ENSURING DATA INTEGRITY | SAFETY & SECURITY
The Halden Reactor Project had been in operation at the Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) in Norway since 1958 but was found to have altered data numerous times. Source: OECD
being accidentally deleted in the course of checking a document is a frequent consequence of human error, for example. Such errors can be compounded by the increasing use of AI systems for checking large data sets. Secondly, the inability to verify data makes
documents much more vulnerable to the kinds of intentional manipulation that has occurred in some high profile nuclear cases. Having a rigorous overview of changes, chain-of-custody, and provenance makes it much easier for regulators, managers, and other stakeholders to identify where problems or even fraud are taking place. Bear in mind that in most cases, any alleged fraud is only revealed years later, usually as a result of outside groups and whistleblowers – highlighting the difficulty of spotting these issues. Thirdly, weak standards for data control and integrity
leaves the door open for cybersecurity attacks that focus on subtly and harmfully manipulating internal data, a threat regulators have worried about for years. It seems like a glaring omission that there is not a unified recognised standard for data integrity in the safety critical nuclear sector, especially between different jurisdictions. Indeed, across different countries there is a patchwork of regulations and standards that apply to data, but they often mandate the proper setups of computers as opposed to the verification and integrity of data itself. In an increasingly globalised world, and one that is seeing the startling increase of AI-powered forgery tools, this represents an urgent problem and one that could have wide effects across the sector.
How the industry should respond In the wake of these data control scandals, it’s becoming
increasingly clear that a lack of a unified, widely recognised standard for data verification is an ever- widening vulnerability. To redress this, organisations can and should adopt technologies that not only provide assurance across those four factors but could be independently verified across different jurisdictions. One such technology is the Blockchain. Once used
mainly for cryptocurrency, its nature as a publicly accessible, secure and private ledger of information and transactions gives it significant advantages as a method for verifying data integrity. No sensitive information needs to be placed on the public ledger – the unique, fixed-length string of alphanumeric characters known as a hash act as a digital fingerprint for data and can be independently verified using tools already available on the market. This creates an effective and immutable audit trail. Furthermore, these standards can be used across borders and institutions, allowing it to become a better way of elmininating differences between jurisdictions. A blockchain-based data integrity standard would
mean that regulators, organisations and managers can identify data integrity issues much more easily. Such a system could also act as a quicker and more adaptable response to data manipulation and a significant disincentive to further reputationally damaging scandals in the future. Independently of which technology is used, however, it is inarguable that the nuclear sector will face a fatal credibility crisis if these scandals keep piling up. Without a water-tight way of ensuring data manipulation is spotted quickly, not only is the public safety put at risk, but that of the sector more broadly. A widely used and verifiable standard for data verification in the nuclear industry is well overdue. ■
www.neimagazine.com | April 2026 | 95
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
