Skip to main content

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part I)

As I've been cruising around the Web this morning, I've come across a boatload of reaction to last night's report on Primetime Live on university research reactors -- most of it rather negative. The first item I'd like to share comes from an e-mail exchange between a reporter and Dr Andrew Karam of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Dr. Karam had some interesting observations to say the least.

The note is rather lengthy, so I'll be breaking it up into a series of posts:
I was surprised to see the Committee to Bridge the Gap (a strident anti-nuclear group) presented as the "voice of reason" in opposition to the NRC. I was also surprised at the continued insistence that research reactors are "potential dirty bombs." I was also surprised to hear Graham Allison's suggestion of the amount of havoc that a bomb could cause - in my opinion, he overstated the risks from radioactive contamination. However, I also feel he overstated the risk of cancer from dirty bombs in his recent book, which I communicated to him via e-mail after reading the book last year (never did hear back from him...). Dr. Allison is very well-informed regarding the risks of an attack, but I feel he overestimates the risks of exposure to low levels of radiation. I would have liked to have seen a radiation safety professional to discuss the potential health risks, but I suspect this would not have advanced the aims of the show.
That's for sure. More later.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Thank you! This detailed criticism of the ABC alarmist report is much more rational than my own, which was really more an emotional response immediately after watching the report. One thing though: isn't the fuel in an active reactor going to be too radioactive and thermally hot to handle to steal? I could see a cold reactor being a possible target, but even then, aren't the rods full of medium-lifed radionuclides that would ruin any attempt at transport or bomb making?
Or do low-power reactors have different aspects than power reactors?

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…