October 11, 2011
In this letter Albert Einstein advises President Franklin D. Roosevelt of developments in the field of nuclear energy, particularly the possibility that foreign governments might harness a uranium-based nuclear chain reaction to create a weapon, and recommending quick action by the Roosevelt administration to advance American nuclear research. This letter was a collaboration between Einstein, physicist Leo Szilard, and economist Alexander Sachs, who had been an administrator of the National Recovery Administration and Roosevelt adviser. Sachs personally delivered the letter to Roosevelt on October 11, 1939. The outbreak of World War II on September 1, 1939 had delayed the delivery. This letter is credited with launching what would eventually become known as the Manhattan Project.

In this letter Albert Einstein advises President Franklin D. Roosevelt of developments in the field of nuclear energy, particularly the possibility that foreign governments might harness a uranium-based nuclear chain reaction to create a weapon, and recommending quick action by the Roosevelt administration to advance American nuclear research. This letter was a collaboration between Einstein, physicist Leo Szilard, and economist Alexander Sachs, who had been an administrator of the National Recovery Administration and Roosevelt adviser. Sachs personally delivered the letter to Roosevelt on October 11, 1939. The outbreak of World War II on September 1, 1939 had delayed the delivery. This letter is credited with launching what would eventually become known as the Manhattan Project.

(via todaysdocument)

9:11am
(Notes: 364)
  
Filed under: franklin roosevelt Albert Einstein nuclear weapons manhattan project Leo Szilard today in history Today's Document 
September 12, 2011
Breaking: Accident at nuclear site in France

shortformblog:

An explosion has occurred at a nuclear site in southern France, according to the country’s nuclear safety watchdog.

The facility at Marcoule is a nuclear waste management site that does not include any reactors. The explosion took place near a furnace, an spokesperson for ASN, the watchdog, told Reuters.

Officials in the Gard region confirmed Monday’s explosion but also said they could not give any more information.

The Marcoule site is located in Langedoc Roussillon, in southern France, near the Mediterranean coast.

AP is reporting one dead, but no leaks. Apparently, it was an oven that exploded, not a reactor or anything crazy like that.

(Source: newsflick, via shortformblog)

8:40am
(Notes: 42)
  
Filed under: News Breaking France Nuclear Marcoule nuclear plant france nuclear nuclear explosion 
August 29, 2011
motherjones: A Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons Plant? In KANSAS CITY? Yeah, it’s happening. On an old soybean field on the edge of town. But check out the activists who found an old-school way to fight the plan. (Photo: James Rea)

motherjones:

A Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons Plant? In KANSAS CITY?

Yeah, it’s happening. On an old soybean field on the edge of town.

But check out the activists who found an old-school way to fight the plan.

(Photo: James Rea)

10:11am
(Notes: 192)
  
Filed under: nukes nuclear weapons privatization corporations activism news liberal military politics business commerce 
May 6, 2011
When We Tested Nuclear Bombs: Since the time of Trinity — the first nuclear explosion in 1945 — nearly 2,000 nuclear tests have been performed, with the majority taking place during the 1960s and 1970s. When the technology was new, tests were frequent and often spectacular, and led to the development of newer, more deadly weapons. But starting in the 1990s, there have been efforts to limit the future testing of nuclear weapons, including a U.S. moratorium and a U.N. comprehensive test ban treaty. As a result, testing has slowed — though not halted — and there are questions about the future. Who will take over for those experienced engineers who are now near retirement, and should we act as stewards with our enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons? Gathered here are images from the first 30 years of nuclear testing. See all the staggering photos of nuclear explosion (and how the technology changed society) at The Atlantic’s In Focus. [Image: A 1971 photo of a nuclear bomb detonated by the French government at the Mururoa atoll, French Polynesia. (AP Photo)]

When We Tested Nuclear Bombs:

Since the time of Trinity — the first nuclear explosion in 1945 — nearly 2,000 nuclear tests have been performed, with the majority taking place during the 1960s and 1970s. When the technology was new, tests were frequent and often spectacular, and led to the development of newer, more deadly weapons. But starting in the 1990s, there have been efforts to limit the future testing of nuclear weapons, including a U.S. moratorium and a U.N. comprehensive test ban treaty. As a result, testing has slowed — though not halted — and there are questions about the future. Who will take over for those experienced engineers who are now near retirement, and should we act as stewards with our enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons? Gathered here are images from the first 30 years of nuclear testing.

