Skip to main content

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

Later, Dr. Karam provided some background on research reactors, and why the risks involved with their operation were exaggerated by ABC News:
A research reactor consists of a reactor core submerged in a deep pool of water. The reactor part is an assembly of metal plates that are uranium oxide in a metal or ceramic matrix, clad with metal (usually a zirconium or aluminum alloy). The power output is sufficiently low that the natural circulation of water in the pool (warm water rises, cool water sinks) keeps the reactor cool. The fuel elements require fairly precise spacing to sustain a chain reaction - too close or too distant and the reaction will stop.

Throwing a bomb into the pool will damage the core, and may break fuel elements. This, in turn, would release some radioactivity - primarily within the reactor building. The reason for this is that the fuel elements are metal - they are more likely to be bent or twisted than to be broken in half, and they will certainly not be vaporized. This is important because it means that the amount of radioactivity that can escape is limited - a cracked fuel element, even a broken one, will release only as much radioactivity as is exposed at that point. Think of cutting into a pie - some of the filling leaks out into the cut area, but the pie does not spontaneously empty when it's cut open. Similarly, if a fuel element is broken or cracked, some of the radioactivity will leak out, but only a fraction. In other words, there will likely be a release of radioactivity, but most of the radioactivity will remain contained within the fuel elements. Of the activity that escapes from the fuel elements, much would be entrained in the water, and would end up in the reactor building, not on campus. Some contamination would likely be released, and some would likely enter the environment. However, the risk from this would be low because radiation is less dangerous than many tend to believe. I would refer you to the papers I sent you earlier for more on the effects of low-level radiation exposure.

The bottom line is that throwing a small bomb into a reactor pool is likely to damage the core, and likely to cause some radioactivity to be released. However, I would not expect this contamination to pose a health risk to people nearby. Similarly, a truck bomb would likely damage the core and could release larger amounts of radioactivity to the environment, but much of the blast would be diverted by the concrete "swimming pool," reducing the amount of damage.
As you can see, spending the time and effort to put together an explanation like this is rather considerable, and it will always be easier to play on people's fears of the unknown, or simply what isn't understood, than to explain the science involved.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…