{"url": "https://www.eurozine.com/dear-comrades-chernobyls-mark-on-the-anthropocene/", "date": "2022-08-09T02:37:45Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-33/segments/1659882570879.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20220809003642-20220809033642-00357.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9516446590423584, "token_count": 3836, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-33", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-33__0__200435254", "lang": "en", "text": "Just before the thirtieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in April 2016, journalists from the Associated Press tested milk from a Belarusian dairy farm located near the 30 kilometer Zone of Alienation, which was created in the weeks following the explosion of reactor no. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in April 1986. Lab results showed the milk had ten times more radioactive strontium than permitted by Belarusian law. Farm director Nikolai Chubenok was flabbergasted. “That is impossible,” he said and described how the farm had a lab that tested every sample for traces of the radioactive isotopes known to be in soils of zones contaminated by the accident.\nGlobal reporting on radioactive milk was bad news for regional business and political leaders. In the past few years, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia have been working, yet again, to close the last chapter on the Chernobyl disaster. Russian officials announced in December 2014 that they reduced in half the number of communities in Russia considered contaminated that qualify for subsidies. Belarusian officials have been cooperating with international agencies for a decade to return contaminated land to farm production, and a state run company is constructing Belarus’ first nuclear power plant on its northern border with Lithuania. Ukrainian leaders, meanwhile, are dreaming up plans to transform their section of the Zone into a nuclear industrial park. Officials assert their plans for resuming economic activity on Chernobyl contaminated ground can go forward because the level of radiation has decreased to safe levels. Life, they say, can return to normal. Well, almost normal, until a reporter discovers strontium 90 in milk.\nPripyat, the (now abandoned) city built to serve the nearby Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Photo: Keith Adams. Source: Wikimedia\nThe race to relegate the Chernobyl disaster to history books shows that humans don’t have the patience for the time scale that nuclear accidents require. The period for half of the cesium and strontium fallout to decay elapsed at thirty years. It will take another thirty years to extinguish the remaining half. Americium as it decays over several hundred years issues radioactive iodine, a powerful and harmful, short-lived isotope. Plutonium will continue to pulse with destructive energy for thousands of years.\nIn the dawning age of the Anthropocene, humans are grappling with new temporal orders presented by a mounting, steadily accruing layer of toxins and carbons produced and released by human activity. One thousand years from now geologists will find substances in the sedimentary layer, among them radioactive isotopes, which they will date starting about 1945. The scientists of the future will be able to track the remnants of plutonium, uranium and other isotopes as they multiplied on the earth’s surface in the decades of nuclear weapons testing followed by decades of furious reactor construction. They will locate hot spots of concentrated activity, but generally the isotopes will embrace the planet like the sweet icing glaze encircling a donut: existing everywhere, holding fast, spiking the flavour of life.\nLooking back now, it is easy to see how resistant scientists were in the months after the accident to accepting the fact that Chernobyl was a problem with very long legs. In August 1986, Soviet and international scientist met at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. The anxious body of experts rushed to tell the public that the accident was under control. Six months later, IAEA consultants issued an assessment asserting that Chernobyl levels of radiation were low and not dangerous. In a 1991 report, IAEA scientists repeated the assertion that they detected no health consequences in the contaminated regions and there would likely be no detectable effects in the future. They wrote this report even as the first evidence emerged of a rare and unexpected spike in childhood thyroid cancers. Scientists made these assertions, which turned out to be wrong, based on estimates of cancers and health problems projected from estimates of radiation levels in the environment.\nThe maintenance of radiation protection standards works by asserting an understanding of bodies and environments as two discreet realities. Monitors measure gamma waves and alpha particles at waist level in a handful of places over vast stretches of field and forest to produce the familiar, splotchy red and orange contamination maps. With these maps it was possible to make statements about the relative safety of contaminated zones surrounding Chernobyl. Radiation monitors measure radioactivity as something out there. As long as it is imagined externally, scientists can maintain an image of bodies as castles on a hill, under siege, perhaps, but readily defended against low levels of radiation. Waist high gamma radiation, however, is not the point when one considers the dangers present today. One of the insights of the Anthropocene is that there is no threshold between an outside “environment” and human bodies. “We have literally merged”, historian Sarah Vogel writes, “with our material environment to become synthetic humans”. Microbiologists, in fact, are re-coding what it means to be human. In the past decade, microbiologists have determined that 90 per cent of the cells in what was once considered to be the body are not human cells at all, but bacteria hitching a ride. These cells of parasites outnumber human cells in the body by ten to one.\nAt the dawn of the nuclear era in the 1940s, American scientists realized the porosity of bodies by having mice and human subjects (themselves included) ingest manmade radioactive isotopes. They determined that a hundred per cent of radioactive cesium collects in the digestive tract. Strontium and plutonium, they found, mimic the behaviour of calcium in human bodies and settles in bones and marrow. Human thyroids readily drink up radioactive iodine. Collecting children’s baby teeth from around the world, they realized that by the end of the first decade of nuclear testing, every person on earth had incorporated radioactive fallout. KGB doctors in Kyiv in the late 1980s came to similar insights. They recorded ten to twelve different radioactive isotopes in the bodies of their patients who had been exposed to Chernobyl radiation. Some of the isotopes drain from the body over time. Plutonium never leaves the body. Archeologists a thousand years from now will be able to trace the contours of the Anthropocene by ashing the bone of twentieth-century earthlings to detect the deposits of radioactive isotopes in them.\nAuthors writing on the Anthropocene and the Chernobyl accident alike tend to slip into millennial scales and metaphysics. How about getting down to the particulars: the dates, facts and fate of people most directly confronted with the new radioactive reality? How did life change after Chernobyl in the immediate years after the accident? I want to know, I have a feeling we might all soon want to know, what are the arts of human adaptation in a state of severe ecological crisis?\nIn August 1986, the Ukrainian Ministry of Health issued five thousand copies of a pamphlet addressed to “residents of population points exposed to radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl atomic station”. The pamphlet begins with assurances:\nDear Comrades! Since the accident at the Chernobyl power plant, there has been a detailed analysis of the radioactivity of the food and territory of your population point. The results of the investigation show that living and working in your village will cause no harm to adults or children. The main portion of radioactivity has decayed. The composition of the radioactivity in water, air, forest and shrubs is tens of times lower than the established norms. For this reason, you have no reason to limit your consumption of local agricultural produce.\nIf villagers persisted in reading beyond the first pages, they found that the pamphlet’s confident tone trails off, like the telling of an unfunny joke:\nChildren this year, especially, should not eat any berries or mushrooms, nor should they enter the forest beyond the village.\nLimit consumption of greens and early berries.\nDo not drink local meat and milk.\nBe careful to maintain domestic hygiene. Do not carry work clothes into the house. Don’t wear shoes indoors.\nWash down homes regularly.\nDon’t burn dry biomass.\nDo not use animal manure or ash as fertilizer.\nTake the top layer of soil off the garden, add clay. Bury the top soil in specially-prepared graves far removed from the village.\nBetter to give up the milk cow and keep pigs instead.\nDon’t let domestic birds range freely. Try to keep them in cages.\nThe pamphlet is actually a survival manual, one that is unique in human history. There had been nuclear accidents before which left people living on territory contaminated with harmful levels of nuclear fallout, but never before Chernobyl had a state been forced to admit to the problem and issue a manual for the new reality.\nDespite the manual’s crash course in radiation protection, it didn’t take long for the Ministry of Industrial Agriculture to record the first radioactive food. A fortnight after the accident and a day after state troopers set up radiological control points outside the city of Kyiv, monitors reported the arrival of spring vegetables – sorrel, green onions, spinach – recording readings at levels higher than the permissible dose. As historian Toshi Higuchi points out, nuclear regulators world wide deployed temporary emergency doses for exceptional nuclear “incidents” (which could be something as predictable as fallout clouds from nuclear tests spreading beyond the test range to populated areas). In keeping with this international practice, Soviet officials in the wake of the accident raised permissible doses fifty times higher than before the accident. Yet, even at the new elevated norms, thirteen regions in contaminated provinces of Ukraine reported within a few weeks that a third of milk was too hot for consumption. By late May, trusted party operatives were going door to door warning farmers against drinking the fresh, rich milk from their family cows.\nIn Kyiv, buyers shunned leafy greens and berries in the markets so that soon stores refused to stock them. Three control points around the city monitored food shipped in trucks. As produce registered increasingly hot, Kyiv officials placed orders for vegetables from southern, clean territories of the Ukrainian Republic. They mined warehouses for food stocks grown before the accident. Officials banned the shipment of meat to major Ukrainian cities for six months. They shut down open air markets where produce collected radioactive dust and set up radiation labs in shops and indoor markets. Army meteorologists seeded the clouds so that radioactive precipitation would not fall on the city. Five months followed with no rain. Instead, trucks watered the streets.\nIn the tenth century, Kyivans created their city, high on a palisade, surrounded by walls, to withstand attacks. In this 1986 strike by a new-age invader, city officials used the infrastructure of the modern Soviet city to secure bodies against the environment in which they lived: a network of roads and police forces, an army of scientists equipped with labs, centralized plumbing, a centralized food distribution network, and packaging all helped to reduce the number of radioactive isotopes entering the mouths of city dwellers.\nVillagers left outside the city walls, as in the Middle Ages, had to fend for themselves as the soils, plants and animals they relied on for subsistence turned against them in mysterious ways. The Soviet countryside had few of the modern amenities necessary for overcoming this high-tech disaster. Most villages in the poor, northern territories lacked plumbing and central heating. Water came from open wells carried in open buckets. Taking a bath and doing laundry involved a lot of work and so occurred only occasionally. Almost no one had the luxury of a shower, an important fixture for radiation hygiene. Heating came from contaminated peat and wood. Dirt roads generated dust carrying radioactive particles. Some villages were cut off for several months of the year because of flooding and so transports of packaged food could not reach them. Shops carried salt, kerosene, matches and little else. Farmers ate what they produced on their private plots. Everyone worked the fields, including pregnant women and children. There were few hospitals and clinics and the number of medical personnel dropped every year. As more regulations came down from Kyiv stipulating that collective farmers become modern consumers of food, fuel, and medicine while following safety regulations and hygiene norms for workers at nuclear power plants, it became clear this would be a losing battle.\nIn the years immediately following the disaster, the number of food samples over the permissible norms continued to increase. In several regions, 70 per cent to 100 per cent of milk, meat, and greens sampled did not pass inspection. Even territories with relatively low soil counts of radioactivity served up food that was too radioactive to consume. This news should not have been surprising. Scientists had known for decades about the tendency for radioactive isotopes to biomagnify due to the remarkable, life-giving necessity for organisms to drink from soils and water the minerals they require to thrive. Fish swimming in mildly contaminated lakes quickly concentrate ten to a thousand times more radioactive isotopes in their bodies than in the water in which they swim. Plants gather radioactive minerals from soils in roots in higher concentrations than the ground in which they grow. Peaty, swampy soils, which predominate in the territories around the Chernobyl plant, are especially good at transferring radioactive isotopes to the edible parts of the plants, even in soils with low surface contamination. Soviet scientists working in southern Belarus and northern Ukraine had documented this phenomenon decades before in the 1960s. What is surprising is that Soviet planners established the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Park, with a projected ten reactors, in an eco-zone which they knew was extremely conducive to biomagnification.\nFinally, in 1989, with measurements of radioactivity in food and soils remaining practically unchanged, the Ministry of Industrial Agriculture conceded that dis-activation work had failed. They resolved to resettle a host of villages, but as the Soviet Union crumbled politically and financially, the evacuations ceased. People either had to find the means to move on their own or remain on contaminated territory.\nThe rest of this history takes a microscope to discern, for as the isotopes disappeared into bodies the record of their activity grows yet more blurred, which is one reason for the controversies over Chernobyl’s health effects. Soviet doctors looked at blood samples for telling changes in white and red blood cells and ran villagers through whole body counters, which only dimly measure gamma rays coming from patients’ bodies. Most rays coming from bodies are blocked by the flesh and water of the body itself. Medicine, meanwhile, has no humane way of measuring alpha and beta particles incorporated inside of living people. Researchers recorded in the Rivne Province that 24 per cent of the population had an estimated dose of one to two rems of radioactive cesium in 1987 and three rems in 1988. Some in the strictly controlled zones had doses up to 10 rem. Soviet scientists established in 1989 a safe “lifetime” dose of a half a rem a year over 70 years. The high body counts pointed to a distressing convergence of the new environmental factors with a new biological reality.\nOnce inside a body, alpha and beta particles, which are too weak to penetrate a sheet of paper, have no trouble piercing cells of organs and tissues to cause DNA breaks, damaged cells, hormone disruptions, and a host of other problems that are so far poorly understood. Unaware of their high internal doses, villagers complained in the late 1980s in letters to officials and emerging perestroika politicians of health problems. They reported chronic illnesses, fertility problems, strange pains, chronic fatigue, and weak, pale children who had trouble paying attention and fainted at their desks. Almost every region where agronomists reported in classified documents radioactive food above permissible levels, doctors wrote classified reports of a sharp decline in the number of people categorized as “healthy”. Until I unearthed these reports, they had existed in post-Soviet archives, buried along with the political and administrative entities that created them. After the collapse of the USSR, international organizations largely took over evaluating the significance of the Chernobyl accident.\nA recent World Health Organization assessment counted up cataracts among emergency workers and 11,000 thyroid cancers among children, “a fraction of which” could be attributed Chernobyl. The “main health impact”, the report authors asserted were “pyscho-social” problems caused by the accident and subsequent resettlement which produced stress and an increased likeness for Chernobyl-affected populations to report “multiple unexplained physical symptoms and subjective poor health”. The difference between the assessment of Chernobyl’s health impacts by doctors on the ground and international experts arriving later relates to the tendency of classical radiology to focus on environments over bodies. Radiologists consulting for WHO or IAEA generally study environmental levels of radioactivity and run those numbers against projections of radiation damage from established studies, mostly from the Atomic Bomb Survivor Casualty Study, started in Japan five years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With environmental data and atomic bomb epidemiology, they create “individual dose estimates” that then determine how much of reported disease rates are estimated to have been caused by radioactivity. The bomb studies largely focused retroactively on the seconds of exposure from the bomb blast – the half-second of gamma rays passing in and out of bodies. The science of beta and alpha particles lodged temporarily and permanently in organs to cause non-malignant health problems is far less advanced. The first five years after the blast, the health of the survivors was not recorded. Soviet doctors in Ukraine, on the other hand, acquired a great mass of data on just the kind of physiological changes that swept through contaminated communities in the years immediately following exposure. Physicists, however, working as radiologists have so far failed to concur with physicians who have studied the effects of radiation within the landscape of internal organs. In other words, starting with external counts of radioactive decay to determine internal effects sustained the pre-Anthropocene anachronism that bodies are distinct from their environments. And that mirage has worked to contain and minimize the assessment of health damage from the Chernobyl accident.\nIn the persistent, thirty-year rush to disappear the Chernobyl accident, in the failure to fund large-scale, epidemiological studies about multiple health outcomes, international organizations and scientists have lost the opportunity to trace the adaptive and evolutionary features of human bodies living on territory contaminated by radioactive fallout. And that is a regrettable loss to science and to history. Villagers living off the radioactive landscape present a vivid manifestation of the metamorphosing Anthropocene-era human, one that has slowly been changing places with the accident, becoming pico curie by pico curie a part of nuclear reactor no. 4, the reactor that no longer is.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://holoclases.com/japan-marks-13th-anniversary-of-fukushima-earthquake-and-tsunami/", "date": "2024-04-17T12:56:35Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296817153.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20240417110701-20240417140701-00269.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9411876797676086, "token_count": 924, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__73443414", "lang": "en", "text": "Japan recently marked the 13th anniversary of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Fukushima prefecture, leading to significant loss of life and ongoing challenges related to nuclear decommissioning and environmental safety.\nAt a glance\n- 13th anniversary of Fukushima earthquake and tsunami\n- Approximately 20,000 lives lost\n- Over 160,000 people evacuated, 20,000 still unable to return\n- Efforts to remove radioactive melted fuel debris are yet to start\n- Renewed calls for review of evacuation plans after recent quake in Noto\nJapan recently marked the 13th anniversary of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Fukushima prefecture on March 11, 2011. The 9.0 magnitude quake and subsequent tsunami hit Japan’s northeastern coast, resulting in the tragic loss of approximately 20,000 lives.\nTo commemorate the event, people across Japan observed a minute of silence at 2:46 p.m., the exact time when the earthquake occurred.\nThe tsunami wreaked havoc on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, leading to meltdowns in three reactors.\nThis catastrophic event forced over 160,000 people to evacuate their homes initially, with 20,000 individuals still unable to return due to lingering radiation concerns.\nDespite the passage of time, efforts to remove the radioactive melted fuel debris at the plant have yet to commence.\nPrime Minister Fumio Kishida has reaffirmed the government’s commitment to providing support for the rebuilding and safe decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.\nMemorial events were held in Miyagi and Iwate prefectures, which bore the brunt of the casualties from the disaster.\nIn the wake of a recent devastating quake in Noto on January 1, there have been renewed calls for a review of evacuation plans to bolster preparedness for future calamities.\nThe government has set its sights on ensuring the safe and transparent decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.\nHowever, the decision to release treated radioactive wastewater into the sea has sparked protests from local fishers and neighboring countries.\nDespite these challenges, Fukushima Gov. Masao Uchibori remains optimistic about the region’s recovery process.\nWhile reconstruction efforts have made significant strides in Iwate and Miyagi, many former residents have yet to return to their communities.\nNotably, national memorial services have not been held in Tokyo since the 10th anniversary, with local services now taking place in the disaster-affected regions.\nAs Japan continues to grapple with the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the government faces ongoing pressure to prioritize the safety and well-being of its citizens while navigating the complexities of nuclear decommissioning and environmental concerns.\nHere are all the sources used to create this article:\nThis section links each of the article’s facts back to its original source.\nIf you suspect false information in the article, you can use this section to investigate where it came from.\n|– Japan marked the 13th anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Fukushima prefecture\n– A 9.0 magnitude quake and tsunami struck Japan’s northeastern coast on March 11, 2011, killing about 20,000 people\n– People across Japan observed a minute of silence at 2:46 p.m., the time of the earthquake\n– The tsunami destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing meltdowns in three reactors\n– More than 160,000 people were initially forced to leave their homes, with 20,000 still unable to return due to radiation\n– Work to remove radioactive melted fuel debris at the plant has not yet begun\n– Prime Minister Fumio Kishida pledged government support for rebuilding and safe decommissioning of the plant\n– Memorial events were held in Miyagi and Iwate prefectures, where most deaths occurred\n– Calls for a review of evacuation plans were renewed after a devastating quake in Noto on Jan. 1\n– The government aims to ensure the safe and transparent decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi plant\n– Treated radioactive wastewater has been released into the sea, facing protests from local fishers and neighboring countries\n– Fukushima Gov. Masao Uchibori expressed confidence in the region’s recovery process\n– Reconstruction of infrastructure has been largely completed in Iwate and Miyagi, but many former residents have not returned\n– National memorial services have not been held in Tokyo since the 10th anniversary, with local services now hosted in disaster-hit areas.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/ProjetOverview/projetoverview2002.htm", "date": "2023-09-24T23:39:17Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233506669.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20230924223409-20230925013409-00443.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9159752130508423, "token_count": 482, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__47242768", "lang": "en", "text": "|Project Overview||Beam Performance||CNGS↔LNGS||Publications/Talks||Events||Links|\n|Technical Page (EDMS)||Civil Engineering||Naming Conventions||Download Pictures||Planning||Search|\n|Project Organization: Secondary Beam WG, Project Team, Technical WG, Commissioning WG|\nThe CNGS (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso) project aims at investigating the 'oscillation' of neutrinos. The project is motivated by the results obtained at the Superkamiokande detector in Japan and supported by other experiments, observing neutrinos produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. These experiments measure a significant deficit in the flux of deteced muon-type neutrinos.\nThe features of this 'anomaly' could be explained by the hypothesis of neutrino oscillation, i.e. the conversion of a given neutrino type into another during their travel from the source to the detector (for example, muon-type to tau-type neutrino oscillation). The CNGS facility aims at directly detecting such neutrino oscillations and confirming this fascinating hypothesis with artificially produced neutrinos from an accelerator.\nA beam produced at the CERN SPS accelerator will consist of only muon-type neutrinos. Neutrinos interact very rarely with matter, and these particles can therefore pass undisturbed underground to their destination, the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LNGS) of the INFN in Italy, 730 km from CERN. This laboratory located 120 km to the east of Rome, exists since 1987 and many experiments have been conducted there by international collaborations. LNGS is currently preparing to house huge detectors specially designed to detect the rare tau-neutrinos created by \"oscillation\" from muon-neutrinos on the way between CERN and LNGS.\nThe CNGS project's mandate is the construction of the new neutrino beam facility at CERN, not including the work needed for the detectors at LNGS. CNGS has been approved by the CERN Council at its December 1999 meeting. Construction started in September 2000, and first beam is expected in May 2006.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.stenspinella.com/single-post/2018/02/11/Northwest-Medical-Isotopes-closer-to-coming-to-Columbia", "date": "2019-11-21T08:09:53Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-47/segments/1573496670743.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20191121074016-20191121102016-00332.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9495280981063843, "token_count": 374, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2019-47", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2019-47__0__78441479", "lang": "en", "text": "Northwest Medical Isotopes (NWMI) is one step closer to building a production plant in Columbia.\nThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission heard testimony Tuesday regarding Northwest Medical Isotopes’ application for a construction permit. The hearing signals that the commission is approaching its final decision on whether NWMI can build in Columbia.\nThe proceedings were concerned primarily with the Atomic Energy Act, which, according to the EPA’s website, was put in place to advocate “utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public.”\nNWMI produces Molybdenum-99, which is used as a radioactive tracer to detect diseases in bone, kidney, heart and lungs. The company is seeking approval to erect a medical radioisotope production facility in Columbia’s Discovery Ridge Research Park.\nNWMI announced its intention to build in Discovery Park in 2014. Originally, NWMI expected to be up and operating by 2016, but the application process has taken longer than expected. A series of studies and evidentiary hearings in conjunction with the nuclear commission, including a 2016 review that determined building would have minimal environmental impact, has prolonged the launch date to 2020, commission Chairwoman Kristine Svinicki said in the hearing.\n“It was going to be a long-term process because of the application process they had to go through,” Bernie Andrews, executive vice president of Columbia and Boone County’s Regional Economic Development Inc., said. “It’s taken longer than we expected, but we’re making progress.”\nThe plant would bring about 75-85 high-paying jobs to Columbia.\nClick here to read the full story from the Columbia Missourian.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://webstergrovespl.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/the-answer/", "date": "2019-10-18T13:34:31Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-43/segments/1570986682998.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20191018131050-20191018154550-00004.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9794394969940186, "token_count": 176, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2019-43", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2019-43__0__37677349", "lang": "en", "text": "Well, it’s been several days and nobody has ventured a guess, so I’ll just offer the answer now. The most-written about news story in the Webster-Kirkwood Times from 1986 to 1988 was the shipping of radioactive waste from the Three Mile Island accident on trains through St. Louis County to points west where that waste was to be disposed of. Those shipments came through Webster Groves on the Missouri Pacific line.\nThree Mile Island, a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, experienced a meltdown in March 1979, creating a lot of contaminated water, soil, and nuclear waste. The cleanup lasted until 1993, and it seems that nobody whose communities the waste passed through was happy about it. Residents in Webster Groves, as you may imagine, had a lot to say about it, and every local legislator worked to end the train shipments through town.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.ujf.cas.cz/en/news/NPI-will-participate-in-material-research-in-the-AMULET-project/", "date": "2024-03-03T03:14:44Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-10/segments/1707947476180.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20240303011622-20240303041622-00214.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8862694501876831, "token_count": 461, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-10__0__73248381", "lang": "en", "text": "NPI will participate in material research in the AMULET project\n05. 12. 2023\nThe Institute of Nuclear Physics of the CAS will participate as one of eight partners in the AMULET (Advanced MUltiscaLe Materials for key Enabling Technologies) project, which was successful in the Excellent Research call under Operational Programme Johannes Amos Comenius.\nThe aim of the project, led by the J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry, is to develop so-called multiscale materials with broad application potential, for example in electrical engineering, medicine or environmental technologies.\nThe team from the Institute of Nuclear Physics led by prof. Anna Macková will investigate the possibility of synthesising new materials by ion implantation, ion lithography and targeted ion irradiation at the atomic level. Energetic ion beams will be generated using the Tandetron 4130 MC accelerator, the only facility of its kind in the Czech Republic.\nThe Tandetron laboratory in Řež near Prague is part of the Centre for Accelerators and Nuclear Analytical Methods (CANAM). The centre is used for research, development and characterisation of new materials and surfaces. It is also used for radiation testing, the preparation and study of new radionuclides and the detection of radiation using accelerated ion beams.\n\"Participation in such an ambitious project shows that the role of the CAS Institute of Nuclear Physics in materials research is irreplaceable. It is not only about the scientific erudition and competence, but also about the instrumentation, which is unique in the Czech Republic,\" says prof. Anna Macková.\nIn addition to the J. Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS and NPI of the CAS, the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, the Faculty of Science of Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, the Institute of Photonics and Electronics of the CAS, the Institute of Physics of the CAS, the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics and the Faculty of Science of Charles University and the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague are also participating in the project.\nHere is the link to the AMULET press release.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://losalamosnm.us/government/departments/community_development/historic_preservation/", "date": "2017-04-30T03:19:21Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-17/segments/1492917124297.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20170423031204-00374-ip-10-145-167-34.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9484531283378601, "token_count": 660, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2017-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2017-17__0__29412124", "lang": "en", "text": "The Los Alamos area, sprawled over several north central New Mexico mesasin a region known as the Pajarito Plateau, is historically characterized by remoteness. Many undisturbed prehistoric Pueblo Indian ruins still dot the region. After the arrival of Europeans in the mid 1700s, the Plateau slumbered for some 150 years as a secluded grazing and timbering area. The few homesteads and ranches that arrived in the late 1800s and early 1900s were mostly seasonal.\nIn 1917, an elite preparatory school for boys took over the year-around Los Alamos Ranch, which occupied a large, central portion of the Plateau. The Los Alamos Ranch School operated until 1943, when outside events forced it, along with a number of homesteads, to vacate the premises. The Jemez’ isolation and beauty had attracted the attention of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was seeking a secluded site for a top-secret World War II military program, the Manhattan Project; he had visited the school on horseback during his youth.\nThe Manhattan Project dramatically transformed the Los Alamos area into a bustling scientific and military complex with several outreach sites, much of it fenced and all of it guarded by U.S. Army patrols on horseback or in jeeps. Staffed by many of the world’s top scientists, the Los Alamos weapons laboratory designed, built, and tested at White Sands, New Mexico, the world’s first atomic bomb. The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945 to end World War II. Ramifications were immediate, immense, and worldwide.\nAfter the war, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission assumed responsibility for the Laboratory. It also mandated a closed, civilian town built by government contractors. Los Alamos became a county in 1949 but remained closed until 1957. White Rock, initially opened in 1949 to house Laboratory construction workers and intended to be temporary, was reborn in the early 1960s for permanent homes. The Los Alamos National Laboratory continues to design and provide oversight for the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile and nonproliferation activity. Basic medical, energy, and technical research have considerably expanded the Laboratory’s initial focus.\nClearly, the development of Los Alamos did not follow a familiar American West scenario. Nor is the County similar to other communities within northern New Mexico. The cultural and technical ramifications of its unique events and personalities have had profound worldwide significance. Preserving the community’s physical history is important not only to the people of the County, but to those of the state, nation, and world.\nOverseeing historic and cultural resources is a cooperative effort incorporating overlapping spheres of official influence.The National Historic Preservation Act serves as an overall guide to local levels of preservation activity and the New Mexico Cultural Properties Act sets state standards of preservation policy. The State Historic Preservation Division is the liaison between communities and national policy makers. The Fuller Lodge/Historic Districts Advisory Board, the Los Alamos Historical Society, and other groups – including but not limited to local enterprises, volunteer organizations, Los Alamos County, and Los Alamos National Laboratory – contribute to local historic preservation.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://ir.mirion.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/7/mirion-technologies-dosimetry-services-division-acquires", "date": "2023-09-29T00:19:46Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510462.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20230928230810-20230929020810-00151.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.905887246131897, "token_count": 828, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__74008090", "lang": "en", "text": "Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division Acquires NRG's Dosimetry Business in the Netherlands\nExpanding the Availability & Support of Instadose® Personal Dosimetry Monitoring Solutions in Europe\nIRVINE, Calif. and ARNHEM, The Netherlands, Nov. 1, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division (Mirion), a global provider of radiation detection solutions, announced today that it has acquired the personal dosimetry business of the Nuclear Research and consultancy Group (NRG) based in Arnhem, The Netherlands.\nPersonal dosimeters are typically worn by individuals who work with or around radiation and are used to measure, record, and track the radiation dose they are exposed to while performing their job/occupation. The acquisition of NRG's dosimetry business gives Mirion a new European dosimetry service center in Arnhem, The Netherlands and fosters the availability of smarter, advanced dosimetry products and services in Europe. This includes the Mirion Instadose® dosimeter which increases compliance, is cost efficient and improves the radiation safety culture by providing on-demand dose insights.\n\"The acquisition of NRG's dosimetry business is part of Mirion's global strategy to keep those who work in and around radiation safer by expanding the availability of advanced radiation monitoring solutions, expertise and support services,\" said Lou Biacchi, President of the Mirion Dosimetry Services Division. \"By combining the expertise of NRG's dosimetry team with Mirion's innovative Instadose® platform we are allowing our European partners access to smarter radiation monitoring solutions and local expertise.\"\n\"The traditional method of monitoring occupationally exposed staff is a time intensive process that offers delayed results, which are often received too late to proactively act upon,\" said Bart Leclou, Vice-President of Worldwide Sales and Marketing for the Mirion Dosimetry Services Division. \"But this is no longer the best way. Today, radiation exposure information needs to be available on-demand to better safeguard staff and mitigate exposure risks. Our acquisition of NRG's dosimetry business will allow us to better protect staff, particularly in the healthcare industry where long-term radiation exposure risks are most prevalent.\"\nMirion offers the Instadose® platform, a SMARTER personal dosimeter technology that eliminates the need to collect and return badges—which delays processing—by providing on-demand exposure data and cumulative dose insights with instant online access to dose information. The company also offers robust online radiation monitoring dosimetry management capabilities—enabling instant access to current and historical dose data along with the ability to make account, location, device, and wearer changes online within minutes.\n\"We are excited about the acquisition by Mirion because it affords us an opportunity to educate more people about new innovative technologies and services to help protect employees around the world from radiation exposure,\" said Tom Grimbergen, manager of NRG's individual monitoring team. \"When you look at the landscape of radiation monitoring by personal dosimetry, Mirion leads the industry in innovative technologies that represent the future of radiation monitoring to safeguard employees.\"\nAbout Mirion Technologies | Dosimetry Services Division\nThe Mirion Dosimetry Services Division is a global provider of radiation monitoring services and dosimetry solutions for a wide range of applications. Headquartered in Irvine, California-USA, Mirion Dosimetry Services Division is part of Mirion Technologies, Inc., a portfolio company of Charterhouse Capital Partners LLP. For more information, please visit: www.mirion.com.\nNRG is an internationally operating nuclear service provider organized as a general partnership between the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) and the ECN Nuclear Foundation. Located in Arnhem, The Netherlands, the NRG dosimetry business manages the personal dosimetry of many thousands of workers who are exposed to radiation sources in their work. For more information visit: www.nrg.eu.\nSOURCE Mirion Technologies\nReleased November 1, 2018", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.newberryobserver.com/news/20994/sceg-files-formal-request-with-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-to-withdraw-cols-for-vcs-units-2-3", "date": "2018-09-20T10:58:53Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-39/segments/1537267156460.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20180920101233-20180920121633-00262.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.946455180644989, "token_count": 304, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-39", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-39__0__71779719", "lang": "en", "text": "CAYCE — South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G), principal subsidiary of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) (NYSE:SCG), has filed a formal request with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to withdraw the combined operating licenses (COLs) for VC Summer Station Units 2 and 3.\nThis week’s notification follows the July 31, 2017 NRC notification that the company stopped construction activities on the VCS Units 2 and 3 site.\n“This notification is consistent with our plans for abandonment and helps to ensure we qualify for a tax deduction in 2017 so that we can capture approximately $2 billion for our customers to offset the costs of the new nuclear project,” said incoming SCANA CFO Iris Griffin.\nIn its notification to the NRC, SCE&G states that it has irrevocably abandoned its interests in the VCS Units 2 and 3. All of its completion and preservation activities have ceased. Work is limited to only those actions required to place the site in a safe condition, terminate construction and close active permits.\nSCE&G has offered to cede its abandoned interest in the VCS Units 2 and 3 project to Santee Cooper, for no consideration. If, prior to the NRC approval of this request to withdraw the COLs, Santee Cooper chooses to seek to become the sole licensee for the project, SCE&G will support an application to the NRC to transfer the licenses to Santee Cooper.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://old.iranpress.com/europe-i151259-iran_not_tolerate_iaea_disregarding_agreement_envoy", "date": "2020-11-27T07:39:29Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-50/segments/1606141191511.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20201127073750-20201127103750-00061.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9430438876152039, "token_count": 232, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-50__0__33670761", "lang": "en", "text": "Iran not tolerate IAEA disregarding agreement: envoy\nIran's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the international organizations in Vienna said his country does not tolerate IAEA's violation of the agreements reached.\nIran Press/ Europe: Stressing Iran's goodwill in its interaction with IAEA's new director-general, Kazem Gharibabadi noted that in case the agency tends to violate, under any pretexts, the mutual understandings already made, it has, in fact, targeted Iran's cooperation with IAEA.\nGharibabadi referred to the recent trip of IAEA's director to Iran to have direct contacts with the relevant authorities so that he would gain insight into the nuclear activities of Iran.\nThe Islamic Republic of Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a joint statement on Wednesday at the end of Rafael Grossi's two-day visit to Tehran and holding talks with Iranian officials.\n\"The issuance of a joint statement, which is the result of hard and intensive negotiations with the IAEA Board\", indicates the success of the interaction, Iran's Ambassador to IAEA said.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.iqc.ca/laboratories/lab.php?id=4", "date": "2015-01-27T22:57:45Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2015-06/segments/1422122039674.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20150124175359-00081-ip-10-180-212-252.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8114508986473083, "token_count": 327, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2015-06", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2015-06__0__184957656", "lang": "en", "text": "Liquid State Laboratory - C2 170\n- 700 MHz Bruker Avance 6-channel NMR system with dual inverse cryoprobe, several other commercial probes. We just completed a 12-spin benchmark on this spectrometer.\n- 600 MHz Bruker Avance NMR system. Used for liquid-state QIP work (Laflamme) and liquid/solid chemistry studies (Power). HCN, HF, 2.5mm MAS commercial probes.\n- The laboratory also houses all of the test equipment and tools necessary to design, construct, troubleshoot and repair RF instruments. We have use of Prof. Bill Power's chemistry laboratory for sample preparation. The UW Physics Department maintains a well run machine shop for the students and researchers. We have access to X-ray crystallography and ESR facilities in the UW Chemistry Department for solids sample characterization.\nSolid State Laboratory - RAC 1124\n- 300 MHz (wide-bore) Bruker Avance 6-channel NMR spectrometer with home-built probes for solid state NMR QIP. Primarily used for single crystal QIP studies\n- 200 MHz (wide-bore) Bruker Avance 6-channel NMR spectrometer with home-built probes for solid state NMR QIP. Magnet charged to 100 MHz for low-temperature dynamic nuclear polarization experiments. 0 -> 30 MHz variable field magnet for future studies of coherent hyperfine dynamics/optical magnetic resonance. Two Oxford continuous flow helium cryostat for low- temperature experiments\nFacility ManagerMichael Ditty\nPost Doctoral Fellows", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://kentwoodphotography.photoshelter.com/image/I0000NZj1HhoLhx4", "date": "2018-07-23T00:03:51Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-30/segments/1531676594675.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20180722233159-20180723013159-00474.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9553894400596619, "token_count": 361, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-30", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-30__0__168525661", "lang": "en", "text": "Los Alamos, NM, 2 July 2011: Rain! Steve Remde, chief cook at The Los Alamos Elks Lodge 2083 smiles in relief as rain pelts him and Los Alamos helping fire fighters in their struggle to contain the Las Conchas Forest Fire. The Los Alamos Elks have been open 24/7 feeding anyone and everyone since the fire began last Sunday serving upwards of 2500 meals a day.\nAt 7:30 pm, last night, Los Alamos National Laboratory downgraded the \"State of Emergency\" to a \"State of Recovery\". The Laboratory is safe and the town has been spared from the Las Conchas forest fire. Spot fires continue to burn in the Jemez mountains around Los Alamos and the fire still rages to the north. All concerned await news as to when residents will be allowed to return from the mandatory evacuation order given at 1:45 pm last Monday, June 27.\nThe Las Conchas forest fire had threatened the town of Los Alamos and Los Alamos National Laboratory, America's foremost nuclear research facility. 12,000 residents were evacuated and the National Laboratory was closed. The potential of LANL hazard waste becoming airborne if incinerated by the fire was avoided and air sampling has proven that the greatest health hazard is from the smoke itself.\nA downed tree and power line along with extreme drought conditions are blamed for the origin of this fast moving and devastating fire. Around 1:00 pm Sunday, June 26, 2011 an aspen tree was blown down by intense winds onto a power line which ignited the tree, broke the power line and ignited the surrounding forest. The fire started roughly 12 miles southwest of Los Alamos near the Las Conchas trailhead on private property near highway marker 35 on State Road 4.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://investslovenia.org/news-and-media/business-news/nek-produced-half-of-slovenias-electricity-in2011-3933", "date": "2020-01-27T11:18:53Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00020.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9676865339279175, "token_count": 248, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-05", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-05__0__252171745", "lang": "en", "text": "Krsko, 23 December (STA) - The Krsko Nuclear Power Plant, NEK, will produce almost 6,000 kWh of electricity in 2011, more or less a half of Slovenia's electricity, NEK chairman Stane Rozman told the press on Friday. He added that apart from the temporary shut down due to a fault on the electricity grid in March the power plant functioned well throughout the year.\nWhile the plant produced so much electricity because no renovations were scheduled for this year, NEK is to undergo a renovation in 2012, when the final decision whether the plant will continue operating until 2043 will also be made, Rozman said.\nHe moreover pointed to the stress tests that were performed on European nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident, stressing that NEK's results were good and will be published by the end of the next year.\nRozman noted that the renovation, which is to start in spring, will include several projects for boosting the plant's safety, including the renewal of NEK's the anti-flood barriers.\nIn 2012, NEK will also carry out a number of technological modernisations in order to ensure a continued safe functioning of the plant, he added.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://stella-pharma.co.jp/en/about-bnct", "date": "2021-03-08T00:57:45Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-10/segments/1614178381230.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20210307231028-20210308021028-00171.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9259487390518188, "token_count": 274, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-10__0__209038488", "lang": "en", "text": "What is Boron Neutron Capture Therapy?\nBNCT is a form of radiotherapy that targets cancer cells using biochemical methods. One of the constituents of natural boron, known as boron-10 (or 10B), is irradiated with low-energy thermal neutrons, yielding high linear energy transfer alpha particles and recoiling lithium-7 (or 7Li) nuclei. These biochemical interactions are known as nuclear capture and fission reactions.\nThe advantages of BNCT\n1. Selective cancer cell destruction\nTumor cells absorb much more 10B boron than normal cells. For example, malignant brain cells may take in seven times as much 10B as normal cells. As a result, the fission reaction process destroys only cancer cells.\n2. Complete in a single session\nUnlike other methods, such as proton and heavy-ion radiotherapies, BNCT requires only one or two radiation sessions, reducing hospital visits and improving the quality of life of patients. BNCT can also be used for recurring cancer, even in patients who have undergone X-ray treatment.\n3. Highly effective with few side effects\nAlpha particles and lithium-7 nuclei act only at short range (5–9 micrometers), selectively killing tumors without significant damage to adjacent normal tissue.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://conference.euroismar2019.org/event/1/contributions/113/", "date": "2022-07-01T01:28:39Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-27/segments/1656103917192.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20220701004112-20220701034112-00009.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9246158003807068, "token_count": 278, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-27", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-27__0__278279435", "lang": "en", "text": "Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), one of the most powerful analytical techniques in chemistry and life science, is typically limited to macroscopic volumes due to its inherent low sensitivity. This excludes NMR spectroscopy from analysis of microscopic samples sizes such as in single-cell biology or in microfluidic applications. In recent years, it has been shown that NMR signals can be detected from nano- to microscale volumes by a new sensor class – quantum sensors based on defects in the diamond lattice - the nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center. However, these experiments were limited by a low spectral resolution and to pure samples with high viscosity, which precludes practical applications in chemistry. Here, I will present our recent results where we could overcome these basic problems. First, I will describe how NV-centers can be used to detect NMR signals from picoliter sample volumes on the surface of the diamond chip with high spectral resolution (~1 Hz). Second, I will discuss our newest results on improving the molecular sensitivity of this approach by hyperpolarizing nuclear sample spins. This technique combines microscopic-scale NV-NMR with a fully integrated Overhauser dynamic nuclear polarization scheme which reaches femtomole sensitivity. I will provide an overview of this rapidly developing technology and discuss potential applications, such as single cell metabolomics.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://baglietto.mit.edu/publications", "date": "2023-09-30T06:33:00Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510603.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20230930050118-20230930080118-00785.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.7649457454681396, "token_count": 310, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__318788956", "lang": "en", "text": "Extending the applicability of RANS turbulence closures to the simulation of transitional flow around hydrofoils at low Reynolds number.. 2018.\nA more fundamental wall lubrication force from turbulent dispersion regularization for multiphase CFD applications. International Journal of Multiphase Flow. 98. 2018.\nSTRUCTure-based URANS simulations of thermal mixing in T-junctions. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 340. 2018.\nAssessment of a Simplified Set of Momentum Closure Relations for Low Volume Fraction Regimes in STAR-CCM+ and OpenFOAM. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 110. 2017.\nA Methodology for Characterizing Representativeness in Power Plant Performance Indicator Measurements with CFD Simulations. NURETH-16.. 2015.\nModeling of the groundwater transport around a deep borehole nuclear waste repository. Proceedings of NURETH-16.. 2015.\nA Structure-Based Approach for Topological Resolution of Coherent Turblence: Overview and Demonstration. NURETH-16.. 2015.\nStructure-Based Resolution of Turbulence for Sodium Fast Reactor Thermal Striping Applications. NURETH-16.. 2015.\nTransient modeling of host rock for a deep borehole nuclear waste repository. Nuclear Science and Engineering. M.S.. 2015.\nTowards the Development and Application of Borehole Virtual Reality Simulation Tools. Proceedings of ANS Winter Meeting. :367-369.. 2013.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://calmun.org/IAEA.html", "date": "2018-07-23T05:23:48Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-30/segments/1531676594954.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20180723051723-20180723071723-00501.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9330023527145386, "token_count": 169, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-30", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-30__0__250373718", "lang": "en", "text": "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons. The IAEA was established as an autonomous organisation on 29 July 1957. Though established independently of the United Nations through its own international treaty, the IAEA Statute, the IAEA reports to both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. The IAEA serves as an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology and nuclear power worldwide. The programs of the IAEA encourage the development of the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, science and technology, provide international safeguards against misuse of nuclear technology and nuclear materials, and promote nuclear safety (including radiation protection) and nuclear security standards and their implementation.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://heforojemyji.fredjaillet.com/nuclear-legacy-of-the-former-soviet-union-book-14400ij.php", "date": "2021-09-22T05:07:22Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-39/segments/1631780057329.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20210922041825-20210922071825-00313.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9464753866195679, "token_count": 2736, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-39", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-39__0__63654009", "lang": "en", "text": "Written in EnglishRead online\nIncludes bibliographical references.\n|Statement||Vladimir Babak, Guy Degany.|\n|Series||Research paper ;, 76, Research paper (Merkaz le-ḥeḳer Beri. ha-M. u-Mizraḥ Eropah ʻa. sh. Marg\"ori Meiroḳ) ;, no. 76.|\n|LC Classifications||TK9085 .B33 1994|\n|The Physical Object|\n|Pagination||42 p. ;|\n|Number of Pages||42|\n|LC Control Number||95149649|\nDownload nuclear legacy of the former Soviet Union\nThe Radiation Legacy of the Soviet Nuclear Complex: An Analytical Overview [Egorov, Nikolai N., Novikov, Vladimir M., Parker, Frank L., Popov, Victor K.] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Radiation Legacy of the Soviet Nuclear Complex: An Analytical Overview.\nThe breakup of the Soviet Union left a cold war nuclear legacy consisting of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and a sprawling infrastructure for their production and maintenance. This book examines the fate of this vast nuclear weapon complex and the unprecedented non-proliferation challenges associated with the breakup of a nuclear weapon state.\nTHE NUCLEAR LEGACY OF THE SOVIET UNION. Niall Michelsen. Roosevelt University. Search for more papers by this author. Niall Michelsen. Ukraine has been obstinate but even it has apparently concluded that its nuclear inheritance is too expensive to maintain, not a sufficient deterrent, and an impediment to better relations with the West.\nAuthor: Niall Michelsen. This book tells the story of half a century of nuclear waste management activities and contamination incidents in the former Soviet Union (FSU). It paints a striking picture of the USSR and now FSU nuclear waste management activities, tracing the evolution of what is likely the world's largest nuclear waste management by: During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union amassed nuclear arsenals containing the explosive power of one million Hiroshimas.\nThe Soviet Union secretly plotted to create the “Dead Hand,” a system designed to launch an automatic retaliatory nuclear strike on the United States, and developed a fearsome biological warfare machine.\nRensselaer Lee is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and President of Global Advisory Services. For a detailed discussion of nuclear smuggling, see his book Smuggling Armageddon: The Nuclear Black Market in the Former Soviet Union.\nBuy The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union by Vladimir Babak, Guy Degany (ISBN:) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible : Vladimir Babak, Guy Degany.\nThis book describes the author’s academic journey from an undergraduate in London to his current research on Ukraine and Belarus as a History professor in Alberta, Canada. It highlights the dramatic changes of the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods, his travel stories, experiences, and the Stalinist legacy in both countries.\nThe Soviet Union and the United States stayed far apart during the next three decades of superpower conflict and the nuclear and missile arms race.\nBeginning in the early s, the Soviet regime proclaimed a policy of détente and sought increased economic cooperation and disarmament negotiations with the West. During 70 years of communist rule, the former Soviet Union inflicted wide-spread environmental damage throughout Russia and the Soviet Republics in its quest for military and economic power.\nNow that the USSR is gone, the newly independent states are forced to deal with this legacy of destruction in an effort to rebuild their economies. For forty years the Soviet-American nuclear arms race dominated world politics, yet the Soviet nuclear establishment was shrouded in secrecy.\nNow that the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union has collapsed, it is possible to answer questions that have intrigued policymakers and the public for years.\nHow did the Soviet Union build its atomic and hydrogen bombs. The Semipalatinsk Test Site (STS or Semipalatinsk), also known as \"The Polygon\", was the primary testing venue for the Soviet Union's nuclear is located on the steppe in northeast Kazakhstan (then the Kazakh SSR), south of the valley of the Irtysh scientific buildings for the test site were located around km (93 mi) west of the town of Semipalatinsk (later renamed.\nThe breakup of the Soviet Union left a cold war nuclear legacy consisting of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and a sprawling infrastructure for their production and maintenance. This book examines the fate of this vast nuclear weapon complex and the unprecedented non-proliferation challenges associated with the breakup of a nuclear weapon Format: Capa Comum.\nA well-written account of the final days (or months) of the Soviet Union, accounting for its collapse by the culmination of nationalist movements and power struggles, especially after the August Coup.\nPlokhy uses the recently declassified documents/ records of conversations between key players in the US, Soviet Union, and republic leaders/5(90). Analysis: The Soviet nuclear legacy Areas of concern for security experts and environmentalists By BBC News Online's Johanna Numminen.\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia and its former Soviet neighbours were left to deal with the legacy of the Soviet nuclear programme. Only several years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear security issues are again at the forefront of international concern.\nThis timely collection addresses issues of cleanup at Chernobyl (Chornobyl) and other sites of nuclear disasters, nuclear smuggling, safety concerns in the Ukrainian and Russian nuclear industries, and Ukraine's negotiations with Russia and the West regarding.\nIn his new book, Doomed to Cooperate that allowed the two former superpower enemies to “get past the sensitivity barriers” and make “the world a safer place.” Since the end of the Cold War, no significant nuclear event has occurred as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its nuclear.\nThe Soviet Union's nuclear legacy also affects the economic health of Russia and the former Soviet Republics. For example, many regional leaders have been reluctant to shut down aging Soviet reactors because of the expense of building new plants that run on other kinds of fuel, such as natural gas.\nIn the book, the former U.S. President discusses his tenure in length, while also highlighting several major events that took place while he was commander-in-chief.\nAmong the topics discussed in the book was Iran and their ongoing feuds with. The Legacy of Chernobyl: Book Mark: The Soviet Union tried to keep the disaster at Chernobyl a secret, but as the toxic plume moved across Europe, the magnitude of this radioactive volcano became.\nThe USSR told the people of Sarzhal village in the Polygon to cheer when it dropped nuclear bombs on their lands.\nAfter pounding it with hundreds of bombs for 42 years, cancer, birth defects, chronic diseases are widespread among the locals. It draws on information from hundreds of literature sources as well as the author`s first-hand knowledge of nuclear waste related events in Russia.\nIt represents the largest compilation ever on nuclear waste management practices, past and present, in the former Soviet Union.\nThe Nuclear Posture Review sought to devalue the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy by no longer planning, sizing, and sustaining U.S.\nnuclear forces “as though Russia presented merely a smaller version of the threat posed by the former Soviet Union.” After the Cold War, Congress cancelled even modest.\nThe collapse of the former Soviet Union presented policy-makers with three unique nuclear challenges. The first was to address the fact that Soviet strategic nuclear weapons — principally its nuclear-armed ICBMs — were located in four of the Soviet successor states, raising the prospect that the demise of the Soviet Union would result in the.\nFormer Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev made the no-first-use pledge at the United Nations in June,at a time when the Soviet Union was believed to have an overwhelming advantage over the.\nSince the founding of the National Security Archive, nuclear crises, nuclear proliferation, and the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. policy have been central to its FOIA requesting. The overwhelming importance of the problem of nuclear weapons has posed an existential threat since the early years of the Cold War and has made this an essential focus.\n– Edwin Heathcote, in “Best Books of ,” Financial Times. “In Chernobyl: A Stalkers’ Guide, Darmon Richter—an expert in Soviet architecture who has spent years photographing and gathering information about the buildings and monuments of the former USSR—tells the amazing story of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone from the inside.\nFrom Vilnius to Vladivostok, a beleaguered environment bears witness to a legacy of irresponsibility: the rivers of the former U.S.S.R. are open sewers of human and chemical waste; the Aral sea is drying up; in many Soviet cities the air is so polluted that it puts millions at risk of respiratory diseases.\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia and its former Soviet neighbours were left to deal with the legacy of the Soviet nuclear programme. From warheads and decaying submarines to radioactive lakes, a complete map of the area’s radiation hazards has not yet been drawn.\nChernobyl is a nuclear power plant in Ukraine that was the site of the worst nuclear accident in history when a routine test went horribly wrong on Ap It had entered the nuclear age.\nWithin a few years, the United States, the former Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China developed the much more destructive hydrogen bomb. The Cold War —the rivalry between Communist and non-Communist nations— spurred on the development of superior nuclear weapons and delivery systems.\nThe Soviet Union's nuclear program was once one of the largest in the world. But from Chernobyl to the empire's former atomic bomb site in Kazakhstan, the legacy of that effort still affects tens of thousands of people in the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine.\nOne of the legacies of the Soviet Union in Central Asia is the emphasis by the powers-that-be on a narrative of national unity and ethnic harmony. In a new book, a former U.S. Defense. Get this from a library. Nuclear energy safety challenges in the former Soviet Union: a consensus report of the CSIS Congressional Study Group and Task Force.\n[James R Schlesinger; Robert E Ebel; Sam Nunn; CSIS Congressional Study Group and Task Force.]. The Soviet Union's Deadly Legacy in the Arctic Ap By Frank H. Murkowski Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R) of Alaska is vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.\nBut very soon, three of four countries namely Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, decided to be non-nuclear states. And all former Soviet nuclear forces were partially dismantled or concentrated on that territory of Russia.\nThe second part of Russian heritage which Russia received from the Soviet Union was the background of Russia's nuclear strategy. The Soviet Union Atomic weapons.\nIn the decade before World War II, Soviet physicists were actively engaged in nuclear and atomic they had established that, once uranium has been fissioned, each nucleus emits neutrons and can therefore, at least in theory, begin a chain following year, physicists concluded that such a chain reaction could be ignited in either.\nOn Augthe Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb, sending a mushroom cloud high above northern Kazakhstan and a shadow of fear over the rest of the world. The nuclear. The Polygon in the former Soviet closed city Semipalatinsk (known today as Semey) was the primary nuclear test site of the Soviet Union.\nIn total, nuclear. In recent years, President Putin has repeatedly stated his will to protect the legacy of the Soviet Union’s contribution to WWII, expressing his desire to fight attempts to “distort history.” On February 23 - a Russian holiday commemorating those who served in the country’s armed forces - the President noted that the Red Army helped.\nThe End of the Soviet Union Decem Gorbachev’s Nuclear Initiative of January and the Road to Reykjavik Octo Unilateral U.S. nuclear pullback in matched by rapid Soviet cuts Septem PHOTOS FROM THE BOOK. Former United States military analyst offers his recollections and analysis of a cache of secret documents related to the US nuclear arsenal.\nThe book contains chilling details about narrowly-avoided disasters, flawed launch protocols, and philosophies and strategies regarding the true purpose of the US nuclear arsenal.The post-Soviet states, also known as the former Soviet Union, the former Soviet Republics and in Russia as the near abroad (Russian: бли́жнее зарубе́жье, romanized: blizhneye zarubezhye), are the 15 sovereign states that emerged and re-emerged from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics following its breakup inwith Russia being the primary de facto internationally.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://turkishminute.com/2017/09/14/russias-rosatom-aims-to-start-building-turkish-nuclear-plant-by-end-of-march/", "date": "2023-10-03T01:30:30Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233511023.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20231002232712-20231003022712-00115.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9566186666488647, "token_count": 409, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__101437033", "lang": "en", "text": "Russian state nuclear firm Rosatom announced on Thursday that it aims to start construction of the Akkuyu nuclear plant in Turkey by the end of March next year.\nSpeaking with Reuters on Thursday, Kirill Komarov, Rosatom’s first deputy chief executive for corporate development and international business, said, “We hope to get a Turkish nuclear operating license at the beginning of next year and start with the first concrete by the end of Q1.”\nKomarov said Rosatom was on course to sell 49 percent in the $20 billion Akkuyu nuclear plant project to a Turkish consortium by yearend and that there was strong support from Turkish authorities to make the project happen.\nIn June Turkey’s Energy Market Regulatory Agency (EPDK) approved Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) building the $20 billion Akkuyu nuclear power plant in southern Turkey.\nThe project to construct four nuclear reactors has repeatedly run into delays, including being briefly halted after Turkey downed a Russian jet near the Syrian border in November 2015. Ties have since normalized between the two countries and work on the plant has resumed.\nIt is now expected to be completed by 2023 and should meet 6-7 percent of Turkey’s electricity demand once it is fully operational, the energy watchdog EPDK said in a statement.\nThe EPDK said it had given Rosatom’s project company Akkuyu Nukleer AS a 49-year production license.\nDependent on imports for almost all of its energy, Turkey has embarked on an ambitious nuclear program, commissioning Rosatom in 2013 to build the four 1,200 megawatt (MW) reactors.\nWith Turkey’s energy imports costing about $50 billion annually and its energy demand among the fastest growing in Europe, Ankara wants at least 5 percent of its electricity generation to come from nuclear energy in under a decade, cutting dependency on natural gas largely bought from Russia.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://ilgs.ha3.in.net/2010-honda-accord-lx-for-sale.html", "date": "2020-04-02T00:38:39Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-16/segments/1585370506477.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200401223807-20200402013807-00393.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9273872971534729, "token_count": 346, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-16", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-16__0__163151000", "lang": "en", "text": "Apr 29, 2016 · What is ionizing radiation? Ionizing radiation is a type of energy released by atoms that travels in the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma or X-rays) or particles (neutrons, beta or alpha). The spontaneous disintegration of atoms is called radioactivity, and the excess energy emitted is a form of ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation (ionising radiation) is radiation that carries enough energy to detach electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at high speeds (usually greater than 1% of the speed of light), May 24, 2019 · ‘Ionizing radiation’ is the given term for any wave or particle with the potential to cause harm to our bodies. They are ionizing because they possess high enough energy to ‘kick’ electrons out of other atoms and molecules, forming ions. We take a look at the forms of ionizing radiation below. Ionizing Radiation Definition. The term radiation means to give off energy as waves or particles. Ionizing radiation gives off energy by knocking electrons off atoms, which causes the atoms to have a charge. Another term for a charged particle is an ion. The charges on the atomic particles make ionizing radiation unstable and reactive. Ionizing radiation has so much energy it can knock electrons out of atoms, a process known as ionization. Ionizing radiation can affect the atoms in living things, so it poses a health risk by damaging tissue and DNA in genes. Ionizing radiation comes from x-ray machines, cosmic particles from outer space and radioactive elements. Radioactive elements emit ionizing radiation as their atoms undergo radioactive decay.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://updatesfinance.com/uranium-energy-makes-high-grade-discovery-at-saskatchewan-project-nyseuec/", "date": "2022-12-01T00:07:09Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-49/segments/1669446710777.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20221130225142-20221201015142-00598.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9120622873306274, "token_count": 238, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-49", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-49__0__148101575", "lang": "en", "text": "Uranium Energy Corp. (NYSE:UEC) +4.4% in Tuesday’s trading after announcing a discovery of high-grade uranium at the Christie Lake project in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin.\nUranium Energy (UEC) said the discovery hole encountered high-grade mineralization that averaged 7.8% uranium oxide over 9.1 meters and included a subinterval of 26.1% eU3O8 over 2.3 meters.\nA follow-up hole intersected the unconformity 13 meters to the northeast and intersected 68.7% eU3O8 over 2.1 meters, the highest-grade mineralized intersection ever encountered on the Christie Lake property, the uranium producer said.\nSeven holes have been drilled into a new discovery, all of them containing uranium mineralization at or near the unconformity.\nThe Christie Lake intersections represent some of the largest and highest-grade drill intersections of uranium reported globally in 2022, the company said.\nChristie Lake is one of 29 projects included in Uranium Emergy’s (UEC) recent acquisition of UEX Corp.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://indico.phy.anl.gov/event/25/", "date": "2023-11-30T21:11:46Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100232.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20231130193829-20231130223829-00554.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8916929364204407, "token_count": 269, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__221337520", "lang": "en", "text": "The Physics Division and the University of Chicago, in coordination with the Schiffer family, will host a Symposium in honor of John Schiffer. John Schiffer’s career at Argonne spanned some 60+ years, during which he made outstanding and internationally acclaimed contributions to nuclear physics research. Through roles on advisory committees, both at the highest level nationally and internationally, he played a significant role in charting the path of nuclear physics research over the last half-century, exploring many varied topics in nuclear physics and beyond. In John’s spirit, the symposium is to be not just a retrospective but also forward-looking, exploring the future of nuclear science within John’s broad horizons.\nThe Symposium will be held in the Auditorium of the Physics Division (building 203) on July 10-11, 2023. A reception will be held at the Argonne Guest House on the evening of July 9, 2023.\nBirger Back, Argonne\nDon Geesaman (co-chair), Argonne\nWalter Henning, Argonne\nBen Kay (co-chair), Argonne\nPeter Littlewood, University of Chicago\nJerry Nolen, Argonne\nErnst Rehm, Argonne\nBob Wiringa, Argonne\nRobin Harris (ANL)", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://aquaformrus.ru/radiometric-dating-ppt-12231.html", "date": "2018-12-15T12:21:05Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-51/segments/1544376826856.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20181215105142-20181215131142-00486.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9523302316665649, "token_count": 328, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-51", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-51__0__263804109", "lang": "en", "text": "Radiometric dating ppt\nThe age of the planet, though, was important to Charles Darwin and other evolutionary theorists: The biological evidence they were collecting showed that nature needed vastly more time than previously thought to sculpt the world.\nA breakthrough came with the discovery of radioactivity at the beginning of the 1900s.\nFree 5-day trial Radiometric dating is used to estimate the age of rocks and other objects based on the fixed decay rate of radioactive isotopes.\nLearn about half-life and how it is used in different dating methods, such as uranium-lead dating and radiocarbon dating, in this video lesson. As we age, our hair turns gray, our skin wrinkles and our gait slows.\nBefore then, the Bible had provided the only estimate for the age of the world: about 6,000 years, with Genesis as the history book.\nHutton's theories were short on evidence at first, but by 1830 most scientists concurred that Noah's ark was more allegory than reality as they documented geological layering.\nBy measuring the ratio of lead to uranium in a rock sample, its age can be determined.Certain isotopes are unstable and undergo a process of radioactive decay, slowly and steadily transforming, molecule by molecule, into a different isotope.This rate of decay is constant for a given isotope, and the time it takes for one-half of a particular isotope to decay is its radioactive half-life.Scientists discovered that rocks could be timepieces -- literally.Many chemical elements in rock exist in a number of slightly different forms, known as isotopes.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.phindia.com/Books/Author/OTc4ODEyMDM1MjUyMA", "date": "2023-09-28T03:44:33Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510358.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20230928031105-20230928061105-00174.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9583229422569275, "token_count": 206, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__259411862", "lang": "en", "text": "HARI M. AGRAWAL, PhD, is Professor and Head of the Department of Physics at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. He received his doctorate in Experimental Nuclear Physics from AMU, Aligarh in 1979. He has three decades of experience in teaching nuclear physics courses and has more than hundred publications in international journals to his credit. Dr. Agrawal’s current research activities are in the fields of nuclear physics and material science. He has worked at various prestigious national/international institutes such as IIT Kanpur, NPD (BARC, Mumbai), State University–New York, Albany (USA), Department of Nuclear Engineering–University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (USA) and GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht (Germany) as visiting scientist. Professor Agrawal has also been to CERN (Geneva), BNL (USA), ICTP (Italy) and IAEA (Austria) on academic missions.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.miss-tiguidou.com/fundamentals-online-of-nuclear-discount-science-and-engineering-online-sale/", "date": "2021-11-29T14:42:40Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-49/segments/1637964358774.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20211129134323-20211129164323-00639.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9434775710105896, "token_count": 681, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-49", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-49__0__25249703", "lang": "en", "text": "Fundamentals of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Third Edition, presents the nuclear science concepts needed to understand and quantify the whole range of nuclear phenomena. Noted for its accessible level and approach, the Third Edition of this long-time bestselling textbook provides overviews of nuclear physics, nuclear power, medicine, propulsion, and radiation detection. Its flexible organization allows for use with Nuclear Engineering majors and those in other disciplines. The Third Edition features updated coverage of the newest nuclear reactor designs, fusion reactors, radiation health risks, and expanded discussion of basic reactor physics with added examples. A complete Solutions Manual and figure slides for classroom projection are available for instructors adopting the text.\n\"This is a comprehensive introduction to nuclear science and engineering. It’s an ideal book for undergraduate students as a first course in nuclear engineering. The book is well written and the basics are well described for the students. The chapter problems are appropriate to the subject matter and give students good practice examples. This is a really good book for an introductory course on Nuclear Science and Engineering.\"\n― Chaitanya Deo, Georgia Institute of Technology\n\"The biggest application of nuclear technology is the production of electricity with fission process, one commonly referred as nuclear engineering, which has become a cross-cutting disciplinary by itself. However, nuclear science covers a much broader areas and applications that is beyond the convention domain of nuclear engineering. There are very few books could cover all these topics so well such as this book that starts with fundamental atomic introduction and extends to almost all aspect of nuclear science and engineering topics. Highly recommended as introductory level book to college students and professionals.\"\n―L. Raymond Cao, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA\n\"I have used the earlier editions of this book for a number of years and I plan to continue to use it, in the newer edition, this year and beyond.\nI have found this text to be the best for a solid sophomore/junior level nuclear engineering introductory course. In fact, there is much more content than can be covered in a semester, so I find it to be a good text to have on the shelf as a general reference.\"\n―Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, Idaho State University, USA\nJ. Kenneth Shultis is a professor of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas, where he holds the Black and Veatch Distinguished Professorship. Dr. Shultis received his BASC degree from the University of Toronto, and his MS and PhD degrees in Nuclear Science and Engineering from the University of Michigan. Prior to joining the faculty at Kansas State University he spent a year at the Mathematics Institute of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. He is the author of five books in the areas of radiation protection and nuclear science and engineering, a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society, and recipient of the ASC’s Rockwell Lifetime Achievement Award.\nRichard E. Faw is an Emeritus Professor in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering department, Kansas State University, where he taught from 1962 to 2000. He received his PhD, in Chemical Engineering, from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Faw currently resides in North Carolina. He is also a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society, and recipient of their Rockwell Lifetime Achievement Award for the work he and Dr. Shultis have done in the field of radiation shielding.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://awakeningproject.ca/2020/10/06/75-years-canada-nuclear-weapons-and-the-un-ban-treaty/", "date": "2023-12-10T17:48:10Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679102612.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20231210155147-20231210185147-00635.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9313998222351074, "token_count": 892, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__222735462", "lang": "en", "text": "Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day 75th Anniversary Commemoration with Setsuko Thurlow & Friends\nThursday, August 6, 2020 at 7:00 PM – 8:30 PM EDT\nby Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition (Toronto)\nOn August 6th, 1945, 13-year old Setsuko Thurlow gathered with 30 classmates near the centre of Hiroshima, where she had been drafted into the student Mobilization Program. She recalls: “At 8:15 a.m., I saw a bluish-white flash like a magnesium flare outside the window. I remember the sensation of floating in the air. As I regained consciousness in the total silence and darkness, I realized I was pinned in the ruins of the collapsed building… Gradually I began to hear my classmates’ faint cries for help, ‘Mother, help me!’ ‘God, help me!’ Then suddenly, I felt hands touching me and loosening the timbers that pinned me. A man’s voice said, ‘Don’t give up! I’m trying to free you! Keep moving! See the light coming through that opening. Crawl toward it and try to get out!’”\nTORONTO: On August 6th at 7pm the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day Coalition invites the public to participate in the 75th Anniversary Commemoration of the Atomic bombings of Japan. The commemoration will focus on 75 years of living with the threat of nuclear war. The 75th commemoration will also focus on the role that Canada played in the Manhattan project. The keynote speaker will be A-bomb survivor Setsuko Nakamura Thurlow, who jointly accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on of the behalf the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) with Beatrice Fihn in 2017. Peace activist and historian Phyllis Creighton will sketch Canada’s role in creating the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, its nuclear industry’s reckless endangering of Dene workers, severely impacting the Indigenous community, Canada’s continued sale of uranium and nuclear reactors enabling more countries to become nuclear armed, and its full commitment to NORAD and NATO, both nuclear alliances relying on nuclear weapons. The event will include music by Grammy-nominated flautist Ron Korb and photos, animation and brief excerpts from documentaries that will show major highlights of the 75-yearlong effort to abolish nuclear weapons. Giving us hope for their eventual elimination is the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now with 39 of the 50 nations needed to sign and ratify it before coming into international law. Thus far, Canada is not a signatory. The co-hosts for the commemoration are Katy McCormick, artist and professor, and Steven Staples, the founder of Public Response.\nRegistration for the online event can be found here. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/75-years-canada-nuclear-weapons-the-un-ban-treaty-tickets-108760389252#listing-organizer\nLittle known to many Canadians, Prime Minister Mackenzie King entered into a partnership with the US and Great Britain in the Manhattan Project’s development of the atomic bombs, including mining, refining, and exporting the uranium necessary for their success. Here in Canada, Dene workers from Great Bear Lake were hired to transport the radioactive uranium in cloth sacks from the mine to barges. They were never warned about radioactivity. Peter Blow’s documentary Village of Widows chronicles how the atomic bomb program impacted that Indigenous community. At the bottom of Great Bear Lake is over a million tons of tailings that will remain radioactive for the next 800,000 years.\nOn August 6th, Little Boy—a single Atomic bomb—demolished the city of Hiroshima, killing 70,000 people, and causing the deaths of 70,000 more by the end of 1945. On August 9th, 1945,Fat Man, a plutonium bomb, devastated Nagasaki, exploding near the largest Catholic cathedral in Asia, killing 70,000 non-combatants. Setting a pattern, US Occupation censorship hid the true impacts of nuclear weapons—still unknown to many today.\nMedia Contact: Katy McCormick firstname.lastname@example.org", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.sclawreview.org/blog/category/enviornmentallaw/", "date": "2017-04-27T18:38:54Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-17/segments/1492917122619.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20170423031202-00525-ip-10-145-167-34.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8914874792098999, "token_count": 184, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2017-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2017-17__0__107436624", "lang": "en", "text": "Court of Appeals Gives DHEC and Chem-Nuclear Ninety Days to Submit Plan for Reducing Nuclear Contamination of Groundwater at Disposal Site\nIn Sierra Club v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmetal Control, the South Carolina Court of Appeals gave the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”) ninety days to submit a plan to bring a nuclear waste disposal facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC (“Chem-Nuclear”) located in Barnwell County into compliance with South Carolina regulations aimed at the prevention of radioactive waste contamination of groundwater at nuclear waste disposal facilities. Sierra Club v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 2012-212791, 2014 WL 3734366, at *21 (S.C. Ct. App. July 30, 2014).", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://phas.ubc.ca/single-neutron-orbits-near-ni-78-spectroscopy-n49-isotope-zn-79", "date": "2021-12-05T02:11:03Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-49/segments/1637964363134.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20211205005314-20211205035314-00475.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.872873067855835, "token_count": 246, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-49", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-49__0__147621260", "lang": "en", "text": "Single-neutron orbits near Ni-78: Spectroscopy of the N=49 isotope Zn-79\nSingle-neutron states in the Z = 30, N = 49 isotope Zn-79 have been populated using the Zn-78(d,p)Zn-79 transfer reaction at REX-ISOLDE, CERN. The experimental setup allowed the combined detection of protons ejected in the reaction, and of y rays emitted by Zn-79. The analysis reveals that the lowest excited states populated in the reaction lie at approximately 1 MeV of excitation, and involve neutron orbits above the N = 50 shell gap. From the analysis of gamma-ray data and of proton angular distributions, characteristic of the amount of angular momentum transferred, a 5/2+ configuration was assigned to a state at 983 keV. Comparison with large-scale-shell-model calculations supports a robust neutron N = 50 shell-closure for Ni-78. These data constitute an important step towards the understanding of the magicity of 78Ni and of the structure of nuclei in the region. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.enginsoft.com/news/world-nuclear-exhibition-2018.html", "date": "2018-11-15T01:57:01Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-47/segments/1542039742338.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20181115013218-20181115035218-00510.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9118668437004089, "token_count": 177, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-47", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-47__0__113294111", "lang": "en", "text": "World Nuclear Exhibition 2018\n26-28 June 2018 - Paris, France\nMeet us at the World Nuclear Exhibition 2018\nWe are pleased to announce our participation to the World Nuclear Exhibition which will be held from 26 to 28 June in Paris Nord Villepinte.\nThis international event is the opportunity to present our engineering knowledge and skills to the global civilian nuclear community.\nWe will take advantage of this three-day event to highlight Flownex, the only thermo-fluid system simulation software to benefit from nuclear certification.\nCome visit us on our booth B170 - Hall 7 for a demonstration!\nIf you would like to take advantage of this event to organize a meeting with our teams, please contact us by email at firstname.lastname@example.org\nLearn more about the World Nuclear Exhibition 2018 www.world-nuclear-exhibition.com", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.japan.go.jp/tomodachi/2016/autumn_2016/speech_of_the_prime_minister.html", "date": "2021-03-08T13:30:53Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-10/segments/1614178375439.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20210308112849-20210308142849-00131.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9556052088737488, "token_count": 908, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-10__0__190590248", "lang": "en", "text": "Remarks on the Attack in Nice, France, Delivered in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, July 15, 2016\nPrime Minister Abe (left) at the Japan–EU joint press conference with European Council President Donald Tusk of the European Union (center) and\nEuropean Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker of the European Union (right).\nIn Nice, a large number of people have become victims of an attack that appears to have been a cruel act of terrorism. I pray for the repose of the souls of those who lost their lives and also extend my sympathy to those who were injured, as well as the families of all those affected. Japan and France share universal values. We express our strong solidarity as France goes through this hardship. The people of Japan stand with the people of France. Despicable acts of terrorism that involve innocent people are absolutely unforgivable. I resolutely condemn them. Just now, at the ASEM Summit Meeting, the nations of Asia and Europe shared their strong indignation and also shared their will to cooperate in rooting out terrorism. Going forward, Japan will work together with the international community in fighting resolutely against despicable terrorist acts while working to put an end to terrorism.\nSpeech at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony, August 6, 2016\nToday, at the opening of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony on the 71st anniversary of the atomic bombing, I reverently express my sincere condolences to the souls of the great number of atomic bomb victims.\nI also extend my heartfelt sympathy to those still suffering even now from the aftereffects of the atomic bomb.\nOn a bright sunny morning 71 years ago, the dropping of a single atomic bomb deprived people said to number well more than 100,000 of their precious lives and reduced Hiroshima to ashes in an instant. In this devastation, even those who narrowly escaped death experienced unbearable hardships.\nHowever, thanks to the tireless efforts of its citizens, Hiroshima achieved reconstruction that transformed the city and admirably established its position as an International City of Peace and Culture.\nThis May, President Barack Obama visited Hiroshima as the first sitting U.S. president to do so. The president of the only nation to have used nuclear weapons witnessed the realities of atomic bombings and, in the presence of atomic bomb survivors, appealed to the world to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons and strongly urged countries holding nuclear weapons to have the courage to pursue such a world.\nI am certain that this, together with the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Hiroshima Declaration, gave great hope to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as people throughout Japan and around the world, who have never given up their hope for “a world free of nuclear weapons.”\nThe disastrous experiences that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 71 years ago must never be repeated.\nIt is the responsibility of us who live in the present to keep making efforts continually towards that end. As the only country to have experienced the horror of nuclear devastation in war, Japan will appeal for the importance of maintaining and strengthening the regime of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) while firmly upholding the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles.” Japan will continue to make various efforts to bring about “a world free of nuclear weapons” by calling for cooperation from both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states and having world leaders and young people become directly acquainted with the tragic reality of the atomic bombings.\nIn a year in which we will take a new step forward, I pledge once again here in Hiroshima that Japan will make its utmost efforts for the realization of eternal world peace.\nJapan has enhanced its comprehensive relief measures covering health and medical services and welfare for atomic bomb survivors on the basis of the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law. We will steadily promote relief measures by continuing to take into proper consideration the circumstances of atomic bomb survivors, who are advancing in years. We are working in particular to conduct screenings for recognizing atomic bomb diseases as quickly as we can so that we can convey the results as soon as possible.\nI wish to conclude with my heartfelt prayers for the repose of the souls of those who fell victim to the atomic bombing here in Hiroshima, where people continue to pray for eternal peace. I also extend my best wishes to the bereaved families and to the atomic bomb survivors and pray sincerely for the inner peace of all the participants today and the people of Hiroshima City.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.ypradio.org/2021-04-13/tensions-over-irans-nuclear-program-escalate", "date": "2023-09-21T22:06:13Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233506045.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20230921210007-20230922000007-00495.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8981419205665588, "token_count": 108, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__122291172", "lang": "en", "text": "Tensions Over Iran's Nuclear Program Escalate\nIran’s foreign minister has warned that the attack on its main nuclear enrichment site affects ongoing negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal.\nWhile not claiming responsibility for the sabotage, Israel is widely believed to have carried it out.\nHost Tonya Mosley speaks with Borzou Daragahi, international correspondent for The Independent.\nThis article was originally published on WBUR.org.\nCopyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://pure.york.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/internal-decay-of-the-10-intruder-state-in-tl-184", "date": "2023-12-05T00:01:29Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100535.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20231204214708-20231205004708-00154.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.892707347869873, "token_count": 203, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__282891002", "lang": "en", "text": "Decay spectroscopy of Tl184 has been performed at the CERN Isotope Separator On-Line (ISOLDE) facility. An excitation energy of 506.1(1) keV and a half-life of 47.1(7) ms of the intruder based (10-) state have been extracted. The internal decay characteristics of this state are determined and discussed, extending the systematics of such states in the even-mass thallium nuclei below neutron midshell at N=104. The retardation factors of the isomeric M2 and E3 transitions are deduced and compared with retardation factors in neighboring odd-mass and even-mass thallium isotopes. The new information is combined with a review of hindered and unhindered α-decay data of Bi187-192 populating levels in daughter nuclei Tl183-188 and supports the interpretation of the intruder character of the (10-) state in Tl184.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://datainnovation.org/2014/11/cern-releases-first-datasets-from-large-hadron-collider-experiments/", "date": "2024-04-23T21:49:01Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296818740.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20240423192952-20240423222952-00232.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.889239490032196, "token_count": 116, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__22977187", "lang": "en", "text": "CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, launched its open data portal today granting free access to datasets from Large Hadron Collider experiments. CERN expects the data to be highly valuable to the research community and to educators. CERN is also providing free, open source software to read, analyze, and visualize the data. The open data portal includes datasets from prominent CERN experiments like the ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb collaborations. All of the data in the open data portal is shared in the public domain, free for sharing and reuse by all.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://thephoeron.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/the-science-of-placeholder-pt-4/", "date": "2018-04-27T01:10:16Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-17/segments/1524125948738.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20180427002118-20180427022118-00216.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9508306980133057, "token_count": 4051, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-17__0__128706182", "lang": "en", "text": "I have always felt that nuclear power was our future, because the power of the atom is undeniable. But power that great needs to be respected, controlled, and very carefully monitored. The current tragedy in Japan is a fair enough example of that, but the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters should have been more than enough.\nFine, everyone knows that fission is dangerous and finicky, but if you treat it with the respect and care it deserves, meltdowns, coolant leaks, and gas explosions can usually be avoided. And again, as the current tragedy in Japan has reminded us, if you build a reactor in an earthquake zone, you should make a point of earthquake-proofing it. And if that cannot be reliably done to protect against the worst-case-scenario, then you should consider an alternative source of power.\nFusion reactors are a much better option, but unfortunately, they are still only experimental. The proposed designs are similar in principle to fission-based power plants, but the primary hold-up is sustaining a thermonuclear reaction long enough to produce a reliable source of energy. The two best approaches to confinement of thermonuclear reactions available today with present technology are magnetic and inertial.\nThe largest magnetic-confinement fusion reactor currently under construction is the ITER tokamak in Cadarache, France. It is worth looking into: iter.org\nThe largest operational inertial-confinement fusion reactor is the NIF. It uses lasers to ignite the tritium-deuterium mix. You can check it out here: lasers.llnl.gov\nAs for the safety of fusion reactors over fission reactors, Wikipedia has a remarkably good summary with cogent points. It is available here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor#Safety_and_the_environment but I will also quote the first section of it for your benefit in case the article is ever tampered with or moved (all the links within the quote point back to relevant articles on wikipedia).\nThere is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat (Fukushima I incidents demonstrated the problems that can rise in a fission reactor due to beta decay heating even days after SCRAM, an emergency shutdown of the fission reactor).\nThere is also no risk of a runaway reaction in a fusion reactor, since the plasma is normally burnt at optimal conditions, and any significant change will render it unable to produce excess heat. In fusion reactors the reaction process is so delicate that this level of safety is inherent; no elaborate failsafe mechanism is required. Although the plasma in a fusion power plant will have a volume of 1000 cubic meters or more, the density of the plasma is extremely low, and the total amount of fusion fuel in the vessel is very small, typically a few grams. If the fuel supply is closed, the reaction stops within seconds. In comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for one or several years, and no additional fuel is necessary to keep the reaction going.\nIn the magnetic approach, strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to “explode” outward. The severity of this event would be similar to any other industrial accident or an MRI machine quench/explosion, and could be effectively stopped with a containment building similar to those used in existing (fission) nuclear generators. The laser-driven inertial approach is generally lower-stress. Although failure of the reaction chamber is possible, simply stopping fuel delivery would prevent any sort of catastrophic failure.\nMost reactor designs rely on the use of liquid lithium as both a coolant and a method for converting stray neutrons from the reaction into tritium, which is fed back into the reactor as fuel. Lithium is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the lithium stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case the tritium contents of the lithium would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. However, calculations suggest that the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power plant would be so small, about 1 kg, that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant’s perimeter fence.\nThe likelihood of small industrial accidents including the local release of radioactivity and injury to staff cannot be estimated yet. These would include accidental releases of lithium, tritium, or mis-handling of decommissioned radioactive components of the reactor itself.\n— Wikipedia.org, “Fusion Power” Pt. 3.1\nAs you can see, fusion reactors are much, much safer than fission reactors, and meltdowns are effectively impossible. And once tritium containment is perfected so none whatsoever leaks into the atmosphere, it will be the cleanest, safest, and most abundant source of energy ever known to humanity.\nWe must not forget atomic batteries either. They’re called batteries because they are portable, self-contained sources of energy, but in actuality they should be called nuclear-decay generators. They represent a highly customizable technology, and currently can be made as small as a penny (for liquid semiconductor atomic batteries)—select your energy requirements, match it to an appropriate isotope, and stick it in the most efficient package for your needs. Betavoltaic cells are one great option. They rely on beta-decay, so don’t need much shielding at all. The isotopes they use generally have really low alpha and gamma radiation, so even if you break them open (which is still a dumb idea, but I’m just saying), the harm is minimal. And the best part? We can customize atomic batteries to suit our current needs, swap out the chemical batteries and pop in an atomic, and we suddenly have mobile devices that never need to be charged. Just swap the battery once the half-life of the isotope expires. For some, that can be as high as 140 years (even longer, if your energy requirements are lower than normal, and the decay product of the isotope continues to produce enough of an electric charge). The isotopes keep decaying at high energies for centuries. The problem is actually not with them, but with the semiconductor material. It breaks down over time, as the decay particles pass through it to produce a charge. Obviously, liquid semiconductors are better than solid, and will last substantially longer. This sort of technology will allow for stable, long-use portable power, in basically any environment, and at least 90% of the components (including all of the reaction mass) can be recycled.\nNow that I’ve talked a little about the current options for nuclear power, I can get on to my actual point. The use of nuclear power and propulsion in Placeholder.\n(Spoiler Alert! The rest of this post discusses technical details of Placeholder’s plot and primary characters.)\nNuclear Energy in the SPQS Universe:\nThe political system of the SPQS is (obviously) imperialistic with a transnationalist economy. The military controls the civilian government, and education is restricted to military personnel. Furthermore, higher education is restricted to Officers. The best that a civilian can expect in this world is grade school (elementary), plus some trade school in their teenage years. Every citizen of the SPQS is given rigorous personality, aptitude, and IQ tests throughout their childhood, plus a final placement test shortly before their twelfth birthday. This is a very nasty system and means no freedom for anybody, not even the privileged Officer-class. The Military government controls all resources, all supply lines, all employment, all education, and even all religions. But it is functional, insofar as the safety and welfare of the human race as a whole is taken care of, and communist-style rationing isn’t necessary because a transnational military government has full control over nuclear energy (and weapons), and doesn’t have to answer to anybody.\nAny functional government has to also promote loyalty within its citizenry; while a military government can often be cruel and cover it up with propaganda, it’s actually easier to play nice with the people who can’t get up to much trouble in the first place. Your average citizen actually wants safety and comfort above freedom and education, as sad as that may seem to some. So long as they are ultimately left to live their life in peace, have their needs and comforts attended to, and can find some amusement to distract them from their work (even if they happen to love their work), then society as a whole will remain stable.\nNow, this point is important. Nuclear power is perceived as dangerous, and has to be treated with respect and care. Who better to be the stewards of the atom than our soldiers? They are disciplined, sharp, used to an undue amount of stress that would make a normal person crack, and ultimately, extremely responsible individuals with a great respect for authority. They are also willing to lay down their lives for a greater cause—a fact most civilians can’t even appreciate. With specific training in nuclear engineering, they are the perfect candidates to work in a reactor. So having nuclear power exclusively in the hands of the military might not be such a bad thing. It would certainly boost public confidence in nuclear power.\nOf course, even if the people didn’t like it, a military government could impose it’s own ideals on society. With enough propaganda, anything is possible. And a space age society needs nuclear power. Nothing else is even close to good enough.\nI also mentioned a lack of restrictions. Allow me to elaborate. There are certain aspects of nuclear energy that are currently unavailable to the general public, and even unavailable to our militaries and research institutions. Thanks to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 (which has not yet entered into force), our options for maximizing the beneficial uses of nuclear energy are severely limited. Inertial confinement fusion is one workaround (which is a stipulation that the US is trying to enforce for the CTBT before ratifying it), because it allows simulation without the need for actual thermonuclear detonation. But still, any hope of launching a nuclear pulse propulsion rocket, whether from orbit or from earth, was completely crushed by the partial test ban, and only further enforced by the later two treaties. For feasible interplanetary and interstellar exploration and colonization, we need nuclear pulse propulsion at the very least. There’s no way around that. Chemical rockets are too inefficient, wasteful, and expensive to support a successful, active space program. But that’s what we’re stuck with. The SPQS has no such restrictions. They control all nuclear energy, fuels, and weapons, so they can use them to their best ends. And seriously, what use does a universal-military-government have for nuclear weapons? They might maintain a stockpile, just in case, but in that situation at least 99% of nuclear R&D would go into power and propulsion tech.\nRight now, the only real limitation on atomic batteries is the expense in making them. NASA uses them when they have to. They’re a good, reliable, long-term source of energy to power their space probes. And they’ll certainly come in handy on manned missions to Mars (if NASA ever gets around to doing it). But as any technology, now that we have it, it will be improved over time and the costs will go down as they become mass-produced. Right now, atomic batteries are very much ‘special use’, and complete overkill for most purposes. But as our mobile technology is steadily improved, and power requirements keep raising, the move from chemical to atomic batteries will be a natural one. Obviously, in the SPQS Universe, atomic batteries are used exclusively, because even the ‘simplest’ devices have advanced AI systems that require multicore processing in a modular computing environment. Also, they have moved entirely from electronics to optronics (except for a few select people who also have access to quantum computers), and optical computers are only more energy efficient when kept entirely self-contained. Powering a ship-wide optical computer network with several supercomputer cores is actually very energy taxing, especially when many of the systems are constantly running and all of them need to be kept cooled (in addition to all the other electrical draws from life support, mechanics, internal and external sensors, etc., etc.). It’s worth the cost though; optical cores are a big step up from our current processing capabilities, and don’t need much of a refinement to the logic behind it (whereas with quantum computers, it’s a whole new science; everything has to be redesigned from the ground up, to harness the unique properties of quantum systems).\nLastly, the SFS Fulgora is outfitted with two fission reactors; instead of hard water, they use an inert pressurized gas to drive the turbines. The primary reactor is always running, whereas the secondary reactor is only used during peak times when strain needs to be taken off the primary. The reactors have no connection with the nuclear pulse propulsion rocket, except for powering the systems which make it work. Most of the electrical power is needed for the MRD, computer systems, and lab equipment.\nNuclear Propulsion in the SPQS Universe:\nI’ve already talked a bit about Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, but there are other options. I’ve only focused on nuclear pulse propulsion because that is what the SFS Fulgora is outfitted with. Within Placeholder, it’s considered barebones backwards tech. The SFS Fulgora is stuck with it simply because it was the cheapest practical option to meet mission requirements.\nI should also mention why the SFS Fulgora needs a rocket in addition to the MRD—after all, it has a jump drive, so why does it need traditional propulsion at all, beyond simple ion drives for shuffling around local space? Simply put, since they designed the MRD with Relativistic M-Theory in mind, the MRD can only be used to merge two ‘level’ points within spacetime: interstellar space. The calculated ‘gravity wells’ caused by a star’s gravitational field are strongest within the heliosphere, and thus according to Relativistic M-Theory, are heavily warped regions of spacetime. When a REZSEQ is performed between two disparate gravity wells, the object itself is reintegrated with massive distortion because of the errors introduced in the calculation of spacetime by the 4n model. This problem is overcome when Konrad reprograms the MRD with his 11n model, allowing him to jump between stable orbits of planets. But that is a unique capability of his ship (until the SOLCOM Celestine Corps catches up with him and reverse engineers his work). Until he reprograms the MRD, though, the SFS Fulgora has to be piloted out of the solar system, beyond the heliopause to level space. The ship can then only be jumped to a location beyond the heliosphere of another system, and piloted into it. This requires a robust means of propulsion, to cover distances of up to 100 AUs within 3 months. No mean feat, let me tell you. But a nuclear pulse propulsion rocket is capable of achieving velocities upwards of .1c (10% of the speed of light). After that, acceleration peters out. The shaped nuclear charges no longer detonate quickly enough or produce enough of an effect to add any additional acceleration. ie., you’re just wasting fuel at that point.\nThere are better nuclear rockets, of course. For example, there are some good designs for fusion rockets and antimatter-catalyzed nuclear propulsion. But since the SFS Fulgora is supposed to be a low-budget research vessel (without even a proper artificial gravity system), I thought it unlikely that they would go ahead with a top-notch antimatter or plasma-based propulsion system.\nAnytime you start dealing with nuclear energy and/or propulsion in spaceship design, you have to think about shielding the crew from it. But the truth is, most of the harmful radiation astronauts face is from cosmic radiation, not the reactors or engines they might some day get. Granted, any extra radiation from these sources would only make matters worse, but my point is only that radiation shielding is already an essential aspect of spacecraft design for extended missions.\nMy solution for the SPQS Universe is the new and exciting field of meta-materials. It has so much potential that I couldn’t leave it out—but it also requires its own post. Suffice it to say for now, that I used a choice selection of metamaterials for radiation-shielding. Combine that with more traditional means of radiation shielding for the reactor and nuclear rocket, and you have a safe and happy crew, unencumbered with radiation sickness and sterility, even on the longest of space voyages.\nI suppose that about covers it. My main points have been to identify the risks involved with nuclear energy, but also show how in the ‘right’ hands (emphasis on quote-unquote), it’s actually the cleanest form of energy we have. It just needs to be respected. Naturally, we need to have an invested commitment in perfecting fusion technology, so we can start building safer and cleaner reactors; but even fission, when managed properly, is cleaner than coal or natural gas, and is normally much less detrimental to the environment than hydro dams or windmills. People who build and run fission reactors need to understand that you can’t cut corners with nuclear engineering, because a meltdown is as bad as a dirty bomb. But again, if they’re built to standard, and managed with vigilance, they are exactly what we need to step into the future we’ve always dreamed of.\nAnd as far as Placeholder and the SPQS Universe is concerned, I made my future history dominantly atomic because it’s still the best source of energy we have. Maybe someday we’ll discover something better, but every other avenue that’s been explored requires more energy input than we can get back (such as with the models for antimatter-based power plants). But you never know.\nIn my next post, I’ll deal with the new field of meta-materials. It’s an especially exciting topic, since it’s such a new field that it hasn’t gotten much treatment in science fiction yet. And in the SPQS Universe, it’s fundamental to just about everything.\n— the Phoeron", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.jcnnewswire.com/pressrelease/48742/3/MHPS:-Handover-Completed-for-Turbine-Generation-Facilities-at-Haiyang-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Unit-1-in-", "date": "2019-09-19T19:51:35Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-39/segments/1568514573570.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20190919183843-20190919205843-00004.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9115711450576782, "token_count": 817, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2019-39", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2019-39__0__110018376", "lang": "en", "text": "MHPS: Handover Completed for Turbine Generation Facilities at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 in China\nOperations Begun, Follows Start at Sanmen Plant Unit 1\n- All standards required by China cleared in functional, safety confirmation, and performance tests\n- 1,250 MW high-quality turbine generation facilities to contribute to stable energy supplies\nYOKOHAMA, Japan, Dec, 19 2018 - (JCN Newswire) - Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd. (MHPS) announces that the steam turbine generation facilities supplied for the Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant in China have cleared all functional, safety confirmation, and required performance tests, and a handover was made on December 11. Operations at the plant have begun, making it the second site with a 1,250 megawatt class pressurized water reactor (AP1000), after the Sanmen nuclear power plant.\nThe Haiyang Unit 1 began fuel loading on June 21, 2018, and reached 100% output in mid-September. On October 22, the facility reached the 168 hours of continuous demonstrated operation required by the Chinese government, and performance tests were completed on November 6. As with the Sanmen Plant Unit 1, MHPS conducted the appropriate prior verification tests of the interface between the nuclear reactor and turbine sides. The meticulous project management and close communication led to a smooth start of official operations. Trial operations for the next system, Haiyang Unit 2, are proceeding steadily, and are expected to reach 168 hours of continuous demonstrated operation within the year.\nThe Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant was built by Shandong Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. in Haiyang, Shandong Province, approximately 130 kilometers east of Qingdao. This is the first nuclear power plant built in Shandong Province, and the first nuclear power project undertaken by Shandong Nuclear Power's parent company, State Power Investment Corporation Limited (SPIC).\nThe Haiyang facility comprises two units, each with an output of 1,250 megawatts. Based on a technology transfer agreement with Harbin Electric Corporation, MHPS handled the designs for the turbine, heat exchanger, and auxiliary equipment, and transferred the technology. MHPS also manufactured and provided six low-pressure turbines, two high-pressure turbines, the main valves, and other equipment for the two units within the facility. Harbin Electric handled the manufacturing of the turbine casing, heat exchanger, and other equipment, while Mitsubishi Electric and Harbin Electric each supplied one of the two generators.\nGoing forward, MHPS will continue to contribute to resolving the global issues of stable energy supplies, economic development, and reducing the environmental load by providing steam turbines for safe, highly reliable nuclear power generation facilities.\nAbout Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.\nMitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd. (MHPS), headquartered in Yokohama, Japan, is a joint venture formed in February 2014 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Hitachi, Ltd. integrating their operations in thermal power generation systems and other related businesses. MHPS today ranks among the world's leading suppliers of equipment and services to the power generation market, backed by 100 billion yen in capital and approximately 20,000 employees worldwide. The Company's products include GTCC (gas turbine combined-cycle) and IGCC (integrated coal gasification combined-cycle) power plants, gas/coal/oil-fired (steam) power plants, boilers, generators, gas and steam turbines, geothermal power plants, AQCS (air quality control systems), power plant peripheral equipment, digital solutions and solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFC).\nFor more information, please visit www.mhps.com.\nCorporate Communication Department\nMitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.\nEmail: [email protected]\nSource: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.\nCopyright ©2019 JCN Newswire. All rights reserved. A division of Japan Corporate News Network.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://jobs.ianmartin.com/img-jobs/nuclear-piping-designer/", "date": "2018-02-23T13:57:54Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-09/segments/1518891814787.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20180223134825-20180223154825-00134.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8865053653717041, "token_count": 640, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-09", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-09__0__15614060", "lang": "en", "text": "Our Nuclear client is looking for a Nuclear Piping Designer to support projects based out of their Peterborough, ON location.\nWith our Nuclear client you will be required to work on on technically challenging projects as a member of the Fuel Handling mechanical engineering team. You will be responsible for the design of mechanical equipment and systems for CANDU reactors. Projects will involve you in the design, development and test of mechanical equipment for automated and semi-automated fuelling machines, robotic systems, and maintenance tooling for CANDU reactors and related systems. There is also opportunity to work on site assignment at one of the nuclear power plants in Ontario.\n- Provide execution of design and analysis of complex CANDU piping systems from concept to issue of final engineering documents.\n- Preparation or approval of design documentation, specifications, design reports, analysis reports, technical specifications, applicable codes & standards, development and test plans, and engineering quotations requests. Prepare and present technical data to internal and external customers as required.\n- Performing piping stress analysis calculations, overpressure protection calculations and reports, pipe support load capacity data sheets, etc. Traditional methods of the analysis as well as the use of associated software packages would be included.\n- Support of existing equipment to address obsolescence issues, performance shortcomings, and troubleshooting scenarios.\n- Maintain knowledge of stress analysis techniques and applications and provide consultation to design engineers as required.\n- Assure proper documentation of technical data generated for the assigned projects and/or tasks is consistent with engineering policies and applicable standards.\n- Adhere to on-time/on-budget criteria associated with project commitments and customer success.\n- Bachelor or Masters of Engineering degree in Mechanical with specialization in piping system design and analysis techniques.\n- PEO certified Professional Engineer, or in process.\n- Knowledge in the application of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Section III and VIII), ASME B31.1, B31.3, CSA N285.0, CSA B51.\n- Experience with creation of Nuclear piping design reports in accordance with ASME NB/NC/ND-3600.\n- Experience with creation of Nuclear piping overpressure protection reports in accordance with ASME NB/NC/ND-7000.\n- Minimum 10 years experience in mechanical engineering analysis practice in a manufacturing environment with modern technology.\n- Minimum 5 years experience at Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario\n- Strong preference given to experience related to CANDU nuclear heavy water systems or safety systems: Primary Heat Transport, Moderator Auxiliary Systems, Fuelling Machine Auxiliaries, Purification, Leak Collection, Shutdown and Maintenance Cooling, ECI, etc.\n- Consideration given to experience related conventional CANDU light water systems: LP Service Water, HP Service Water, etc.\n- Knowledge of the jurisdictional processes for pressure vessels (TSSA, CNSC).\n- Competence in mechanical equipment design and design processes.\n- Creative problem-solving skills, outstanding analytical abilities, demonstrated leadership skills and the ability to work in a team environment.\n- Knowledge of Nuclear Engineering Change Control Process", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.hopital-foch.com/hopital/en/nuclear-medicine", "date": "2019-08-20T12:52:22Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-35/segments/1566027315329.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20190820113425-20190820135425-00286.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8535486459732056, "token_count": 279, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2019-35", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2019-35__0__45790770", "lang": "en", "text": "NUCLEAR MEDICINE DEPARTMENT HEAD\nDoctor Elise Lestanc\nNuclear medicine groups together all of the medical procedures which require the use of radioactive markers for diagnosis or therapy.\nThe external detection of gamma radiation after administering a radioactive isotope, provides functional imaging of various organs (allowing the observation of the metabolism).\nNearly all organs are now regularly examined using this method: skeleton, heart, lungs, thyroid, kidneys, brain, etc.\nWHICH EXAMINATIONS ARE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT?\nThe Hôpital Foch nuclear medicine department is divided into two units:\nThe standard scintigraphy unit for the more common scintigraphy imaging techniques:\nA PET (Positron Emission Tomography) unit, open to hospital patients 3 and a half days per week for FDG, Choline and (soon) F-DOPA PET scans.\nThe nuclear medicine department is located on level -1 of the south wing of the main building (Blue Sector)\nThe department is open 8am to 5pm, Monday to Friday.\nTo make an appointment\nAppointments can be made by telephone: 01 46 25 23 20 for nuclear medicine, and 01 46 25 22 16 for PET scans.\nFor Scintigraphy appointments\nReception tel.: 0146252320", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://thistledesign.com/radiation-tolerant-devices/", "date": "2021-04-23T08:30:16Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-17/segments/1618039568689.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20210423070953-20210423100953-00587.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.899456262588501, "token_count": 238, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-17__0__60709497", "lang": "en", "text": "Radiation Tolerant Devices\nMonday April 14, 2014\nWay back in 1999 Thistle Design manufactured a unique Radiation Tolerant Encoder for use in the Vitrification Plant at Sellafield.\nThis device combined an Incremental Encoder with a Wire Wound Potentiometer connected by an integral precision gearbox. The resulting twin output was capable of operating in extremely high radiation environments (100,000,000 Rads).\nThistle Design has continued to develop encoders, meters and counters for use in the nuclear industry for both operational and decommissioning projects.\nThe latest device developed is Incremental Encoder Type 24SQ-126 for EDF Energy’s Torness Power Station.\nThe design is based on lessons learned during the development of a range of Absolute Encoders for EDF Energy’s Hartlepool Power Station.\nThese were successfully Type Tested at a cumulative radiation dose of 70kRads at a certified nuclear test facility.\nThe 24SQ-126 is a generic design capable of being assembled to give a variety of output options.\nThe available range is:\n20 to 1000 PPR", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://egeneration.org/an-ohio-plan-for-molten-salt-reactor-development/", "date": "2018-09-24T17:46:50Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-39/segments/1537267160620.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20180924165426-20180924185826-00153.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.950484037399292, "token_count": 5928, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-39", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-39__0__94814944", "lang": "en", "text": "Where a crown jewel once stood in NASA’s ambitious plans for human space exploration, now lays a green field. Current regulations bar NASA from directly building or researching fueled nuclear devices. Yet, in a bygone era five decades ago, the space agency’s future was dependent on one facility: the Plum Brook Reactor Facility in Sandusky, Ohio.\nNASA turned on its first, last, and only nuclear fission test reactors in 1961 to research nuclear-powered airplanes, then eventually nuclear-powered space rockets. But the mounting cost of the Vietnam War and waning interest in manned space exploration led President Richard Nixon to mothball the NASA Plum Brook Station’s two test reactors in 1973.\nEnding nuclear propulsion research and development, as this document will describe, may have been an over-reaction fueled by a bad economy and by anti-nuclear proponents in the 1970’s. NASA Glenn and NASA Plum Brook Station could potentially help not just Ohio’s economy, but America’s economy, in the development of new nuclear technologies, while being safe, making the environment better, and aiding in the creation of thousands of good paying jobs.\nNASA’s Roots in the Atoms for Peace Program\nIn 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a speech called “Atoms for Peace” to the United Nations General Assembly. He described the emergence of the atomic age and the weapons of mass destruction that were piling up in the storehouses of the American and Soviet nations. Although neither side was aiming for global destruction, Eisenhower wanted to “move out of the dark chambers of horrors into the light, to find a way by which the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of men everywhere, can move towards peace and happiness and well-being.” One way Eisenhower hoped this could happen was by transforming the atom from a weapon of war into a useful tool for civilization.\nMany believed that there were unprecedented opportunities for peaceful nuclear applications. These included hopeful visions of atomic powered cities, cars, airplanes, space bases, and interplanetary and possibly even interstellar spaceships. Eisenhower wanted to provide scientists and engineers with “adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas.” But in attempting to devise ways to use atomic power for peaceful purposes, scientists realized how little they knew about using reactors for propulsion. As a result, the United States began constructing nuclear test reactors to enable scientists to conduct research on the atom.\nAmerican scientists and engineers carried out the “atoms for peace” initiative at the nearly 200 research and test reactors built in the 1950s and 1960s. Test and research reactors are very different from power reactors, which are built to produce power by converting the heat produced from nuclear fission into electricity. In contrast, research and test reactors are used for scientific and technical investigations. Research reactors help engineers design experiments to enable them to build better reactors with desirable characteristics. Though some private commercial and academic institutions built some research and test reactors, the federal government supported the large majority of them. One of the most powerful in the world (60MWth) was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) test reactor, located at Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. From 1961 to 1973, this reactor was home to some of the most advanced nuclear experimentation in the United States. The facility also supported a second test reactor, though much less powerful (110 KWth.).\nIn addition to the nuclear reactors, many of the test facilities constructed at NASA Plum Brook are nuclear capable, meaning, they are designed to be subjected to radiation.\nNuclear Powered Aircraft\nOne specific 1950s aim for this 1960s research reactor was to build a nuclear-powered airplane (bomber) capable of staying aloft for months at a time. To support this effort, in 1956 NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), began to design and build a large test reactor at Plum Brook Station. By the time the reactor was completed in 1961, President Kennedy had suspended the nuclear aircraft program in favor of inflight refueling. However, in its place he advocated an even bolder plan—a nuclear powered rocket. The Plum Brook Reactor Facility became one of the primary nuclear research facilities to test materials for this rocket. Working with contractors from Lockheed, Westinghouse, General Dynamics, and General Electric, scientists and engineers conducted many groundbreaking nuclear experiments.\nDespite the promise of their work, many of the valuable experiments were never concluded. In 1973, just over a decade after President Kennedy first extolled the nuclear rocket’s importance, the project shared the fate of the nuclear airplane. In the post-Apollo era, NASA terminated costly, long-term, non-reusable projects like the nuclear rocket in favor of programs that appeared to have greater immediate payoff, such as the Space Shuttle. Two weeks after Apollo’s last mission, Plum Brook was ordered to shut down its reactor. The entire facility was maintained in a standby mode (under a “possess but do not operate” license) for nearly a quarter century. In 1998, a decommissioning plan was formulated to dismantle the reactor piece by piece, until nothing would be left but bare land, suitable once again for farming. $253 Million taxpayer dollars later, the area now has achieved greenfield status with the EPA.\nThe Economic Impact of A Large Manufacturing Facility\nThe original impetus for building NASA Plum Brook Station (NPBS) was the Aircraft Reactor Experiment that started after WWII (May, 28th 1946). The facility was envisioned to carry out the experiments necessary to engineer, build, and put a fleet of nuclear powered bombers in the skies that could stay aloft for months on end, without refueling, to protect America from a Soviet Union attack.\nNPBS was to be a modern test facility to do all the testing that Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL was, and still is, America’s premier nuclear testing facility), Argonne National Laboratories, and Los Alamos National Laboratories, could not do, in order to commercialize the production of these envisioned nuclear powered bombers.\nSince its inception, the purpose of the NPBS facility, along with its parent NASA Glenn (formerly NASA Lewis), was to test and commercialize nuclear power systems, though its focus has changed as the missions of NASA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have changed. While initially the NPBS mission was of a terrestrial nature (a nuclear powered bomber), one week after NPBS’s reactor went critical John F. Kennedy cancelled the nuclear powered bomber program. NPBS was then transitioned to a Nuclear Space Power laboratory.\nNPBS was not used for its intended purpose. The building of a fleet of nuclear powered bombers would have employed thousands of persons in very well-paying manufacturing jobs. A production facility at Plumb Brook was envisioned that would have been larger than the Lordstown, OH General Motors manufacturing facility.\n“Why was Sandusky, OH chosen to develop a nuclear powered bomber fleet?”\nOne of the most prominent reasons for selecting Sandusky, Ohio was that our government wanted the facility to be close to a workforce experienced in the type of manufacturing and assembly that could produce a bomber fleet. This requirement ruled out most of our other national laboratories, such as ORNL, at the time. The thought was, when it came time to build a prototype nuclear bomber, many new manufacturing techniques would have to be developed, and it made sense to develop a mass assembly plant for producing nuclear bombers on the same grounds where the prototype was developed. The size of NPBS was right for an airstrip for the takeoff and landing of bombers needing service and refueling. Sandusky ports on Lake Erie could be made capable of accommodating ships that would deliver materials necessary for construction of the bombers. The facility had access to a modern highway system, and was close enough to the lake, a water source that may have been needed for cooling future test reactors.\nCouple the NPBS facility with NACA facility in Cleveland, Ohio, Ohio’s Uranium Enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio, the planned Ohio State University’s research reactor and nuclear engineering program, and Wright Patterson Air Force Base’ mammoth testing facilities in Dayton, Ohio, and it is easy to see why the federal government saw Sandusky, Ohio as the ideal location for the development and commercialization of a state of the art nuclear bomber production facility. Sub-assemblies would feed a production facility of this nature and fuel-assemblies built and developed elsewhere in Ohio, with many of those workers trained at OSU’s nuclear reactor facility. A massive number of machine and tool shops and other manufacturers would have been engaged in the manufacture of these state of the art bombers.\nReviving an Old Idea with a new Purpose\nThink of the potential benefits that 5,000 high paying assembly jobs would have meant to Sandusky, Ohio and to the State of Ohio. Think of what the potential 60,000 direct and indirect jobs would have meant to the State of Ohio and to the United States. [Job numbers have been estimated from a Ford Mass Assembly study] A nuclear bomber mass assembly plant would have had the potential for massive economic impacts across all industry and professional sectors in Sandusky, Ohio, its surrounding townships, and for the State of Ohio, as well as many other states.\nOhio has a large nuclear presence. Its nuclear reactors include two commercial civilian nuclear power plants, one in Northeast Ohio and the other in Northwest Ohio, both on the shore of Lake Erie; and a test reactor at the Ohio State University; Babcock and Wilcox, a company that builds nuclear power plants, originated in Cleveland and still does nuclear research and supply chain functions in the state. Battelle Memorial is headquartered in Columbus and has extensive experience running laboratories that deal with nuclear power. Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton was home to a reactor that was to fill the same type of mission the NPBS reactor was to fulfill: the development of a nuclear powered bomber.\nReviving and Re-envisioning a Mass Assembly Plant\nWhat would you think of reviving this massive mass assembly plant envisioned at NPBS – minus the nuclear bomber?\nAll of the positive factors of a mass assembly plant continue to be applicable today, but toward a different and more beneficial end. During the aircraft reactor experiment, the MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) was conceived as the best reactor to put in an airplane because it could be made very small and did not need water as a coolant. Alvin Weinberg, who was the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the time (he also owns the patent for today’s modern light water reactors, like the kind at Davis Besse and Perry nuclear power plants in Ohio), became a strong proponent of MSR technology. Dr. Weinberg saw this molten salt reactor technology as the future of civilian nuclear power for producing electricity.\nMSRs produce no long-lived nuclear waste, cannot melt down, are inherently safe, and can most easily be adapted for construction on an assembly line. Additionally, these MSRs can be made to consume current nuclear waste stockpiles as a fuel, or use Uranium, Plutonium, or Thorium as a fuel. According to many studies MSRs will produce electricity at half the cost of coal (a very conservative estimate). Because of their low production costs, and because MSRs will produce no carbon emissions, they will improve our environment and give us a leg-up on manufacturing competition in the world market place. This will help to bring back to America millions of jobs that have gone overseas. MSRs can even produce energy cheaply enough to transform our massive reserves of coal into environmentally friendly synthetic gasoline and synthetic diesel fuel that can help make America energy independent, and make the OPEC (Oil Producing and Exporting Countries) irrelevant in determining the price you pay to fill your tank at the gas pump.\nAdditionally, molten salt reactors can produce the medical isotopes that we do not make here in America. We are dependent upon the rest of the world to create and provide us the isotopes we use here for over 320,000 medical imaging procedures per week, and there are periodic shortages which worry our medical community and potentially harm American patients. MSRs will produce in quantity, isotopes that show the very real potential for curing cancer and HIV AIDS. Abundant and valuable medical imaging Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) radioisotopes could be produced by a small multipurpose liquid-fueled molten-salt reactor (MSR). Additionally, a fleet of commercial scale Utility MSRs could provide Actinium-225 and Bismuth-213 for research and treatment of cancer and HIV AIDS.\nCurrently, America is helping China develop and commercialize our MSR technology. This is a proven technology, as a molten salt reactor was built and successfully operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, without incident, for more than four years in the late 1960s – early 1970s. America just never commercialized the technology. This is the very same technology (MSR Technology) that was envisioned to be commercialized and mass-produced in Ohio at NPBS for the nuclear bomber fleet.\nMany organizations and startup companies are encouraging American legislators to jump back into the Molten Salt Reactor race (Flibe Energy, TransAtomics, and ThorCon), as China, Russia, and India have stepped up their efforts to commercialize this American-developed technology. With a change in administrations in Washington, DC, and direction toward adopting a long-term national energy strategy in 2016, together with support from Ohio legislators and our Congressional delegation, America may very well join and win the MSR race. Ohio could be, and arguably should be, the “heart of it all” for a MSR program revival.\nMany in Erie County and Huron County (where NPBS is located), had been pressing for NPBS’s massive 6,400 acres to become a wind farm. However, with Ohio’s change on supporting a renewable energy mandate with the passage of Ohio Senate Bill 310 in 2014, and the possible repeal of Ohio Senate Bill 221 in 2015, coupled with the end of the federal wind production tax credit, creation of a wind farm at NPBS is very unlikely.\nA very positive use of the facility would be a testing and research facility for development, and mass assembly plant for production of, small modular molten salt reactors that could be shipped around the United States by truck, rail, or ship. Such a mass assembly plant would still be on the order and scale of a Lordstown assembly plant, employing some 5,000 direct jobs in northern Ohio, and indirectly employing 60,000 . [Job numbers have been estimated from a Ford Mass Assembly study].\nDuring 2015, eGeneration Foundation, based in Cleveland, Ohio will be promoting NPBS and Sandusky, Ohio as the best place for the U.S. government to base a Molten Salt Reactor commercialization program. Will Ohio legislators and our Ohio delegation in Congress step forward and openly embrace the development of this technology and manufacturing facility at NPBS? Only the future will reveal this.\nWhy Produce Molten Salt Reactors in Ohio?\nOhio is one of the most energy abundant states in the country; rich with a diverse array of energy resources ranging from fossil fuels to nuclear based civilian power plants. Ohio’s economy also ranks among the most energy-intensive in the nation, home to energy-dependent industries ranging from agriculture to manufacturing.\nAt the turn of the 20th century, Ohio was the largest oil producer in the United States. With the Appalachian Basin, which crosses the eastern part of Ohio, and with recent oil and gas formation discoveries, the state may return to being a large oil and natural gas producer. The Basin’s Marcellus shale formation contains shale gas, and the Utica shale formation contains both tight oil locked in shale and gas.\nBesides oil and natural gas production, Ohio has long been a perennial coal producer as well. Ohio is currently the 10th largest coal producing state.\nBecause of Ohio’s energy resources, the state has always supported and benefited from a heavily industrial economy. Today, Ohio’s energy consumption is among the highest in the nation. The industrial sector dominates energy consumption in Ohio, largely due to several energy-intensive industries, including chemicals, glass, metal casting, and steel.\nBut, Ohio’s energy prices have been steadily rising in comparison to its economic competitors in the same industrial sectors, such as, China, India, and South Korea. This rise in energy costs is primarily caused by federal EPA regulations and the early closure of many coal-fired plants that power Ohio’s economy. As energy costs rise, products produced in Ohio become less competitive in the world marketplace, and that means less revenue, less business, and ultimately a lackluster Ohio economy. Additionally, RPSs (Renewable Portfolio Standards) mandated by the State of Ohio, mandate high-cost clean energy sources. These costs, combined with federal regulations, create a trying atmosphere of competition for manufacturers.\neGeneration’s SAFER Alliance is promoting and pursuing the development of a Department of Energy-envisioned Clean Energy Parks initiative for the development of Gen IV molten salt reactors. NASA Plum Brook Station’s 6,400 acres has high-tension lines running across its property (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant’s primary distribution lines) making it a very promising location for a joint NASA/Department of Energy – Clean Energy Park initiative.\nTo boost NASA Plum Brook’s chances to lure business to the region and create more jobs, civic leaders in the facility’s home base of Erie County, and in Cleveland, where NASA Glenn is located, have tried raising funds to build an airport with a 9,000-foot runway at NPBS without success.\nThe runway would make it much easier to transport large, bulky spacecraft components and sensitive satellites to Plum Brook for testing.\nCurrently, such items are flown into airports in Cleveland or Mansfield and trucked 50 to 60 miles to the NASA facility, requiring police escorts and special traffic arrangements. Some potential Plum Brook customers opt to test bits and pieces of their space hardware at smaller government or private facilities individually, rather than transport the full-sized article to Ohio for testing. This piecemeal testing is a costlier process and does not accurately simulate real world conditions.\nUnited Launch Alliance, a Denver-based commercial space launch company, tested the nosecone of its Atlas V rocket in Plum Brook’s largest vacuum chamber in 2002 after flying it into Cleveland Hopkins International Airport aboard a giant Russian cargo jet.\n“Certainly having a runway out there would have made that a lot easier,” said United Launch vice president George Sowers.\nNASA’s budget doesn’t have the estimated $40 million the Plum Brook runway would cost, nor the additional $40 million or more for roads and other infrastructure to support it.\nThe runway project “remains one of our highest priorities,” said Carol Caruso, a vice president at the Greater Cleveland Partnership at the time.\nEconomic development and NASA officials think that the airport, in turn, would be a catalyst for development of a 1,200-acre high-tech business park on Plum Brook land that NASA is willing to lease. The site has railroad and highway access, and ample cheap water, electricity and sewer service.\nErie County Commissioner Patrick Shenigo foresees a cluster of spacecraft and satellite company tenants who want to take advantage of the proximity to Plum Brook’s facilities for quick-turnaround tests, as well as nuclear energy or other research firms that could benefit from NASA’s engineering expertise.\nSuch business clusters already exist near NASA centers in Florida, Alabama, and Texas.\nCurrently, about 25 NASA employees work at Plum Brook. If the runway brings more testing work to the center as expected, and its NASA workforce rises to 100, that should generate 475 new commercial jobs in the area and an economic boost of $45 million, according to a 2009 study cited by Commissioner Shenigo in the Sandusky Register.\nIf a desktop sized molten salt research reactor were to be built onsite, such a reactor could produce enough medical isotopes to supply half of America’s Molybdenum99 (medical isotope) needs. Currently, America depends upon other countries for a vast majority of its Molybdenum 99.\nA medical isotope production facility at NASA Plum Brook would generate a large amount of economic activity and an income stream more than sufficient to pay for the construction and operation of an airport necessary for the facility’s operations in distributing medical isotopes throughout the United States in a timely manner. Isotopes produced at the facility would be placed in medical isotope generators and then flown to cities all over the United States for deliver to local hospitals and nuclear pharmacies. Such a medical isotope facility would potentially employ 500 highly skilled workers and professionals, including logistic professionals.\nThe Congress and the NRC have suspended the rules that otherwise prohibit a test or research reactor from making a profit by allowing such a reactor to produce medical isotopes (Molybdenum 99) because the federal government has recognized an impending Molybdenum 99 shortage crisis.\neGeneration advocates for an NRC permit to allow up to six research size molten salt reactors to be constructed on site at NASA Plum Brook Station for the purposes of research and materials testing, and for the production of Molybdenum-99 medical isotopes.\nThis group would consist of three reactors to produce Molybdenum-99. These reactors would be heavily outfitted with instrumentation to monitor their internal operational characteristics. This will serve as an information gathering and development tool depicting the behavior of these reactors in normal operation with a high fidelity. In addition to the three MSRs for Molbdenum-99 production, three additional reactors will be built. One reactor will be built to study uranium molten salt fuel, a second reactor will be built to study thorium molten salt fuel, and a third reactor will be built to study the use of traditional nuclear waste as a fuel to produce energy. Concurrent with testing and research being conducted, all of America’s Molybdenum-99 needs could be met by such a NASA Plum Brook Medical isotope facility. This is a $1.5 billion and growing medical isotope market.\nThe clean energy park concept builds on a DoE initiative to transform DoE sites formerly used to support national defense missions into energy parks focused on future clean energy production. Such initiatives will allow reuse of existing assets, aid in the clean up of these sites, and support sustainable economic development for their respective regions.\nNorthern Ohio is the location of a major portion of Ohio’s manufacturing base. This is where NASA Plum Brook Station is located. In fact, this NASA site sits directly in the middle of Northern Ohio, an energy production facilities there would be easily shared with manufacturing centers to the west (Toledo, OH) and to the east (Cleveland, OH).\nThis project is not a walk in the park. It will initially focus on the environmental analysis ultimately necessary to support deployment of Generation IV Molten Salt Reactors, as well as development of licensing documents for submittal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).\nThe SAFER Alliance believes that a Generation IV molten salt reactor, providing very cheap carbon-free electricity to millions of homes, creates a compelling Clean Energy Park story. MSRs have the potential to significantly reduce energy costs for consumers.\nAt the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in northeast Ohio, Perry I is one of the most powerful reactors ever built. The utility had plans to build a second reactor on site, but Perry II was only partially completed. With Perry’s infrastructure and its current connections to the electrical grid, the Perry II site would be a very attractive placement for a 1/4 scale pilot MSR producing electricity for the grid.\nPiketon, OH Uranium Enrichment Facility\nPiketon, Ohio is very close to Ohio’s coal country. It is within the Marcellus shale formation, is in close proximity to many old and non-producing oil wells, and is close to the Utica shale oil formation. The Piketon, Ohio Uranium enrichment facility is a 3,777 acre complex in Southern Ohio, now operated by the Department of Energy, which is in shutdown status. It is the last American owned facility capable of producing commercial quantities of Low Enriched Uranium for use in civilian reactors.\nThis facility has a long history of working with nuclear materials, and a Duke Energy led alliance is leading efforts to establish a clean energy park and build an Areva-designed Generation III+ reactor there. It makes sense to base a high-temperature full-scale pilot Molten Salt Reactor at this location, as well. There will be a need for quite a bit of research and development into harnessing the heat and electricity produced by an MSR to convert coal into liquid transportation fuels. The Piketon facility could provide the perfect testing grounds for a full-scale pilot reactor with applications in the coal and oil industry. Excess carbon dioxide easily harvested from the production of coal-derived synthetic fuels, powered by MSRs, can be pumped by pipeline to many of Ohio’s thousands of played out oil wells where carbon dioxide is needed to enable enhanced oil recovery. Additionally, the electricity produced by a pilot molten salt reactor plant could be used to convert Natural Gas to synthetic gasoline or methanol.\nThere is a natural synergy in many respects for the Piketon, OH facility and the production of energy and fuel, and the facility is already owned by the Department of Energy, which will allow the elimination of a lot of red tape.\nFinancing America’s Economic Recovery\nMolten Salt Reactors can be adapted to consume traditional nuclear waste. Producing electricity from nuclear waste is a much better use of that waste than to store it for hundreds of thousands of years. The federal Nuclear Waste fund has in excess of $28 Billion and earns $750 Million in interest every year. Legislators could properly authorize the use of these funds to develop commercial MSR technology in Ohio with the intent to reduce our nuclear waste stockpiles and produce energy.\nThese small reactors are envisioned to be constructed on an assembly line, and the NASA Plum Brook site would fulfill all of the criteria of a business wanting build an MSR mass assembly plant. Such a plant on the grounds of NASA Plum Brook would potentially directly employ 5,000 workers of various skill sets.\nAdditionally, there are technologies that are currently not economically viable to transform oil shale (kerogen), coal, other heavy oil deposits, and MSW (Municipal Solid Waste from trash) into oil and synthetic liquid transportation fuels. Their lack of economic viability is due to the cost of the massive amounts of energy required to transform these feedstocks. MSRs can allow for the economic development of these fuel sources.\n- Advocating for NASA Plum Brook to host very small research molten salt reactors for the purpose of Molybdenum-99 production, while researching MSR engineering issues, makes sense from a security standpoint, not only for America, but for the world.\n- Medical Isotopes (Molybdenum-99) produced from such reactors need to be distributed across North, Central, and South America. This business model can support the construction of an $80 Million airport required for such distribution.\n- An airport at NASA Plum Brook means access to much more business for the testing facilities at Plum Brook.\n- The NASA Plum Brook grounds are large enough to incorporate a business park that would support the mass assembly of molten salt reactors.\n- Perry Nuclear power plant has the capability to support a ¼ scale test reactor that would be needed in the commercialization process of molten salt reactor technology.\n- Piketon, Ohio’s uranium enrichment facility has the capability to host a full-scale modular molten salt reactor, which would require testing before initiating assembly line manufacturing of such reactors.\neGeneration is seeking Alliance members that support these initiatives and will be our organizational and funding partners.\nFunding efforts will focus on:\n- Public education regarding myths and realities of Generation IV nuclear reactors, including molten salt reactors, and their safety and benefits\n- Organization of community roundtable discussions on these subjects with governmental and business and manufacturing interests\n- Interacting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s various working groups\n- Educating nuclear research and development committees, including governmental, private industry groups, and grassroots organizations\n- Economic and feasibility studies\nThe environmental analysis ultimately necessary to support deployment of Generation IV Molten Salt Reactors, as well as development of licensing and site", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.51voa.com/VOA_Special_English/iran-threatens-more-uranium-enrichment-if-no-new-nuke-deal-82018.html", "date": "2023-12-01T19:27:55Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100304.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20231201183432-20231201213432-00759.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9529821872711182, "token_count": 896, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__310307687", "lang": "en", "text": "08 May, 2019\nIran threatened Wednesday to restart enriching uranium in 60 days if world powers fail to negotiate new terms for the 2015 nuclear agreement.\nIn a televised speech, President Hassan Rouhani also said that Iran would stop exporting extra uranium and heavy water from its nuclear program. The export of heavy water and extra uranium were requirements of the deal.\nEnriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons. Heavy water is used to cool nuclear reactors.\nRouhani did not explain how much uranium it would enrich.\nOne year ago, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement. China, Russia and European nations are still part of the deal, however.\nAfter the United States withdrew from the deal, it put strong sanctions on Iran. The move caused a severe economic crisis.\nRouhani said Iran wanted to negotiate new terms for the deal with remaining partners. He wants new terms to permit Iran to sell its oil, which it currently cannot do because of the U.S. sanctions.\nRouhani also warned of a \"strong reaction\" if European leaders try to put more sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Security Council. He did not explain what a \"strong reaction\" might be.\nRouhani also said that Iran wants action within 60 days. If there is no action, Iran will stop a Chinese-led effort to redesign its Arak heavy water nuclear reactor. Such reactors produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons.\nU. S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday was meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt for talks before Trump's visit to Britain next month. Pompeo told reporters the United States would decide how to answer Iran after Iran takes action.\nHunt said on Wednesday the agreement remained an important achievement and urged Tehran to think before breaking it. He said Britain and the United States agreed that Iran should never be permitted to have a nuclear weapon.\nRussian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcomed Tehran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif for talks on Wednesday in Moscow. Following the meeting, both countries condemned the United States for leaving the deal a year ago, a move they say caused the current problems.\nZarif gave his own warning from Moscow.\n\"After a year of patience, Iran stops measures that (the) US has made impossible to continue,\" he wrote on Twitter.\nThe 2015 nuclear deal lifted economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Iran reached the deal after years of negotiations that included secret talks in Oman between Iran and the administration of former U.S. President Barack Obama.\nWestern governments had long feared Iran's nuclear program could lead to the development of nuclear weapons. Iran has always said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.\nThe United States left the deal after Trump campaigned on a promise to end the agreement. His administration says the deal should have put limits on Iran's ballistic missile program. It also believes the deal did nothing to end Tehran's efforts to influence Iraq and other countries in the area.\nThere is still hope for the deal. Iran did not walk away from it, but instead chose to stop exporting its extra uranium and heavy water. Observers say that means there is still the possibility for an agreement to be reached.\nUnder the 2015 deal, Iran cannot keep more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and 130 tons of heavy water. By comparison, the country used to possess 10,000 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium.\nI'm Susan Shand.\nThe Associated Press and the Reuters News Agency reported this story. Susan Shand adapted it for VOA Learning English. Ashley Thompson was the editor.\nWrite to us in the Comments Section or on 51VOA.COM.\nWords in This Story\nuranium – n. a radioactive element that is used to make nuclear energy and nuclear weapons\nsanctions – n. an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country,\nplutonium – n. a radioactive element that is used to make nuclear energy and nuclear weapons\npatience – n. the ability to wait for a long time without becoming annoyed or upset\nballistic missile – n. a weapon that is shot through the sky over a great distance and then falls to the ground and explode", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://x4i.org/grants-funding/life-land+affordable-clean-energy+sustainable-cities-communities/us-industry-opportunities-uranium-production-technology-devel/g-cijk9t0ml", "date": "2021-07-24T11:34:21Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-31/segments/1627046150264.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20210724094631-20210724124631-00272.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9004764556884766, "token_count": 270, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-31", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-31__0__244961034", "lang": "en", "text": "U.S. Industry Opportunities for Uranium Production Technology Devel...\nThe Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (NE-4), conducts Research and Development (R&D) focused on technological advances for the front and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. One area of research includes Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Transportation (UMCAT) R&D activities. The goal of this program is to fund R&D for technological advances that benefit the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle and enable competitive domestic uranium production and supply chain stability.The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to fund projects that enable cost competitive domestic uranium production and conserve water. Specifically, this FOA seeks proposals for R&D projects focused on uranium mining water treatment technologies that reduce the volume of water usage associated with and/or improve extraction efficiency and resource utilization for uranium production. This may include subsurface in situ treatment ...\n- Nonprofits having a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education\n- Nonprofits that do not have a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education\n- For-profit organizations other than small businesses\n- Small businesses", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.columbiajournal.ca/11-05/P10_NuclearPower.html", "date": "2021-10-27T02:55:40Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-43/segments/1634323588053.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20211027022823-20211027052823-00269.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9517831206321716, "token_count": 537, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-43", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-43__0__244099709", "lang": "en", "text": "Physicians call for a moratorium on nuclear power\nCPPNews –Ottawa- \"There is no safe level of radiation exposure,\" said Michael Dworkind, MD, immediate past president of Physicians for Global Survival. “Only recently scientists discovered that background natural radon was responsible for an estimated 20% of lung cancers in Canadians; the same scientists estimate that 20% of childhood leukaemia occur as a result of exposure to natural radiation.” “We cannot continue to expose human populations to increased radiation from nuclear power plants,” he said.\nWith its United States affiliate, Physicians for Global Survival called for a moratorium on new nuclear reactors in Canada and a suspension of operations at the nuclear reactors on fault lines. PGS cited the medical risks associated with radiation exposure and stressed that, unlike x-rays which expose a person for a limited time, radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants expose entire populations and are the “gifts that keep on giving”.\n“Human fallibility being what it is, the only way to avoid nuclear accidents is to not build nuclear reactors,\" said Dr. Birkett, a long time member of the board of Physicians for Global Survival.\nAccording to the US National Academy of Sciences, any exposure to radiation increases a person's risk of developing cancer. In the case of the Japanese Fukushima reactors, the primary radionuclides of concern are:\nCesium-137 and Iodine-131 are fairly easy to measure and were used to mark the extent of the Chernobyl radiation contamination, but, in fact, there are more than 47 radioactive elements being released during the Fukushima disaster. Physicians are concerned that external radiation exposure does not adequately account for the effects of internal emitters.\nMedical treatment for radiation exposure is limited, at best. Iodine pills provide only limited protection against the absorption of Iodine-131, mostly in children. It does not offer protection against gamma irradiation from Iodine-131.\nThe public health risk from a large radioactive release from Canadian reactors near densely populated areas around Toronto is substantial.\nPhysicians for Global Survival is also deeply concerned about the financial effects of an accident at a Canadian nuclear power plant because the federal government would be liable for the environmental and human costs.\nPhysicians for Global Survival applauds the increased safety measures that have been taken by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission but maintains that nuclear power cannot be made completely safe. “Clean renewable energy is the only sustainable option” said Dr. Richard Denton, President.\nPhysicians for Global Survival calls upon the Government of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to:", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://naas.org.in/detail.php?id=297", "date": "2023-12-02T16:17:18Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100427.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20231202140407-20231202170407-00470.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.778667151927948, "token_count": 421, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__232791123", "lang": "en", "text": "Dr. Prasun Kumar Mukherjee\nFELLOW, ELECTED 2014\nBorn in village Nowanagar, West Bengal, on 18 October, 1963. Educated at Khujutipara RGJ High School, Burdwan Municipal High School, Visva Bharati, GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. Ph.D. (Plant Pathology) 1991.\nScientific Officer H and Professor and Head, Environmental Biotechnology Section, Nuclear Agriculture and Biotechnology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai.\nPrincipal Scientist (Plant Pathology), Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, 2011-13 on deputation.\nAwards/Honours: Dr. K.S. Krishnan DAE Research Fellowship; Prof. M.J. Narasimhan Academic Merit Award and J.F. Dastur Memorial Award, Indian Phytopathological Society; Pran Vohra Award, Indian Science Congress Association; BOYSCAST Fellowship (DST); VASVIK Award; Govt. of India-Dept. of Atomic Energy Homi Bhabha Science and Technology Award; Govt. of India-Dept. of Atomic Energy Group Achievement Award (as Group Leader, twice); Fulbright-Nehru Academic and Professional Excellence Fellowship; Visiting Scientist, Israel Institute of Technology, and Texas A&M University.\nFellow: National Academy of Sciences, India.\nResearch Areas: Biological control, Trichoderma, fungal genetics, secondary metabolism\nAddress: Scientific Officer H, Nuclear Agriculture & Biotechnology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400085, Maharashtra; Kamet 13 B, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400094, Maharashtra; [Tel: Off: (022) 25590367, Cell: 9757414312; Fax: (022) 25505151; Email: email@example.com]", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://medicalphysics.imedpub.com/abstract/estimation-of-radiation-dose-in-the-neonatalintensive-care-unit-nicu-9455.html", "date": "2018-05-23T14:32:53Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-22/segments/1526794865679.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20180523141759-20180523161759-00071.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9297069907188416, "token_count": 264, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-22", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-22__0__110051316", "lang": "en", "text": "An experimental study was carried out to determine the radiation doses received by the brain, thyroid glands and the genital organs (i.e. ovaries testicles) of the babies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) during chest radiography. A Perspex block phantom of similar size to the neonate was exposed to radiation using the actual average exposure parameters that applied normally in the NICU. The doses were measured using thermo-luminance lithium fluoride dosimeter chips (TLD). The entrance and exit doses were then measured for the brain, thyroid and gonads organs. The measurement was obtained with and without shielding. The results of our study showed that infants did not receive what might be considered excessive radiation from diagnostic modalities. Entrance Skin Dose (ESD) was found to be below the European Committee (EC) reference dose of 80 mGy for mobile chest radiographs. Applying the radiation protection shield such as 0.5 mm lead rubber sheet is of great value in reducing the radiation doses to the brain cells and the gonadal organs.\nEmadeldin B, Abukonna A\nAll Published work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License\nCopyright © 2018 All rights reserved. iMedPub LTD Last revised : May 22, 2018", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.com/2013/12/white-house-exploring-ways-of-helping.html", "date": "2018-07-23T05:42:40Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-30/segments/1531676594954.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20180723051723-20180723071723-00516.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9019450545310974, "token_count": 836, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-30", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-30__0__11795618", "lang": "en", "text": "By Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon\nThe White House is currently examining ways to enable Iran to have its own “domestic” uranium enrichment program, according to a senior Obama administration official.\nIran has made clear that it will not halt activity at its nuclear sites in Fordow and Arak despite promises to do so\nAs the details of a six month interim nuclear deal between Iran and Western nations are hashed out, the White House is exploring the practicality of permitting Iran to continue certain enrichment activities, an issue that Iranian officials have described as a “redline.”\n“Over the next six months, we will explore, in practical terms, whether and how Iran might end up with a limited, tightly constrained, and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program, including domestic enrichment,” White House National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Caitlin Hayden told the Washington Free Beacon.\n“Any such program,” she said, “would be subject to strict and verifiable curbs on its capacity and stockpiles of enriched uranium for a significant number of years and tied to practical energy needs that will remain minimal for years to come.”\nThe White House clarified its openness to a limited Iranian enrichment program just days after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promised to “forge ahead” with the country’s controversial nuclear program.\nRouhani stated over the weekend that Iran’s contested enrichment program would “never stop” despite the regime’s promise to eventually halt most nuclear activities for a period of six months under an interim agreement inked two weeks ago in Geneva.\nThe deal reached in Geneva would provide Iran up to $7 billion dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for a temporary halt to some of its nuclear activities, including the enrichment of nuclear fuel to high-grade levels.\nIran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, had been a key sticking point in Geneva. Many in Congress say that Iran should be forced to dismantle its entire nuclear program and be prohibited from all enrichment activities.\nAsked about Rouhani’s promise to continue enriching uranium—a promise echoed by other senior Iranian officials—the White House’s Hayden told the Free Beacon that “the United States does not recognize that Iran has a ‘right to enrich.’”\nHowever, “the Iranian people should have access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Hayden said, echoing recent comments made by Obama.\nThe precise requirements of the interim deal with Iran have yet to be finalized, the White House told the Free Beacon last week. This means that Iran is not yet beholden to the six-month nuclear freeze negotiated as part of the deal.\nThe White House could not tell the Free Beacon late Monday exactly when these final discussion will take place.\nCongressional critics have lambasted the White House in recent days for approving a deal that they say would allow the Iranians to continue their most controversial nuclear activities.\n“Providing Iran with sanctions relief without dismantling their nuclear weapons program was a colossal mistake,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) told the Free Beacon on Tuesday.\nMeanwhile, the White House has reportedly been aggressively lobbying lawmakers to shelve legislation aimed at imposing new sanctions on Iran.\nRead full news report - http://freebeacon.com/white-house-exploring-ways-to-let-iran-enrich-uranium/\nSTATE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT MOST OF IRAN'S URANIUM ENRICHMENT OCCURRED UNDER THIS U.S. ADMINISTRATION\nBOTH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT OBJECTED TO U.S. COURT-ORDERED COMPENSATION FOR IRAN GOVERNMENT VICTIMS\nWHITE HOUSE SECRETLY NEGOTIATING WITH HEZBOLLAH TERRORISTS\nWHITE HOUSE ARMING AL QAEDA IN SYRIA", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://internetdeputy.com/index.php/top-stories/619-saudis-claim-to-have-nuclear-bomb", "date": "2020-05-31T14:21:39Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-24/segments/1590347413406.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200531120339-20200531150339-00302.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9515843987464905, "token_count": 365, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-24", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-24__0__2847359", "lang": "en", "text": "Despite this cooperation, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Saudis in January there would be “all kinds of NPT consequences” if Riyadh received a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.\nThe Saudis began financing Pakistan’s atomic weapons project in 1974. “Our achievements are yours,” the Pakistani president, General Zia-ul-Haq, told the Saudis in the 1980s.\nIn the late 1980s the Saudis secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China. The CSS-2, also known as the Dong Feng, is based on the Russian 9K720 Iskander missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile is designed to carry a 3 megaton nuclear warhead to a distance up to 12,000 kilometers.\n“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan,” said Gary Samore, Obama’s former counter-proliferation adviser.\nIn 2013 a senior NATO spokesman told the BBC nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are ready to be delivered. In 2009 King Abdullah warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross Saudi Arabia “will get nuclear weapons” if Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program.\nFollowing the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis reasserted their desire to obtain a nuclear weapon.\n“I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It’s just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn’t want one, but when India got it, so did they,”said Jamal Khashoggi, the head of a Saudi news channel owned by the Saudi royal family.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://thornburypicturehouse.com.au/film/st00002078/", "date": "2024-04-15T06:54:50Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296816942.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20240415045222-20240415075222-00167.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8646309971809387, "token_count": 158, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__113270618", "lang": "en", "text": "OUR BIG OSCAR TIP! Acclaimed director Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet) is back with the story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb.\nThe film stars Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Oscar® Winners Matt Damon and Rami Malek and Oscar® Nominees Robert Downey, Jr., Florence Pugh, and KennethBranagh. Written and directed by Nolan, the film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and the late Martin J. Sherwin.\n- MA 15+\n- 180 MINS", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/physical-world/2018/crash-stars-reveals-origins-heavy-elements", "date": "2020-09-28T23:59:07Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-40/segments/1600401617641.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200928234043-20200929024043-00575.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9437606930732727, "token_count": 2306, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-40__0__176402462", "lang": "en", "text": "Last August 17, at 8:41 a.m. Eastern time, Earth received a message from deep space that solved — perhaps — a decades-old puzzle.\nThe message began as a subtle quiver in the fabric of space, a gravitational wave. It grew to a cosmic cacophony that included gamma rays, radio waves and visible light. It all emanated from a galaxy roughly 130 million light-years away, where the dense cores of two long-dead stars collided. In the debris from the crash, some of the heaviest atoms in the cosmos, such as gold, platinum and uranium, were born.\nFor over 60 years, scientists had debated where such elements came from. Some physicists favored supernovas, the violent explosions of massive stars. Others suspected that heavy elements might be generated in the explosive collisions of superdense neutron stars, remnants of supernovas. But no direct conclusive evidence had been available to settle the question. Thanks to the August 2017 gravitational wave signal, though, astronomers could train a full array of instruments on the collision site. Their data now confirm that precious heavy metals and heavier radioactive atoms emerged from the neutron star smashup.\nAstrophysicist Friedrich-Karl Thielemann, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, and colleagues had just wrapped up a paper about the issue for the Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science.\n“It was a relief,” he says. “All the things discussed in my review have been happening.”\nResearchers had long ago figured out how lighter elements in the cosmos had formed. The unimaginably high temperatures of the Big Bang gifted the cosmos with hydrogen and helium (plus a dash of lithium) by fusing together primordial protons. Further fusion reactions in the cores of the first stars forged heavier elements, such as the carbon and oxygen needed for life. But stellar fusion can produce elements no heavier than iron, atomic number 26 on the periodic table.\n“After that, it gets murky,” says Matthew Mumpower, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Stars are in the business of producing energy to radiate into space, which fusion accomplishes nicely. But fusing nuclei heavier than iron consumes energy, rather than releasing it. Populating the rest of the periodic table — the dozens of elements with atomic numbers higher than iron — requires a different strategy.\nAdding protons to make nuclei with higher atomic numbers doesn’t usually work. Protons carry a positive electrical charge; it’s tough to stuff more protons into heavy atoms because of the overwhelmingly repulsive positive charge from the protons that are already there.\nFortunately, there are neutrons. They are electrically neutral and so can slip into a nucleus easily. And they possess a secret weapon — the ability to transform into protons. A nucleus capturing a neutron can then emit an electron, turning the neutron into a proton, and thereby raise the atomic number — creating a new, heavier element.\nNeutron by neutron\nThis neutron capture process can proceed slowly or rapidly. When slow, it’s called the s-process: Neutrons enter the nucleus much more slowly than they can create protons. The s-process takes place over thousands of years in the bloated interiors of aging stars. It’s responsible for about half of the elements heavier than iron.\nThe rest of the periodic table, including its heaviest members, relies on rapid neutron capture: the r-process. If the s-process resembles the gradual carving of a canyon by a trickle of water, then the r-process is like the rupture of a dam wiping out a village. In the r-process, a tsunami of neutrons overwhelms the atoms, penetrating them faster than the rate of changing into protons. Each nucleus becomes stuffed with neutrons until it can’t hold any more. The nucleus becomes dramatically unstable and either splits into two lighter elements, is transformed by high-energy light, or decays as one of its neutrons morphs into a proton, creating a heavier element that can now take on more neutrons.\nIt’s the r-process that has kept scientists busy for six decades. While physicists struggled to understand the dizzying variety of ways that new nuclei could be created, astronomers searched the cosmos for a site that could produce the necessary torrent of neutrons.\nEvidence from existing stars suggested that elements born in the r-process must come from a single type of source. Every star that harbors r-process elements — including the sun — has them in the same relative amounts.\n“The relative ratio of r-process elements in the sun is actually universal,” says Alexander Ji, an astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California. “The fact that it’s so consistent means that it has to be drawn from a single place.”\nFor decades, the prime suspects were supernovas, the cataclysmic deaths of stars much more massive than the sun. But the more theorists pursued that possibility, the less likely the supernova explanation seemed. “We were having trouble in supernova models getting enough neutrons fast enough,” says Jennifer Johnson, an astronomer at Ohio State University.\nA rare source for rare elements\nIn 1982 astrophysicists Eugene Symbalisty and David Schramm suggested that collisions between neutron stars might work. Suspected to exist in the 1930s and first detected in the 1960s, neutron stars betrayed their presence by emitting regular pulses of radiation, earning the designation of pulsar. The first binary pulsar — a pair of neutron stars orbiting each other — had been discovered just eight years before Schramm and Symbalisty’s suggestion. Observations of the binary pulsar revealed that over the next few hundred million years, the two neutron stars would spiral closer together and eventually merge. Such a collision would probably eject gobs of neutron-rich material, which could then be folded into the next generation of stars and planets.\nOther data also implicated neutron stars as r-process sources. Radioactive elements on Earth, for example, can reveal how much of these elements were created long ago based on how much remains around now. The r-process element plutonium-244, for instance, has a half-life of 81 million years. Its abundance today indicates initial yields much lower than expected from something as relatively common as a supernova. It seems that r-process synthesis must be a relatively rare event.\nDwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way have also helped trace heavy element origins. These wispy collections of stars are considered probable remnants of the early universe, untouched since their formation. Because they are simple and pristine, they preserve a clear record of how their elements were synthesized.\nIn 2015, Ji (then at MIT) and colleagues examined the dwarf galaxy Reticulum II. They found that most of its brightest stars were loaded with r-process elements. Nine other dwarf galaxies showed comparatively few of these elements, indicating that at some point Reticulum II hosted a single, rare event that polluted its stars with r-process debris. Ji and collaborators concluded that a collision between two neutron stars could explain all the observations.\n“You would need to have 1,000 supernovas to bring [the r-process abundances] up to the level observed,” says astrophysicist Anna Frebel of MIT, a coauthor of the Reticulum II study. But the dwarf galaxy is so tiny that it would never survive that sort of onslaught. “Just a few supernovas would blow this thing apart,” she says.\nWhile the case for neutron stars was growing, the evidence remained circumstantial. No one had yet witnessed a definitive collision — until last August.\nThe initial signal came from LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which operates instruments in Louisiana and Washington state. LIGO is designed to sense ripples in space-time from a variety of cosmic calamities. Virgo, a gravitational wave detector in Italy, helped triangulate where the gravitational wave signal was coming from.\nJust 1.7 seconds after LIGO spotted the gravitational waves, NASA’s Fermi space telescope recorded a flash of gamma rays coming from the same direction. An automated system alerted the astronomical community. “It was a worldwide effort where basically every telescope pointed at this thing,” Ji says.\nDetails of the gravitational wave signal revealed that two neutron stars had spiraled together and merged. Colors of light from the crash scene revealed telltale signatures of newly formed heavy elements. The timescale, energy, colors and amount of ejected material all closely matched theoretical predictions for a neutron star merger.\n“People are still sorting out which parts of it are not exactly the same,” says Ji. “But the overall picture is almost on the dot.”\nThe numbers are staggering. The neutron stars, whipping around each other hundreds of times per second, merged in just a few milliseconds. The ejected debris weighed up to as much as 4 percent of the mass of the sun. That material sped away at 20 percent of the speed of light, crossing an expanse equal to Pluto’s distance from the sun in under 30 hours. The entire synthesis of new elements occurred in less than one second. Researchers estimate that the synthesized gold alone was as massive as a few dozen Earths.\n“This event was a double slam dunk,” says Brian Metzger, an astrophysicist at Columbia University. The observations revealed how much r-process material was produced and provided an estimate of how often such collisions occur. With just one event, the uncertainties in those estimates are pretty large. But given how long LIGO was searching and how deep into space it could peer, astronomers estimate that every year there are roughly 1,500 such collisions in one cubic gigaparsec, a sphere about 4 billion light-years across.\nAt that rate there is one collision in the Milky Way every 100,000 years. Supernovas are 100 to 1,000 times more frequent. But given the amount of material that neutron stars' mergers produce, their infrequent collisions are probably enough to account for the heavy elements found in our galaxy, says Mumpower of the Los Alamos lab.\nThe quest to understand the origin of the elements is far from over, though. “People who tell you that the site of the r-process has been solved are oversimplifying,” Mumpower says. “There are so many uncertainties, just on the nuclear physics alone.”\nLast August’s neutron star collision told researchers that they are on the right track. But they don’t yet know if this event was typical or not. LIGO’s detectors are now undergoing an upgrade to improve their sensitivity. Once back online, LIGO could detect dozens of neutron star collisions per year, providing a much clearer picture of how the heavy elements are created and dispersed. “We’re in for a fun ride over the next decade,” Metzger says.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://nrc58.nas.edu/RAPLab10/Opportunity/Opportunity.aspx?LabCode=50&ROPCD=506461&RONum=B8477", "date": "2018-11-20T21:39:33Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-47/segments/1542039746800.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20181120211528-20181120233528-00555.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.811489462852478, "token_count": 412, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-47", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-47__0__60703640", "lang": "en", "text": "Opportunity at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)\nDevelopment of Nuclear Analytical Imaging Techniques for Materials Analysis with Spatial and Spectral Specificity\nMaterial Measurement Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division\nPlease note: This Agency only participates in the February and August reviews.\n|Chen-Mayer, Huaiyu Heather\nThe objective of this research is to develop new measurement capabilities for nuclear analytical techniques associated with the measurement of induced charged particle and/or gamma ray emissions during thermal and cold neutron beam irradiation. Nondestructive methods such as Neutron Depth Profiling (NDP) and Prompt Gamma Activation Analysis (PGAA) are well suited for applications in Li ion battery in-situ studies (NDP) and multi-elemental analysis (PGAA). The research will explore imaging of the induced charged particle and gamma ray emission, and develop image reconstruction techniques to obtain spatial distribution of the elemental composition based on spectral analysis of the emitted radiation. Much of the effort will be dedicated to developing and applying detection systems suitable for charged particle and spectral gamma ray imaging during neutron beam irradiation. The research is conducted at two neutron beam instruments at the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR).\nShrikant C, et al: Neutron depth profiling technique for studying aging in Li-ion batteries. Electrochimica Acta 56(13): 4735-4743, 2011\nPaul RL, et al: NGD cold-neutron prompt gamma-ray activation analysis spectrometer at NIST. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 304(1): 189-193, 2015\nPolf JC, Parodi K: Imaging particle beams for cancer treatment. Physics Today 68(10): 28-33, 2015\nCharged particle imaging; Gamma ray imaging; Neutron activation analysis; Composition analysis; Prompt gamma activation analysis; Elemental analysis; Non-destructive analysis;\nOpen to U.S. citizens\nOpen to Postdoctoral applicants", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.upberita.com/world/new-images-from-inside-fukushima-reactor-spark-safety-worry-153916/", "date": "2023-06-10T17:41:32Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-23/segments/1685224657735.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20230610164417-20230610194417-00344.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9578602313995361, "token_count": 729, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-23", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-23__0__186280934", "lang": "en", "text": "New images from inside Fukushima reactor spark safety worry\nTOKYO (AP) – Images captured by a robotic probe inside one of three melted down reactors at Japan’s devastated Fukushima power plant showed exposed steel bars in the main support structure and parts of its thick outer concrete wall missing. , causing concerns about its earthquake resistance. in the event of another major disaster.\nThe plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, has been sending robotic probes inside Unit 1’s main control room since last year. The new findings released on Tuesday were from the latest investigation conducted at the end of March.\nA remotely operated underwater vehicle called ROV-A2 was sent inside Unit 1’s pedestal, a support structure just below the core. He returned with images seen for the first time since an earthquake and tsunami crippled the plant 12 years ago. The area inside the pedestal is where traces of melted fuel are most likely to be found.\nA roughly five-minute video — part of 39 hours of images captured by the robot — showed that the 120-centimeter (3.9-foot) outer concrete portion of the pedestal was significantly damaged near its bottom, exposing the steel reinforcement inside. .\nTEPCO spokesman Keisuke Matsuo told reporters on Tuesday that the steel reinforcement is largely intact, but the company plans to further analyze data and images over the next two months to find out if and how the reactor’s earthquake resistance can be improved.\nImages of exposed steel reinforcement have raised concerns about reactor safety.\nAbout 880 tons of highly radioactive molten nuclear fuel remain inside the three reactors. Robotic probes have provided some information, but the status of the molten debris is still unknown. The amount is about 10 times greater than the damaged fuel that was removed during the cleanup of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United States after the partial meltdown in 1979.\nFukushima Governor Masao Uchibori asked TEPCO to “quickly assess earthquake resistance levels and provide information in a way that the people of the prefecture can understand and ease the concerns of residents and people nationwide.”\nVideo taken by the robot also showed sliding equipment as well as other types of debris, possibly nuclear fuel that fell from the core and solidified, piling up to 40-50 centimeters (1.3-1.6 feet) from the bottom of the the main control room, Matsuo said. The pile is lower than mounds seen in images taken on earlier internal probes at two other reactors, suggesting the meltdown in each reactor may have progressed differently, company officials said.\nMatsuo said the data gathered from the latest investigation will help experts find methods to remove debris and analyze the 2011 meltdown. TEPCO also plans to use the data to create a three-dimensional map of the details of the melted fuel and waste, which will last about a year.\nBased on data collected from previous probes and simulations, experts have said that most of the molten fuel inside Unit 1 fell to the bottom of the main containment chamber, but some may have also fallen to the concrete foundation – a situation that makes it already scary The task of dismantling is extremely difficult.\nTrial removal of molten debris is expected to begin at Unit 2 later this year after a nearly two-year delay. Removal of spent fuel from the Unit 1 reactor cooling pool will begin in 2027 after a 10-year delay. After all the spent fuel is removed from the pools, the focus is to return in 2031 to extracting molten waste from the reactors.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://lifesly.com/how-power-plants-work-to-manage-waste-production/", "date": "2021-06-14T15:21:49Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-25/segments/1623487612537.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20210614135913-20210614165913-00137.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9570157527923584, "token_count": 542, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-25", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-25__0__50634037", "lang": "en", "text": "The production of power is essential to the world’s survival. Unfortunately, that same production often comes with a lot of environmental risks. The good news is that today’s technology and innovation have made it much easier for power plants to control their impact on the surrounding environment.\nAs preserving the Earth has become a central focus for much of the world, power generation has been forced to follow suit. Take a moment to check out a few ways in which power plants are working to reduce waste production.\nUnderstanding the waste that is generated\nThe saving grace of nuclear fuel is that it contains a whole lot of energy. Plants don’t have to use a lot of the fuel to create mass amounts of energy, so only a small amount of waste is actually produced from the process.\nIf you need a visual representation of how much waste is produced, consider this. The amount of waste produced from the nuclear fuel needed to power a home for a full year would only be the size of a standard brick. It would only weigh as much as a sheet of paper.\nAssessing the perceived health risks\nNuclear waste takes billions of years to completely become free of any harmful components, but it takes hundreds of years to degrade to the point that it is no longer super dangerous for humans. For that time, the nuclear industry has had to figure out how to contain the waste.\nIt’s important to know that the storage of nuclear waste also does not pose a significant health risk to the environment or humans surrounding the site. Even if there was a spill, it wouldn’t hurt the people who live nearby.\nStorage options for the waste\nAfter the use of nuclear fuel, the waste needs to be initially cooled before it can be safely stored. Plants use wet and dry storage facilities to contain the waste produced by the process. The waste is placed in large pools at first to initiate cooling.\nAfter a sufficient time has passed for cooling the waste, it can be transferred to dry storage. Storage is not the last stop for the waste. After it has had time to degrade a bit, the waste is either recycled or put through a disposal process.\nNuclear waste can be recycled\nAlmost all of the waste produced for nuclear energy is reusable in another type of reactor. When plutonium and uranium are extracted from the waste, they can then be used to create new fuel rods.\nDirect disposal of the waste\nDirect disposal of nuclear waste means that the waste is placed in a special underground repository built to hold and contain the radiation for an indefinite amount of time.\nThe post How Power Plants Work To Manage Waste Production appeared first on WhatsNew2Day.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://secure.psr.org/page/39977/action/1?en_chan=tw", "date": "2019-09-20T01:39:11Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-39/segments/1568514573801.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20190920005656-20190920031656-00548.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9376024603843689, "token_count": 433, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2019-39", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2019-39__0__48040501", "lang": "en", "text": "3.6 million pounds of highly radioactive nuclear waste are currently being buried on the beach at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. Nuclear waste anywhere is dangerous, but storing it just 100 feet from the ocean and a few feet above groundwater creates unnecessary risk. With mounting evidence of rapidly-rising sea levels, the risk of saltwater intrusion is only increasing with time.\nCurrently, there are spent fuel pools that can be used if a fuel canister fails and needs to be repackaged. The California State Lands Commission’s Environmental Impact Report plans to remove the cooling lines for these, leaving no safeguard in place. In short, the current storage location and premature removal of the spent fuel pools and their cooling inlets and outfalls lack foresight and put the health and safety of the community and environment at risk.\nDemand a better solution. Send in a comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report on Decommissioning San Onofre asking the commissioners to take these two actions:\n- Decline to approve the dismantling of the cooling systems for the spent fuel pools until there is an alternate facility that can handle a potential failing canister.\n- Send a letter to the Coastal Commission suggesting it consider moving the radioactive waste from its current beachfront location to a storage building on the Mesa, a location further east in Camp Pendleton, on higher ground and away from the ocean, which can be better protected, as soon as possible.\nWe must call for nuclear waste to be moved off the beach to a new temporary storage facility located further east on Camp Pendleton so it can be better protected from sea level rise and other risks. Nuclear waste experts have publicly supported this alternative, including former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko and retired Navy Admiral Len Hering. Moving spent fuel storage to the Mesa or another site further east on Camp Pendleton is the only appropriate and ethical choice we have until a national repository is available. You can send a pre-drafted message via email here, but feel free to edit the text. Please submit your comment by the deadline on Monday, March 18th at 11:59pm.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://hellosolar.info/ukraine-an-envelope-of-300-million-euros-released-by-france/", "date": "2022-08-15T01:54:09Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-33/segments/1659882572089.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20220814234405-20220815024405-00791.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9516887068748474, "token_count": 324, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-33", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-33__0__196105697", "lang": "en", "text": "IFrance will release aid of 300 million euros for Ukraine, which has been facing an attack from Russia since February 24. Thursday, March 17, the head of French diplomacy Jean-Yves Le Drian confirmed, during an interview with his counterpart Dmytro Kouleba, the release of this envelope in the coming days, in accordance with “the commitment made” by the president. Emmanuel Macron with his counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.\nFrance is also delivering defense equipment and fuel support to Ukrainian forces. Ukraine enjoys massive support from the United States and other NATO member countries. Washington thus announced a military envelope of one billion dollars in one week. Jean-Yves Le Drian also pledged to “continue the efforts (of France) at European level to increase the cost for Russia of the continuation of its military operations”.\nFears around Chernobyl\nJean-Yves Le Drian also mentioned the “importance” of the discussions initiated under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerning the security and safety of civil nuclear installations in Ukraine. Ukraine has accused the Russian army of having twice cut the power supply to the Chernobyl nuclear site and of having exploded munitions near a reactor in Zaporozhya, two power plants being under Moscow control. The old power station, scene of the most serious civil nuclear disaster in 1986, still needs energy to ensure the safety of the fuel assemblies stored on site. Russian tanks fired on March 4 at the Zaporozhya power plant, causing a fire and raising fears of a disaster.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.nuvia.com/news/contract-award-deliver-rd-support-uk-nda/", "date": "2024-04-16T00:33:12Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296817036.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20240416000407-20240416030407-00409.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8786472678184509, "token_count": 217, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__50640594", "lang": "en", "text": "As the leader of the ENVISION consortium of companies, NUVIA is proud to announce it has won a place on a four-year contract to deliver R&D support to the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).\nThe ENVISION consortium is a diverse team of innovative SME’s, internationally recognised nuclear consultancies, and world-renowned R&D development companies. Led by NUVIA, the consortium comprises Lucideon, TUV Nord UK, Createc, NucAdvisor, Cognition Land and Water, Empresarios Agrupados and CIEMAT.\nThis contract will allow the newly formed ENVISION team to provide substantial support to NDA in the field of Integrated Waste Management, Site Remediation and Decommissioning to help shape and underpin NDA’s overall decommissioning strategy for the UK, deliver innovation across the NDA estate and develop vital technical expertise for the future of the UK Nuclear Industry.\nPhoto: Example of innovative integrated remote decommissioning using laser cutting techniques", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://pacingguides.lcsedu.net/2018-19/par/802", "date": "2020-05-25T16:54:28Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-24/segments/1590347389309.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200525161346-20200525191346-00438.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8457590341567993, "token_count": 914, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-24", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-24__0__11838134", "lang": "en", "text": "Science - 2018-19\nCH.2 a-c, i - Properties & Models of Atoms\nThe student will investigate and understand that the placement of elements on the periodic table is a function of their atomic structure. The periodic table is a tool used for the investigations of:\na) average atomic mass, mass number, and atomic number;\nb) isotopes, half lives, and radioactive decay;\nc) mass and charge characteristics of subatomic particles;\ni) historical and quantum models.\nBloom's Levels: Analyze; Understand\n- The structure of an atom determines its properties.\n- Atoms are composed of smaller particles.\n- All elements have isotopes.\n- Some nuclei can change due to radioactive decay.\n- I can explain why the masses of elements on the Periodic Table appear as decimals.\n- I can calculate how long medicine will stay in my body.\n- I can explain how chemical bonding occurs.\n- I can communicate how the model of the atom has changed over time.\nUNDERSTANDING THE STANDARD\n- The periodic table is arranged in order of increasing atomic numbers.\n- The atomic number of an element is the same as the number of protons. In a neutral atom, the number of electrons is the same as the number of protons. All atoms of an element have the same number of protons.\n- The average atomic mass for each element is the weighted average of that element's naturally occurring isotopes.\n- The mass number of an element is the sum of the number of protons and neutrons. It is different from each element's isotopes.\n- An isotope is an atom that has the same number of protons as another atom of the same element but has a different number of neutrons. Some isotopes are radioactive; many are not.\n- Half-life is the length of time required for half of a given sample of radioactive isotope to decay.\n- Electrons have little mass and a negative (-) charge. they are located in electron clouds or probability clouds outside the nucleus.\n- Protons have a positive (+) charge. Neutrons have no charge. Protons and neutrons are located in the nucleus of the atom and comprise most of its mass. Quarks are also located in the nucleus of the atom.\n- Discoveries and insights related to the atom's structure have changed the model of the atom over time. Historical models have included solid sphere, plum pudding, nuclear, and planetary models. The modern atomic theory is called the quantum mechanical model.\nIn order to meet this standard, it is expected that students will\na) determine the atomic number, atomic mass, the number of protons, and the number of electrons of any atom of a particular element using a periodic table.\ndetermine the number of neutrons in an isotope given its mass number.\nb) perform calculations to determine the “weighted” average atomic mass.\nperform calculations involving the half-life of a radioactive substance.\ndifferentiate between alpha, beta, and gamma radiation with respect to penetrating power, shielding, and composition.\nc) differentiate between the major atom components (proton, neutron and electron) in terms of location, size, and charge.\nidentify key contributions of\nprincipal scientists including:\n- atomos, initial idea of atom – Democritus\n- first atomic theory of matter,\nsolid sphere model – John Dalton\n- discovery of the electron using the\ncathode ray tube experiment, plum pudding model – J. J. Thomson\n- discovery of the nucleus using the\ngold foil experiment, nuclear model – Ernest Rutherford\n- discovery of charge of electron\nusing the oil drop experiment – Robert Millikan\n- energy levels, planetary model –\n- periodic table arranged by atomic\nmass – Dmitri Mendeleev\n- periodic table arranged by atomic\nnumber – Henry Moseley\n- quantum nature of energy – Max\n- uncertainty principle, quantum\nmechanical model – Werner Heisenberg\n- wave theory, quantum mechanical\nmodel – Louis de Broglie.\n- differentiate between the\nhistorical and quantum models of the atom.\natom, atomic mass, atomic mass unit, atomic number, cathode ray, Dalton's atomic theory, electron, half-life, isotope, mass number, neutron, nucleus, proton", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2012/07/17/rethinking-nuclear-power", "date": "2023-09-30T23:35:18Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510730.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20230930213821-20231001003821-00714.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9686086773872375, "token_count": 2506, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__301492668", "lang": "en", "text": "As we face the twin perils of an energy crisis arising from the ever increasing cost of oil extraction and the serious threat of climate change, nuclear power has again come back onto the agenda.\nWhen the Nuclear Age first came into being in the 1950s, it seemed as though it was going to provide a clean power source that would soon be completely ubiquitous. As the sound-bite went, it would make electricity so cheap there would be no point in metering it. People dreamed up plans of nuclear powered neighbourhoods and even nuclear powered cars. The potential seemed limitless.\nNuclear power advanced much more slowly than was anticipated. Partially this was because oil still provided a cheap and abundant fuel source that didn’t require the large and expensive installations necessary to run a light-water reactor (the type most people immediately imagine in their heads). However, there was also a real popular movement in opposition to nuclear power even before the 1960s. The first such movement in the US occurred between 1958-1964 at Bodega Bay where the first commercially viable nuclear power plant was to be built. Eventually Pacific Gas & Electric had to abandon their attempt. Indeed these grass-roots movements continued through the 60s and 70s in the United States and may have had some hand in reducing the application of nuclear power.\nIn France on the other hand, things were different. The French embarked on an extensive nuclear power program in 1974, following the first oil shock. By 1985 the majority of their electricity energy production was from nuclear sources. The French standardised their nuclear plant design fairly early on, going for a pressurised water reactor and deploying it nationally. This is sometimes cited as the reason for the relatively low cost of its electricity generation and lack of safety problems. By contrast, reactors in the US are like snowflakes. Every one is unique, itself an experiment in diversity.\nIn some ways the popular opposition of the anti-nuclear movement was prophetic. It occurred long before any serious accidents. It wasn’t until the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 that any real large scale difficulties were encountered. And it wasn’t until Chernobyl in 1986 that nuclear energy suffered a true disaster.\nAfter Chernobyl, nuclear power was forced to the very bottom of discussions on power generation, and not without reason. The size of the catastrophe was impressive. The west first became aware of the disaster when radiation alarms went off at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, which is several hundred miles from Chernobyl. Though 56 direct deaths are attributed, as many as 4000 people may have died due to increased cancer risk from radiation.\nAfter this, nuclear power had to take a back seat. No politician with any sense would touch it. People were frightened of its destructive potential and certainly were not keen on having one in their neighbourhood. The marginal cost difference with oil was too narrow to make it worth the while of big business to pursue a lobbying strategy on its behalf. Its defence has since then largely been up to those companies already operating and a few nuclear scientists and enthusiasts.\nNuclear catastrophes aren’t the only worrying thing about nuclear power, however. Nuclear waste is another key issue in the debate. The waste products of light water nuclear reactors have half-lives that ensure that they are still radioactive after thousands of years. This means that disposal projects have to be commensurately long. Expecting to house nuclear products with integrity over a scale so large that language itself will drift to being unrecognisable raises serious concerns. Reading a maintenance manual two thousand years down the line will be akin to reading Aramaic text. Only a handful of institutions, such as the Catholic Church, have existed for time periods on this scale. Perhaps we would need a church of true nuclear disposal believers, with an army of monks taught the intricacies of the ancient texts. This is not to mention all the intervening opportunities for earth quake, material faults, seepage etc.\nHowever, the objections to nuclear power are in some ways self fulfilling. As it turns out, long lived nuclear waste is not an inevitable consequence of nuclear reactions. It is merely the outcome of one particular type of nuclear reactor. These reactors, sometimes called once through reactors take mined uranium and increase the ratio of the fissionable isotope U235 in an enriching process. The fuel is then allowed to undergo fission resulting in a veritable cornucopia of elemental products including everything from Zirconium to Neodymium. Among these are the particularly nasty isotopes, Strontium 90, Cesium 137 and many others.\nStrontium 90 and Caesium 137 have relatively short half lives of around 30 years. While these are potent radioactive sources, they decay relatively rapidly until they are no longer radioactive. The most problematic products are those with life-spans of between 10² an 2×10⁵ years. These products are in a class of being just radioactive enough to present a serious threat to human health, but not so radioactive that they decay to nothingness quickly.\nAs early as the 1940s it was realised that a particular class of reactors, known as breeder reactors could have a novel way around the problem. Nuclear reactions can provide a source of the radiation needed to convert elements. This means that if a reaction is tuned appropriately we can control the type of products made. If the products are themselves fuel then we are breeding. Of course the process isn’t infinite, our fuel products are still the result of moving down a chain towards Iron. It can, however, result in substantial increases in fuel economy, improving it by as much as 10 or even 100 times.\nA light water reactor does in fact breed fuel itself, however the breeding ratio is low. A breeder is often defined as a reactor which aims to produce more new fuel than it consumes of the original fuel source. This is generally achieved by covering the core with a breeder blanket, a covering of material from which we are to breed fuel.\nThe output products of breeder reactors can be restricted to those which are very short lived, such as Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, and those which are tremendously long lived and so do not constitute a serious threat to human health if diluted. While it would be necessary to store Caesium 137 and Strontium 90 for sustained periods, it turns out that they are also useful as fuel sources for nuclear batteries. They can themselves be used to generate electricity and are the power source for most of our inter-planetary missions.\nNot only are breeder reactors more efficient in their fuel economy and more tunable in their waste products, they are also able to use different sources which might not otherwise have been fuel. While once through reactors require that uranium be enriched, no such requirement exists for a breeder reactor. It can simply be added to the breeder blanket and the appropriate fissionable products can be produced from uranium 238 directly. In addition, Thorium becomes a viable fuel if we use breeder reactors. This increases the distribution and quantity of fissionable fuel tremendously.\nThe use of breeders can also be brought to bear on the question of the proliferation of fissionable products. Since the fuel is reduced to effectively useless products the only remaining danger is dirty bombs using Strontium 90 and Caesium 137. Since the quantity of these products is relatively low, it may be feasible to keep them on site for use in nuclear batteries for additional power until they are effectively inert.\nIf that weren’t enough already, breeders can also be designed to consume our present nuclear waste. The nuclear products should be consumed until they fit into one of the two classes of either very high half life products or those that are very low. Even if breeder reactors are not explored for the purpose of power generation, their ability to burn waste should be seriously considered as an answer to our four decades of nuclear waste accumulation, the storage of which seems to be infeasible in the long term.\nBreeder reactors come in many types and designs. They range from the lead cooled fast breeder reactors that the Soviets used for their submarines to the newly designed salt-cooled thermal breeder reactor programme which India has started in order to make use of its abundant Thorium reserves.\nBreeders can also be manufactured to fit very small and local designs. They need not be produced on the massive scales that generally come to mind when we think of nuclear plants. The nuclear submarine designs of the Soviets are currently being modified by the Russian state energy company Rosatom to produce modular nuclear reactors. These can be used to produce heat as well as power, which allows combined heat and power systems which can provide neighborhoods with essentially free heating using the waste heat from electricity generation.\nThe space of design possibilities is indeed quite large. As we know from the automobile and software industry, new designs are always problematic. It’s best to get the third year of a car model or a late minor version of a software product rather than the cutting edge. Designs have to be honed over time. Any practical nuclear programme should be restricted to only a few designs which should be deployed on a wide scale such that economies of safety and scale can be taken into account.\nHowever, the question still remains: is nuclear power safe to use, or will we be contributing to a serious health hazard by taking it up? While the severity of the Chernobyl disaster cannot be denied, the numbers tell a quite different story than one might expect.\nThe most usual way to compare the safety of various energy sources is to compare the number of deaths per terrawatt year – essentially how many people are likely to die for the production of a terrawatt year. To get perspective on the size we are talking about, currently the world uses energy at a rate of about 15 terrawatts.\nIt has been estimated that Hydro power causes 883 deaths per terrawatt year, Coal causes 342 deaths, however Nuclear causes only 8 deaths per terrawatt year and only if you count Chernobyl. If you restrict to the French nuclear programme, this number is closer to zero.\nThis leads one to wonder not so much about the safety of nuclear power, but the safety of everything else. Clean power sources such as hydro really take their toll in human life. In fact, some of the largest human catastrophes in history are due to dam failure. Coal of course has the added deficit of contributing to a potential global climate catastrophe aside from all the dangers associated with its production.\nHowever, even assuming that nuclear power is safe, is it really worth the effort when we’ll merely be shifting from one finite resource such as oil to another finite resource such as uranium? Is it simply kicking the can down the road and will it be a problem that we have to deal with in 100 years all over again?\nBernard Cohen did an investigation of nuclear power as a sustainable energy source and published his results in the American Journal of Physics. In it, he concluded that, assuming the use of breeder reactors, there were sufficient fissionable products in the ocean which can be reclaimed in an (energetically) economical fashion that they will last more than a billion years. While this is not technically sustainable or renewable, it’s on the order of the lifetime of the sun, so can be considered sustainable for all practical purposes. Beyond that we will have to be worried about the colonisation of new star systems rather than what power sources to use on earth.\nFrom a purely technical perspective it does in fact seem that nuclear power can be used as a safe and sustainable energy source. However, all of this ignores the political and social problems of the research and development, the creation and the maintenance of nuclear power. In the past we’ve seen that the governments and corporations who run nuclear (as well as hydro and others) have not been transparent about plant management and have endangered human lives in pursuit of profit goals or for reasons of political expediency. No technical fix is possible for these problems.\nIndeed, our environmental problems are not so much about lack of technical choices as lack of political will and the ever present drive of energy companies to maximise their profits regardless of impact. Unless these social questions can be solved, the question of nuclear power will largely remain theoretical.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.dtra.mil/Mission/Mission-Directorates/Nuclear-Enterprise/", "date": "2021-04-20T07:48:22Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-17/segments/1618039379601.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20210420060507-20210420090507-00080.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8942334055900574, "token_count": 504, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-17__0__109356870", "lang": "en", "text": "WHAT WE DO\nThe mission of the Nuclear Enterprise Directorate is to provide capabilities that enable DoD Warfighters, interagency stakeholders, allies and partners to ensure a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent.\nNUCLEAR ENTERPRISE CAPABILITIES\nThe Nuclear Enterprise directorate conducts assessments to provide mission impact context to identified vulnerabilities for commanders at all levels - local, national, and strategic. NE assesses risk to DoD missions and provides remediation and mitigation. We conduct cyber vulnerability assessments with a unique suite of tools.\nPROVIDE ACCOUNTABILITY AND LOGISTICS\nOur accountability and logistics are critical to guaranteeing the viability of the nation’s stockpile. We write, review, and validate all technical procedures used by DoD agencies in maintaining the nuclear stockpile. We verify and validate all actions related to nuclear weapons.\nEDUCATE AND TRAIN\nNE supplies vital education and training to more than 30,000 nuclear personnel annually. We provide operators with education on nuclear and radiological weapons, as well as a full range of training in classroom, field, and tabletop exercises.\nENSURE NUCLEAR SURETY\nNE enables the safety and security of the Nation’s nuclear forces through planing and execution of Nuclear Weapons Accident and Incident Exercises for the DoD and Interagency. We leverage interagency strengths to test and train whole-of-government response capabilities.\nOVERSEE NUCLEAR INSPECTIONS\nNE conducts independent nuclear surety inspection oversight, as well as training and development for Air Force and Navy Nuclear inspectors. We also host annual symposia to examine inspection trends and issues across the services.\nDEFENSE NUCLEAR WEAPONS SCHOOL (DNWS)\nThe mission of the Nuclear Enterprise Directorate is to provide capablilities that enable DoD Warfighters, interagency stakeholders, allies and partners to ensure a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent.\nTHE DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER (DTRIAC)\nDTRIAC is the key Department of Defense source of information and analysis on nuclear and conventional weapons-related topics. Sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DTRIAC has major reference collections of documents, photographic data, and films and can search, retrieve and perform analyses on DTRA-internal and community-wide nuclear/conventional weapons phenomena, effects and technology matters and related nuclear/conventional technology transfer applications.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.wikimotors.org/what-is-a-nuclear-submarine.htm", "date": "2023-12-10T13:16:37Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679102469.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20231210123756-20231210153756-00084.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9566610455513, "token_count": 492, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__33580890", "lang": "en", "text": "There is hardly a piece of hardware more iconic of the Cold War than the nuclear-powered submarine. Both nuclear-powered, and, in some cases, nuclear missile-equipped, these submarines have circled the world's oceans since the launch of the first nuclear submarine, the USS Nautilus, in 1954. Today, five nations (United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and China) operate hundreds of nuclear submarines around the world. For all these countries, missile-launching submarines form an important part of the nuclear triad, which includes land-based missiles, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).\nA nuclear submarine has a huge advantage over what it replaced -- the diesel-powered submarines. Large, military diesel-powered submarines, which had been built since the Revolutionary War, required air for combustion to generate electricity for batteries. Diving times were limited to a few days at slow speed, or just a few hours at top speed. The need to resurface put submarines are great risk of attack. In contrast, nuclear-powered submarines are self-powered, and their dive times are generally only limited by the available food supply and the sanity of the crew. A modern nuclear submarine can operate for their entire 20 or 40-year lifetimes without refueling.\nNuclear submarines tend to be extremely expensive, as costly as the most expensive and sophisticated aerial bombers. The Virginia class submarine, a series currently being constructed for the United States Navy, costs about $1.8 billion USD (US Dollars) per unit, in part due to a lack of economies of scale and high requirements for safety and reliability. The hull of submarines must be crafted in a very precise manner for the submarine to be able to sustain the greatest possible hull pressures during deep dives. Modern nuclear submarines have a test depth (maximum depth allowed during peacetime operations) of about 1,600 feet (488 m), at which point the pressure is about 48 times as great as at the surface.\nThe nuclear submarines, operated only by the world's nuclear powers, are generally split into two classes: the attack nuclear submarine and ballistic missile nuclear submarine. Attack submarines, such as the Seawolf, Los Angeles, and Virginia class, are armed with dozens of torpedoes and cruise missiles, which can strike targets hundreds of miles away. Ballistic missile submarines, such as the Ohio class, each carry 24 nuclear-tipped Trident ballistic missiles.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://thetowncommon.com/2021/08/12/nuke-plant-cited-over-widening-concrete-cracks/", "date": "2023-12-07T20:50:50Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100686.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20231207185656-20231207215656-00370.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9526761174201965, "token_count": 941, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__18723550", "lang": "en", "text": "REGIONAL – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) slapped the wrist of Seabrook Station Thursday for not projecting the likely deterioration of its structural concrete caused by alkali-silica reaction (ASR).\nIn a 20-page quarterly inspection report, the NRC issued a Green finding, its lowest level of citation, to NextEra. It found that the staff of the New Hampshire nuclear plant “did not adequately account for the future progression of ASR in their prompt operability determination for several Seabrook structures.\n“Specifically, NextEra staff did not trend and project the periodic threshold monitoring data for the affected structural elements to ensure the structures would remain capable of performing their safety functions to the next scheduled inspection.”\nStarting last fall, the NRC conducts inspections at Seabrook Station every six months.\nDuring their walk-through of the plant, the inspectors also found that three structures – the emergency feedwater pumphouse, service water cooling tower and control and diesel generator building – had widening cracks that exceeded the design limits. The mechanical penetration area also has cracks that are approaching the limits.\nOnce a threshold limit is exceeded, more frequent inspections are required and may result in corrective action such as a structural modification to alleviate the condition, the report stated.\nThe 30-year-old atomic reactor has concrete infected by ASR, an irreversible type of concrete degradation, caused by water reacting with the concrete. It has been called “concrete cancer.”\nThe inspectors were also concerned with the degradation of the steel rebar in the concrete structures.\nThe NRC report from the inspection conducted in June was released two days after NRC Commissioner Jeff Baran visited the plant for the first time to learn about Seabrook’s degrading concrete.\nC-10 Research and Education Foundation, a watchdog organization in Amesbury that monitors the safety of the plant, said it is pleased that “The NRC’s resident inspectors are doing their job and holding the licensee accountable to the safety provisions in its operating license.”\nNatalie Hildt Treat, C-10 executive director, said, “While it is disappointing that NextEra has been cited for not properly analyzing the data to project whether the plant’s concrete structures will be able to perform the required safety functions, C-10 is heartened by the level of detail in this NRC report.\n“The public should feel more confident knowing that Seabrook’s ASR problem is getting tough scrutiny by the NRC’s inspectors.”\nTreat met with Baran and his staff by video on August 3 to ask that the NRC require more oversight and greater transparency into Seabrook’s concrete monitoring. She told the commissioner that the inspection reports were getting thin and had little useful information.\nC-10 gave Baran a lengthy list of questions to ask NextEra during his visit. The NRC staff is expected to answer the questions in the next few months.\n“These license conditions would not exist were it not for C-10’s tenacity in pursuing stronger oversight of Seabrook’s degrading concrete since it was first discovered in 2009,” Treat said.\nIn late 2020, the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a ruling in a legal challenge brought by C-10 relative to Seabrook’s ASR testing and monitoring program. While the Board ultimately approved the plant’s concrete management program, it did so with four new license conditions that direct NextEra Seabrook to conduct much more frequent and stringent monitoring and engineering evaluations in a number of situations. They were:\n- NextEra must increase the frequency of monitoring from 10 years to six months.\n- NextEra must develop a monitoring program to anticipate or monitor rebar failures.\n- If the cracks in the concrete get worse, NextEra must monitor the concrete more often.\n- Each concrete core extracted from Seabrook must undergo a detailed microscopic petrographic evaluation to detect microcracks.\n“It’s frightening to think that were it not for C-10’s challenge, the inspection interval referenced in this report may have been as long as a decade,” Treat said. “Now NextEra has to perform them every six months. But collecting data without using it to model future trends in concrete degradation is of little use.”\nPhoto taken from C-10", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://stellasplace1.com/2021/01/02/iran-rattles-its-sabers/", "date": "2021-08-01T02:16:48Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-31/segments/1627046154127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20210731234924-20210801024924-00564.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9505366086959839, "token_count": 359, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-31", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-31__0__63247061", "lang": "en", "text": "In anticipation of a Biden administration, things are once again heating up in Iran and Iraq. Since I wouldn’t want to be accused of spreading unfounded stories, even conspiracy theories, I’ll just quote other news sources this morning.\nThe US and Iran charged each other with ratcheting up tensions in the Persian Gulf as concerns about potential conflict build days before Iran marks one year since the US assassinated its most powerful military figure and less than three weeks before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.\nIran appealed to the UN Security Council on Thursday to stop the US from conducting what it called heightened “military adventurism” in the Gulf and the Oman Sea, including dispatching nuclear-capable bombers to the region, declaring that it did not want conflict but would defend itself if necessary.\nMeanwhile, a US official with direct knowledge of the latest intelligence told CNN Friday that some Iranian maritime forces in the Gulf ramped up their readiness levels in the last 48 hours. Earlier this week, defense officials told CNN new intelligence showed Iran has been moving short range ballistic missiles into Iraq.\nIran on Saturday announced that it intends to enrich its uranium to up to 20 percent at its Fordow facility amid heightening tensions with the U.S. in the waning days of the Trump administration.\nIranian state television confirmed that Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) informing it of Tehran’s decision to enrich its uranium just a short step away from weapons-grade levels.\nThe IAEA also confirmed to The Hill that it had received the letter and maintained that it would keep a close eye on any developments at the underground Fordow facility.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://heyupnow.com/es/blogs/hunts/canada-starts-construction-of-first-small-modular-reactor-nuclear-power-project", "date": "2023-11-29T16:01:06Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100112.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20231129141108-20231129171108-00413.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9359944462776184, "token_count": 140, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__295259169", "lang": "en", "text": "Canada starts construction of first small modular reactor nuclear power project\nPinwan, October 26, according to Xinhua News Agency, the Canadian Infrastructure Bank said on the 25th that the bank has signed an agreement with Ontario Power Company to start the construction of Canada's first small modular reactor nuclear power project. The bank will invest C$970 million ($710 million) in project design and site preparation for the 300-megawatt small modular reactor. The project is located next to Ontario Power's existing 3,500-megawatt Darlington nuclear power plant, which is expected to generate electricity by 2030. When completed, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 740,000 tons per year.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://drmichaelmcgetrick.com/blog_single_post.php?blog_flg=view&id=622&image=tp-images/cold-fusion-670px.jpg&img_flg=yes&ic=temporalata&ir=https://www.flickr.com/photos/93425126@N00/4394281917/in/photolist-abHmm2-abZ66D-7GiTf8-cTX54W-enVg4q-ozoRpN-9B3Ac2-2c1hPCW-actMwD-6WZSq7-WgndxX-f7vEnS-nzDgcg-AMT3Ne-coh7i1-7GiQVk-%0A7GnMKd-7GnNgw-6vE4Kr-8HXBZ6-6zNtSq-arLAw-cdrxvU-hPoQWQ-yS27R-YiWSKS-Pfm3YN-DRAfo-9ALxXD-DmpWeV-nGGi32-PCuYQf-e2HeAv-2bSRiGB%0A&lr=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/%3C=CC%20BY-SA%202.0", "date": "2023-09-25T22:19:20Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510100.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20230925215547-20230926005547-00830.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9534517526626587, "token_count": 1746, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__124026715", "lang": "en", "text": "At a time when the world is searching for cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, much effort has been invested in alternative forms such as wind turbines and solar cells. However, as is well understood, harvesting these forms of energy does not provide a continuously reliable source of energy – the wind does not always blow, and the Sun does not always shine! Are there other abundant sources of clean energy found in nature that could be utilised for practical application? The answer to this question is yes – and this is where the story of nuclear fusion comes in.\nNuclear fusion is the process whereby two atomic nuclei can be fused together – overcoming the strong electrostatic repulsive forces (Coulomb barrier) between them – to produce a heavier atomic element and in the process release large amounts of energy. For instance, two deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) nuclei can fuse together to form tritium (another isotope of hydrogen), a proton and release energy. Such reactions occur in the Sun. Very high temperatures are normally required for this type of reaction to occur – the Sun at its core has a temperature of around 15 million degrees Celsius. Much research has been performed over the last 60 years to reproduce the conditions in the Sun and trigger fusion reactions. Consider, for example, the Joint European Torus (JET) project based at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Oxfordshire, UK. Although fusion reactions have been achieved, the break-even point of releasing as much fusion energy as the input energy necessary to instigate such reactions has not yet been established. Conventional fusion research is expensive – to date, around $50 billion has been spent on fusion reseach worldwide.\nSince the fuel for fusion (deuterium) is commonly found in water, an abundant (and continually available) source of power is waiting to be exploited once the practical problems of fusion technology can be resolved. The yield of energy would be huge – a kilogram of deuterium would deliver around a million times more energy than that harvested from a kilogram of coal or oil. In addition, there would be no harmful radiation products.\nAgainst this backdrop, an announcement made by University of Utah electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann almost thirty years ago , on 23 March 1989, shocked the scientific world – the nuclear fusion processes that occur at the temperature of the Sun could be replicated at room temperature. Their apparatus was a relatively simple electrolytic cell comprising a heavy water electrolyte (the source of deuterons) and a palladium cathode. They found that excessive heat was produced, which could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions, and there was evidence of neutrons emitted – suggesting nuclear fusion. The finding was dubbed ‘cold fusion’.\nNot surprisingly, the scientific establishment (especially physicists) were highly sceptical of the findings. Immediately, experiments were performed by laboratories around the world in order to reproduce the results. The results were mainly negative or inconclusive. Part of the problem was that many of the details of the original experimental setup and procedures were not disclosed by Pons and Fleischmann – probably as a result of a desire on the part of the University of Utah to file for patent rights. Hence, it was difficult to reproduce the conditions. For instance, it is now known that a certain threshold for the so-called loading effect (establishing the correct ratio of deuterium-palladium mix in the host metallic lattice) must be reached before any nuclear effect can be initiated. Overnight, ‘cold fusion’ became an object of derision. Universities discouraged any further reasearch into the pheneomenon, and academic journals would not publish any work on the subject. As a result, further research went largely underground, performed by a mix of enthusiasts and academics (consisting of many retired professors) in simple makeshift laboratories housed in home basements and garages around the world.\nFast forward to the present day, and the evidence from a great deal of research from the underground community is that reactions with nuclear signatures do indeed occur in electrolysis machines at room temperature. However, the effect is difficult to reproduce; some, as yet unidentified, conditions must be met in terms of the lattice properties and structure of the host cathode material (e.g. palladium). There are many scientific sources of information documenting these findings such as Cold Fusion Now.\nSome conventional nuclear reactions involving D-D (deuteron-deuteron) interactions are described below:\nD + D -> He4 + γ + 23.9MeV (<0.01)\nD + D -> T + p + 4.03MeV (0.5)\nD + D -> He3 + n + 3.27MeV (0.5)\nThe possible nuclear particle products are helium (He4), tritium (T), protons (p), neutrons (n) and helium-3 (He3). Energy releases are defined in mega electron-volts (MeV), and the probability of the reaction shown in parentheses – for instance, the probability of the second reaction is 50%.\nThese nuclear products, together with excess energy release, have been detected in ‘cold fusion’ experiments suggesting that nuclear reactions are indeed occurring. However, the amounts of nuclear particles emitted are not in line with that expected with ‘hot’ fusion. For instance, the major observation appears to be the least probable one for conventional fusion – i.e. the D-D reaction that creates helium4 and a gamma ray of 23.8MeV. Instead of a gamma ray emission, the energy associated with the ‘hot’ fusion gamma ray appears to be released as extra phonon energy within the lattice. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain how the fusion process might occur at room temperature, some invoking novel lattice conditions that allow for the drastic reduction of the Coulomb barrier in order that fusion occur. Other theories suggest the creation of neutrons from electron-proton interactions which are subsequently absorbed into nuclei (without the need to overcome Coulombic repulsion) to produce the chain of observed nuclear products. There is a growing consensus that the existence of special environments within the lattice act as triggers – for instance, closed cracks, voids or other deformations. A good summary of evidence and theoretical models may be found here.\nAs alluded to earlier, it is difficult to replicate results. For instance, with palladium as the cathode material, lattice deuterium build up can be susceptible to the formation of cracks on initial exposure to deuterium. These then act as pathways for it to escape if they end at the lattice surface, and the necessary build up of deuterons within the host lattice does not occur. This would hint that perhaps the crystalline structure, defects and composition of impurities within the lattice play a crucial role.\nHowever, it is clear that the last thirty years has yielded much valuable work on ‘cold fusion’ – or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), as it is now commonly referred to. In fact, due to the consistency of positive results many governmental institutions, such as NASA, have been quietly working on their own research programs in recent times. In the private sector companies such as Brilluoin Energy in California are now taking the technology seriously, with a view to taking a practical solution to market.\nMastering ‘cold fusion’ has not been easy – the conditions under which it occurs are subtle. One lesson to be learned is that the disciplines of condensed matter and nuclear physics need to work more closely together – perhaps establishing a new sub discipline entitled Solid State Nuclear Reactions. More progress could have been made if the science community had not been so dismissive of the subject in the early days. In his book The Science Delusion, biologist Rupert Sheldrake describes how contemporary science easily dismisses ideas that do not fit in with current paradigms – thus stifling scientific and technological progress. In view of recent developments, it would make sense for the scientific community to promote LENR by way of more money for research. Then, ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ fusion research could be carried out on a more equitable basis. If the latter proves to become more viable and cheaper, we could then wind down the effort on the former. We could then embark on a road that encourages the technological development of a relatively inexpensive, safe and user-friendly source of energy.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://ardinireklam.com/an-analysis-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-nuclear-power.html", "date": "2018-12-14T08:33:02Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-51/segments/1544376825495.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20181214070839-20181214092339-00614.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9201810956001282, "token_count": 1081, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-51", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-51__0__141899159", "lang": "en", "text": "Threat convergence briefing the pros and cons of nuclear power march 2011 related analysis. Sample essay on advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy generation of electricity through nuclear energy has gone a long way to help prevent or at the very least mitigate global warming. This sample argumentative essay explores nuclear power production, how it is increasingly growing in number, and issues with safety and health advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. This content was stolen from brainmasscom - view the original, and get the solution, here 1 what are the advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power.\nEarlier in the discussion about advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy we saw how nuclear energy is beneficial, if used in the right manner and its scope utilised to the fullest however, there is a great deal of radiation danger associated with nuclear energy. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power as you will realize later an analysis of european parliament an analysis of the themes in lorraine hansberrys a raisin in the sun in this hydraulic power pack ebook, the classification may depend on the. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power nuclear energy represents only 15% of the electricity produced worldwide though in france, 80% of its electricity production is from nuclear although nuclear is unrenewable because it uses uranium for fission reactions, it is very sustainable.\nAdvantages of wind power wind power is cost-effective land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing between two and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on the wind resource and the particular project's financing. Safety inspection at nuclear power plants (npps) including fire protection measures and fire fighting capability , fire protection system organization, management and procedural control , and evaluation of fire hazard analysis [4. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of renewable energy which must be considered a nuclear power plant of average size generates about 1,000. The boiling water reactor (bwr) is a type of light water nuclear reactor used for the generation of electrical power it is the second most common type of electricity-generating nuclear reactor after the pressurized water reactor (pwr) , also a type of light water nuclear reactor. The advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power advantages in using nuclear power include: the provision of a secure energy supply capability for countries that.\nThe emissions of greenhouse gas are the most important advantage of nuclear power on the other hand, a nuclear accident can blast all the advantageous effect of nuclear power in a seconds. What is solar power - uses, advantages & disadvantages risks of nuclear power plants and radioactive waste: what are fossil fuels - definition, advantages & disadvantages related study. Iaea international atomic energy agency nuclear power: benefits and risks h-holger rogner head, planning & economic studies section (pess) department of nuclear energy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of electricity a: advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy advantages and disadvantages of solar power.\nHowever, it is convenient to know the advantages and disadvantages of solar energy to reinforce or contrast our opinion when we talk about energy sources, most people are positioned in favor or against a certain type (solar energy, nuclear energy , wind power , etc. The high density of nuclear power, ie, the amount of volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power essay netzsch lfa analysis essay importance of education in life essay in gujarati company law essay on directors.\nCheck out our top free essays on nuclear power advantages and disadvantages to help nuclear power symposium report detailed analysis of the swedish power. Nuclear energy essay examples the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power use and production an analysis of the nuclear energy as one of the most. The advantages and disadvantages of living in a big city essay (writing a film analysis essay first dance recital essay writing nuclear power research paper.\nAdvantages of coal as power plant fuel it is best to learn about the advantages- and disadvantages- of coal fired plants some of its advantages include reliability, affordability, abundance. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power - in this section we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of not many countries have uranium mines and not all the countries have details get price. There are some advantages and disadvantages of thermal power plant: what are advantages of nuclear power plants over thermal or hydroelectric power plants. Start studying advantages and disadvantages of descriptive statistics learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.\nAs of today, nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants nuclear fission is the process that is used in nuclear. Nuclear power cost estimation and analysis methodologies epe is a governmental agency supporting the ministry of mines and energy in its policy decisions, via planning studies for the energy sector created by law in 2004. The what-if analysis is a powerful prha method if the analysis team is experienced and well organized otherwise, because it is a relatively unstructured approach, the results are likely to. Below you will find a nuclear energy pros and cons list, which covers the most important aspects of typical nuclear power plants advantages and disadvantages.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.healingtouristry.com/doctor-profile/Dr-Noaline-Sinha", "date": "2023-12-04T12:23:03Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100529.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20231204115419-20231204145419-00315.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9344344139099121, "token_count": 161, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__165242212", "lang": "en", "text": "Dr. Noaline Sinha\nHospital - Artemis Hospital, Gurugram Haryana\nDr. Noaline has extensive experience in all aspects of Nuclear Medicine, both diagnostic and therapeutic. She brings with her several years’ experience of reporting whole body PET-CT studies, cardiac PET studies, Myocardial perfusion studies as well as innumerable other nuclear medicine procedures, including intraoperative use of hand held gamma probe. She has special interest in the treatment of patients of carcinoma thyroid with high dose I-131 therapy. In her previous employment, she played a major role in guiding the Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET CT through the NABH programme (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers) through successive years, creating all workflow processes and documentation related to the same.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://sponsorburo.ru/determining-absolute-ages-radiometric-dating-697.html", "date": "2021-09-23T09:11:12Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-39/segments/1631780057417.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20210923074537-20210923104537-00077.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9183865189552307, "token_count": 341, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-39", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-39__0__182208881", "lang": "en", "text": "All atoms of a given element contain the same number of protons. Atoms of an element with different numbers of neutrons are called isotopes. The half-life is the time it takes for half of a given amount of an isotope to decay.\nOnly a tiny percentage of carbon atoms are carbon-14. Figure below shows carbon dioxide, which forms in the atmosphere from carbon-14 and oxygen.\nFor instance, if an object has 50 percent of its decay product, it has been through one half-life.\nA popular way to determine the ages of biological substances no more than 50,000 years old is to measure the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14.\nImagine that you start out with 100 grams of carbon-14. Figure below graphs the rate of decay of carbon-14.Radioactive dating uses the decay rates of radioactive substances to measure absolute ages of rocks, minerals and carbon-based substances, according to How Stuff Works.Scientists know how quickly radioactive isotopes decay into other elements over thousands, millions and even billions of years.We can estimate the amount of carbon-14 that has decayed by measuring the amount of carbon-14 to carbon-12. With this information, we can tell how long ago the organism died. It decays quickly compared to some other unstable isotopes.\nSo carbon-14 dating is useful for specimens younger than 50,000 years old. But radiocarbon dating is very useful for more recent events.\nRadiocarbon dating was invented in the 1940s by Willard F. Radioactive dating is used in research fields, such as anthropology, palaeontology, geology and archeology.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://mepassions.com/2022/08/24/this-is-how-you-get-a-second-chernobyl-or-a-third-world-war-rolling-stone/", "date": "2023-09-27T20:47:03Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510326.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20230927203115-20230927233115-00703.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9548706412315369, "token_count": 2832, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__170406366", "lang": "en", "text": "WARSAW – It is a nightmare scenario: clouds of radioactive contamination spreading high into the atmosphere and sweeping hundreds of miles across Europe after munitions strike a nuclear reactor in Ukraine. As the world scrambles to respond to the environmental crisis, accusations of deliberate sabotage fly back and forth, setting the stage for a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.\nWhile it would be comforting to imagine this scenario as far-fetched – a bit of hyperbolic hysteria – so long as fighting continues around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant in southeastern Ukraine there is ample cause for concern that a miscalculation or deliberate action by Russian or Ukrainian military forces could result in a disaster with global impact and environmental damage that could last centuries.\nAnd even as officials in Moscow and Kyiv trade accusations about who is responsible for multiple instances of shelling in and around the sprawling complex – the largest nuclear power plant in Europe – global leaders are issuing increasingly dire warnings about impending nuclear catastrophe, while hawks in Russia and in NATO members say such an event could lead to a wider war.\n“ANY deliberate damage causing potential radiation leak to a Ukrainian nuclear reactor would be a breach of NATO’s Article 5,” wrote one British lawmaker, referring to the “collective self-defense” clause that permits the alliance’s members to employ military force to defend each other.\nAs an emergency session of the UN Security Council gets underway Tuesday afternoon in New York to discuss the power plant, both Ukraine and Russia continue to say they want to end the crisis – but each claims that the other is preparing to carry out a “false flag” attack and create a nuclear incident. Meanwhile, strikes continue – and while conducting artillery duels near a nuclear power plant may seem like sheer madness, the simple fact is that controlling the facility and the electricity it generates is a key strategic objective for both parties. Neither side can afford to give up the plant, which despite Russian occupation, continues powering Ukrainian homes.\nUnfortunately, it is also true that any explosion in a sensitive area of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant – located on the banks of the Dnipro River about 100 miles north of Russian-annexed Crimea – could spread radioactive contaminants across large portions of Europe.\n“It is not an exaggeration to state that a stray missile or prolonged artillery strike to either the operational units at the power plant, the spent-fuel cooling ponds or spent-fuel storage facilities could be catastrophic,” says Dr. Lewis Blackburn, a researcher with expertise in nuclear materials and waste management at the Immobilization Science Laboratory, a nuclear engineering initiative at the University of Sheffield.\nThe power plant’s spent fuel rods contain “high-activity” radioactive isotopes that are generated from nuclear fission, Blackburn tells me. These “isotopes have extremely long half-lifes and could easily be dispersed into the wider environment, should an appropriate vector, i.e. a missile, cause the spent fuel to be compromised, i.e. blown up.”\n“There is therefore a risk of significant contamination of vast land areas and risk to the wider environment in the event of an attack on these facilities. Whilst a single explosion may not cause significant damage, a targeted and sustained attack on this infrastructure could be disastrous.”\nThe spread of ionized radioactive particles is determined by environmental factors such as prevailing winds and moisture in the atmosphere. Ukrainian researchers created a simulation of how the radioactive particles would spread, showing them sweeping into Ukraine’s neighbors, including Poland and the Baltic States, in less than 24 hours.\nSuch an event would be among the worst nuclear disasters in history, affecting the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of people in multiple countries: a second Chernobyl or Fukushima, complicated by the fact that a response to mitigate the disaster would take place in an active war zone.\nThis is why Ukrainian officials and international watchdog agencies have been urging immediate intervention, while Ukraine’s allies have also joined the call for a demilitarized zone around the power plant.\nOver the weekend, officials from the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency were in Ukraine as part of concerted multinational diplomacy to access the site. But they have made little progress: with the Russian military in de facto control of the power plant, Moscow must agree to any visit by international inspectors. It hasn’t yet.\n“An IAEA visit has been in the works since June and would have already taken place if it were not for the U.N. chief’s interference,” Ivan Nechayev, a spokesman for Russia’s foreign ministry, said at a news briefing in Moscow.\nWhen asked about the current status of a planned mission to the plant, a spokesperson for the IAEA could offer little new information: “The IAEA is in active consultations with all parties regarding its efforts to send an agency mission under the leadership of Director General [Rafael Mariano] Grossi to the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant as soon as possible.”\nOver the past several weeks, Russia and Ukraine have been trading blame about an impending “provocation” or “terrorist action.” Ukrainian state-owned nuclear power provider Enerhoatom – which runs the power plant, and whose 11,000 employees continue to operate it under the eyes and guns of the Russian occupiers – warned via its official Telegram channel that “a Russian propaganda crew” had arrived at the facility and was filming Russian security services firing on the plant, in order to later blame an attack on Ukraine.\nIt provided no evidence, and this statement could not be independently verified.\nMeanwhile Russia denies it is doing anything that would compromise the security of the facility. “We want to make it clear that Russian troops have no heavy weapons deployed either at the power plant or in areas adjacent to it,” Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian defense ministry spokesman, said last week. “The Russian armed forces are taking all the necessary measures to guarantee the security of the Zaporizhzhya NPP.”\nYet strikes near the power plant and its adjacent facilities continue, with one technician from the plant being killed in a mortar strike on a taxi on Monday, according to the mayor of Enerhodar, the city that surrounds the power plant.\nThese strikes may be part of ruthless – and increasingly desperate – calculations of economic warfare, which continue to drive a strategy of brinksmanship near the power plant.\nA fully functional, safe nuclear power plant is obviously more useful than a damaged one leaking radioactive contaminants. It stands to reason that both Russia and Ukraine would not only prefer to own an intact facility, they would also like to control the electricity that it generates.\nAs of now, that is not the case. Russia physically controls the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, while Ukraine is still getting the bulk of the energy the facility generates – which is about 20 percent of the country’s entire electrical supply.\nThe last time the Zaporizhzhya facility was taken offline – in 2014, shortly after Russia invaded Crimea – it caused rolling blackouts across Ukraine. The loss of this energy capacity would have a major ripple effect for Ukraine’s economy, which is already reeling from damaged and destroyed infrastructure, blockaded or occupied ports on the Black Sea, and lost resources such as farmland and metals processing plants.\nThe Ukrainian government is now dependent on international donors to conduct basic operations, such as pensions payments and healthcare services: the World Bank earlier this month offered $4.5 billion in additional economic assistance for Ukraine to meet “urgent needs created by the war.”\nSo the diplomatic efforts and blame-game about “shelling” and “provocation” serve to veil the more practical consideration about who can control the power plant’s supply of electricity.\n“There’s a macro story about economic warfare, and this is part of it,” said Mick Ryan, a military strategist and retired major general in the Australian Army, who has been a close observer of the war in Ukraine. “Russia is trying to deny Ukraine’s ability to carry out the necessary economic and administrative tasks that allow it to be a sovereign state that runs its own country.”\n“To me, it’s who is responsible for and in control of the nuclear power plant that really matters,” said Michael Kofman, the director of the Russia Studies program at CNA, a federally funded research organization based in Virginia that focuses primarily on defense issues. “Consider the nuclear power plant and its future as an important consideration for both sides.”\nControl of the power plant is ultimately about controlling the energy that it produces, and Russia would like to have the electricity taken away from Ukraine, to be used exclusively in areas under its control. But what precisely is entailed in transferring the electricity supply generated by the power plant from the Ukrainian power grid, to the power grid supplying Russian-held territory is not something a spokesperson from Enerhoatom was willing to explain, perhaps for obvious reasons.\nBut there are signs that the Russians are increasing their efforts to do so. One Ukrainian military intelligence source indicated that there had been an increase in the number of technicians from Rosatom – the Russian state-owned nuclear power enterprise – visiting the plant.\nAnd Enerhoatom did offer a few clues in its warning on Telegram:\n“Russian occupying forces are planning to stop operating power units in the near future, and disconnect them from the communication lines supplying power to the Ukrainian power system,” Enerhoatom wrote. If the goal of this is to disconnect the power plant from the Ukrainian grid, the next step would be rerouting the electricity it generates, and even replacing its staff with Russian technicians.\nThere is little reason to think that Russian technicians from Rosatom would have any difficulties in taking over operation of the plant from their Enerhoatom counterparts. The reactors at the Zaporizhzhya Power Plant are a Soviet design – a VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor – used in multiple variations across Russia, according to Blackburn, the nuclear materials and waste researcher.\n“Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, given the Russian state operates many VVER-1000 NPPs [nuclear power plants] domestically, they would be able to export considerable expertise to the Zap site and assume control with, presumably, minimal training,” Blackburn said.\nSo the issue, then, becomes one of controlling how the reactors connect to the power grid. In the case of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, this would consist of physical infrastructure such as power lines and transformers, but also Enerhoatom’s control systems, information infrastructure and software.\nAn effort to disrupt the control systems and subsequently the flow of electricity into Ukraine is likely why Enerhoatom reported the “largest cyberattack” it has ever experienced on Wednesday. The company said the attack had originated in Russia, but was unsuccessful.\nIf Russia were to decide that it could not retain physical control of the plant, nor successfully transfer the power it generates to territories it controls, it could decide that seriously damaging the facility in order to strike at Ukraine’s economy was a viable strategic option.\nA false-flag operation at the power plant would help to achieve this, while giving Russian authorities the ability to deny they were involved should such an action create a nuclear disaster.\nMeanwhile, the Ukrainian military has an incentive to attack key nodes of physical infrastructure that might eventually permit the energy from the plant to be rerouted to Russian-occupied territories.\nRegaining control of the plant will be a major facet of any Ukrainian operations to retake territory lost to Russia. That will mean more fighting in and around its environs, increasing the chances of a nuclear catastrophe.\nThere are also signs that Ukraine is increasing its tempo of behind-the-lines attacks to undermine Russian forces in occupied territories. Efforts to target key infrastructure, in addition to military equipment or personnel, is part of this campaign.\n“I’m beginning to think that the counteroffensive has been underway for several months and we haven’t really noticed,” Ryan, the Australian military strategist, said. “We are seeing partisans working with Ukrainian special forces, deep precision strikes on ammunition facilities and on headquarters. I wouldn’t call it a stealth offensive, but it is an offensive nonetheless.”\nKofman, the analyst, agrees: “I don’t think that the uptick in attacks in Crimea or in Kherson is a coincidence, I think it’s part of a broader strategy by Ukraine to shape the operating environment. Ukraine’s goal is to degrade Russian military ability in key areas, as well as strike at ground lines of communication in Kherson and Crimea.”\nThe increase in Ukrainian military attacks in the occupied south also means that Russian forces are taking a more defensive posture to prevent being targeted by partisans, special forces or precision munitions.\nWhich helps to explain why there are images of Russian vehicles and ammunition now being stored inside critical areas of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant: no sane military commander would order a missile strike against a nuclear reactor.\nBut expecting sanity to prevail in war is not ideal.\n“It’s pretty disturbing. I mean the potential for something awful to happen here is significant. Not deliberate, but through miscalculation,” Ryan said.“The circumstances are ripe for some kind of miscalculation by either side.”", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://library.nevada.edu/speccol/databases/index.php?coll=man&mode=0&recid=626", "date": "2017-11-23T20:27:03Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-47/segments/1510934806939.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20171123195711-20171123215711-00428.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8107224106788635, "token_count": 118, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2017-47", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2017-47__0__4957260", "lang": "en", "text": "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada\n73.75 linear feet (59 record storage cartons)\nThe Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada collection is an information docket established by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The collection contains documents supporting the development of regulatory decisions by EPA on radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a potential site for a radioactive waste storage repository. The collection includes regulatory notices, technical documents, environmental reports, letters, minutes of meetings, public comments, and other materials.\nLink to Collection Guide", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.emfshop.co.nz/product-page/geiger-counter", "date": "2024-04-23T05:01:52Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296818464.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20240423033153-20240423063153-00336.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8241037130355835, "token_count": 331, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__162165109", "lang": "en", "text": "This simple radiation detector meter uses a professional Geiger counter and an energy-compensated GM counter tube as the core sensor for accurate detection of beta, gamma and x-rays. Fast detection speed, strong anti-interference capability, high sensitivity, wide measuring range and long service life. Detection range: 0.08uSv/h~9999uSv/h.\nRadiation dose data is updated in real-time per second.\nThis compact radiation detector can be set to sound an alarm on any cumulative value or dose rate. When the radiation value exceeds the set value, the radiation dosimeter will automatically emit a loud sound and a flashing screen for alarm. The main technical specifications of the personal radiation detector are in accordance with international standards.\nA radiation dosimeter can be used in our everyday environment: food, water, imported goods, cosmetics, stone, and decoration materials. Medical environment: radiology, CT, CR, DR, radionuclides, pharmaceuticals, etc. Industrial environment: metallurgy, waste recycling, metal casting, etc. Or as personal protection.\nThe digital Geiger counter has been selected with a powerful microprocessor with a TFT display for clear page measurement data and to make operation easier. With the built-in 400 mA rechargeable lithium battery, the nuclear radiation detector can measure continuously for 15-24 hours after only 1 hour of charging.\nSize: 105mm x 26mm x 16mm\nUSB C charging cable\ntop of page\nbottom of page", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://fair-lady.ru/three-methods-of-dating-rocks-16583.html", "date": "2020-08-09T17:26:48Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-34/segments/1596439738562.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200809162458-20200809192458-00196.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9507154226303101, "token_count": 328, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-34", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-34__0__8533278", "lang": "en", "text": "Three methods of dating rocks\nRadiometric dating or radioactive dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed.\nThe method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.\nThe possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.\nIt is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration.\nAs the mineral cools, the crystal structure begins to form and diffusion of isotopes is less easy.\nAt a certain temperature, the crystal structure has formed sufficiently to prevent diffusion of isotopes.\nAdditionally, elements may exist in different isotopes, with each isotope of an element differing in the number of neutrons in the nucleus.and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of fossilized life forms or the age of the Earth itself, and can also be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geologic time scale.Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://geekreply.com/technology/robotics-technology/2017/07/24/little-sunfish-robot-might-found-melted-fukushima-fuel-rod/", "date": "2022-11-30T11:41:08Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-49/segments/1669446710734.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20221130092453-20221130122453-00521.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9573531746864319, "token_count": 545, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-49", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-49__0__189597416", "lang": "en", "text": "The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, or Fukushima for short, has become synonymous with the dangers of a nuclear meltdown. Unlike the Chernobyl disaster, which was caused by a faulty reactor design and human error, the Fukushima disaster was the result of a tsunami damaging generators that helped keep the reactors cool. However, regardless of the cause, these disasters have created irradiated areas humans cannot safely navigate; one such area includes the infamous Elephant’s Foot, a solidified blob of corium — a lava-like substance formed inside reactor cores during nuclear meltdowns — found in Chernobyl that is so radioactive it can kill a human in several minutes. Scientists cannot explore or examine these contaminated areas without having every cell in their body hemorrhage after ten minutes (yes, seriously), which is where robots such as “Little Sunfish” come in.\nLittle Sunfish, also known as Mini Manbo, is a small exploratory robot no larger than a loaf of bread that looks like a hi-tech pizza cutter. The remotely-controlled robot, which started diving into the Fukushima reactor last week, uses lights, five propellers, two cameras, and a dosimeter — a device that measures ionizing radiation. According to The Japan Times, Toshiba Corp and the International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning (IRID) worked together to develop Little Sunfish for the express purpose of exploring the Fukushima reactor and removing nuclear debris, and all their hard work is starting to pay off.\nAccording to sites such as BBC News and CNN, Little Sunfish and its operators have found “lava-like rocks and lumps” under the reactor. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) released a statement explaining, “There is a high possibility that the solidified objects are mixtures of melted metal and fuel that fell from the vessel,” and that the debris would have to analyzed. TEPCO spokesman Maki Murayama believes, “This is a big step towards the decommission process.”\nThe description of the debris is strikingly similar to Chernobyl’s Elephant’s Foot, which is still giving off beyond-fatal doses of radiation and will do so for at least one hundred years. While the Fukushima disaster didn’t release as much radiation as the Chernobyl disaster, if Little Sunfish has found what is essentially an underwater Elephant’s Foot, just how will TEPCO decommission it? All that could be done with Chernobyl’s Elephant Foot was quarantine it behind four hundred thousand cubic meters of concrete. Regardless, we wish the company the best in its attempts to fix this horrendous disaster.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://pressthebutton.libsyn.com/racism-and-nuclear-weapons", "date": "2023-09-29T13:46:03Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233510516.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20230929122500-20230929152500-00147.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9095929861068726, "token_count": 143, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__174385161", "lang": "en", "text": "Jan 5, 2021\nDrs. Katlyn Turner, Denia Djokic, and Aditi Verma join Press the Button for an in-depth discussion on how systemic racism in the nuclear field is produced and sustained, and what needs to happen in order to begin combating it. Drs. Turner, Djokic, and Verma recently co-authored an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled \"A Call for Anti-Racist Action and Accountability in the US Nuclear Community.\" Early Warning features co-host Tom Collina and our deputy director of policy Mary Kaszynski on incoming National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's recent comments regarding the extension of New START and support for the Iran nuclear agreement.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://globalcourant.com/china-urges-us-uk-and-australia-to-shelve-nuclear-submarine/", "date": "2024-03-02T10:04:08Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-10/segments/1707947475806.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20240302084508-20240302114508-00063.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8963750004768372, "token_count": 420, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-10__0__103415502", "lang": "en", "text": "China on Tuesday urged the US, UK and Australia to shelve nuclear submarine cooperation, calling the plan an “act of nuclear proliferation”.\nIn a weekly briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin urged the troika to “take into account the concerns of the international community and stop nuclear proliferation acts such as nuclear submarine cooperation.”\n- Advertisement -\nReferring to reports by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen on Monday that “the small-scale alliance between the US, UK and Australia on nuclear powered submarines has become a concern for ASEAN and the countries of the region,” Wang said the Cambodian leader’s words were “including ASEAN countries.” It addresses concerns widely shared by the countries of the region.”\n“The AUKUS security partnership and related nuclear submarine cooperation create nuclear proliferation risks, threaten the international nuclear nonproliferation system, undermine the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Agreement, and undermine the efforts of ASEAN countries to establish a Southeast Asian nuclear weapons-free zone,” he continued.\nCiting “estimates” by anonymous international arms control experts, Wang said the weapons-grade nuclear materials the US and Britain plan to hand over to Australia would be sufficient to build between 64 and 80 nuclear weapons.\nWang said Beijing “absolutely” supports ASEAN countries’ efforts to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in Southeast Asia.\n“We call once again on the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to heed the concerns of the international community, to cease non-proliferation actions such as nuclear submarine collaborations, to stop and end the double standard undermining the international nonproliferation system.” Storms are growing over the Pacific Ocean,” he added.\n- Advertisement -\nOnly a part of the news presented to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS) and in summary form are available on the Anadolu Agency website. Please contact us for subscription options.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://doctorpence.blogspot.com/2016/09/map-on-monday-nuclear-states-nuclear.html", "date": "2022-06-25T20:59:16Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-27/segments/1656103036099.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20220625190306-20220625220306-00232.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9622882008552551, "token_count": 360, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-27", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-27__0__100979336", "lang": "en", "text": "By A. Joseph Lynch\n|Image of first nuclear explosion|\nWhile many are familiar with the list of nuclear powers, few know anything about the vast number of nuclear bomb detonations or where they occurred. The map above is a screenshot of a video called \"A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945.\" The video is somewhat lengthy (and it ends before North Korea's testing), but it is a very good representation of the temporal-spatial dimensions of nuclear testing.\nIf you asked someone where the United States tested its nuclear weapons, most would say the American Southwest. Although this is true, few are familiar with the two underground nuclear detonations that took place in the state of Mississippi in 1964, or that the United Kingdom also tested nuclear weapons in the United States. In fact, the last British nuclear detonation took place in the state of Nevada. French nuclear testing in Algeria and British nuclear testing in Australia make sense given their colonial holdings -- yet it is not well-known that the Sahara and the Australian Outback were home to many nuclear blasts.\n|Oceanic Testing: Operation Crossroads (July 25, 1946)|\nThe oceans have also hosted nuclear tests. One such example, Operation Crossroads, took place on July 25, 1946, at Bikini Atoll. Nuclear detonations have not only taken place under the Earth's surface, but even high above. An American test called \"Starfish Prime\" took place in outer space on July 8, 1962. It was the largest nuclear blast to take place in space (the detonation occurred at an altitude of 250 miles). The blast was seen through cloud cover in Honolulu almost 900 miles away.\n|The blast of Starfish Prime - 250 miles above and almost 900 miles away from Honolulu.|", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.marvale.co/single-post/2018/10/09/Japan-confirms-first-worker-death-from-Fukushima-nuclear-disaster", "date": "2019-12-15T15:28:03Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2019-51/segments/1575541308604.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20191215145836-20191215173836-00443.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9774436950683594, "token_count": 658, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2019-51", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2019-51__0__111903587", "lang": "en", "text": "Japan has announced that a worker at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant died after suffering radiation exposure.The man, who died from lung cancer, was first diagnosed in 2016. Japan's government had previously agreed that radiation caused illness in four workers but this is the first acknowledged death.\nThe ministry has ruled that the man's family should be paid compensation, after hearing testimonies from radiologists and other experts,\nThe employee who died, a man in his 50s, had worked at atomic power stations since 1980 and was in charge of measuring radiation at the Fukushima No 1 plant shortly after its meltdown. He worked there at least twice after the meltdown, and had worn a face mask and protective suit, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare said.\nFor almost six minutes, the worst to ever earthquake hit Japan with a 9.0 magnitude. Within 50 minutes of the initial earthquake, the first waves up to 14 meters high flowed over the nuclear plant's 10-meter high sea wall. The Fukushima plant's emergency power generators, located in the basement, were soon flooded and failed, shutting down vital cooling systems and causing reactor fuel rods to meltdown in three of the six reactors, leaking radiation into the surrounding area and the sea. Sixteen hours after meltdown began, the fuel rods in one reactor had almost completely melted. It would 88 days until the Japanese government admitted that a meltdown had taken place.\nAt the time of the nuclear disaster, there were no immediate deaths or cases of radiation sickness, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes to ensure this. More than 40 evacuated patients from the Futaba Hospital later died. Around 18,500 people died or disappeared in the quake and tsunami, and more than 160,000 were forced from their homes.\nThree former Tepco executives were charged with professional negligence, resulting in death and injury, linked to the hospital evacuation. Though no-one died directly in the nuclear meltdown, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant operator, and state officials have been facing multiple compensation claims since 2012. The amount of compensation to be paid by TEPCO is expected to reach 7 trillion yen ( 61,889,940,000.00 US dollars).\nThe tsunami water caused the meltdown, but water is also the only way to stop it. Since the disaster, Tokyo Electric Power Company has been pumping hundreds of tons of water to cool Fukushima's reactors and stop the outflow of radiation. The cleanup also includes collecting radioactive contaminated earth from the surrounding area, which now sits in thousands of industrial-sized bags. Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion US). In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion US).\nThe true scale of the environmental impact is still unknown as radioactive material has been detected as far as 200 miles from the plant. The world may still be feeling the effects of this disaster for generations to come. Tokyo Electric Power Company estimates that cleanup operations at the Fukushima power plant could take up to 40 years.\nThe Fukushima triple nuclear meltdown meltdown, was the world's worst nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster that occurred three decades ago, in April 1986.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://24technews.com/what-is-the-story-about-oppenheimer/", "date": "2023-09-24T17:59:22Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-40/segments/1695233506658.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20230924155422-20230924185422-00800.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9233670830726624, "token_count": 1005, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-40__0__78901916", "lang": "en", "text": "“Oppenheimer,” the epic new movie directed by Christopher Nolan, takes audiences into the mind and moral decisions of J. Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the team of brilliant scientists in Los Alamos, New Mexico, who built the world’s first atomic bomb.\nJ. Robert Oppenheimer : Wikipedia\n|J. Robert Oppenheimer|\n|Oppenheimer c. 1944|\n|Born||Julius Robert Oppenheimer|\nApril 22, 1904\nNew York City, U.S.\n|Died||February 18, 1967 (aged 62)|\nPrinceton, New Jersey, U.S.\n|Education||Harvard University (AB)Christ’s College, CambridgeUniversity of Göttingen (PhD)|\n|Known for||Nuclear weapons developmentTolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equationTolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limitOppenheimer–Phillips processBorn–Oppenheimer approximation|\n|Spouse||Katherine “Kitty” Puening(m. 1940)|\n|Relatives||Frank Oppenheimer (brother)|\n|Awards||Medal for Merit (1946)Enrico Fermi Award (1963)|\n|Institutions||University of California, BerkeleyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyLos Alamos LaboratoryInstitute for Advanced Study|\n|Thesis||Zur Quantentheorie kontinuierlicher Spektren (1927)|\n|Doctoral advisor||Max Born|\n|Doctoral students||showSee list|\nJulius Robert Oppenheimer[note 1] (/ˈɒpənˌhaɪmər/ OP-ən-HY-mər; April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist and director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II. He is often credited as the “father of the atomic bomb” for his role in organizing the Manhattan Project, the research and development undertaking that created the first nuclear weapons.\nBorn in New York City to Jewish immigrants from Germany, Oppenheimer earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Harvard University in 1925 and a PhD in physics from the University of Göttingen in Germany in 1927. After research at other institutions, he joined the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, where he became a full professor in 1936. He made significant contributions to theoretical physics, including achievements in quantum mechanics and nuclear physics such as the Born–Oppenheimer approximation for molecular wave functions, work on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling. With his students, he also made contributions to the theory of neutron stars and black holes, quantum field theory, and the interactions of cosmic rays.\nIn 1942, Oppenheimer was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project, and in 1943 was appointed director of the project’s Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, tasked with developing the first nuclear weapons, four years after the start of the German nuclear weapons program.[note 2] His leadership and scientific expertise were instrumental in the project’s success. On July 16, 1945, he was present at the first test of the atomic bomb, Trinity. In August 1945, the weapons were used against Japan in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.\nIn 1947, Oppenheimer became the director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and chaired the influential General Advisory Committee of the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission. He lobbied for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. He opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb during a 1949–1950 governmental debate on the question and subsequently took positions on defense-related issues that provoked the ire of some U.S. government and military factions. During the Second Red Scare, Oppenheimer’s stances, together with his past associations with the Communist Party USA, led to the revocation of his security clearance following a 1954 security hearing. This effectively ended his access to the government’s atomic secrets and thus his career as a nuclear physicist. Stripped also of his direct political influence, Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write, and work in physics. In 1963, he was awarded the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of political rehabilitation. On December 16, 2022, U.S. Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm ordered the 1954 decision to revoke Oppenheimer’s security clearance be vacated.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://sweden.mfa.gov.by/en/embassy/news/a1c451c7e574526d.html", "date": "2023-06-09T01:14:16Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-23/segments/1685224655244.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20230609000217-20230609030217-00791.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9231178760528564, "token_count": 495, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-23", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-23__0__19443064", "lang": "en", "text": "26 April 2022 — the 36th Anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and the International Chernobyl Disaster Remembrance Day26.04.2022\nOn 26 April 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl NPP in the north of Ukraine (then USSR) shook the world. The accident was the largest man-made disaster in the history of the nuclear power industry. Radioactive substances were released into the atmosphere and spread across the western part of the USSR and part of Europe. Radiation changed the lives of millions of people forever, and the consequences are still being felt today.\nFor Belarus, the Chernobyl disaster has a particular significance. Nuclear contamination of its vast areas led to the resettlement and disruption of the normal way of life of hundreds of thousands of Belarusians.\nSince 1990, five state programmes worth USD 19.3 billion have been implemented to overcome the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.\nBelarus is grateful to all international partners who have not remained indifferent and provided support.\nDesignation of 26 April as the International Chernobyl Disaster Remembrance Day by the UN General Assembly at its 71st session was symbolic.\nMuch has already been achieved but still a lot to be done. Belarus’ Government is expanding national efforts from assistance and rehabilitation to the sustainable development of the affected regions. The 6th State programme on overcoming the consequences of the Chernobyl NPP disaster for 2021 – 2025 sets the following goals: ensuring social protection, medical care, sanatorium treatment and health improvement of the affected population, especially children living or studying in the contaminated regions; improving radiation protection and targeted use of protective measures; promotion of socio-economic development of the affected areas; scientific research and public relations.\nOvercoming the consequences of the accident requires a huge national effort, new partnerships, innovation and investment.\nIn 2019, the UN General Assembly recognised the remaining legacy of the disaster and the need to ensure sustainable development of recovering areas, with a focus on the promotion of local business and tourism, job creation, transition to green technologies, sustainable forestry and agricultural innovation, the inclusion of vulnerable people in local development, popularisation of healthy lifestyles.\nBelarus counts on the support of UN institutions, UN Member States and private investors and is interested in attracting international partners to address the challenges in ensuring sustainable development of these regions and their residents.\nWe look forward to continuing fruitful cooperation with all partners to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in the affected regions.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mrosati/Research/research.html", "date": "2018-06-24T01:40:24Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-26/segments/1529267865995.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20180624005242-20180624025242-00127.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9090195298194885, "token_count": 402, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-26", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-26__0__210568442", "lang": "en", "text": "My research effort is focused to the study\nof nuclear matter through the study of particle production in\nultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions.\nThe properties of nuclear matter are fairly well understood near normal density.\nNuclear matter is made of point-like quarks and gluons, which seem\nto be confined inside hadrons such as protons and neutrons.\nAccording to the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong interactions,\nwhen nuclear matter become compressed or heated, it must undergo a change of phase to a new state of matter, the quark-gluon plasma, in which quarks and gluons are free to move about within a confinement volume much larger than hadronic sizes.\nQuark Gluon Plasma has also a connection to astrophysics. Due to the enormous\ndensities and temperatures prevailing during the first microseconds after\nBig Bang, quarks and gluons should, in the early universe, have moved\naround freely. During the expansion temperatures and densities decreased and\nthe matter today found in the universe was created.\nA new major accelerator, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has\nrecently come online at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) in Long Island about 65 miles East of New York City.\nRHIC will provide the capability of colliding heavy nuclei (with masses up to Gold)\nat very high energy, up to 200~GeV/c.\nThese collisions will produce extended volumes of hadronic matter\nwith high energy densities and will provide\nthe opportunity for observing directly the parameters of the\npredicted phase transition, and the mechanisms of quark confinement.\nThis will improve our understanding of the strong force in a regime\nwhere theoretical calculations are most difficult.\nCurrently my research effort is focused on the\nthe PHENIX experiment, one of the two large experiment\ncurrently taking data at RHIC.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://brucehawker.com/category/united-nations/", "date": "2016-04-29T17:45:52Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2016-18/segments/1461860111392.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20160428161511-00098-ip-10-239-7-51.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9654791951179504, "token_count": 108, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2016-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2016-18__0__33737094", "lang": "en", "text": "Australia Takes Seat on Security Council During 50th Anniversary of Cuban Missile Crisis\nOn this day 50 years ago the Cuban missile crisis was in full cry. American spy planes were reconnoitering Cuban missile sites and a fleet of Soviet ships carrying nuclear warheads was steaming towards Cuba. In Washington President Kennedy was discussing various military options with his Joint Chiefs of Staff. In New York the United Nations Security Council would soon be in emergency session.\nIn the days that followed, the United States ambassador to the UN, Adlai Stevenson, [...]", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://indiaarising.com/breaking-pakistan-building-new-nuclear-site-target-india/2/", "date": "2017-05-25T01:12:13Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-22/segments/1495463607960.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20170525010046-20170525030046-00021.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9618690013885498, "token_count": 385, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2017-22", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2017-22__0__93611218", "lang": "en", "text": "“The area of interest is approximately 1.2 hectares and is located within the secure area of the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), in the southwestern part of the complex,” said the statement.\nKarl Dewey, a proliferation analyst at IHS Jane’s added: “It is sited within an established centrifuge facility, has strong security and shows some of the structural features of a possible new uranium enrichment facility. This makes it a strong candidate for a new centrifuge facility.”\nThe structure of the site also bears strong resemblance to facilities built by nuclear fuel company URENCO which also operates several nuclear plants in Europe, it said.\n“This may be more than coincidence as AQ Khan, considered by many to be the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, worked at URENCO before stealing centrifuge designs and returning to Pakistan,” said Charlie Cartwright, an imagery analyst for IHS Jane’s.\nPakistan is currently seeking to join the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group that seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation by controlling the export of materials, equipment and technology that can be used to manufacture atomic weapons.\n“It is difficult to see how these actions are consistent with the principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of responsible nuclear exporters which Pakistan is seeking to join,” said Ian Stewart, head of research group Project Alpha at King’s College London.\nPakistani physicist AH Nayyar told AFP if the site was indeed a centrifuge, “then primarily because they are being built inside KRL I would conclude they are being (built) for weapons,” adding that the country’s nuclear power plants were supplied by imported uranium from China.\nHe, however, cautioned it was not possible to be definitive about the site’s purpose based on imagery alone.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/mcmaster-university-usnc-gfp-sign-mou-to-study-deployment-of-micro-modular-reactor/", "date": "2023-04-01T03:37:51Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-14/segments/1679296949701.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20230401032604-20230401062604-00770.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9401377439498901, "token_count": 673, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-14", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-14__0__190596256", "lang": "en", "text": "As Canada looks toward a low-carbon future, McMaster University, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. (USNC) and Global First Power (GFP) are embarking a new partnership to advance research in small modular reactors (SMRs) – a clean energy technology that will play an essential role in Canada's Net Zero by 2050 goal.\nThe three partners have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to further examine the feasibility of deploying a micro modular reactor (MMR) at McMaster University or an affiliated site. The partnership is expected to pave the way for Canadian communities considering the adoption of this new approach to greenhouse gas-free energy.\nThe MMR is a new class of nuclear reactor, much smaller in size and power than traditional nuclear reactors, with enhanced safety features. Factory constructed with a far smaller footprint and expected economies from fleet operation, the MMR is suitable for powering remote communities and providing process heat to industry, and is expected to be operational in Canada later this decade.\nSeattle-based USNC has developed the MMR technology for worldwide deployment. GFP is the partnership between USNC and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) that is deploying USNC's MMR technology in Canada. Both USNC and OPG are contributors to Canada's SMR Action Plan.\nDave Tucker, McMaster's assistant vice-president, research (nuclear), said the partnership builds on McMaster's rich nuclear expertise and follows on the university's contributions to Canada's SMR Action Plan. \"McMaster is a global leader in nuclear R&D and a recognized centre of excellence for training,\" he said, noting the partners are frontrunners in this field.\n\"Combining our capabilities with those of USNC and GFP will allow us to conduct life-cycle studies on the optimal utilization of SMRs and train the next generation of experts that will build, operate, maintain, monitor and regulate these facilities,\" Tucker said.\nGFP is developing Canada's first commercial demonstration SMR at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratory's (CNL) Chalk River site, where much of the research and training will take place, according to Dominique Minière, GFP's president and CEO.\n\"It's the most advanced SMR project in the country and, arguably, the Western world,\" said Minière, adding that GFP's MMR project at Chalk River is expected to be operational in 2027.\nThis sentiment echoed by USNC's CEO Francesco Venneri, who said the GFP MMR project is a market-ready design, specifically designed for Canadian climates, and similar in size and power to McMaster's 5-MW reactor. \"Partnering with McMaster at this stage will be instrumental for training the next generation of leaders as we collectively investigate enhanced safety measures, cost structures, power utilization, and waste management options,\" he said.\nTucker said the partnership is an important step in the launch of the university's SMR feasibility study – an estimated 18-month initiative in consultation with community, business and government stakeholders, including indigenous communities and municipal councils.\nBased on those findings and McMaster's decision to pursue SMR deployment, the process of seeking the necessary licences from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will begin.\nVisit the USNC or GFP websites to see how their respective technologies could help meet Canada’s energy demands.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/851-2.html", "date": "2013-12-07T00:59:06Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-48/segments/1386163052912/warc/CC-MAIN-20131204131732-00061-ip-10-33-133-15.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9136525392532349, "token_count": 572, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2013-48", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2013-48__0__43697177", "lang": "en", "text": "To be more precise, the charge radius of this heaviest of helium isotopes (containing two protons and six neutrons) has been measured for the first time. The charge radius tells you how widely the proton charge is spread out in space. The new work, conducted by a Argonne-Chicago-GANIL-Windsor (Canada)-Los Alamos collaboration, arrives at a value of 1.93 fm (1 fermi equals 10^-15 m). For comparison, the charge radius of the He-6 isotope, is 2.068 fm; that is, the lighter isotope actually has a larger charge radius, the result of the binding effect of the strong nuclear force. He-8 is very rare, hard to make, and represents the most neutron-rich material known on Earth. Still heavier helium groupings, such as He-10, are not really bound entities-they can only be considered as “resonances.”\nFor the new experiment, He-8 was produced by bombarding a carbon target with 1-GeV beam of C-13 ions. The charge radius of the respective isotopes-He-4, He-6, and He-8-is determined by comparing the subtle shifting of the atomic spectra from the three different species of helium atom. The spectroscopy measurements involve only the electromagnetic force between the electrons and the nucleus in these atoms, and not the strong nuclear force that holds each nucleus together. However, once the charge distribution is determined, it can be used to infer things about the binding force operating in the nucleus.\nThe current thinking on the distribution of protons and neutrons (illustrated in the figure at http://www.aip.org/png/2007/291.htm) suggests that the He-4 nucleus, composed of two protons and two neutrons ( a unit usually referred to as an alpha particle), forms the default nucleus, while in He-6 the extra two neutrons are thought to orbit the core as a sort of “halo.” In this model, the alpha core wobbles a bit around the joint center of mass with the halo neutron pair. In He-8, the halo consists of two two-neutron pairings. This actually allows the core to wobble a bit less than in the case of He-6, allowing the charge radius of He-8 to be a bit less. One of the researchers, Peter Mueller (630-252-7267, firstname.lastname@example.org), says that the current nuclear theory did an excellent job of predicting the charge radius for He-8, giving confidence to those who model heavier nuclei. (Mueller et al., Physical Review Letters, 21 December 2007)", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.mariaeagle.co.uk/latest_news/2018/06/07/medals-for-nuclear-test-veterans/", "date": "2021-04-23T11:37:19Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-17/segments/1618039617701.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20210423101141-20210423131141-00583.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9801958203315735, "token_count": 134, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2021-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2021-17__0__209245182", "lang": "en", "text": "I’m proud to support the Daily Mirror campaign to formally recognise the service of our nuclear test veterans. It was a privilege to meet many of the family members and back their campaign.\nMany have since lost their lives due to the work that they carried out in the 1950s testing nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. They were given no protective clothing, and many of their relatives still live with the effects today.\nIt’s time the Government recognised the brave work that they carried out and finally awarded them the medals they deserve. If you agree, please sign this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220170", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://ihssnc.org/what-if-a-spoonful-of-neutron-star-appeared-on-earth/", "date": "2024-04-16T18:27:58Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296817103.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20240416155952-20240416185952-00190.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9231544137001038, "token_count": 964, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__62624118", "lang": "en", "text": "What if a spoonful of neutron star, a celestial object with unimaginable density, suddenly materialized on Earth? The impact would be catastrophic, as neutron stars are incredibly dense and possess immense gravitational pull, capable of distorting space-time itself. The immense mass packed into such a tiny volume would exert a force like no other, causing widespread devastation and altering the very fabric of our planet.\nThe introduction of a spoonful of neutron star material on Earth would result in unprecedented seismic activity, potentially triggering earthquakes of unprecedented magnitude and tsunamis of catastrophic proportions. The intense gravitational forces at play would wreak havoc on our planet’s geology, fundamentally reshaping landscapes and causing untold destruction. The appearance of even a small amount of neutron star matter on Earth would undoubtedly have profound and far-reaching consequences for life as we know it.\nImagine a scenario where a spoonful of neutron star matter suddenly appeared on Earth. Neutron stars are incredibly dense remnants of massive stars that have undergone a supernova explosion, leaving behind a core composed mostly of neutrons. These celestial objects are among the most extreme and fascinating entities in the universe. In this article, we will explore the implications and consequences if such a dense and exotic material were to appear on our planet.\nUnderstanding Neutron Stars\nNeutron stars are born when massive stars collapse under their own gravity during a supernova event. With their mass several times that of our Sun, neutron stars are incredibly dense, packing around 1.4 times the mass of the Sun into a sphere with a diameter of only about 20 kilometers (12 miles). This immense density creates an incredibly strong gravitational force.\nFurthermore, neutron stars possess unique properties. They have a solid crust, a superfluid core, and an incredibly powerful magnetic field. The outermost layers of a neutron star are composed of a solid crust made up of atomic nuclei tightly packed together. Below the crust lies the star’s mantle, which transitions into a superfluid core where neutrons flow like a liquid due to the extreme conditions.\nThe Impact on Earth\nIf a spoonful of neutron star material were to suddenly appear on Earth, the repercussions would be catastrophic. The intense gravitational force exerted by this small amount of material would likely cause widespread devastation. Nearby objects, structures, and even the Earth’s crust would be instantly crushed under the immense pressure.\nThe gravitational force from the neutron star matter would also disrupt the delicate balance of Earth’s tides and gravitational pull. This disturbance could lead to significant changes in the Earth’s rotation and potentially trigger massive tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. The consequences on global weather patterns and the environment would be severe.\nInfluence on Life\nThe appearance of a spoonful of neutron star matter on Earth would have dire consequences for all forms of life. The immense gravity would likely disrupt the delicate orbiting paths of satellites and space debris, leading to potential collisions and further destruction. The electromagnetic radiation emitted by neutron stars, including X-rays and gamma rays, could be hazardous to living organisms.\nMoreover, the powerful magnetic field of a neutron star could disturb Earth’s magnetic field, which plays a crucial role in protecting the planet from harmful cosmic rays and solar flares. This disruption could expose the Earth to increased radiation levels, harming living organisms and potentially leading to genetic mutations.\nWhile the appearance of a spoonful of neutron star matter on Earth would undoubtedly be catastrophic, it would also present a unique opportunity for scientific exploration. Scientists would be able to study the properties and behavior of this extraordinary matter up close, advancing our understanding of neutron stars and the fundamental laws of physics.\nStudying neutron star matter on Earth could provide insights into the nature of super-dense matter, neutron star interiors, and the behavior of atomic nuclei under extreme conditions. It would be a rare chance to conduct experiments and collect data that would otherwise be impossible due to the immense distances and difficulties associated with observing neutron stars from afar.\nThe hypothetical scenario of a spoonful of neutron star material appearing on Earth is a fascinating and terrifying concept. While the consequences would be catastrophic for our planet and its inhabitants, it also presents an opportunity for scientific discovery. Understanding neutron stars and their extreme properties is crucial for unraveling the mysteries of the universe. However, given the immense dangers involved, it’s safe to say that we are better off observing these enigmatic objects from a safe distance in space.\nThe impact of a spoonful of neutron star material appearing on Earth would be catastrophic, resulting in extreme gravitational forces, radiation dangers, and potential destruction of our planet. It serves as a reminder of the immense power and danger of celestial objects in the universe.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.srilankafoundation.org/newsfeed/nuclear-agreement/", "date": "2024-04-14T13:46:42Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296816879.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20240414130604-20240414160604-00276.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9303368330001831, "token_count": 183, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__150058123", "lang": "en", "text": "An agreement on cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy was signed following President Maithripala Sirisena’s maiden visit to India. Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also agreed to expand defense cooperation.\nThis agreement would facilitate cooperation in the transfer and exchange of knowledge and expertise, sharing of resources, capacity building and training of personnel in peaceful uses of nuclear energy including use of radioisotopes, nuclear safety, radiation safety, nuclear security, radioactive waste management and nuclear and radiological disaster mitigation and environmental protection.\nThe two sides also signed Work-Plan 2014-2015 under the MoU on cooperation in the field of agriculture.\nThis agreement would facilitate bilateral cooperation in agro processing, agricultural extension, horticulture, agricultural machinery, training in farm mechanization, livestock diseases, etc. between relevant institutes and organizations from both countries.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://uipress.uiowa.edu/books/meanings-j-robert-oppenheimer", "date": "2024-04-15T22:14:53Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296817033.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20240415205332-20240415235332-00475.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9425472617149353, "token_count": 788, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__19081815", "lang": "en", "text": "He called the first atomic bomb “technically sweet,” yet as he watched its brilliant light explode over the New Mexico desert in 1945 in advance of the black horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he also thought of the line from the Hindu epic The Bhagavad Gita: “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the single most recognizable face of the atomic bomb, and a man whose name has become almost synonymous with Cold War American nuclear science, was and still is a conflicted, controversial figure who has come to represent an equally ambivalent technology. In the decades since the successful detonation of the world’s first atomic bomb under his supervision, Oppenheimer has been portrayed as an emotionless and soulless man of science, an almost mystical Byronic visionary, a popular celebrity, an incarnation of the horrors of nuclear warfare, the embodiment of the American dream, and a Communist threat to the American way of life. In turn, he has been used to represent abstract ideas such as patriotism, ingenuity, intelligence, masculinity, and even science itself.\nFollowing the seventieth anniversary of the Manhattan Project, The Meanings of J. Robert Oppenheimer examines how he has been represented over the past several decades in biographies, histories, fiction, comics, photographs, film, television, documentaries, theater, and museums. Lindsey Michael Banco gathers an unprecedented group of cultural texts and seeks to understand the multiple meanings Oppenheimer has held in American popular culture since 1945. He traces the ways these representations of Oppenheimer have influenced public understanding of the atomic bomb, technology, physics, the figure of the scientist, the role of science in war, and even what it means to pursue knowledge of the world around us. Questioning and unpacking both how and why Oppenheimer is depicted as he is across time and genre, this book is broad in scope, profound in detail, and offers unique insights into the rise of nuclear culture and how we think about the relationship between history, imagination, science, and nuclear weapons today.\n“Robert Oppenheimer is endlessly fascinating. His life engaged the most profound issues of our time: the revolution in physics, the Great Depression, the Popular Front, the development of nuclear weapons, and the corrosive influence of the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s. Lindsey Banco expands our understanding of his influence by investigating his ‘meaning’ to our political culture. It is another important contribution to the Oppenheimer Library.”—Martin J. Sherwin, coauthor, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, winner of the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Biography\n“The Meanings of J. Robert Oppenheimer is an intriguing book about an important issue and an equally important person. It complements and builds on existing scholarship on Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb, and is well worth reading for anyone with an interest in Cold War America, the Manhattan Project, and the enigmatic figure that is Oppenheimer.”—Allan M. Winkler, Miami University of Ohio\n“Oppenheimer has always been the ghostly presence behind nuclear culture in the United States, and Banco has done him a great service by thinking about him in all his ambivalent and paradoxical brilliance. Far afield from conventional biographies, The Meanings of J. Robert Oppenheimer explores the man and the idea of the man as a series of dualities, showing how a retiring physicist who went to the desert wound up setting the terms for so many aspects of postwar culture. A unique contribution to Cold War studies.”—Steven Belletto, author, No Accident, Comrade: Chance and Design in Cold War American Narratives", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.s-und-s.pl/ekatalog/filtry_celulozowe/filtry_celulozowe_specjalne/filtry_do_aplikacji_specjalnych/grade_72.html", "date": "2024-02-21T10:47:25Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-10/segments/1707947473472.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20240221102433-20240221132433-00237.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8756042122840881, "token_count": 140, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-10__0__153033632", "lang": "en", "text": "Whatman™ Grade 72 activated carbon air filter paper is designed for air pollution monitoring of radioactive iodine in medical and nuclear installations.\n• High-quality composite cellulose/glass filter paper\n• Loaded with activated carbon for radioactive iodine absorption\n• Suitable for use in radioactive environments\nWe offer a range of application-specific filters under the Whatman™ brand, including options for use in soil analysis and in the sugar industry.\nActivated carbon air filter benefits\nAir pollution monitoring of radioactive iodine in medical or nuclear installations is a critical safety requirement. Grade 72 cellulose filter papers are designed specifically for these environments, delivering sensitive and accurate results by absorbing any radioactive iodine in the air for analysis.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.daisyalliance.org/effects-of-wmds.html", "date": "2017-02-26T23:30:52Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-09/segments/1487501172156.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20170219104612-00029-ip-10-171-10-108.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9550747275352478, "token_count": 344, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2017-09", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2017-09__0__170704917", "lang": "en", "text": "The Pinky Show - Pinky Interviews John Burroughs, Director, Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy\nHave you ever wondered . . .\nDoes the threat of nuclear war still exist?\nWhat is the real risk of nuclear accidents?\nWhat are the effects of nuclear weapons?\nWhat would happen if a nuclear bomb was dropped on a U.S. city?\nIs there a threat from other WMDs, such as biological and chemical weapons?\nMany of us are too young to remember Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the after effects of the atomic bombs that ended WWII. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the public's fear of full scale nuclear war significantly diminished, and thoughts of the potential for nuclear war and the after effects of nuclear weapons are far from our minds. Today, many people only have a general idea of the unimaginable effects of nuclear weapons.\nThe past five years have seen a reversal of policy, and once again nations are turning to nuclear proliferation. Currently, there are 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Syria are possibly developing nuclear weapons, and these potential rogue nations combined with unsecured nuclear stockpiles lead to a possibility for nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists.\nMost of us feel relatively safe from the threat of nuclear weapons, but no weapon has ever been created that has not been used. As long as WMDs exist, there is the potential for nuclear warfare.\nWatch our nuclear explosion video (above) to see the effects of nuclear weapons, and what might happen if a nuclear bomb is dropped on a major U.S. city.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://wtip.org/archives/grand-marais-man-working-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/", "date": "2023-12-09T11:19:51Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100909.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20231209103523-20231209133523-00316.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9568056464195251, "token_count": 124, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__238501477", "lang": "en", "text": "Grand Marais man working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory\nRobert Saethre, a 1983 graduate of Cook County High School, is now working as an electrical engineer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. He works in the Spallation Neutron Source section at the lab, a group leader for the lab’s accelerator.\nWTIP’s Rhonda Silence reached out to Robert to learn more about his engineering career and about his interesting work at Oak Ridge National Labs. Here’s their conversation.\nWhere are they now? is supported in part by the Minnesota Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.geomatrix.co.uk/land-products/radiometric/", "date": "2023-12-09T18:13:49Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679100942.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20231209170619-20231209200619-00679.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9139072299003601, "token_count": 276, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__253594764", "lang": "en", "text": "Gamma ray spectrometry is the study of the interaction between nuclear radiation and geological material. The emission of gamma rays occurs when an excited atomic nuclei undergoes an energy state change. The cause of the energy state changes is typical ‘natural’, which is to say the geological material contains atomic isotopes which have been present, or steadily decaying, since the formation of the material. In some instances an active source is used to incite the emission of Gamma rays through radioactive decay. The latter is highly regulated and typically only undertaken in easy to controlled environments, for instance liberators or boreholes.\nThrough recording the number of gamma ray photons in a given time frame and there energy it is possible to classify rock formations and infer how the rock was formed.\nModern microprocessors enable portable gamma ray spectrometers to preform autonomous background compensation algorithms, and flash memory permits systems to store calibration spectra, meaning there is no longer the need to carry radioactive calibration samples. Advances in manufacturing have also improved the quality of NaI and BGO crystal detectors reducing the length of time required to perform a measurement.\nGamma ray spectrometry is well established for mineral exploration and in the oil and gas industry. More recently the impact of industrial practices is being considered and gamma ray spectrometry is being used to classify contaminated brownfield sites prior to redevelopment.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.telecomtv.com/content/industry-announcements/chip-shot-intel-xeon-processors-to-power-doe-s-national-nuclear-security-administration-s-new-cts-1-supercomputing-clusters-19020/", "date": "2023-05-28T14:00:50Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-23/segments/1685224643784.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20230528114832-20230528144832-00762.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8146465420722961, "token_count": 295, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-23", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-23__0__90878174", "lang": "en", "text": "Chip Shot: Intel® Xeon® Processors to Power DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s New CTS-1 Supercomputing Clusters\nVia Intel Newsroom\nOct 21, 2015\nPenguin Computing today announced with Intel that the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will install Penguin Computing's Tundra™ Extreme Scale (ES) series, powered by Intel® Xeon® processors, to bolster computing for the NNSA's mission of ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the nation's nuclear stockpile. The systems are being procured under NNSA's tri-laboratory Commodity Technology Systems program, or CTS-1, as part of the NNSA's Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) program and will serve Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories. The Tundra ES series, an instantiation of the Intel® Scalable System Framework, is based on a high-density Open Compute architecture and features Intel Xeon E5-2695 v4 processors to deliver a peak performance range of 7-9 petaflops. When complete, these supercomputing clusters will be one of the world's largest Open Compute-based installations. For more information, check out the Penguin Computing release.\nSign up to receive TelecomTV's top news and videos, plus exclusive subscriber-only content direct to your inbox.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://scholaridea.com/2021/10/09/master-thesis-innovative-tungsten-coatings-for-an-application-in-modern-and-future-fusion-devices/", "date": "2022-01-21T09:25:46Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-05/segments/1642320302740.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20220121071203-20220121101203-00569.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.837967574596405, "token_count": 470, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-05", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-05__0__144986071", "lang": "en", "text": "Controlled fusion ‐ a process seen in stars like our Sun, provides an inexhaustible energy source. At the same time, harnessing fusion energy in a power plant is an ultimate physics and engineering challenge. For instance, materials facing hot plasma in a power plant must withstand extreme power loads often reaching 20 MW/m2. Tungsten is presently used in most modern fusion facilities and is foreseen for a power plant. However, the harsh environment of a power plant can limit the lifetime of tungsten components. Therefore, options must be explored to coat the existing plasma‐facing materials with tungsten or to “repair” the damaged tungsten elements in a fusion device directly, without removal of a damaged component.\nThe present work is aimed at investigating tungsten coatings produced using the plasma spray technology at Forschungszentrum Jülich. The work will comprise investigations of coating integrity, microstructure, porosity, and adhesion to the substrate. Optical and electron scanning microscopy, combined with a focused ion beam for 3D analysis, metallography and other techniques will be used in the study.\nFurther, the exposure of most stable and reliable coatings in realistic plasma environment should be conducted in the frame of the master thesis activity. Samples will be exposed to the stationary plasma in the unique linear plasma device PSI‐2 at Forschungszentrum Jülich. The work will be performed in the close collaboration with the specialists of world‐leading Jülich Thermal Spray Center.\nThis master thesis work is a part of a larger project on the development of a robotic system for tungsten coatings inside fusion devices. When successful, the system developed can be applied in the current most modern fusion devices worldwide, including the stellarator Wendelstein 7‐X, the world’s largest stellarator situated in Greifswald, about 200 km north from Berlin.\nProf. Dr. Andrey Litnovsky\nTel.: +49 (0)2461 61 5142\nInstitute of Energy and Climate Research\nPlasma Physics IEK-4", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.kbr.com/en/insights-news/event/nuclear-week-parliament", "date": "2024-04-20T16:29:13Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-18/segments/1712296817670.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20240420153103-20240420183103-00506.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9302940368652344, "token_count": 204, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-18", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-18__0__10866839", "lang": "en", "text": "Nuclear Week in Parliament\nFollowing the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Nuclear Week in Parliament has been rescheduled for the week beginning the 30th of January 2023.\nKBR are delighted to once again be sponsoring and attending Nuclear Week in Parliament 2022.\nThe purpose of Nuclear Week in Parliament is to promote the opportunities that nuclear energy presents within Parliament, to bring together key stakeholders and decision-makers to hold productive conversations and to help drive forward the UK nuclear industry.\nDuring the week, key events will be taking place, such as the Nuclear Energy APPG Welcome Reception and the British Nuclear Showcase Reception, which KBR look forward to attending.\nOn Tuesday 13 September, KBR will be showcasing at the Nuclear Skills and Apprenticeships Fair. This is a chance to showcase to parliamentarians the opportunities that nuclear presents for jobs, skills and levelling up. Exhibiting companies, such as KBR, will bring along early careers professionals to engage with attending parliamentarians.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://katu.com/news/local/governors-of-oregon-washington-seek-more-hanford-funding", "date": "2018-06-18T05:38:48Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-26/segments/1529267860089.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20180618051104-20180618071104-00143.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9385259747505188, "token_count": 182, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2018-26", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2018-26__0__177663461", "lang": "en", "text": "Governors of Oregon, Washington seek more Hanford funding\nSPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — The governors of Washington and Oregon are asking President Donald Trump to increase the funding for Hanford Nuclear Reservation cleanup efforts.\nOregon Gov. Kate Brown and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, both Democrats, made the request to the Republican president in a letter released on Friday.\nThe letter noted an incident earlier this month when the roof of a tunnel containing radioactive waste partially collapsed at Hanford.\nThe governors say the incident is a reminder of the challenges and urgency needed in cleaning up the Hanford site.\nCleaning up the former plutonium production site is expected to last until 2060 and cost more than $100 billion, above the $19 billion already spent. The president has proposed spending $2.3 billion on Hanford cleanup this year.\nHanford is located near Richland.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "http://www.cikgunaza.com/2009/07/discovering-radioactive-elements.html", "date": "2017-04-27T20:35:44Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-17/segments/1492917122621.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20170423031202-00499-ip-10-145-167-34.ec2.internal.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9386621713638306, "token_count": 407, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2017-17", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2017-17__0__64834616", "lang": "en", "text": "In 1896, French scientist Henri Becquerel discovered that uranium salts gave off energy. But he couldn't figure out exactly what was going on.\nMarie Curie, a Polish scientist living in France, called these rays \"radioactivity\". Marie's husband Pierre Curie was a noted chemist. Working together, the Curies discovered two other radioactive elements in 1898: polonium and radium.\nBy 1903, they worked out what was happening. Certain types of atoms are unstable. They decay over many years and eventually become different and stable elements.\nFor example, uranium-238 decays into thorium-234 over 4.5 billion years. It then takes about another 341,000 years to turn into a stable element called lead-206.\nWhile the nucleus is changing, invisible radioactive radiation is released. As these rays carry a lot of energy, they can be very useful - or very dangerous.\nPositive uses include using radioactive radiation to kill cancer cells. This is called \"radiotherapy\". It's also used to sterilise medical equipment, detect blood clots, and to treat food.\nBut radioactive radiation can also kill and mutate body cells, causing internal bleeding, infertility, cancer and many other health problems.\nBack in the early 1900s, nobody realised how dangerous radioactive elements are. Marie Curie died as a result of leukaemia caused by the action of radiation.\n- Marie Curie was born Marie Skodowska on November 07, 1867 in Warsaw, Poland.\n- Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize twice. In 1903, she shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with Henri Becquerel and Pierre Curie. She was also the sole winner of the 1911 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.\n- Pierre Curie was killed in a street accident in 1906.\n- Irradiation involves the use of radioactive radiation to kill bacteria in food.\n- A Geiger Muller counter detects radioactive radiation. A sphygmomanometer measures blood pressure.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://eutop.news/211_un-to-demilitarise-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-kyiv-reports.html", "date": "2024-02-24T06:45:33Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-10/segments/1707947474523.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20240224044749-20240224074749-00862.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.952001690864563, "token_count": 351, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-10__0__20961456", "lang": "en", "text": "UN to demilitarise Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant - Kyiv reports\nUkraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, said his government was working with the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency to create a safety zone around the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.\nKyiv remained “in close contact” with Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said at a joint press conference with his Slovak counterpart, Rastislav Káčer, in Kyiv.\nKuleba said: \"Of course, we are all interested in ensuring that all nuclear power plants, not only the Zaporizhzhia NPP, are safe. This is extremely difficult to achieve without stopping Russian missile strikes on the territory of Ukraine, but we are moving forward step by with mutual understanding with the IAEA.\nThere is a rule in diplomacy that nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed.\nUkraine’s state nuclear energy firm Energoatom earlier today repeated Kyiv’s claims that Russia was using the site as a de facto weapons depot.\"\nEnergoatom said Russia had brought multiple rocket launchers to the site and stationed them near the plant’s power unit No 6.\nIt went on to claim that Russian forces planned to use them to launch attacks against Ukrainian positions and bridges on the western bank of the Dnipro River.\nThe Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has come under repeated shelling since Moscow seized it shortly after launching its invasion in February, prompting the IAEA to call for a demilitarised safety zone around the plant.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://textbooks.zookal.com.au/products/nuclear-non-proliferation-and-global-order-9780198291558", "date": "2024-03-05T04:32:17Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-10/segments/1707948217723.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20240305024700-20240305054700-00167.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8762156367301941, "token_count": 117, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2024-10", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2024-10__0__210330750", "lang": "en", "text": "This book presents different views on nuclear disarmament and arms control and a brief history of nuclear non-proliferation policy and the nuclear test ban issue. It describes the preparations for and results of the 1990 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the 1991 Partial Test Ban Treaty Amendment Conference. With a view to 1995, it assesses the chances for consensus or dissension regarding regarding nuclear proliferation and the test ban, and the\nprospects for an extension of NPT. It concludes by examining the future and the threat of a new North-South divide over these issues.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://ennewsletterview.com/how-does-a-radon-detector-work/", "date": "2023-12-10T10:38:15Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-50/segments/1700679101779.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20231210092457-20231210122457-00750.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8855429291725159, "token_count": 598, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2023-50", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2023-50__0__34623493", "lang": "en", "text": "How Does a Radon Detector Work?\nA radon detector is a device that measures the concentration of radon gas in the air. There are different types of radon detectors available, each with its own working principles. Here, we will discuss two common types: passive and active radon detectors.\n- Passive Radon Detectors: Passive radon detectors are simple devices that do not require power to operate. They rely on natural processes to measure radon levels over a specific period, usually a few days to several months. The most common types of passive detectors include charcoal canisters, alpha track detectors, and charcoal liquid scintillation detectors.\n- Charcoal Canisters: Charcoal canisters contain activated charcoal that absorbs radon gas. Over a designated period, radon diffuses into the canister, and the charcoal captures the radon atoms. After the exposure period, the canister is sealed and sent to a laboratory for analysis to determine the radon concentration.\n- Alpha Track Detectors: Alpha track detectors consist of a small piece of plastic or film. As radon particles decay, they release alpha particles. These particles leave tracks on the detector’s surface. After the exposure period, the detector is sent to a laboratory where the tracks are counted to estimate the radon concentration.\n- Active Radon Detectors: Active radon detectors are electronic devices that continuously measure radon levels. They require a power source to operate and typically provide real-time or near-real-time readings. Common types of active detectors include continuous radon monitors (CRM) and electret ion chambers.\n- Continuous Radon Monitors (CRM): CRMs use sensors, such as ion chambers or silicon photodiodes, to detect and measure radon levels. These detectors provide ongoing readings, allowing users to monitor radon levels in real-time. Some CRMs also measure temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure to account for environmental factors that may influence radon levels.\n- Electret Ion Chambers: Electret ion chambers contain a special electrically charged element (electret) that ionizes the air when radon particles pass through it. The resulting electrical charge is measured and used to estimate radon concentrations. Electret ion chambers can provide continuous monitoring and often have built-in memory for data logging.\nRegardless of the type, it is crucial to follow the manufacturer’s instructions and guidelines for proper placement and duration of radon detector exposure. After the monitoring period, the detectors may need to be returned to a laboratory or data can be downloaded from electronic detectors to analyze the radon levels accurately.\nIn summary, radon detectors work by either passively absorbing radon for later analysis or actively measuring radon testing home inspection levels in real-time. They provide valuable information about the concentration of radon gas, helping individuals and organizations make informed decisions about radon mitigation and ensuring a safer living or working environment.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/06/nest-and-the-fictional-mighty-derringer-nuclear-terrorism-exercise/", "date": "2022-06-25T20:47:15Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-27/segments/1656103036099.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20220625190306-20220625220306-00554.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9688047170639038, "token_count": 815, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-27", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-27__0__45264993", "lang": "en", "text": "In 1986, a terrorist group detonated an Improvised Nuclear Device in Indianapolis, which resulted in the total devastation of a 20 block area; at least, that was the parameter of the training exercise laid out by the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST).\nLast month, the National Security Archive posted declassified documents that provided a background on NEST, along with the training exercise known as Mighty Derringer.\nThe documents give specific details about how the participants handled the fictional scenario along with whether or not the exercise was successful.\nNEST was created because of a very real, possible nuclear threat in 1974.\nThe Potential Threat\nAccording to Defusing Armageddon: Inside NEST: America’s Secret Nuclear Bomb Squad by Jeffrey T. Richelson, the FBI received a ransom letter in 1974. The letter demanded that $200,000 be delivered or a nuclear bomb would be detonated somewhere in Boston, MA.\nThe terrorists were holding the entire city of Boston hostage. Richelson contends that the FBI put together $200,000 in counterfeit bills, but no one showed up at the designated drop site. It seems that the entire event was a hoax.\nHoax or not, at that point authorities realized that the country needed an emergency response team in the event of a nuclear emergency. As a result, later that year, President Gerald Ford called for the creation of NEST.\nThe Nuclear Emergency Support Team’s first test was in 1976. According to a story that ran in a February 8, 1982 issue of the Spokane Review, a terrorist group calling themselves “Omega” threatened to detonate barrels of plutonium-contaminated water if they did not receive $500,000 in cash. NEST was dispatched and the team flew to Spokane from Nevada.\nOnce again, a phony case of bills was prepared in hopes of tricking the extortionists into thinking the money was there. NEST searched the city, but could not find the device.\nThe emergency response team advised the FBI to make the drop. No one from Omega showed up. Once again, the threat was another hoax. However, one thing was clear; the fledgling response team needed more training.\nThat training came in 1986 when NEST executed Mighty Derringer.\nThe Mighty Derringer Exercise\nThe exercise revolved around a fictional terrorist group detonating a bomb in the city of Indianapolis. The exercise revolved around the group smuggling a stolen nuclear device into America. The result was a 1 kiloton detonation in the city.\nIn previous exercises, the bomb was usually found and disarmed; however, officials decided to take the training up a notch.\nOverall, it seems that NEST and other participating agencies passed the training exercise. However, Mighty Derringer did uncover some weak points in procedures dealing with a large scale nuclear disaster.\nAccording to the National Security Archive, one of the documents stated, “…the joint procedures for withdrawing the HRT and survivors, securing the perimeter, and clearing access to the device need clarification.”\nSo even though it was a successful exercise, some work still needed to be done. Since the Mighty Derringer exercise, training for a nuclear event has become a mainstay in federal emergency response training.\nThe Status of NEST Today\nPresently, NEST has the capability to deploy 600 emergency responders in the event of a nuclear emergency, and maintains a small fleet of aircraft. The small fleet consists of four helicopters and three small planes, all equipped with nuclear detection equipment.\nIn recent years, it has been reported that NEST runs covert nuclear searches as directed by the government. In 2005, David Kaplan reported that radioactive samples were taken by a joint effort between the FBI and NEST. Such searches are conducted in Washington D.C. and other large cities around the country.\nMany claim that some of these searches may be illegal because they are often conducted without a specific threat or a warrant being issued.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://ses.lbl.gov/news/article/11198/thomas-mckone-on-radiation-impacts-from-the-fukushima-nuclear-plant-accident", "date": "2020-09-25T08:29:28Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-40/segments/1600400222515.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200925053037-20200925083037-00076.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.8589744567871094, "token_count": 148, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2020-40", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2020-40__0__89546464", "lang": "en", "text": "Thomas McKone, Leader of the Environmental Chemistry, Exposure, and Risk Group of the Environmental Energy Technologies Division, has been quoted extensively in the news media on the transport and health risks of radiation from Japan.\nMcKone will be a speaker at the Western Occupational and Environmental Medical Association webinar on April 6 at 12:00 Pacific Time titled \"Public and Worker Health Impacts From the Fukushima Nuclear Plant Accident.\"\nA sampling of other recent coverage featuring McKone:\nCBS News \"Food radiation fears move to forefront.\"\nDiscovery News \"Radiation Release: How Bad Could It Get?\"\nLos Angeles Times \"Japan's nuclear cleanup.\"\nChristian Science Monitor \"Japan nuclear crisis: Will radioactive food reach US supermarkets?\"", "domain": "nuclear_science"}
{"url": "https://formaclorimerbooks.ca/product/the-ultimate-evil/", "date": "2022-08-10T04:10:24Z", "file_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-33/segments/1659882571147.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20220810040253-20220810070253-00286.warc.gz", "language_score": 0.9266344904899597, "token_count": 155, "dump": "CC-MAIN-2022-33", "global_id": "webtext-fineweb__CC-MAIN-2022-33__0__145685219", "lang": "en", "text": "The Ultimate Evil\nThe Fight to Ban Nuclear Weapons\nThis book presents the case for a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.\nMore than half a century after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a new effort is being made to persuade the nations of the world to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.\nThis book presents the case for a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons. Demystifying the jargon surrounding the subject of nuclear disarmament, the book explains the political, strategic, economic, and legal reasons for many nations' involvement with nuclear weapons, and sets out the ethical and political reasons for banning them.\nThe Ultimate Evil: The Fight to Ban Nuclear Weapons describes the key events of the disarmament campaign and shows how the goal of disarmament can be reached.", "domain": "nuclear_science"}