See all the staggering photos of nuclear explosion (and how the technology changed society) at The Atlantic’s In Focus.

[Image: A 1971 photo of a nuclear bomb detonated by the French government at the Mururoa atoll, French Polynesia. (AP Photo)]

2:24pm
(Notes: 82)
  
Filed under: In Focus Nuclear Bombs Photos 
March 23, 2011
The Chernobyl Disaster: 25 Years Later The 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster is next month. On April 26, 1986, a series of explosions destroyed Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4 station and several hundred staff and firefighters tackled a blaze that burned for 10 days and sent a plume of radiation around the world in the worst-ever civil nuclear disaster. More than 50 reactor and emergency workers were killed at the time. Assessing the larger impact on human health remains a difficult task, with estimates of related deaths from cancer ranging from 4,000 to over 200,000. The government of Ukraine indicated early this year that it will lift restrictions on tourism around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, formally opening the scene to visitors. It’s expected, meanwhile, that a 20,000-ton steel case called the New Safe Confinement (NSC), designed as a permanent containment structure for the whole plant, will be completed in 2013. See more photos at In Focus [Image: Efrem Lukatsky/AP]

The Chernobyl Disaster: 25 Years Later

The 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster is next month. On April 26, 1986, a series of explosions destroyed Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4 station and several hundred staff and firefighters tackled a blaze that burned for 10 days and sent a plume of radiation around the world in the worst-ever civil nuclear disaster. More than 50 reactor and emergency workers were killed at the time. Assessing the larger impact on human health remains a difficult task, with estimates of related deaths from cancer ranging from 4,000 to over 200,000. The government of Ukraine indicated early this year that it will lift restrictions on tourism around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, formally opening the scene to visitors. It’s expected, meanwhile, that a 20,000-ton steel case called the New Safe Confinement (NSC), designed as a permanent containment structure for the whole plant, will be completed in 2013.

See more photos at In Focus

[Image: Efrem Lukatsky/AP]

1:43pm
(Notes: 31)
  
Filed under: in focus nuclear chernobyl international 
March 23, 2011
"

That first operation was amazingly successful. After a two-hour run, during which power levels of several thousand horsepower were achieved, the reactor was shut down. Six years of study, organization, planning, conniving, fighting for funds, building laboratories, manipulating people, developing new materials and devices had paid off. The first day of Mark I had surprised its most optimistic proponents.

There were many happy people in the Idaho desert the night of May 31, 1953. The happiest was Captain Rickover, who had had the vision, constantly forced the program against opposition, and provided the technical judgment to steer it through areas far beyond those previously known.

Then followed a month of careful, precise building up in power level. Test operations went on night and day, seven days a week. Power was increased in small steps. What could happen on these increasing steps could only be conjecture until the trial run had been completed. Every man at the desert site knew the danger associated with each increase in power.

"

—

Writing for The Atlantic in January, 1959, Commander E.E. Kintner provides a first-hand account of powering up one of the world’s first nuclear reactors.

Read more at The Atlantic

8:41am
(Notes: 13)
  
Filed under: from the archives the atlantic technology nuclear energy 
March 22, 2011
The Search for a Better, Safer Nuclear Power Every variable in building an immensely complex industrial plant was up for grabs: the nature of the radioactive fuel and other substances that form the reactor’s core, the safety systems, the containment buildings, the construction substances, and everything else that might go into building an immensely complex industrial plant. The light water reactor became the technological victor, but no one is quite sure whether that was a good idea. Few of these alternatives were seriously investigated after light water reactors were selected for Navy submarines by Admiral Hyman Rickover. Once light water reactors gained government backing and the many advantages that conferred, other designs could not break into the market, even though commercial nuclear power wouldn’t explode for years after Rickover’s decision. “There were lots and lots of ideas floating around, and they essentially lost when light water came to dominate,” University of Strasbourg professor Robin Cowan told the Boston Globe in an excellent article on “technological lock-in” in the nuclear industry. As it turned out, there were real political and corporate imperatives to commercialize nuclear power with whatever designs were already to hand. It was geopolitically useful for the United States to show they could offer civilian nuclear facilities to its allies and the companies who built the plants (mainly GE and Westinghouse) did not want to lose the competitive advantage they’d gained as the contractors on the Manhattan Project. Those companies stood to make much more money on nuclear plants than traditional fossil fuel-based plants, and they had less competitors. The invention and use of the atomic bomb weighed heavily on the minds of nuclear scientists. Widespread nuclear power was about the only thing that could redeem their role in the creation of the first weapon with which it was possible to destroy life on earth. In other words, the most powerful interest groups surrounding the nuclear question all wanted to settle on a power plant design and start building. Read more at The Atlantic

The Search for a Better, Safer Nuclear Power

Every variable in building an immensely complex industrial plant was up for grabs: the nature of the radioactive fuel and other substances that form the reactor’s core, the safety systems, the containment buildings, the construction substances, and everything else that might go into building an immensely complex industrial plant. The light water reactor became the technological victor, but no one is quite sure whether that was a good idea.

Few of these alternatives were seriously investigated after light water reactors were selected for Navy submarines by Admiral Hyman Rickover. Once light water reactors gained government backing and the many advantages that conferred, other designs could not break into the market, even though commercial nuclear power wouldn’t explode for years after Rickover’s decision. “There were lots and lots of ideas floating around, and they essentially lost when light water came to dominate,” University of Strasbourg professor Robin Cowan told the Boston Globe in an excellent article on “technological lock-in” in the nuclear industry.

As it turned out, there were real political and corporate imperatives to commercialize nuclear power with whatever designs were already to hand. It was geopolitically useful for the United States to show they could offer civilian nuclear facilities to its allies and the companies who built the plants (mainly GE and Westinghouse) did not want to lose the competitive advantage they’d gained as the contractors on the Manhattan Project. Those companies stood to make much more money on nuclear plants than traditional fossil fuel-based plants, and they had less competitors. The invention and use of the atomic bomb weighed heavily on the minds of nuclear scientists. Widespread nuclear power was about the only thing that could redeem their role in the creation of the first weapon with which it was possible to destroy life on earth. In other words, the most powerful interest groups surrounding the nuclear question all wanted to settle on a power plant design and start building.

Read more at The Atlantic

4:51pm
(Notes: 36)
  
Filed under: long reads energy news power international japan nuclear 
March 22, 2011
sunfoundation: Nuclear reactors of the world: vintage wall charts Now seems like a good week to revisit this set of 105 reactor wall charts, uploaded by the University of New Mexico. The dates next to each chart relate to the issue of Nuclear Engineering International magazine in which they first appeared. Ronald Knief, a nuclear engineer from Sandia National Laboratories, assembled the image collection. More about the images, and links to the complete set, here at Bibliodyssey.

sunfoundation:

Nuclear reactors of the world: vintage wall charts

Now seems like a good week to revisit this set of 105 reactor wall charts, uploaded by the University of New Mexico. The dates next to each chart relate to the issue of Nuclear Engineering International magazine in which they first appeared. Ronald Knief, a nuclear engineer from Sandia National Laboratories, assembled the image collection.

More about the images, and links to the complete set, here at Bibliodyssey.

3:48pm
(Notes: 64)
  
Filed under: nuclear technology energy national 
March 22, 2011
Fearful of Radiation, Californians Stock Up on Sea Kelp

The crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power station has already prompted stores of potassium iodide tablets to run low in the United States. And even though health experts have said that there is virtually no risk of harmful radiation exposure stateside, it hasn’t calmed the brisk sales of radiation sickness prevention methods.

In more organic minded circles, consumers appear to be making a run at a homeopathic preventative: non-radioactive iodine enriched sea kelp. There’s enough demand, at least, to inspire a few mini-trend stories on the subject.

Read more at The Atlantic Wire

11:14am
(Notes: 5)
  
Filed under: japan national news nuclear 
March 14, 2011
The Nuclear Century in Google Ngrams With the world’s eyes focused on Japan’s reactors and wondering what the trouble there will mean for the future of nuclear power, I thought I’d use Google’s NGram viewer, which looks at the frequency that words appear in a massive corpus of books, to look at our relationship with the atom over time. See more at The Atlantic

The Nuclear Century in Google Ngrams

With the world’s eyes focused on Japan’s reactors and wondering what the trouble there will mean for the future of nuclear power, I thought I’d use Google’s NGram viewer, which looks at the frequency that words appear in a massive corpus of books, to look at our relationship with the atom over time.

See more at The Atlantic

2:03pm
(Notes: 29)
  
Filed under: ngrams technology japan nuclear 
Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »