance of nuclear for clean air via elimination of smog and elimination of toxic heavy metals emitted via the stacks.

Eric Jelinski, Mechanical and Chemical Engineer

2) Give priority for next generation of reactors to replace existing aging reactors for bulk electricity production.

Professional Engineer with over 30 years in nuclear station engineering.

3) Give priority for next generation of reactors for industrial process heat to displace coal, oil and gas.

Lecturer, University of Toronto in nuclear engineering, plant design, and project engineering.

President of Environmentalists for Nuclear – Canada.

Farmer.

E-mail: eric_jelinski@symp atico.ca

September 4, 2017

4) Give priority for separation of spent fuel into three characteristic components, ie. the nonradioactive U238, the radioactive actinides, and the fission products. In particular give attention to dealing with the small group of long lived fission products.

5) The above gives rise to closing the fuel cycle, and this also augments public acceptance when there becomes a pathway to recycling the spent fuel. Eg. use of DUPIC to re-burn the residual fissile material using a reactor built for best neutron economy. https://www.google.ca/search?q=dupic+testing&oq=d upic++testing&aqs=chrome..69i57.8792j0j7&sourceid =chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.ca/search?q=dupic+fuel+cycle&o q=dupic+fuel&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l2.10237j0j7&s ourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Page 6

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Notes: I have avoided using the term ‘generation IV’ and instead use next generation. This is not to take away from the Generation IV Committee but to emphasize priority to move from research into modeling and then prototype test reactors for practical use.

I did not list moving to Thorium as a priority, however Thorium needs to be part of the next generation. As an aside, Thorium is not one of the fuels on the official Generation IV list of reactors. http://www.worldnuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuelcycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclearreactors.aspx And also obvious that India is not part of the Generation IV group of countries, https://www.gen4.org/gif/jcms/c_43176/gif-membership I feel that the Gen IV committee needs to consider those reactors that can meet two overall objectives, transition to the more abundant and proliferation resistant Thorium as a fuel, as well as burn-up of existing inventories of fissile U235 and the hazardous actinides.

While I did not specifically mention Candu, it should be noted that Candu has the better neutron economy due to materials of construction and heavy water moderator. The Candu needs to be considered in role for burning actinides, and also burning Thorium.

Having said that, it is worth noting that there are additional opportunities for improving the neutron economy of the Candu, and further increasing burnup, i.e. the most important metric coming after safety is the metric of energy extracted per ton of rock that is mined for fuel extraction that is one of the goals also has to take into account not just spent fuel management but also tailings management.

The last summary slide from this slide set published by Kevan D. Weaver, Ph.D. U.S. System Integration Manager, Gas-Cooled Fast September 4, 2017

Page 7

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Reactor, INL, although from 2005 is very pertinent today and very much sums up the overall objective.

If this link does not work, then use the search string below. hps.org/documents/GenIV.ppt

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&so urce=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihIjz4vTVAhXD6IMKHVb8CZwQFggmMAA&url=http% 3A%2F%2Fhps.org%2Fdocuments%2FGenIV.ppt&usg =AFQjCNEDuijJRmpnXObVOS-J6n-20b0BXQ

Summary Developing and demonstrating advanced nuclear energy systems that meet future needs for safe, sustainable, environmentally responsible, economical, proliferation-resistant, and physically secure energy:

September 4, 2017

-

Innovation in nuclear energy systems to meet future needs.

-

A new look at advanced fuel cycles to better manage waste.

Page 8

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Chile

Nuclear power technology is a mature one in absolute terms. Most, if not all, the knowledge needed to design and build safe, efficient and long lasting nuclear power reactors is already available. Therefore, the main issues would be which technologies to choose as to maximize the benefit that this noble technology can offer, and which policies could be adopted in order to allow nuclear power to provide a significant and longlasting amount of nuclear electricity.

If one looks at the last three decades of nuclear power reactors, the issue of overall plant standardization appears as one of the advantages shown by CANDU and French reactors.

Recently South Korea has developed, in José Maldifassi, association with Combustion Engineering, the Universidad Adolfo standardized third generation APR 1400, of Ibáñez Profesor de la which four identical units have been sold to Facultad de Ingeniería y UAE, and other three identical units are being Ciencias de la built and one is operational in their own country.

Universidad Adolfo As well, pressurized water reactors have been Ibáñez. Se desempeña en preferred worldwide for economic and actividades docentes de operational reasons over BWR ones. I support pregrado en las áreas de the proposition that in the US one of the main Introducción a la drawbacks of its nuclear power industry has Energía Nuclear, been the absence of a standardized design that Introducción a la could have evolved smoothly along time, Ingeniería y Generación allowing operators, manufactures and de energía, y a nivel government agencies to improve and optimize de postgrado en the design, licensing and manufacturing of a Desarollo de Nuevos fleet of such a kind of standard power plants. If Productos, Gestión the development of new reactors in the US Estratégica y Energía continues to be based on inter-firm competition, Nuclear. no standard design will ever come out of design and manufacturing companies. This lack of E-mail: standardization requires that each new build has jose.maldifassi@uai.cl to be licensed as a new type or kind of nuclear reactor, increasing administrative burden, delays and costs to license new builds on a one-by-one basis. There is no global and incremental learning at the industrial, operational and licensing levels. Accordingly, my proposal is to

September 4, 2017

Page 9

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA start developing a standard US design of a 1.000 MW power plant, whose individual standardized items could be manufactured by different companies but fully compliant with the prevalent standard design. This would reduce all kind of costs and will increase safety, licensing times and procedures, personnel training and so forth.

The second issue has to do with fuel reprocessing. Vast amounts of spent fuel are scattered all over the US, with only a small amount of it that is reprocessed. The French have shown that it is fully possible to have government facilities in charge of fuel reprocessing, long-life waste storage, and manufacturing and use of U-Pu mixed fuel. In the US there is more used fuel available than in France, with enormous amounts of LEU and fuel-grade Pu in it that could be used to reduce U consumption and waste volume. A governmentdirected and controlled industrial policy should be established to reprocess stored radioactive fuel-waste, and to start employing mixed oxides in all power plants. This would be the only way that U and Th can last for more than 200 years of electricity production. Significant reduction in waste volume would be achieved and fuel costs will be further reduced, making nuclear electricity still more competitive and environmentally safe than other forms of power generation.

September 4, 2017

Page 10

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA France

The US presently burns huge amounts of coal just to produce heat/calories for electric production. This is a rather stupid way to burn the coal that nature has fabricated over hundreds of millions of years.

In France coal has been entirely phased out of electricity production (by strengthening the environmental regulations).

There are better (and less polluting) ways to use coal (and natural gas). The US should stop Bruno Comby graduated burning coal just to produce base-load from the scientific electricity. There is a much better way to do university École that: nuclear power should supply (as in Polytechnique in Paris and France) at least the electric base-load. is a post-graduate in nuclear physics from the In order to achieve this: École Nationale Supérieure de Techniques - The US, being the most powerful international actor, should put pressure on the ICPR until it Avancées (National changes its basic assumption from ALARA University of Advanced (radiation standards as low as reasonably Technology) in Paris. achievable) to ALAIN (radiation as low as in nature - see my book), this includes ending the He is devoting his life to ill-based and unscientific LNT hypothesis and scientific research and recognizing the beneficial health effects of low teaching in the fields of doses of radiation (hormesis). The ALARA energy, protection of the principle automatically translates into AS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE (direct consequence environment, and healthy/sustainable living of lowering the authorized doses) and then directly implies becoming not-competitive. for people around the ALARA implies => nuclear energy being non world (non smoking, competitive => the cleanest of all energies being better nutrition, proteins phased out. for the third world).

He is author of the bestseller "Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy"

September 4, 2017

- One of the main topics in the world these days (especially in Europe) is Islamic terrorism. The world should understand that every time Europe (or the US, or other clients) buys a barrel of oil from the Middle-East, it is subsidizing the development of fundamental Page 11

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA (published in 15 languages including Japanese) and nine books on health and the environment also in many languages.

The international organization ÂŤ Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy Âť (EFN) was created in 1996. He is President. This rapidly growing organization gathers over 11,000 members and supporters with local correspondants in 62 countries.

E-mail : ibc@comby.org

September 4, 2017

and extremist Islamic ideology and terrorism.

This endangers the future of our western civilization and the survival of our democracies living in peace (at home). If the huge oil imports from the US and Europe to the Middle East stop, the resulting terrorism sponsored by Middle-Eastern money and Islamic countries will immediately stop as well. I am very glad and proud to live oil-free with my nuclearelectricity driven eco-house in Houilles and nuclear-electricity driven electric car. This is thanks to US and French PWR technology. The US should understand that helping western Europe move oil-free (thanks to nuclear energy, the only viable and affordable alternative to natural gas and oil) is essential to world security and for the survival of our advanced democracies.

The US should lead the world in reviving nuclear energy. Both by a new generation of 3+ reactors and by opening the way to G4 with fast reactors. If the US doesn't do the job, fails to lead the game and falls back, it will probably be China after 2020, and the US will lose its world leadership.

Page 12

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Italy

1. It is crucial to give credible answers to the main open questions usually recalled by anti-nuclear groups, namely: o To close the fuel cycle, both in terms of sustainability (by using, for example, U in a more efficient way but also implementing complementary Th-based cycles) and minimization of final waste (in terms of long-term radiotoxicity, residual heat and volumes) o To improve the safety, mainly in terms of Guglielmo Lomonaco, having new plants/systems based on Assistant Professor principles easily understandable also by (Nuclear Plants) non-expert people Nuclear Engineer o To remain competitive from an economic Electrical and Thermal point of view; in this sense a good idea Energetics could be to enlarge the potential nuclear power applications also to non-electric INFN Research Associate generation (e.g. by implementing, quickly Scientific Secretary and seriously, HTR/VHTR for hydrogen Specialization Course in production and/or for desalinization.)

"Nuclear Safety & o To maintain a strict control on the whole Security" fuel cycle (from mine to repository) in order to avoid proliferation/security issues ADDRESS: o To highlight that nuclear power could be a GeNERG - DIME/TEC, "Colombo egg" for the future energy needs: University of Genova it is abundant like alternative fossil sources via all'Opera Pia, 15/a but it is environmental friendly like (new) I - 16145 Genova renewables (ITALY) 2. A long term strategy for nuclear energy development could not be pursued without E-mail : adopting, on a large scale, an intense international guglielmo.lomonaco@uni collaboration and a strong investment on the young ge.it generations of scientists/engineers 3. Finally, we as international nuclear community, have to regain the support of the general public opinion: now nuclear technology is often seen as a potential evil, instead we should have to spread the idea that it is (and will be) one of the crucial tool to fight against many of the real evils of our society.

September 4, 2017

Page 13

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA New Zealand

The first step to getting the nuclear energy program on a better track than where it is in 2017 is to make sure that the problem(s) have been identified correctly.

As I see it, the first and most serious problem is the public fear of low levels of radiation.

Bryan Leyland, Power Systems Engineer, University of Aston, UK

The second problem is the regulators. As far as I can make out, few of them carry out an objective analysis of the risks, the probability that they might eventuate and the probable consequences to the public.

Fellow, Institution of Engineering and Technology (rtd)

What needs to be done to solve these two problems?

I don’t think the industry itself can do very much. In the public eye, it lacks credibility.

Some of this lack of credibility arises from the industry's own actions. Every time there is a minor accident at a nuclear station that gets Fellow, Institution of Professional Engineers, some publicity – as most of them do – they respond by promising more and more safety New Zealand precautions instead of behaving rationally and pointing out that the accident posed no risks E-mail: bryanleyland@mac.com to anyone in the long term or the short term and pointing out that similar accidents often happen in conventional steam stations and emphasising how safe nuclear power has been. The public see the fact that they need to take extra precautions as further evidence of the extreme danger of nuclear power.

Fellow, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK

My recommendation is to try and persuade the President or one of his minions to set up a commission of enquiry that looks into the real risks of radiation exposure and then at the safety performance and standards of existing nuclear power stations. It should then look at the regulator to see whether or not their risk management processes include a rational September 4, 2017

Page 14

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA assessment of the risks, the probability of their occurring, the risk to the public if they did occur and the cost of mitigating the risk.

The outcome of the commission of enquiry should be recommendations on safe levels of radiation and recommendations on streamlining the regulatory process so that it concentrates on real risks and maximises value for money in risk management. If, as one would rationally expect, this leads to a substantial increase in the safe levels of radiation, then this should be reflected in the regulatory processes. This The commission of enquiry would need to include people like Prof Wade Allison of the UK who understand the medical aspects of radiation, experts in risk management from outside the nuclear industry (e.g. from the oil industry) and engineers from the nuclear industry and the regulator who understand the technology, the real risks and their magnitude.

Note: I am a hydropower engineer with a strong interest in the safety of large dams and, in particular, spillway gates. I often point out that if nuclear safety standards were applied to almost any large dam with spillway gates, the regulators would insist that it be shut down immediately. Something that, with large dams, you simply cannot do. In my mind, large dams may be the most dangerous thing that mankind makes and the safety standards and oversight need improvement.

September 4, 2017

Page 15

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Poland

Andrzej Strupczewski, Professor and Chairman of Nuclear Safety Commission at National Centre for Nuclear Research, 1960 – present.

Senior expert on nuclear safety, P-5, IAEA, 1993 – 1999.

Vice-President of SEREN-Polska (Environmentalists for Nuclear – Poland) E-mail: andrzej.strupczewsk i@ncbj.gov.pl

September 4, 2017

Nuclear power is safe and reliable, yet people are afraid of it. Nuclear power is the first industry that has taken care of its waste and has successfully managed radioactive waste separating it from human environment without any accident – and yet people quote the “problem of nuclear waste “ as insoluble and protest against nuclear power in the name of countless future generations. Nuclear power plants do not emit radiation – the doses that people can get in the closest vicinity to the nuclear power plant are less than the natural variations of radioactive background between two cities in the same country – and yet people equate nuclear power with cancer.

Why is that so?

The public has been convinced by opponents of nuclear power that radiation is the greatest hazard to human life. “Every dose of radiation can initiate cancer “ says antinuclear propaganda. And all our efforts to show people that we have reduced radiation exposures do not change the basic attitude which is “we do not want any additional chance of cancer, even a small one”. Even when we show that the radiation from nuclear power is much smaller than the natural radiation variations, the reaction is that natural radiation may be OK, but additional radiation from nuclear power is man-made and so it is harmful.

The opponents of nuclear power have very strong reasons for perpetrating these false beliefs, even when they know that nuclear power is one of the safest sources of energy. It is a simple fight for money – either for large sums coming to big oil or big coal, which are threatened with loss of part of the market for energy, or for enormous amounts of subsidies paid to developers of wind power or solar power, which would be unnecessary if clean, reliable and inexpensive energy were available from nuclear power plants.

Page 16

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA There is a basic difference between proponents of nuclear power and its adversaries. People in nuclear power industry are good engineers and scientists, generally dealing with scientific and technical problems. They can and do find ingenious solutions to most difficult technical tasks, but they have no training nor inclination to deal with public relation issues. Contrary to them, the opponents are people trained in gaining public confidence. If they were not, the successful organisations like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth would have long disappeared due to the lack of funds. So the speakers for antinuclear forces are being constantly trained in contacts with the public. In addition, their job is easier than that of nuclear power defenders, because getting people scared takes seconds, while explaining to them that there is no reason to fear takes long hours.

Moreover, the religion of fear is supported by part of nuclear establishment itself. For half a century the regulations of radiation protection have been based on LNT assumption, which says that the harm done by radiation is proportional to the radiation dose, even for the smallest doses down to zero. This was leading to multiplication of very low radiation doses by very large numbers of people all over the world and quoting the numbers of theoretical fatalities obtained in this way as the health costs of nuclear power. Although the International Committee on Radiation Protection ICRP repudiated this practice, the opponents of nuclear power use it still, especially in public speeches when serious discussion is impossible.

The answer of nuclear industry has been to tighten radiation protection rules and introduce ever new and more sophisticated systems to reduce potential radiation hazards. This involved large expenses bringing no real benefits, although the radiation doses have been reduced lower and lower. It has been repeatedly shown that the costs of potential saving a human life by introducing additional September 4, 2017

Page 17

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA safety systems in nuclear power are many time larger that the costs of saving human life by improvements in medicine or traffic safety, or by supplying poor people with clean water. And yet the pressure to tighten the radiation protection regulations goes on and on, and with each reduction of allowed radiation doses the opponents say “Look, we were right that the radiation is unsafe, now they have reduced the allowed doses again!�

However, the experience shows that low dose and low dose-rate radiation is not harmful, contrarily, it enhances natural mechanisms of defence against cancer, and these mechanisms protect us not only against cancer due to radiation but first of all against cancer due to natural processes. This effect of low doses of radiation is called radiation hormesis and has been confirmed by epidemiological studies of hundreds of thousands of people. The studies covered people living in high background radiation areas, people receiving radiation doses in medical diagnostic and treatment processes and nuclear workers in establishments all over the world, from the USA and Canada to China, Japan, India and Brazil. The existence of radiation hormesis is generally unknown to the public and yet it contradicts strongly the assumptions that every dose of radiation can be harmful.

The USA is undoubtedly the leader in the field of nuclear energy and the US approach to the effects of low radiation doses has a decisive influence on position of international and national organisations dealing with radiation protection. Recently nongovernmental organisation of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) wrote to Environmental Protection Agency showing the necessity to change the basis of radiation protection. The assumption of LNT which has no scientific justification and has been shown wrong in thousands of studies should be removed from September 4, 2017

Page 18

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA regulations and new rules based on hormetic theory should be introduced. The arguments for the change are briefly listed in the letter of SARI http://radiationeffects.org/2017/05/15/radiationhormesis-should-be-the-basis-for-establishingradiation-protection-standards/. The new regulations should protect people from receiving high radiation doses - which are harmful – and allow using harmless low radiation doses in medicine to the benefit of the patients. Removing fears of low doses of radiation will reduce resistance against nuclear power and will allow to reduce the costs and bureaucratic processes characteristic of nuclear power, which presently hamper construction and operation of nuclear power plants.

The change in the attitude to low dose and low dose-rate radiation will also bring positive changes in the discussion of radwaste management and will facilitate final acceptance of Yucca Mountains repository. Resolving the controversies around Yucca Mountains will be an important step towards renewed development of nuclear power in the USA. Radiation is part of the universe and an element of our environment and people should be made aware of its existence. Also the problem of risks should be reflected in educational programs. The USA are already the world leader in this respect, with nuclear safety regulations which require risk informed decisions to be taken in nuclear power plant designs. The important step to be taken is to introduce awareness of this risk balance into school education programs.

The present US administration trying to reduce the administrative burdens on US industry has a great chance of removing the main obstacle on the road to full acceptance and better viability of nuclear power. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy – USA should provide full support to that SARI initiative.

September 4, 2017

Page 19

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA South Africa

Of all sources of electricity nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and cheapest. These are all easily provable assertions, yet in the open forum of public debate about nuclear power, such issues as provable claims count little.

Kelvin Kemm, Nuclear Physicist.

Chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, NECSA. CEO, Nuclear Africa Member, Board of Advisers of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT, Washington, D.C. Dedicated to solutions for improving education for young disadvantaged children.

Committed to improving the lives of poorer people of the world and maintaining a healthy environment for the planet.

E-mail: Surine@nuclearafric a.co.za September 4, 2017

An unfortunate evolution in international public debate has been the reality that the parties who make the most dramatic and vivid public pronouncements are most likely to gain public attention. This state of affairs is fuelled by the fact that international media technology such as television can be vividly and dramatically broadcast to all corners of the planet in a matter of moments.

Consider as an illustration, the now extremely well-known Fukushima event which resulted from the 2011 giant tsunami which struck Japan.

How many members of the world’s public know that the radiation-induced death toll at Fukushima was zero. There were also zero human injuries from nuclear radiation, and also no radiation damage to private property.

A subsequent UN investigation into potential human genetic harm resulting from Fukushima showed that there is unlikely to be any. Also take note that there are no evident negative human genetic defects at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, even though both cities were destroyed by nuclear weapons in 1945.

But Fukushima is universally referred to as a major nuclear disaster. It was not. It was a conventional tsunami disaster as was the destruction of the airport and the oil refinery, as the wall of water swept through them.

Let us face it, nuclear technology was brought to world attention as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. In public relations terminology, Page 20

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA a product launch could hardly have had a worse start. This was all compounded by the post-war continued nuclear weapons testing which gave rise to an ‘anti-nuclear lobby’ committed to stopping nuclear weapons development, and testing.

There was merit in that anti-nuclear weapons movement, and the testing all eventually stopped, save for a few nations who fall outside the Non Proliferation Treaty.

But what has happened is that the ant-nuclear weapons psychology, over time, morphed into a general anti-nuclear power sentiment.

One has to examine the motivation. The antinuclear movement, for the most part, is now also the same people as those who advocate ‘saving the planet,’ from real or imaginary abuses of mankind.

A bit of deep examination of motives shows that this sentiment does not actually want cheap readily available electricity, because they argue that cheap electricity will stimulate major economic growth which in turn will lead to more planetary degradation.

This fear produces a mental attitude in certain sectors that nuclear power must be stopped at all cost, even if it means distorting the truth and using dishonest tactics. This is a reason why Fukushima is always projected by them as a major nuclear accident, with still as yet unknown consequences. The motivation is to stimulate public fear; and certainly not to arrive at the truth.

What then happens is that the nuclear scientists and engineers then respond in the professional manner in which they are internationally trained.

They respond with cold hard facts, and zero September 4, 2017

Page 21

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA public emotion. This means that the nuclear professionals are guaranteed to lose the public debate.

In South Africa nuclear power is the cheapest electricity by far. France produces three quarters of its electricity by means of nuclear and has an electricity price far cheaper than that of Germany, which launched itself into a major wind and solar programme which produces endless problems and far more carbon dioxide than France, which makes rather a joke of the original German intent.

Nuclear power is cheap because the uranium price is so low and the amount required is so predictable for a century. By comparison the long-term availability and price of fossil fuels is not all certain. An even more important factor is the extremely low volume of uranium fuel required, which means that in principle decadesworth of nuclear fuel could be stored on site if need be. In addition, countries which possess no fossil fuels of their own can invest in nuclear power, knowing that with even a small stockpile of nuclear fuel that they have control over their own national electricity supply. They also have a large measure of security with respect to being manipulated with fuel price changes, in contrast to what we have seen so often in the case of the manipulation of the international oil price. But nuclear power plants have higher initial capital cost of construction compared to traditional fossil fuel plants and this is a psychological hump which the anti-nuclear lobby loves to use as ‘proof’ that nuclear will turn out to be expensive.

Nuclear waste is treated so professionally and there is so little of it that it is no concern whatsoever if handled in accordance with professional standards. But a fairy tale fear of ‘nuclear waste’ is conjured up in the minds of the public by the anti-nuclear activists.

September 4, 2017

Page 22

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA The very few nuclear power accidents which have occurred, contrary to the panic-press projections, have shown in the real world that nuclear power is far more safe than was at first thought. But the nuclear professionals shoot themselves in the foot, actually both feet, by reacting to incidents like Fukushima by immediately telling the world that as a result of the Fukushima incident immediate increases in safety measures will be introduced into nuclear plants worldwide.

Imagine the resulting public opinion. What should have happened is that the nuclear fraternity should have announced that due to the excellent safety result which was finally produced from the old out-of-date Fukushima reactor incident, even though it had been struck by the largest tsunami on record in Japan and was further compounded by some bad management decisions, that not one single human or animal was killed or injured by nuclear radiation. As a result nuclear safety protocols can now be relaxed, in the interests of continued price reduction for consumers. Furthermore the public should take note of the fact that modern nuclear power plants are not built at all like the old Fukushima plants and that comparing Fukushima to a modern nuclear plant is something like comparing a 1960’s aeroplane to a super modern aircraft‌ chalk and cheese.

Without doubt nuclear power is the future of the planet. In South Africa a large nuclear power programme is underway to expand the existing nuclear electricity contribution by an additional 9600MW. Many other African countries are lining up to adopt nuclear power, as they realise that it is their only reasonable option for dramatic economic growth. Many African countries are locked into a hydroelectricity economy which means that if a severe drought strikes, which is not uncommon, then a country can lose half of its national electricity supply.

September 4, 2017

Page 23

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Nuclear professionals have to change the attitude of the public, which in turn affects the attitude of the political decision-makers, so as to enable the inevitable world nuclear power progression to move at optimum speed.

But our approach has to adapt. The modern media system demands it. Academic university seminars won’t do it, TV talk shows will, with nuclear professionals trained and prepared to aggressively counter the tsunami of carefully fabricated anti-nuclear propaganda.

September 4, 2017

Page 24

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Uganda

Centuries ago people lived in real darkness and the world solely depended on the moon and the sun.

Wind never at all produced any light or was it seen as a source of energy. Great scientists like Albert Einstein and others produced theories and experiments that paved way for the introduction of nuclear power.

Steven Lyazi, Kampala, Uganda.

Outstanding young, self educated analyst and writer on the importance of fossil fuels and nuclear energy for Uganda and Africa. His articles are published by: The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT, website: http://www.cfact.org/ and Environmentalists for Nuclear – USA, EFN-USA, Website: http://www.efnusa.org/.

At the beginning of the 20th century, it was hard to believe that this power would be incredible and a life changing tool for millions of lives. The potential of nuclear energy has become visible to the world and it is wrong for climate alarmists to call for its eradication, termination, and leaving it untouched in the ground. Nuclear energy is likely to tremendously change the lives of people in this world.

Nuclear energy is huge and much of it is still lying largely untapped in the ground. This wealth is just lying before us. Governments must rethink of its benefits if they are to deliver a great service to their citizens.

Africa has a large area and its population will soon double in the coming decades. This aspect calls for electrification of the entire area and satisfying its people with better economy and standard of living. Africans and other people in the world need reliable, efficient, accessible and affordable electricity and the answer is Nuclear and Fossil Fuels.

When electricity is put in place, it will drive E-mail: steven.lyazi@gmail.com economies forward at an accelerating rate never seen before in this part of the world. Social and political benefits will be for all citizens.

There is nothing complex for the development of nuclear energy in Africa and other countries in the world. Industrial development needs nuclear energy massively.

September 4, 2017

Page 25

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA United Kingdom

Excerpts from testimony to the British Parliament, May 2016 about radiation in nature and from nuclear power plants.

1. Itemised summary •

Wade Allison Emeritus Professor of Physics, Oxford University, Keble College A world leading expert on radiation in nature and from nuclear power plants.

•

•

•

•

•

September 4, 2017

Life is naturally well protected against all but the very highest radiation exposures and evolutionary biology has ensured this so that life may survive.

The low casualty record in all radiological and nuclear accidents confirms the effectiveness of this protection, as do laboratory experiments and the benefits of radiation as used in clinical medicine for over a century.

The commonly held view that radiation is exceptionally dangerous has been sustained by: a) residual memory of Cold War threats; b) unfamiliarity with the broad role of biology; c) a taste for the more exciting stories of accidents offered by the media; d) the guidance offered by a network of international safety committees that prefers caution to scientific evidence.

This guidance has resulted in national regulations that specify that any exposure to radiation should be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), for no scientific reason.

While the radiation released in a radiological or nuclear accident has a small health effect, if any, the emergency procedures taken with international guidance themselves cause suffering, loss of life and severe socio-economic damage, sometimes on a global scale.

Current policy that aims to appease public concern rather than educate people about radiation has caused plans for new nuclear plants to be strangled by unjustifiable regulatory hurdles and Page 26

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA escalating costs, resulting in uncompetitive energy prices and increased carbon emissions.

Two conclusions: •

•

Bottom up, on radiation and nuclear energy we need a fresh programme of science-wide public education in schools and in the community as a whole via the media, omitting the ghoulish images used in the past. Local UK-based initiatives should contribute to worldwide reeducation, for example through the BBC. Top down, on radiation safety we need a complete sea change in international guidance. This should be based on scientific understanding and evidence, not the unjustified precaution inherent in the ALARA/LNT philosophy.[3] Initiatives for such a change should be pursued and supported by the UK more formally.[4]

For complete testimony to the British Parliament, click here.

There is widespread concern amongst those who understand this departure from science-based knowledge. In the past couple of years an international ad hoc group of about 100 professional engineers, doctors, oncologists, biologists, physical scientists and others has joined forces to pursue this injustice in academic journals, internet media, professional societies, lectures, personal and political contacts in countries around the world. Of course it is very hard for any longstanding officially constituted international committee to execute a Uturn, but that is what is required and the policy of the UK should be to press for that.

September 4, 2017

Page 27

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA

USA

We need a large public information campaign that explains the health effects of low-dose radiation, to correct the misinformation that has been given to them over the years by the authorities, advisory bodies, etc. regarding lowdose radiation and cancer risk. The public should be made aware that they are in a deficit of radiation exposure for optimum health. The public should also be informed that if the Fukushima evacuations had not been done, some Mohan Doss, Associate of the public would have radiation doses that Professor, Medical would have reduced their cancer risk. Thus the Physicist evacuations were not needed, and were illFox Chase Cancer Center, advised. We also need to inform the public about Philadelphia, PA. the safety of nuclear power. E.g. Fukushima nuclear reactor accidents killed no one in spite of Key contributing scientist them being major accidents. In contrast, much for Scientists for smaller accidents involving natural gas have Accurate Radiation resulted in fatalities. Considering the safety and Information, S.A.R.I. reliability of nuclear power, nuclear power should website: be utilized wherever possible replacing other http://radiationeffects.org modes of power generation which are more / dangerous and more polluting. The education and campaign that I mentioned is essential to make XLNT Foundation, this happen, as otherwise the public would rightly website: https://www.xvehemently object to the increased use of nuclear lnt.org/ power, because of the misinformation they have been provided.

E-mail: Mohan.Doss@fccc.edu

September 4, 2017

Page 28

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA USA

Topics for discussion: Historical Power System Development and Integration of New Technology –

Kenneth Kok, Nuclear engineer.

Editor of the Nuclear Engineering Handbook Career spent working on technical solutions for many commercial nuclear and advanced nuclear energy topics. Also major contributor to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on nuclear energy topics and guidelines.

E-mail: kokk1@asme.org

We tend to deal with technological issues related to nuclear power and in doing so we have what an old boss of mine once said “A solution in search of a problem”.

Discussing fuel cycles, reactor technologies, waste disposal, and radiation effects is great fun but we have not identified the problem for which we have a solution.

Wind, solar, tidal, hydro, natural gas, coal, nuclear, conservation advocates all agree that they each have the solution to the problem of providing reliable stable energy to all sectors of the population.

I suggest that we begin to look at the historical development and uses of energy to determine where and why nuclear fits. I’m old enough to remember when the UP Power Company in Michigan supplied all the electrical energy to the Upper Peninsula with no permanent interties with Canada, Lower Michigan, or Wisconsin. We had coal fired and hydro generation and the system worked just fine. In addition, they were subject to no federal requirements because they did not cross a state line. I’m not saying we abandon the grid but maybe small is good. In Washington, the west side is basically supplied with power generated on the east side via the BP distribution system. In the late 1980’s the supply to the west side could be taken out by a disruption of both the south and north transmission legs simultaneously.

Discussion Points – 1. How and Why did we move from local generation to the grid?

2. What are the advantages of large vs. small systems?

3. Where and why does nuclear fit in the future?

September 4, 2017

Page 29

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Nuclear Plant Licensing Process – How do we break the bureaucratic process, stabilize the design and construction time and therefore the costs, have a process that shortens the time and costs of development?

Original Licensing Process – Obtain a construction Permit, build the plant and prepare a FSAR, obtain an operating license – This was the system used to construct and operate the current operating nuclear power plants. The process became essentially unworkable. Plant costs increased due to design changes and subsequent modifications leading to delays raising the costs since interest was being paid on borrowed funding.

Construct and Operate – Obtain an operating license for a plant of approved standard design, build the plant under strict QA, and operate the plant when complete – This is the process currently in place but the delays are still apparent and costs continue to increase above estimates leading to the potential abandonment of partially completed plants in Georgia and South Carolina.

New Technology – Introduction new technology under the current process within a reasonable time frame is impossible.

SMRs utilizing current water moderated systems are facing an extremely arduous process in the development of an approved design. Work has been going on for years and construction has yet to begin and no one knows what the future holds for this process. The cost is less because the cost of the plants is less and fractional costs are not September 4, 2017

Page 30

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA reported.

Fast Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors face even a steeper uphill battle for any kind of design verification because they will be required to develop the data with no test bed to confirm the basis for the data. Data from previous test reactors is not acceptable to the NRC because it was not developed under current QA standards so new test beds must be approved and licensed before acceptable data can be generated. If this sounds like a chicken and egg question it is just that. No one in the NRC has any extensive background on any reactors other than water cooled and moderated systems. When discussions are held with the regulator the conclusion presented is that it will take at least 25 years before you have an operating system and during that time you will spend hundreds of millions of dollars with no assurance of success.

New (Old) Process – Build new reactor systems like we design and build new aircraft – design and test, design and test components, design and test systems, design and test a completed plant, all with detailed oversight but not have an approved license. The NRC would use the DOE to confirm data and address many questions. The reactor developer would do the design and if NRC wanted specific data it would be generated by the developer.

During the development phase, the developer would not pay the NRC nor would the government provide any monetary support for the development.

When I asked a member of the NRC staff how long it would take to build and operate the B-reactor today the answer I received was “It couldn’t be done”.

September 4, 2017

Page 31

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA Discussion Points – 1. How do we manage the development process?

2. How do we license test and prototype reactors?

3. What is the role of the DOE? Nuclear Waste – What is waste and what is resource?

Weapons Production Waste – Generally the tank waste at Hanford and Savannah River is understood to be the defense waste; however, the depleted uranium from enriched uranium production for weapons material and submarine fuel is also considered to be waste. These materials make up a significant fraction of the DU stockpile which the DOE is treating as waste.

Nuclear Power Used Fuel – The “waste” from nuclear power plants includes both the used fuel and the depleted uranium produce during the enrichment process. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the primary waste will be the fission products.

The answer depends on reprocessing and reactor commercialization. Fast reactors will allow use of reprocessed fuel. The energy value of reprocessed fuel combined with depleted uranium when used in fast reactors will provide the US with electric power for hundreds of years. See ASME paper attached) Discussion Points: 1. How and where do we provide storage?

2. Who and where will the technology be commercialized?

3. What is the role of DOE?

September 4, 2017

Page 32

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA USA

Notes on nuclear “waste” and radiation exposure.

The most common question people bring up with respect to nuclear power is, “What do you do with the waste?” The answer requires discussion of three broad topics: the nature of uranium fission, radiation shielding, and the relationship between radiation and health.

The first section in this discussion will therefore be about the nature and the quantity of the highlevel radioactive byproducts of uranium fission.

Emeritus Physics The so-called “waste” from a nuclear reactor is Professor, University of different from the waste from burning coal. In the Connecticut. latter case, the waste (fly ash, bottom ash, and carbon dioxide, and so forth) are all separated from Publisher of The the coal from which they originated. Nuclear Energy Advocate, a “waste”, the radioactive by-products of uranium periodical explaining fission remain within the fuel rods (with the many aspects of energy exception of some trivial amounts of xenon, which and its importance for is a gas). Most of what is deemed by the public as the future of the world. “waste” is actually fuel, and much of the radioactive by-product is actually useful in various industries.

E-mail: corkhayden@comcast.net The two types of waste also vary dramatically in quantity. The quantity of coal-combustion byproducts produced in the US is well over 100 million tons per year. The radioactive by-products of uranium fission are a million times smaller, at about 100 tons per year. It is intensely radioactive.

Howard Cork Hayden

The second section will discuss the nature of shielding and its evident effectiveness. By large measure, the most radioactivity at nuclear power stations occurs within the reactors, even though the “waste” from twenty to forty years of operation remains on site. The full-time employees of the power station receive trivial amounts of exposure because the shielding protects them from the radiation. How does that shielding work?

September 4, 2017

Page 33

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA The EPA, the NRC, and other agencies assume that exposure is an additive quantity. That is, if your exposure from one event is A, from another event is B, from another, C, and so on, the agencies regard your “cumulative exposure” as A +B +C …

Similarly, if a million people each receive some exposure A, the agencies say that the “population exposure is 1,000,000*A. The third section will present a simple mathematical proof that there is nothing inherently additive about radiation exposure.

For the complete article, go to this link: http://efn-usa.org/2013-11-06-07-2901/item/1484-notes-on-nuclear-waste-andradiation-exposure-howard-cork-hayden Howard Hayden is a very successful professor of physics. He is dedicated to explaining principals of physics about energy in ways that nearly all careful readers should be able to understand.

This is a very important essay about nuclear “waste” and radiation. It could go a long way to getting global public acceptance for nuclear energy.

September 4, 2017

Page 34

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA USA

David Lester, Chemical Engineer.

Chairman, Go Nuclear, Inc. E-mail: dhlester@gmail.com

After a career mostly in the Nuclear Energy field that spanned over 40 years I have come to one central conclusion: The problems that present obstacles to the success of nuclear power are not technical. We have in hand solutions to all of the big technical problems. The only technical problems that need to be worked are the usual details of any technology and can be approached in conventional ways. Therefore, technical people must find ways to support political solutions. This is difficult for us because we are not political. We need to seek out good political people to help us sort out the real problems.

My second thought coming out of all this experience is: “We did it to ourselves.” One of the other members of our Board of Advisors said it better than I can. Every time there has been a major problem in the industry our response has always been to tighten standards and add more safeguards. When an oil refinery blows up the oil industry does not revise all of its plant design standards but after events like Three Mile Island the nuclear industry turned itself inside out with new tougher design standards. The reaction should have been more like: things happen now and then and the actual consequences were not that great so let’s just get on with out. Our reactions scared the public and provided material for our detractors. One part of this is the LNT Dose model and the ALARA concept. These things have only served to reinforce the case against nuclear. So we must begin to try to reverse this approach and make the public and our politicians understand that this industry is not the monster we ourselves have often made it out to be.

My third thought (which is just a corollary to my first thought above) is that our political system presents a significant barrier to progress in nuclear development because it cycles on a short time frame. Historically, liberal politicians oppose all things nuclear while conservatives are more likely to embrace it. Why? I am not sure. But here is what this polarization does: every 8 years (sometimes 4) our administration changes and

September 4, 2017

Page 35

Recommendations to nuclear energy specialists attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington, USA September 10 & 11, 2017 from the International Board of Advisors for Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA it seems to usually oscillate between liberal and conservative. Most development in the nuclear industry takes a fairly long time, usually more than 8 years. A good example: the nuclear waste disposal program(s). So just as things are moving along here comes a change in administration and everything stops and becomes lost. Yucca Mountain is a big example.

So what should we do? We need work on turning the more liberal politicians our way. We need to find out why democrats don’t like nuclear (yes an over generalization but not far off).

My best wishes to those attending the Ingalls Creek Nuclear Futures Meeting in Peshastin, Washington State. Significant change is sorely needed.

Nuclear energy is the energy of the cosmos. In the 21st century it is time for humankind to begin to leave behind our crude earthbound energy sources and get with the universe.

September 4, 2017

Page 36