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: , , , ,


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

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …