Image copyright
Getty Images

This week, Boris Johnson restated the UK government’s commitment to nuclear power. But of six websites determined for replacements for the nation’s ageing nuclear reactors, three have now been abandoned, 2 are waiting approval and simply one is under building. So is it time to reassess our mindset to nuclear power?

Consider this problem: when you talk to climate researchers you rapidly discover they are far more concerned about the threats of worldwide warming than most of us. Some tell you independently that they have had counselling to cope with the mental effects of understanding the world is facing an impending catastrophe and not enough is being done.

Meanwhile, speak to professionals on the effects of ionising radiation and you find they are surprisingly relaxed about the threats low-level direct exposure postures to human health – definitely far less so than most individuals.

Despite the popular anxiety about this type of energy, it’s hard to see how the UK government can meet its carbon reduction targets without new nuclear. Not least since decarbonising transport and house heating will include a enormous increase in electricity demand.

Nuclear headaches

You just have to watch HBO’s spectacular drama, Chernobyl, to comprehend people’s worries.

Who could watch the power station employees’ bodies noticeably breaking down as they lie in health center and not be scared of radiation?

Image copyright
Getty Images

You’ll be even more worried if you venture down the online rabbit hole.

The estimates for the number of deaths from the Chernobyl disaster that you can encounter there quickly spiral into the hundreds of thousands.

Some research studies claim a million individuals have currently passed away since of exposure to the poisonous plume that spread across Europe in the wake of the mishap back in April 1986.

The real numbers

Any idea how lots of deaths can really be directly linked to Chernobyl?

Brace yourself.

According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Impacts of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 28 plant personnel and emergency employees passed away as a outcome of radiation direct exposure.

There were also over 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer among people who were children or teenagers at the time of the accident. Thankfully, due to the fact that thyroid cancer has a extremely good survival rate, as of 2005 just 15 cases had showed deadly.

Image copyright
Getty Images

And these deaths were preventable, according to UNSCEAR. It says these cancers were caused “almost completely” by the Soviet authorities’ failure to prevent individuals drinking milk polluted with radioactive iodine.

But, even if we consist of them, according to the UN in 2005, simply 43 deaths could be straight associated to the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever seen.

The real figure for deaths that can be straight associated to Chernobyl will eventually be a bit greater than that, state radiation specialists, however not much.

What about low-level radiation direct exposure?

But what about all the other people who were exposed to radiation, you are probably asking. The disaster at Chernobyl is reckoned to have produced 400 times as much radioactive product as the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki integrated.

Here’s what the UN has to state on that: “to date, there has actually been no persuasive evidence of any other health results in the general population that can be attributed to radiation direct exposure.”

Image copyright
Getty Images

Even amongst the a number of hundred thousand individuals included in cleaning up the area around the reactor there is “no evidence of health results that can be attributed to radiation direct exposure” – apart from a little and unconfirmed increase in leukaemia and a a little raised incidence of cataracts.

And remember, these figures aren’t from some fly-by-night operation. UNSCEAR is a UN body, part of what it calls an “unprecedented effort by the global neighborhood” to examine the health impacts of the mishap.

So is Chernobyl some kind of radiation outlier?

It is not, as the proof from other nuclear events programs.

Let’s start with the big one.

Let’s go back to the minute the world woke up to the power of nuclear energy: the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Image copyright
Getty Images

The surges caused huge casualties – more than 200,000 people are reckoned to have been eliminated.

The information on these deaths isn’t very trusted since of the mayhem after Japan surrendered, however we do know that the majority of the victims passed away as a outcome of the physical effects of the enormous blasts and the extreme heat the 2 bombs created.

Thousands of individuals were likewise exposed to high levels of radiation, and numerous of them died in the weeks immediately after the explosions.

But, simply as at Chernobyl, the long-term impacts of the radiation released have actually been far less remarkable than anticipated.

How do we know what impacts the bombs had?

We know since, once again, there is a very extensive, worldwide study that evaluated the health effects on some 120,000 people which began in the late 1940 s and continues to the present day.

Radiation experts describe it as the “gold-standard” research study: by far the biggest and longest-running examination of the impacts of radiation ever undertaken.

In 2011, it concluded that 98 leukaemia deaths from the sample group could be directly attributed to radiation from the two atomic bombs. It also discovered that radiation had triggered 853 extra other cancers over the same period. It does not state how many of these people died.

So, in 2011, there had actually been fewer than 1,000 deaths among 120,000 people they studied that are directly attributable to the long-lasting radiation legacy of the 2 atomic bombs. A far lower death toll than most people would price quote.

The nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima in 2011, on the other hand, is even more precise. The Japanese authorities state one employee passed away of cancer after being exposed to radiation and another established leukaemia while working in the clean-up operation.

UNSCEAR does not anticipate any discernible boost in illness among the general public.

Image copyright
Getty Images

So where do the predictions of tens of thousands of deaths come from?

The substantial death tolls are quotes.

It is well established that direct exposure to moderate and high dosages of radiation cause ill-health and can be lethal.

The figures for cancer deaths straight caused by radiation tend to be in populations exposed to these greater doses.

The uncertainty comes with low dosages of radiation.

The predictions of thousands of deaths come from computations using assumptions about the most likely effects of these low dosages which are then multiplied by the extremely large numbers of people who have actually been exposed.

Which makes those assumptions about the impacts of radiation really crucial.

So, what is a low dosage? That depends on how you are exposed and for how long.

But remember, we all experience radiation all the time due to the fact that our world contains so many sources of radioactivity.

Virtually everything is a little bit radioactive. Sea water is a little radioactive, so are brazil nuts, bananas and numerous rocks.

Our own bodies emit a tiny bit of radiation.

To put that in context this “background rate of radiation” delivers an average annual dosage about 25 times what you would get from a chest X-ray. A high dosage would be lots of hundreds of times that.

What result does radiation have on the body?

There are lots of different types of radiation.

Visible light is a kind of radiation, so are radio waves.

The sort of radiation we are talking about here strips electrons from the atoms in our bodies. The technical term is “ionising”.

When atoms in living cells are ionised one of three things happens – the cell passes away, the cell repairs itself or it mutates incorrectly and might become malignant.

So, the secret question is how good our cells are at fixing themselves after radiation direct exposure.

This is the subject of heated argument.

At one extreme are people who state our bodies are not really good at dealing with low levels of radiation at all. They state UNSCEAR is too optimistic and forecast much higher casualties from Chernobyl and other radiation events.

UNSCEAR follows the mainstream view. This takes as its beginning point the reality that all life has progressed in a radioactive world. From this perspective, our bodies are used to dealing with low levels of radiation and the impacts of low dosages is for that reason rather little.

At the other severe are those who say low levels of radiation are really great for you. There’s a great discussion on the evidence of the results of low level radiation here.

But you are most likely wondering why can’t we state for certain which of these positions is right when it comes to low doses of radiation.

The answer is basic: the proof isn’t clear since the results of low dose radiation are so unusual they are very hard to procedure.

What does that inform us about the threats of low doses of radiation?

Well, for a start it indicates there are still risks.

As the UK anti-nuclear power pressure group no2nuclearpower says, “there is no such thing as an definitely safe level of radiation: all direct exposures no matter how little involve some threat – even background radiation.”

So, the concern is how do the risks of low dosages of radiation compare with other risks.

Let’s start with the seminal report on Chernobyl’s tradition produced by the World Health Company (WHO) – another very credible body – in 2005. It forecasted that some 9,000 individuals were most likely to die from low level radiation direct exposure as a result of the accident.

Remember, this is an price quote of deaths. As we have seen just 43 people died of cancers that might be straight connected to radiation exposure.

Nevertheless, it is a frightening figure but we requirement to see it in context. These likely casualties represent a tiny portion the practically seven million individuals the WHO assumes were exposed to radiation.

And remember how common cancer is. About half of people in developed nations will develop cancer throughout their lifetime; a quarter of us can anticipate to die from it.

The WHO says that, even amongst the 600,000 individuals the majority of affected by the disaster the boost in cancer triggered by radiation will be “difficult to observe” because so many individuals will establish other cancers.

So, when it comes to all 7 million individuals impacted by fallout from Chernobyl it must be no surprise to find that it states there’s no possibility of cancers caused by the disaster being recognized.

So what does this tell us about radiation?

It validates what most radiation specialists state: exposure to low levels of radiation is not a significant health threat.

Don’t get them wrong, they are not stating those deaths aren’t important – of course they are.

But so are the other approximately 1.75 million cancer deaths we can anticipate among those affected by the catastrophe – the cancers caused by whatever other than Chernobyl radiation.

The American Cancer Society, for example, approximates that smoking cigarettes triggers one out of 5 of all deaths in the United States and we know that things like bad diet plan, lack of exercise, weight problems and alcohol can likewise cause cancer.

What the findings of the WHO report verify is that other elements like these posture far biggest cancer dangers to us all – even those of us who had the misery to be exposed to low levels of radiation from Chernobyl.

What this recommends is that we ought to focus our efforts on taking on them, and possibly concern a bit less about the potential results of low levels of radiation from things like nuclear accidents.

Other issues about nuclear power

Of course, the worry of radiation isn’t the just factor individuals oppose nuclear power – there are worries about the expansion of nuclear weapons and waste disposal, not to reference the big expense of structure new nuclear power stations and then decommissioning them.

But here’s the thing: if we were a bit less concerned about the dangers of low levels of radiation then maybe we could make a more balanced assessment of nuclear power.

Especially provided that coal-fired power stations routinely release more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power stations, thanks to the traces of uranium and thorium discovered in coal.

And, because we are talking about worrying about the right things, let’s not forget the environment.

Taking a more balanced view on the threats of radiation may aid all those distressed environment scientists I discussed at the start of this piece sleep a bit easier in their beds at night.

Follow Justin on Twitter.

I’ve travelled all over the world for the BBC and seen evidence of ecological damage and climate modification everywhere. It’s the biggest obstacle humanity has ever faced. Tackling it means changing how we do essentially everything. We are right to be anxious and afraid at the possibility, however I reckon we should also see this as a thrilling story of exploration, and I’m pleased to have actually been provided the opportunity of a ringside seat as chief environment reporter.

For decades, the nuclear energy sector has actually been concerned as the black sheep of the option energy market thanks to a series of prominent disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3 Mile Island. But recently, the sector has received the backing of the Trump administration, which has looked for a $1.5 B bailout of America’s flagging uranium industry in a bid to produce enough federal stockpiles for nationwide security functions.

Yet, nuclear energy could quickly get yet another shot in the arm that might significantly improve its standing in the eyes of the public: Substituting thorium for hazardous uranium in nuclear reactors.

Thorium is now being billed as the terrific green hope of clean energy production, producing less waste and more energy than uranium. Thorium is meltdown-proof, has no weapons-grade by-products, and can even consume legacy plutonium stockpiles.

A capacity breakthrough

The United States Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Engineering & Science Center at Texas A&M, and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have partnered with Chicago-based Clean Core Thorium Energy (CCTE) to establish a brand-new thorium-based nuclear fuel they have called ANEEL. ANEEL, which is brief for “Advanced Nuclear Energy for Enriched Life” is a proprietary combination of thorium and “High Assay Low Enriched Uranium” (HALEU) that hopes to resolve some of nuclear’s knottiest issues, consisting of high costs and hazardous wastes.

ANEEL can be used in traditional boiling water and pressurized water reactors but performs finest when used in heavy water reactors. More importantly, ANEEL reactors can be deployed much much faster than uranium reactors.

A key advantage of ANEEL over uranium is that it can attain a much higher fuel burn-up rate to the tune of 55,000 MWd/T (megawatt-day per lot of fuel) compared to 7,000 MWd/T for natural uranium fuel used in pressurized water reactors. This permits the fuel to stay in the reactors for much longer, significance much longer periods between shutdowns for refueling. For instance, India’s Kaiga Unit-1 and Canada’s Darlington PHWR U nit hold the world records for continuous operations at 962 days and 963 days, respectively.

The thorium-based fuel likewise comes with other crucial benefits. One of the most significant is that a much greater fuel burn-up lowers plutonium waste by more than 80%. Plutonium has a much shorter half-life of about 24,000 years compared to Uranium-235’s half-life of just over 700 million years. Plutonium is extremely toxic even in small doses, leading to radiation illness, cancer, and typically death. More, thorium has a lower operating temperature level and a higher melting point than natural uranium, making it naturally more secure and more resistant to core crises. 

Thorium’s eco-friendly energy properties are also rather impressive.

There is more than twice thorium in the earth’s crust than uranium; In India, thorium is 4 x more abundant than uranium. It can also be drawn out from seawater simply like uranium, making it nearly limitless.

The thorium curse?

ANEEL might quickly become the fuel of option for nations that operate CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) and PHWR (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor) reactors such as China, India, Argentina, Pakistan, South Korea, and Romania. These reactors are cooled and moderated using pressurized heavy water. Another 50 nations (mostly establishing countries) have either started nuclear programs or have actually expressed an interest in launching the same in the near future. Overall, just about 50 of the world’s existing 440 nuclear reactors can be powered using this novel fuel.

Related: World’s No. 1 Oil Trader Sees Crude Stocks Shrinking This Year Nuclear energy is delighting in another mini-renaissance of sorts.

Trump is not nuclear’s only friend: The sector has also been getting a fresh endorsement from an unanticipated source: the Covid-19 pandemic.

The continuous energy crisis has been assisting to emphasize nuclear energy’s billing as the most reputable energy source, which seemingly gives it a serious edge over other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar that exist at the lower end of the dependability spectrum.

Source: Energy.gov

Meanwhile, Join, Britain and Ireland’s biggest union, has backed the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) call for enormous nuclear financial investments by saying that comprehensive financial investment in the nuclear market will be required to kickstart the UK’s post-pandemic economy, while likewise fulfilling the EU’s objective to decarbonize all its markets by 2050. 

Last year, EU leaders recognized nuclear energy as a method to fight climate modification but have generally touted a hydrogen economy in their latest topline targets. Related: The World’s The Majority Of Costly Crudes Get Costly Once Again

Given heavy public reaction, however, it stays extremely doubtful whether nuclear energy can truly make a considerable return here in the United States. Still, the U.S. will probably have a all set market for its brand-new thorium fuel because it has actually signed bilateral nuclear treaties– consisting of the 1-2-3 Arrangement— related to security, weapons nonproliferation, and nuclear materials with no less than 48 nations.

However, it still remains to be seen whether the new thorium fuel will in fact see the light of day.

The primary sticking point to the promo of thorium as a cleaner nuclear fuel is that it remains unverified on a business scale. Thorium MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) have been in advancement because the 1960 s by the United States, China, Russia, and France, yet absolutely nothing much ever came of them.

Nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos, of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has recommended the world not to hold its breath:

“Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the meant brand-new styles even remotely appear to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on comprehensive taxpayer subsidies; the just distinction is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude higher, which is why no federal government has ever continued their funding.”

Nuclear power lovers can just hope that ANEEL will not likewise fall victim to the thorium curse.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

More Top Checks out From Oilprice.com:

For decades, nuclear engineers have dreamt up brand-new formulas, shapes and sizes for the radioactive fuel that powers the reactors of the world’s nuclear power plants (our greatest source of zer0-carbon electrical power). Today most of what’s used for reactor fuel is enriched uranium. In the future, fuel structures could shift towards the really promising aspect thorium.

A capacity breakthrough: The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and the Nuclear Engineering & Science Center at Texas A&M have partnered with Clean Core Thorium Energy (CCTE) to fabricate a new type of nuclear fuel, called “Advanced Nuclear Energy for Enriched Life”, or ANEEL.

With a proprietary combination of thorium (Th) and uranium (U), particularly “High Assay Low Enriched Uranium” (HALEU), ANEEL fuel can address several concerns that have plagued nuclear power – expense, expansion and waste. Plus, this fuel, being made-in-America, positions it as a prime prospect for export to emerging nuclear markets.

Over the last numerous years, there has actually been a growing consensus amongst environment scientists that nuclear energy is critical for mitigating the worst effects of global warming. Nations and states are moving from Eco-friendly Energy Mandates to technology-neutral Tidy Energy Standards that consist of nuclear energy.

But in developing nations, the requirement is urgent. Many do not have the infrastructure to set up natural gas, wind or solar. In addition, lots of do not have sufficient topography and river flow for hydro. So it’s either coal or nuclear. If you care at all about the environment, then it better be nuclear.

So developing new innovations, especially advanced fuels, is critical for this implementation. The ANEEL fuel can be used in conventional boiling water and pressurized water reactors, however it actually shines when used in heavy water reactors, like the CANDU and the PHWR. More notably, it can be developed and released rather quickly.

CCTE plans to go-to-market with this innovation by 2024.

“Today, emerging countries and their residents, ever starving for the power needed to drive the engines of development and success, need an abundant and uninterruptible source of clean base-load power. This solution should address multiple key barriers, including cost, performance, and sustainability,” says Mehul Shah, CEO and Creator of CCTE. “The seriousness of realizing such a vision becomes even more important as time is lost in the face of an accelerating climate crisis.”

The CANDU A nd PHWR R eactors

The CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) reactor was established in the 1950 s in Canada, and more just recently in India as the PHWR (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor). These reactors are heavy water cooled and moderated pressurized water reactors.

PHWRs/CANDUs are well developed little and medium reactors (see figure above). All of Canada’s 20 nuclear reactors are of the CANDU style. Other nations with CANDU reactors include Argentina, China, India, South Korea, Pakistan, and Romania. India has 18 PHWRs that are based on the CANDU style. The almost 50 CANDU and PHWR reactors comprise roughly 10% of reactors worldwide.

On the other hand, there are 30 nations considering, preparation or beginning nuclear programs, and an extra 20 nations, most of which are in establishing countries, that have revealed an interest in launching a nuclear program in the future (see figure listed below). The CANDU/PHWR is an optimal reactor option for establishing countries, when equipped with the right fuel.

CANDU/PHWRs normally use natural uranium (0.7% U-235) oxide as fuel, so they need a more efficient moderator (the product that slows or moderates the speed of the neutron so it strikes the next nucleus at the right speed to split, or fission, it). In this case, these reactors usage heavy water (D2O). Deuterium is hydrogen with one neutron in its nucleus.

Additionally, thorium has a higher melting point and lower operating temperature which makes it naturally safer than straight U and more resistant to core meltdowns.

The ANEEL fuel has a very high fuel burn-up rate of about 55,000 MWd/T (megawatt-day per load of fuel) as compared to natural uranium fuel used in presently operating PHWRs/CANDUs with a burn-up of around 7,000 MWd/T. This is important in a few methods.

Higher burn-up suggests the fuel remains in the reactor longer and gets more energy out of the same amount of fuel. Likewise, more neutron poisons breed in over the fuel’s use, including Pu-240,241,242 making the invested fuel excessively difficult to make into a weapon.

Also, a greater fuel burn-up of ANEEL fuel will minimizes the waste by over 80% and ends up with much less plutonium (Pu) due to the fact that more of the Pu is burned to make energy while making the invested fuel proliferation resistant. Less invested fuel indicates less refueling, less cost, less fuel handling and less volume to dispose.

In addition, PHWR/CANDU reactors don’t have to be shut down to refuel, and can be refueled at complete power. The Kaiga Unit-1 Indian PHWR, and Darlington Unit 1 in Canada, hold the world records for continuous operation at 962 days and 963 days of continuous operation, respectively.

In an existing CANDU/PHWR using natural uranium, each fuel package weighs approximately 15 kg. After the first 150 days of operation, an average of eight such packages would requirement to be changed day-to-day for the rest of the reactor’s operating life of 60 years.

With the ANEEL fuel, each fuel bundle weighs roughly 10.65 kg. After the first 1,400 days of operation, an average of only one such bundle would need be replaced day-to-day for the remainder of the reactor’s operating life, leading to substantially less waste.

The Interesting Thing About Thorium

Like most even-numbered heavy isotopes, Th-232 doesn’t fission quickly. But like non-fissile U-238 forming Pu-239 through neuron sorption which then fissions to produce energy, Th-232 likewise absorbs a neutron, then rapidly double-beta decays to U-233 which then fissions to produce energy.

Dr. Sean McDeavitt, Nuclear Engineering Professor and Director of the Nuclear Engineering & Science Center at Texas A&M University, notes, “I’ve been actively working on and around nuclear fuel behavior and applications for over 25 years. The ANEEL fuel principle integrated with the existing CANDU/PHWR reactor innovation takes benefit of thorium’s remarkable residential or commercial properties, efficiency, and abundance to create tidy base-load electrical power with reduced ecological impact.”

Texas A&M will make the ANEEL fuel pellets at their Nuclear Engineering and Science Center and provide them to INL. INL will conduct high burn-up irradiation screening of the ANEEL fuel pellets (up to 70,000 MWd/T) in INL’s accelerated test rig at their Advanced Test Reactor. This will be followed by post irradiation assessment and fuel certification, all under the stringent standards and quality assurance requirements of the DOE and the NRC.

“We appearance forward to supporting these efforts to establish sophisticated nuclear fuels. As the nation’s center for nuclear energy research and advancement, INL supports industry needs with distinct facilities, capabilities and proficiency.” – Jess Gehin, Ph.D., INL chief researcher.

There is well over two times as much Th on earth than U. And like U, it can be drawn out from seawater, making nuclear totally renewable, as eco-friendly as the wind. India itself has more Th than U, especially as monazite sands, a reason they have actually been pursuing Th in nuclear reactors for years.

The GeoPolitical Ramifications

The advantages of the ANEEL fuel fit several aspects in the United States Department of Energy’s just recently launched Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Energy Benefit which says nuclear power is fundamentally tied to nationwide security.

Whenever the United States is included in another country’s nuclear program, that country signs different agreements associated to security, weapons nonproliferation and nuclear products, including nuclear fuel.

Agreements like a 1-2-3 Contract, and other contracts like those committing the country to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and recycling of spent fuel are put in location, as well as signing the International Atomic Energy Firm‘s Additional Procedure, which institutes more rigid inspection routines.

To date, the U.S. has entered into approximately twenty-three 1 -2 -3 Agreements with 48 nations, consisting of the Ukraine, Morocco, Egypt and Taiwan.

But the United States’ nuclear program has atrophied over the last few years. At the same time, other countries have enhanced, particularly Russia and China, both of whom have state-owned business and are less than caring about security and environmental concerns, as well as others like South Korea whose market is government-supported in ways that simply can’t happen in the United States.

So having a brand-new fuel made in America that can be utilized in reactors in other countries brings the United States back into play in the nuclear supply chain, and enables us to reach more of the countries around the world.

With present bilateral acknowledgment in the United States that nuclear is essential for clean base-load energy, CCTE’s ANEEL fueled PHWR/CANDU reactors could be deployed to more emerging nations faster by alleviating issues of proliferation and waste management.

And maybe we can actually decrease the amount of coal burned.

Neutrinos are the oddballs of the subatomic particle family. They are everywhere, pouring in from the sun, deep space, and Earth and zipping through our bodies by the trillions every 2nd. The particles are so small that they rarely connect with anything, making them exceptionally evasive and tough to study. Additionally, though neutrinos come in different types, or tastes, they can switch from one type to another as they travel near the speed of light. These odd behaviors, scientists think, might point toward insights about the history of the universe and the future of physics.

After almost 6 years of excavation, a gigantic neutrino lab is taking shape in the rolling hills of southern China, about 150 kilometers west of Hong Kong. The Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO) will be one of the world’s most effective neutrino experiments, along with the Hyper-Kamiokande (Hyper-K) in Japan and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) in the U.S. Utilizing two neighboring nuclear power plants as neutrino sources, JUNO will goal to discover more about these particles and answer a fundamental concern: How do the masses of the 3 known types of neutrinos compare to one another? Though researchers understand the particles have a little amount of mass, the exact quantity is unidentified. Existing proof reveals that 2 of the tastes are close in mass and that the third one is different. However researchers do not understand if that 3rd type is heavier or lighter than the others: the previous scenario is called the “normal mass purchasing,” and the latter is named the “inverted mass ordering.”

The mass ordering of the neutrino is a secret specification for researchers to identify, states theoretical physicist Joseph Lykken of the Fermi National Accelerator Lab in Batavia, Ill. “In truth, all kinds of other things depend on the answer to that question,” he adds. For circumstances, the answer can assistance researchers much better price quote the overall mass of neutrinos in the universe and identify how they have influenced the development of the cosmos and the circulation of galaxies. Even though neutrinos are the lightest of all understood matter particles, there are so numerous of them in area that they need to have had a big effect on the method common matter is distributed. Understanding how neutrino masses are purchased might likewise assistance explain why the particles have mass at all, which contradicts earlier forecasts.

More than 650 scientists, almost half of whom are outside China, have actually been working on JUNO, which was very first suggested in 2008. Later on this year or in early 2021 researchers will start putting together the experiment’s 13- story-tall spherical detector. Inside, it will be covered by a overall of 43,000 light-detecting phototubes and filled with 20,000 metric loads of specifically formulated liquid. At 700 meters listed below the ground, when in a blue moon, an electron antineutrino (the particular type of particle that is produced by a nuclear reactor) will bump into a proton and trigger a response in the liquid, which will result in 2 flashes of light less than a millisecond apart. “This little ‘coincidence’ will count as a reactor neutrino signal,” states particle physicist Juan Pedro Ochoa-Ricoux of the University of California, Irvine, who co-leads one of the 2 phototube systems for JUNO.

As neutrinos get here at the detector from the nuclear power plants numerous kilometers away, only about 30 percent of them will stay in their initial identity. The rest will have changed to other flavors, according to Jun Cao, a deputy spokesperson for JUNO at the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the job’s leading institution. The observatory will be able to step this percentage with fantastic accuracy.

Once functional, JUNO expects to see roughly 60 such signals a day. To have a statistically convincing response to the mass purchasing concern, nevertheless, researchers require 100,000 signals—which suggests the experiment needs to run for years to find it. In the meantime JUNO will detect and research study neutrinos from other sources, including anywhere in between 10 and 1,000 of the particles from the sun per day and a sudden influx of thousands of them if a supernova explodes at a specific range from Earth.

JUNO can likewise catch the so-called geoneutrinos from below Earth’s surface area, where radioactive components such as uranium 238 and thorium 232 go through natural decay. So far studying geoneutrinos is the just efficient way to find out how much chemical energy is left down there to drive our planet, states geologist William McDonough of the University of Maryland, who has actually been involved in the experiment since its early days. “JUNO is a game changer in this regard,” he states. Though all the existing detectors in Japan, Europe and Canada combined can see about 20 occasions per year, JUNO alone should find more than 400 geoneutrinos each year.

Right now the experiment is dealing with a flooding issue that has actually delayed the building schedule by two years, states Yifang Wang, a JUNO spokesperson and director of IHEP. Engineers need to pump out 120,000 metric lots of underground water every day, however the water level has dropped substantially. It is not unusual to run into flooding issues while structure underground laboratories—an problem also experienced by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Ontario. Wang thinks that the issue will be resolved prior to building and construction is finished.

JUNO need to be up and running by late 2022 or early 2023, Wang states. Toward to end of this decade, it will be signed up with by DUNE and Hyper-K. Using accelerator-based neutrinos, DUNE will be able to measure the particle’s mass ordering with the greatest precision. It will likewise study a important specification called CP offense, a procedure of how differently neutrinos act from their antimatter equivalents. This measurement could expose whether the small particles are part of the reason the bulk of the universe is made of matter. “JUNO’s result on the neutrino mass buying will aid DUNE make the best possible discovery and measurement of CP violation,” Lykken says. The former experiment, along with the other neutrino observatories in advancement, might likewise reveal something researchers have not forecasted. The history of neutrino research studies programs that these particles typically act unexpectedly, Lykken states. “I suspect that the combination of these experiments is going to produce surprises,” he includes.

As India embarked on its commercial nuclear power production in 1969, its nuclear power program was conceived to be a closed fuel cycle, to be achieved in three sequential stages. These stages feed into each other in such a way that the spent fuel generated from one stage of the cycle is reprocessed and used in the next stage of the cycle to produce power. This kind of a closed fuel cycle was designed to breed fuel and to minimize generation of nuclear waste. The stage at which India is currently at in its nuclear power production cycle will be a major determinant of the future of nuclear power in India.

The three-stage nuclear power production program in India had been conceived with the ultimate objective of utilizing the country’s vast reserves of thorium-232. It is important to note that India has the world’s third largest reserves of thorium. Thorium, however, cannot be used as a fuel in its natural state. It needs to be converted into its usable “fissile” form after a series of reactions. To aid this and to eventually produce nuclear power from its thorium reserves, Indian scientist Dr. Homi J. Bhabha drew the road map of the three-stage nuclear program.

In the first stage, Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) will be used to produce energy from natural uranium. PHWRs do not just produce energy; they also produce fissile plutonium (Pu)-239. The second stage involves using the indigenous Fast Breeder Reactor technology fueled by Pu-239 to produce energy and more of Pu-239. By the end of the second stage of the cycle the reactor would have produced more fissile material than it would have consumed, thus earning the name “Breeder.” The final stage of the cycle would involve the use of Pu-239 recovered from the second stage, in combination with thorium-232, to produce energy and U-233 — another fissile material — using Thermal Breeders. This production of U-233 from thorium-232 would complete the cycle. U-233 would then be used as fuel for the remaining part of the fuel cycle.

As of now, India produces about 6.7 GW power from nuclear fuel from its 22 nuclear power plants, effectively contributing 1.8 percent to the total energy mix. This is way lower than the vision of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), which hoped to produce at least 20 GW of nuclear power by 2020, and at least 48 GW by 2030. While India has successfully completed the first stage of its nuclear fuel program, the second stage is still in the works and has taken much longer than expected. The first 500 MW Pressurized Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) BHAVINI, being set up in Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, is still in the process of being commissioned and has suffered from significant time and cost overruns. It is expected to be ready by 2022-23, with an estimated total cost of a whopping 96 billion Indian rupees.

The government of India, after a long pause, in its budgetary announcements of 2017-18 provided for the construction of 10 units of 700 MW indigenous PHWRs. Of these, the Kakarapar Atomic Power Project being developed in Gujarat became the first one to achieve criticality. The Indian government has announced that seven more reactors with a cumulative capacity of 5,500 MW are under construction. It has also cleared the paperwork for 12 more reactors with a cumulative capacity of 9,000 MW.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

While these are significant initiatives, the future of nuclear energy in India looks less promising than it did about a decade ago. With the signing of the India-U.S. nuclear deal in 2008 and other important agreements with France and Japan, India’s nuclear energy sector looked set for a promising overhaul. However, post- 2011, there has been an evident slowdown in the country’s nuclear energy sector.

The observed slowdown and the below par level of contribution of nuclear energy to India’s total energy mix can be attributed to a slew of factors. A primary reason has been the delays in rolling out the second stage of the nuclear fuel program. Technological problems arising in the process of commissioning the PFBR and the associated time and cost overruns have contributed significantly to the delay. Other factors involve the critical disruptions that renewable energy technologies have caused in the global energy systems. With the commercialization and enhanced use of renewable energy technologies, the per unit cost of electricity produced from renewables has gone down significantly. The cost of solar power in India right now is Rs 2.62 per unit, almost half of the per unit cost of electricity being produced by the recently operational Kudankulam nuclear power plant (Rs 4.10 per unit).

Additionally, the nuclear power sector in India has witnessed its share of controversies and protests over issues of land ownership, location, as well as the safety and security of power plants in the event of natural or man-made disasters. These have also contributed to the time and cost overruns of India’s nuclear power projects. Another very important contributing factor to the state of nuclear energy in India has been the global retrenchment in the sector following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of 2011. That event led to a situation where countries rolled back significantly on their nuclear power programs and global nuclear majors like Areva and Westinghouse declared bankruptcy.

Given, however, rising energy demand in the country, and India’s huge dependency on import of not just oil and gas, but also critical raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel used for the production of solar panels and other renewable technologies, indigenously developed nuclear power plants that are fueled by domestically available thorium reserves remain an important pillar of India’s energy independence. This would, however, require the Indian government to push forth with its nuclear power program by investing in cost-effective technologies, cutting down red tape in processing approvals, streamlining land reforms, and creating special purpose vehicles for the development of nuclear power plants. A competitive domestic nuclear energy sector is key to India’s energy security. It must be developed keeping in mind India’s limited options when it comes to other forms of energy resources and technologies.

Niharika Tagotra is a nuclear physicist and currently Doctoral Candidate in International Politics at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Nick Touran, 2020-01-12. Reading time: 85 minutes

“You have to know the past to understand the present” — Carl Sagan

The dream for economical nuclear power was born well before the discovery of nuclear
fission, but the quest for it began in earnest in the late 1940s and involved some 100,000
persons for several decades in the USA alone. This page is a grand tour of reactor
development programs from 1945 to about 1970, also known as the nuclear heyday. As we proceed
with new reactor development programs today, remembering what was done back then may help
us navigate developments of the future.

Our economics page discusses developments and
economics from 1970 to the present.

The starting point

When nuclear fission was discovered in 1938, ²³⁵U existed at 0.7% in natural
Uranium (decayed down from over 25% when Earth was formed). Without isotopic enrichment
available (of uranium or hydrogen in water), only a handful of configurations could
sustain a chain reaction. Enrico Fermi and co. figured it out by 1942, and operated the
first nuclear reactor, the Chicago Pile 1 (CP-1), using pieces of natural uranium metal
dispersed carefully in a lattice of high-purity graphite blocks in a Chicago squash court.

Note: This is written largely from the US perspective.
Developments in other countries are not well covered here. Also, the chains
of events are difficult to classify so the time linearity of the following is not perfect.

Nuclear weapons production reactors

Vast wealth and effort was first invested in nuclear reactor development because the
unique characteristics of the atomic chain reaction could provide fundamental and dramatic
military strategic advantages. Accordingly, the first high-power reactors were designed
and built to produce plutonium as fuel for nuclear explosives.
As in CP-1, they had natural uranium fuel dispersed in a graphite moderator.

Workers laying graphite in the Hanford B plutonium production
reactor under construction (from HAER-WA-164)

Unlike CP-1, the Hanford reactors were cooled with ordinary water. Since water is a
neutron absorber, the reactor had to be large, and it required extra-pure graphite with
minimal neutron-absorbing impurities (like boron). It also needed a lot of
metallic natural uranium. Eugene Wigner proposed cooling with low-pressure,
low-temperature water instead of high-temperature, high-pressure helium because he was
worried that the fuel would not survive high temperatures, and that pumping and
maintaining an inventory of helium would be challenging. His calculations showed that a
water-cooled reactor would indeed chain-react, and his unwavering drive to beat the Nazis
bolstered his confidence. Water-cooled reactors were built.

After the plutonium-producing B reactor at Hanford was operational, the scientists who
designed it began imagining a better time, beyond the war, when the newfound power of
the atom could be applied to the peaceful enrichment of humankind. The first documented
reactor innovation sessions occurred around this time. Many reactor concepts were dreamed
up at these New Piles Committee meetings. No one knew whether
nuclear-powered electricity generating stations could be cost-competitive with
conventional power plants.

Some
early reactor ideas from MUC-LAO-42. See also
the Piles of the Future
Review from October, 1944 where a longer discussion of their views of future reactors
is recorded. They thought pressurized water would lead to corrosion issues at high
temperature and considered liquid metal (specifically lead-bismuth) to be the most
promising coolant. Written 5 days after Hanford B came online, it does have a pretty funny suggestion about gold being the
best shield.

Putting nuclear heat to work

After the war, the civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) took responsibility for US
nuclear technology, as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Building up new
weapons material production capabilities and weapons technology dominated its efforts,
but power reactor development did legitimately begin at this time.

Truly exotic energy conversion was seriously considered in the 1940s
(thermionics, endothermic chemical reactions, etc.), but converting heat to
electricity in a standard steam cycle was considered the easiest way to reach
economical nuclear power. This conversion requires high-temperature,
long-endurance fuel that can withstand an intense radiation environment. This
was a fundamental technological departure from the plutonium-production
reactors, which generated heat only as a nuisance and were kept at low
temperature. Robert Oppenheimer explained this
well.

In 1947, the AEC proposed and funded four new reactors, all of which made use
of new availability of enriched uranium rather than natural
uranium. All four were completed in the early 1950s:

• Fast reactor — A fast reactor to explore the possibilities of breeding (now known as EBR-1)
• Navy thermal reactor — a prototype for submarine propulsion (now known as STR or S1W)
• Materials Testing Reactor (MTR) — A testing facility to investigate potential materials
  to be used in power reactor construction. The resistance of materials to the environment
  required for power production was the primary challenge of power reactor development.
• Knolls intermediate reactor — to explore the possibilities of breeding and to develop usable
  power (soon repurposed as another submarine prototype, called SIR and/or S1G)

The first three were built in Idaho, thus creating what was then called the National
Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) and is now the Idaho National Lab (INL). The fourth was built
north of Schenectady, NY in a giant sphere at the center of Knolls Atomic Power Lab’s
Kesselring site. During design of the MTR, Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) built a
mechanical mockup reactor, which they then converted to a real reactor called LITR: the
first water-cooled, water-moderated reactor.

Specialized military reactors after WWII

As nuclear weapons have orders of magnitude more destructive force over conventional
explosives, nuclear engines for submarines, ships, rockets, and aircraft offer orders of
magnitude more range than conventional fuels. Accordingly, the next major application of
the chain reactor was in specialized military contexts.

Naval reactors

The nuclear-propelled Navy was developed by Captain Hyman G. Rickover. Rickover’s role in
the development of naval propulsion goes without saying, but his influence on the
commercial industry simply cannot be overstated. He was born in 1900 in a Polish ghetto,
moved to New York at the age of 6, and then to Chicago’s West Side. He entered the Naval
Academy in 1918 and requested submarine service in 1929. He translated Das Unterseeboot
from the Imperial German Navy as a labor of personal interest. In 1937, he became a
Engineering Duty Only (EDO) officer, focused on the design, construction, and maintenance
of ships. After WWII ended, he was sent to Oak Ridge to learn about nuclear technology as
part of a team to investigate nuclear ship propulsion. He established himself as the
leader of the team and fought hard to secure funds and authority to kick off the naval
reactors program.

He kicked off two reactor development programs in parallel for naval propulsion: the
sodium-cooled beryllium-reflected/moderated reactor (Project Genie) and the pressurized
water reactor (Project Wizard).

The PWR and the Nautilus

Alvin Weinberg and the Oak Ridge team suggested using pressurized water as a submarine
reactor coolant and moderator for two reasons: (1) the distance neutrons in water travel
is one-fifth the distance they travel in graphite, so the water reactor could be very
compact (good for small enclosed spaces), and (2) water systems are simple, familiar, and
reliable in a naval context. The ORNL team made preliminary sketches of such a reactor.

The preliminary work of ORNL was transferred to Argonne along with a team of engineers who
were coming off the just-cancelled Daniels Pile project, which had attempted to
develop a high-temperature pebble-bed gas-cooled power reactor using highly-enriched uranium.

Against the prevailing wisdom (e.g. of Weinberg), Rickover boldly decided to build the
full-scale Nautilus prototype reactor (STR) in Idaho without first building a much-cheaper
pilot model. Simultaneously, construction of the Nautilus submarine itself began in
Connecticut. Rickover’s ruthless and aggressive schedule was driven by a conviction that
whoever developed nuclear engines first would rule the seas.

Rickover strictly required that the two projects fit together. At one inspection, he
forced the Idaho team to move a coffee maker outside the hull since it would not be in the
real submarine.

During STR development, the effect of radiation on components and equipment was tested in
the MTR. Vast programs successfully developed the hermetically sealed pumps with
appropriate bearings, thin stainless steel or Inconel liners, motor winding cooling, and
high-pressure electrical terminal seals. A complete line of hermetically sealed,
hydraulically operated stainless steel primary system valves was developed.
Welding of heavy wall stainless piping was developed. Weldability and weld
cracking as functions of material composition was found and understood. Design criteria
for auxiliary systems supporting waste disposal, coolant purification, emergency cooling,
fuel handling, ventilation, as well as feasible engineering techniques to satisfy the
requirements were developed.

STR went critical on March 31, 1953 and reached full power by May 31.

After a massive reactor technology development program and the operation of a land-based
prototype reactor in Idaho, the second major application of nuclear reactors became the
propulsion system of naval submarines, marked by the message
from the USS Nautilus on Jan 17, 1955:

UNDERWAY ON NUCLEAR POWER

The launch of the USS Nautilus (SSN-571). Click the photo to enlarge; you will
not be disappointed. (Credit: Naval History and Heritage
Command photo UA 475.05.02)

The astoundingly high energy density of nuclear fuel allowed the submariners to gallivant on wild new
adventures, such as reaching the North Pole under
ice
for the first time and circumnavigating the
world in one non-stop submerged
session for the first time. Such high adventures are remembered by people who were young
at the time (like Gwyneth Cravens) as deeply inspiring.

The SIR and the Seawolf

The sodium-cooled intermediate-spectrum power breeder that GE was working on for the AEC
at KAPL got swooped into the Naval Reactors development program, and its first reactor
became the land-based prototype for the USS Seawolf. At first, Rickover preferred the
sodium-cooled approach with a beryllium reflector/moderator because it used silent
electro-magnetic pumps and offered very high thermal efficiency. The prototype (S1G)
experienced leaks in the superheaters due to an incompatibility between the liquid metal
sodium and the particular steel used. Because of Rickover’s insistence in building
prototype concurrently with the real thing, the real Seawolf also experienced
superheater leaks. They plugged tubes, performed difficult repairs (sodium has high
induced radioactivity and high chemical reactivity), and eventually bypassed the
superheater. Seawolf worked at reduced efficiency, logged some tens of thousands of
hours, but eventually had its propulsion system swapped out for a PWR.

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion

Alongside the naval propulsion project, the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program was
launched. Long-range bombers that could stay in the air for months or years at a time
with unlimited range were thought to be militarily important. In addition, significant R&D
on nuclear-powered cruise missiles and scramjets was performed.

The ANP was a massive program spanning more than 10 years and a billion (1955) dollars.
JFK ended the program early in his presidency at the recommendation of Alvin Weinberg.
Progress in ICBMs effectively eliminated the need for nuclear-powered bombers. The molten
salt reactor technology still actively discussed today is a direct descendent from this
massive development program.

The Army Nuclear Power Program

With the Navy and Air Force reactor programs in full swing, the Army was not to be left
out. The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) focused on the deployment of very small
reactors to remote locations. It got going in the late 1950s and early 1960s, well after
the Navy and Air Force programs. Small nuclear reactors were built and tested at factories
and then transported to, re-assembled, and operated in a military ice base in Greenland
(Camp Century), McMurdo Station in
Antarctica, the Panama canal on a mobile barge, Sundance Air Force Station in Wyoming, and
Fort Greely, Alaska. An exotic nitrogen-cooled truck-mounted model was developed and
tested in Idaho but not deployed.

After the STG and Nautilus, the third PWR to operate was the first plant built under the ANPP: the
APPR-1 (later designated SM-1). It was built by Alco and Stone & Webster, and
came to power in April, 1957. While the Shippingport design effort predates APPR-1 effort
(discussed below), the APPR-1 team pioneered some ideas, such as the vertical vapor
container, as opposed to Shippingport’s horizontal ones. They innovated a lot while
considering internal missile protection, but ended up with a rather expensive reinforcing
job.

Before fabricating the fuel, Alco Products built a critical testing facility to perform
zero-power experiments with their proposed fuel and control design. The mock-up core
was built in a 2500 sq. ft. facility, and by 1957 they were soliciting other companies to
perform related experiments in it.

The PM-3A and PM-2A remote military reactors in Antarctica and Greenland were also PWRs.

The development of civilian reactors

AEC Civilian Reactor Programs

The AEC executed several programs specifically dedicated to the quest for economical
nuclear power. In this period, its prospects were highly tentative, and the magnitude of
work needed to achieve it was regularly estimated somewhat accurately (3-5 years to make a
little power, 20-30 years before contributing significant power). Nonetheless, everyone
was eager to see if it could be done.

The 5-year plan

In 1954, the AEC announced the government-funded Five-Year Plan to explore reactor
concepts from a commercial point of view. They included:

• Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor
• Experimental Boiling Water Reactor (EBWR)
• Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE)
• Homogeneous Reactor Experiment-2 (HRE-2)
• Experimental Breeder Reactor-2 (EBR-2)

Atoms for Peace

Eisenhower (the first Republican president in 20 years) vastly increased the AEC’s focus
on private participation in nuclear technology with his famous December 1953 Atoms for
Peace speech.
The first international conference on peaceful uses of atomic energy was held in Geneva
in 1955. It was an incredible event filled with optimism and excitement.
Private funding, ownership, and operation was on its way.

Volume 2 of the delegation report (June 24, 1955), recorded AEC Chairman Strauss giving a
rousing speech about how American industry was willing to cover 90% of the Power
Development Reactor Program plant costs. He also hinted at the political situation,
justifying the stockpiling of weapons as protection against “menaces from those who have
destroyed freedom in the expansion of their own ruthless philosophy”. While investments
in conventional weapons could only be recovered as scrap in times of peace, the nuclear
material being stockpiled could be used later for peaceful purposes:

But when the day comes that our atomic armament is no longer required to deter
aggression, the nuclear material which it contains can be easily converted into
energy sources to provide very great amounts of power to turn the wheels of industry,
furnish us with light, heat, transportation, and the many other conveniences
and blessing of peace. We who work in the Atomic Energy Commission work with
the vision of that day before use.

Certainly Atoms for Peace contained an element of propaganda. All involved wanted to
realize a peaceful application for horrifying weapons. By this time, thermonuclear fusion
“H-bombs” had been developed, which were literally 1000x more powerful than the atomic
bombs dropped on Japan. Their horrible implications almost defy comprehension.
Nonetheless, applying the newfound force of nature to the betterment of civilization by
making useful power was a noble goal.

The Power Demonstration Reactor Program

The AEC’s Power Demonstration Reactor Program (PDRP) kicked off after the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 allowed private ownership and operation of reactors. It involved 3 separate
requests for proposals from private industry wherein the AEC would provide nuclear fuel and
perform research and development work necessary to bring forward commercial nuclear power
plants.

The three invitations between 1955 and 1960 are visible in the figure below, with some
straggling proposals trickling in around 1960. Utility consortiums sent in significant
and bold proposals covering a diverse range of reactor types and sizes including pressurized
and boiling water reactors, an organic cooled/moderated reactor, two nuclear superheat
BWRs, a sodium-cooled fast reactor, and a sodium/graphite intermediate reactor.

The reactors of the 3+ phases of the AEC’s Power Demonstration Reactor
Program (PDRP). These were funded jointly by the AEC and the commercial partners. Note that
several of the reactors are what we would consider today exotic.

The commercialization of the pressurized water reactor

The positive experiences with the STR and the APPR-1, plus a strong desire to stay ahead
of the Russians and to catch up with the UK resulted in strong support for a large-scale
water-cooled demonstration reactor. At the same time, a troubled aircraft carrier
prototype reactor program was just defunded by Eisenhower. The project was converted to a
commercial power prototype called Shippingport. It would become the USA’s first
commercial nuclear power plant.

The initial Shippingport core used highly enriched uranium. High temperature, high-burnup
fuels in water conditions were developed. Metallic uranium fuel in water failed rapidly.
They found promising results when they alloyed uranium with molybdenum, niobium, and both.
Alloys with 3.8% Silicon with intermetallic U₃Si silicides were also promising
(more recently revived under the name Accident Tolerant
Fuels), but a suitable clad
fabrication process with this fuel was elusive. A high-temperature in-pile loop had to be
developed to carry out this alloy development program (at both MTR in Idaho and NRX in
Canada). Troubles with Uranium-Molybdenum cladding were encountered, and high medium-speed
neutron absorption was discovered. Along the way, it was discovered that the ceramic
uranium oxide was surprisingly good as a reactor fuel.

Many lessons were learned in early Shippingport operation. Valves sometimes bounced
between open and closed during the operation of other valves, and valves drifted from
closed to open in certain situations. Pressurizer steam relief valves leaked due to
thermal distortions. Leaks in four steam generators were found, caused by stress
corrosion. Pieces of the turbine moisture separator ended up breaking off and lodging in
the turbine low-pressure blades due to vibrations. Excessive fission products appeared in
the coolant, likely due to defective UO₂ blanket rods.

Despite the trouble, Shippingport was a successfully-operated plant, but its capital cost
was about 10x more than an equivalent fossil-fueled plant. Economical nuclear power was
elusive.

Given the realities of Shippingport, utilities continued in their hesitation. The PWR was
urged toward commercialization by the AEC’s public/private PDRP. The Yankee reactor at
Rowe was proposed in the first round of the PDRP by a consortium of 10 New England
utilities, who funded the entire capital cost. It reached full power of 110 MWe in Jan
1961. Yankee Core I was the first to use UO₂ fuel with stainless steel
cladding. The Yankee experience was very positive from R&D to construction to operation.
They completed the plant 23% below projected capital costs. Now things were looking up.

Indian Point was a 163 MWe PWR that went critical in August 1962 with homogeneously mixed
oxides of highly enriched uranium and thorium. Its purpose was to develop the thorium fuel
cycle for power breeding in order to extend the resources available to PWRs in the event
of a global-scale fleet ramp-up. The benefits of thorium fuel proved elusive, and so the
second core was low-enriched UO₂ with no thorium.

Also in 1962, the small 20 MWt Saxton PWR “hook-on” reactor became critical in
Pennsylvania. It added nuclear-generated steam to an existing fossil-powered turbine.

San Onofre and Connecticut Yankee came online in 1968, and then somewhat of
a deluge of orders became the majority of today’s nuclear fleet.

A land-based prototype for the NS Savannah merchant ship’s core was built and operated
in Lynchburg, VA in February, 1960. This reactor had full-length fuel assemblies and
provided information needed before finishing the NS Savannah plant.

On the military side, dozens of land-based prototypes of new naval PWRs have been
built, along with hundreds of their deployed at-sea counterparts (mostly
in subs and aircraft carriers, but also in a few Destroyers).

Many variations on the PWR, like the thorium-fueled spectral shift control PWR
were studied but didn’t break through.

The N-reactor at the Hanford site was a dual-purpose water and graphite
moderated variation on a PWR used to make power for the area as well as weapons materials.
This was a somewhat significant deviation from the low-temperature earlier production
reactors.

As cost dynamics pressured PWRs in the 1970s, simpler and more economical
designs were developed. France chose a standard PWR and built them in bulk.
South Korea also developed highly-optimized PWRs based on CE designs. This will
be covered in a follow-up article.

The development of the boiling water reactor

With the PWR developed for naval propulsion, the Argonne National Lab (ANL) set forth to
develop a simpler and cheaper water-cooled reactor intended specifically for power
production. The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) avoided the 2000 psi pressure, reduced the
required pumping power, and eliminated the costs and complications of intermediate heat
exchangers (i.e. the steam generators). For the most part, it was able to leverage the
materials and fuel work already done for PWRs.

Boiling water in a reactor was mentioned on the front page of the New York Times in 1939.
Early concerns about whether a reactor with boiling in the core would be stable were
investigated in lab tests of heat transfer in boiling water at the ANL. After
calculations suggested stability was possible, Argonne performed a series of BOiling water
ReActor eXperiments (BORAX) with real chain reactions at the NRTS in Idaho to prove it.

BORAX-1 was built by the AEC in a hole in the ground. It proved that BWRs could be
self-regulating, though it indicated oscillatory “chugging” with 1 second frequencies
given certain large reactivity insertions. A larger experiment, BORAX-2, was built to
ensure stability at higher powers. It was re-designated BORAX-III with the addition of a
turbine, which subsequently powered the entire town of Arco, ID for one hour.

Positive indications in these small experiments motivated the creation of a small but
prototypic reactor called the Experimental Boiling Water Reactor (EBWR) rated at 5 MWe.
R&D plus construction were estimated to cost $17 million.

The EBWR was built at ANL. It was a direct-cycle BWR making saturated steam at 600 psig
(489 °F). A complete, integrated power plant was necessary to answer questions associated
with direct coupling between the reactor and the power generating equipment: uncertainties
in induced radioactivity, reactivity feedback, corrosion, erosion, leakage, and water
quality control. The EBWR was unusually flexible because it was an experimental plant
intent on providing as much information about future BWR operation as possible. It
accommodated future conversion from light water moderator with natural circulation cooling
to forced circulation and heavy water moderation.

General Electric rallied hard for the 1954 changes to the Atomic Energy Act allowing
private ownership and operation of nuclear facilities. Before it passed, they had
three nuclear departments: operating the Hanford production reactors, doing submarine
testing at KAPL, and working on the aircraft nuclear propulsion project. They also
contributed significantly during the Manhattan Project. After the 1954 act, they added a
fourth nuclear division: an atomic power equipment department.

At this time, General Electric (GE) boldly took on a contract to build what became the
large-scale Dresden BWR. They started performing vast amounts of commercial nuclear R&D on
their own dime because they were convinced at this time that commercial nuclear was going
to be big business. Regarding the proposed large-scale Dresden BWR, GE’s VP McCune said
in 1956 that:

I have already testified that the developmental work required to produce this plant,
particularly fuel element development, will be very expensive. Unless we obtain
substantial future business, we will lose considerable sums on the Dresden station. At
the time we contracted to build this plant for Commonwealth, we were well aware of this.
We are aware also of the difficult technical problems ahead of us and of the large
investments in developmental facilities, these very expensive tools of the trade, which
would be required.

Moreover, when we signed the Commonwealth contract, we faced serious problems in
addition to the technical ones. The regulatory and licensing situation was still
unsettled. The Commission was just beginning to break down the information barriers.
Above all, the liability problem had not been resolved.

Nevertheless, we took on the Dresden station because we were convinced that by doing so
we would serve the long-run interests of our share owners, our responsibilities to the
system of private enterprise, and the national interest. Out decision to go forward was
also based on the belief that Congress expected this kind of a job to be done by private
industry. We had faith that Congress, and particularly this committee, as well as the
Commission, wanted to encourage private development and would take all reasonable steps
to promote that development.

Soon, GE enlisted services of their steam turbine-generator department for the plant
design, their induction motor department for special motors, their carboloy department for
fuel development, their general engineering lab for instrumentation, and their R&D
capabilities, also for fuel development. They created the 1,600-acre Vallecitos Atomic
Laboratory in California to be their component testing grounds, with a hot lab and an
experimental physics building containing a critical experiment facility. They went so far as to
build the Vallecitos BWR (VBWR) on the site with 100% private capital to help GE staff
gain the knowledge and experience necessary to deliver on the large-scale Dresden BWR
project. It was about the same size as the AEC’s EBWR (Senator Anderson even prodded
McCune about what they’d learn at VBWR that wasn’t learned at EBWR), but featured a dual
cycle, where steam could be generated from the stream drum or from a lower-pressure steam
generator. This was expected to improve load-following capabilities. It was also higher
pressure: 1000 psia instead of 600.

As Dresden was being designed, GE had 2,250 scientists and engineers in their four nuclear
departments.

Given their experience operating the Hanford production reactors, GE spent a lot of their
own money exploring the design of a graphite-moderated electricity-producing plant. They also
looked hard into homogeneous reactors. But, when the time came, they decided that the BWR
design was the most promising, and they leapt in full-force with the Dresden contract.
Specifically, Dr. Walter Zinn’s confidence in the ANL-designed BWR is what convinced GE to
go for it rather than the homogeneous reactor.

Dresden featured a dual-cycle steam system, and produced power in April, 1960. The
plant operated well. After Dresden came Humboldt Bay with natural circulation.

BWR development history/timeline/geneology (from ANL Summer school, 1961)

There was one tragedy along the BWR development pathway. The Army’s SL-1 in Idaho was part
of the Army Package Power Program, previously called the Argonne Low Power Reactor, ALPR.
It was designed to be built on the tundra above the DEW
line to power radar stations.
It suffered an explosion on January 3, 1961 that resulted in 3 casualties. SL-1 was a
small, natural circulation, direct cycle BWR designed and built by ANL. ANL directed the
project, and Pioneer Service & Engineering Company was the A/E. Operation was turned over
to Combustion Engineering after the plant was operational.

Before the accident, the reactor had been shutdown and the night-shift workers were
preparing for a power ascent. The procedure required them to lift the inserted central
control rod about 4 inches to hook it back to the drive mechanisms. For a reason that will
forever be unknown, the worker lifted the rod quickly by 20 inches. A prompt-supercritical
(e.g. very fast) chain reaction ensued, vaporizing and expanding fuel before the water had
time to boil and add its negative feedback component. After the core was at very high
power (around 20 gigawatts), the vaporizing fuel elements vaporized and rapidly boiled the
water. The steam accelerated the seven-foot column of water above the core, slamming it
into the lid of the pressure vessel at 160 feet per second, forming a massive water
hammer. The shield plugs ejected at up to 50 feet per second, along with much of the
shielding. The three military personnel who were on
top of the reactor head at the time suffered fatal and gruesome injuries (one was pinned
to the roof through the groin by an ejected moderator assembly). The creation of 10,000
psi pressure from the water hammer within the sealed pressure vessel had not been expected.
Had the vessel featured an open top, for example, the most destructive effects would not have
occurred. It became an important lesson to never put reactors into such a configuration.

Analysis showed that the control rod was pulled with less than full force. Some have gone
so far as to hypothesize that a love triangle was involved, and that this accident was a
murder-suicide by nuclear chain reaction. (This seems very unlikely). In any case, a
cleanup ensued and the site is now barely noticeable as you drive through the Idaho
sagebrush.

Big Rock Point in Charlevoix, MI (critical on September 27, 1962) first conducted a 4.5
years AEC research program demonstrating high power density
cores that had
been tested in VBWR. Obtaining more power out of a volume would possibly allow smaller
pressure vessels and uprates at existing plants. After the tests, the plant switched over
to producing commercial power for the region, which coincidentally is where I spent my
childhood. I grew up about 10 miles from Big Rock, which operated well until my teens.

Elk River was another small “hook-on” reactor that added steam to an
existing conventional plant. It was a BWR though, and a part of the PDRP. Its criticality
was 2 years behind schedule. Steel strikes and other strikes delayed the project, as well
as hairline cracks discovered in the cladding inside the pressure vessel. Repairs were
made and authorization to operate was given. It was coupled to a coal-fired superheater.

In 1964, GE sold the Oyster Creek reactor to Jersey Central Light at a guaranteed fixed
capital cost that was competitive with fossil fuels. Widespread euphoria spread throughout the
nuclear developers. At a State of the Lab speech, Alvin Weinberg shouted:

Economic nuclear power is here!

Between 1963 and 1966, 10 utilities purchase 12 PWRs and BWRs from GE and Westinghouse
under these turnkey contracts.

Alas, the turnkey era was short lived. The reactor vendors struggled to make money on
these sales. Coal executives claimed that GE had priced Oyster Creek below cost. GE denied this,
saying they’d make a small profit unless unforeseen difficulties were encountered. The plants
were still large, complex, and expensive. Increasing public scrutiny and the associated
regulatory instability caused various cost escalations.

Today, multiple PWRs have had to shut down prematurely due to intractable steam generator
problems. This at least partially validates the major BWR advantage of having a direct
primary cooling loop.

Advanced-model BWRs were developed in more recent years, focusing on simplicity and economics.

The Hallam sodium-graphite reactor in Nebraska

Ok, you may have been aware of the developments so far, but let’s now dip into some of the
more exotic developments of the days gone by.

Liquid metal is an excellent coolant fluid, enabling low-pressure operation, phenomenal
heat transfer, and thrillingly little corrosion. It was used in the EBR-I fast-neutron
reactor in 1951. Since fast-neutron reactors require far more fissile material to start
up, a sodium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor was envisioned as a potential candidate
for producing low-cost nuclear electricity. This would allow low-pressure operation
without all the expensive and thick pressure containment systems and backup cooling while
also allowing the reactor to run on natural or very-slightly enriched fuel.

On the downside, many liquid metals are chemically reactive with water, air, and concrete,
and the complications related to inerting the environment and dealing with leaks and fires
would have to be weighed against the aforementioned benefits. Additionally, sodium becomes
highly radioactive as it passed through a nuclear core. The combination of radioactivity
with chemical reactivity necessitates an additional intermediate heat transfer loop,
especially when a metal-water steam generator is used. The extra loop comes expensive
additional equipment: pumps, valves, instrumentation, controls, heaters, and piping.

North American Aviation contributed $2.5M to the $10M cost of research, development,
and construction of the 20 MWt Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) at Santa Susana, CA.

Heavily informed by the AEC’s S1G submarine prototype reactor in New York and the Sodium
Reactor Experiment north of LA,
the Hallam Nuclear Power
Facility was a 75 MWe
attempt to approach commercial viability of a sodium-graphite reactor. It was proposed in
the first round of the PDRP.

The component testing and R&D in advance of Hallam operation was astounding. In spite of
experience acquired at from the smaller SRE, Atomics International still knew they
needed to build much of the equipment at the larger scale in order to shake down the
scaled-up designs. For example, they built an entire mockup fuel handling facility and a
full-scale fuel handling
machine and
operated it at temperature, in sodium! This allowed them to fix scaling design issues as
well as to practice the various fuel handling activities that would be required in the
operation of the plant.

The Hallam facility was built relatively quickly but struggled with reactor problems
during the shakedown period. After many repairs and lessons, the issue of rupturing
moderator cladding and subsequent over-expansion and closing-off of coolant channels was
the final straw. Consumers Public Power District chose to not purchase the facility from
the AEC, and it was grouted in place by 1969.

The Hallam Nuclear Power Facility
grid plate during construction (from Mahlmeister 1961)

Today, the fossil side of the plant still operates, and if you look at a satellite
view
you can see the perfect outline of the nuclear part partially entombed in beautifully cut
grass, which is actually part of the containment. You can also see a big coal train right
outside…

Organic cooled/moderated reactors: Piqua in Ohio

The second solicitation for the PDRP specifically sought small reactors. The Piqua
proposal fit the bill, at just 11.4 MWe. It featured organic coolant and moderator made of
terphenyl isomers (hydrocarbons). It was supposed that organic coolant
would lead to low capital costs. The low vapor pressure of the coolant allowed
low-pressure operation at high temperatures, reducing the weight and bulk of the pressure
vessel while increasing the thermal efficiency. Organic coolant also has low corrosion,
allowing conventional materials like carbon and low-alloy steel to be used rather than
stainless steel in the pressure vessel, pumps, pipes, etc. Lastly, induced radioactivity
in pure organic liquids is very low, unlike in the liquid metals.

The price to pay for the benefits of organic coolant comes in the form of decomposition
cleanup and purification systems. Radiation and heat both cause the fluid to break down
into water vapor, hydrogen, methane, and other hydrocarbons. Also, the heat transfer
characteristics are generally worse than for water, requiring high surface area
fuel element design.

The AEC contracted Atomics International (AI) to do research and development at the
Organic Moderated Reactor
Experiment (OMRE) in
Idaho. This established the basic feasibility of organic-cooled reactors, and allowed AI
to build experience in the system. They measured coolant properties, fabricated fuel,
built and operated the reactor, measured heat transfer, operated purification systems,
built control rod test towers, built a hot cell to examine irradiated fuel, and performed
dozens of other R&D tasks.

The Organic Moderated Reactor Experiment in Idaho provided Atomics International
with the technology and experience to design and build the Piqua plant (from AI
Annual Report 1959 and Nov 1956
Prog. Report)

As a follow-up to OMRE, the AEC contracted AI to build the Experimental Organic Cooled
Reactor (EOCR), also at the NRTS. This facility was built to 99% completion by the
contractor, but ended up never operating.

The OMRE established the organic-cooled concept sufficiently to motivate the Piqua team to
submit a proposal for a commercial plant.

The business plan for Piqua was that the AEC would own and operate the plant for 5 years,
selling steam to the city for the same price of conventional fossil-fueled steam. After 5
years, the city would have an option to purchase the plant from the AEC. Given their
experience from the OMRE, Atomics International was again contracted to design and build
the Piqua plant.

Piqua was brought to criticality on June, 1963, and reached full power in January 1964.
The plant produced 20% of Piqua’s power in 1965, and the city proudly referred to itself
as The Atomic City.

Piqua operational history in 1964 (from Progress report
5)

In 1966, two control rods were found to not move freely in their guide tubes, and four fuel
elements required abnormally high forces to unseat and would not reseat. The obstruction
was found to be a carbonaceous deposit. Fuel was shipped to Atomics International for hot
cell examination, where a hard continuous film was found on the surface, patches of film
were found on the tips of the cladding film, and the inner moderator space was found to be
full of carbonaceous material. A three-phase core disassembly/rehab program was developed.

As the rehab was ongoing, it became clear that Milton Shaw, the director of Reactor
Development at the AEC, had given up on the organic concept:

There is an expression used around our office about reactor projects. It is not
those that have the slow death that worries us; it is those that have a life after
death.

He concluded that the AEC would support the Piqua facility but would otherwise discontinue
all work on the organic cooled concept. The writing was on the wall. In the FY1969
authorization hearings of the
AEC, the
announcement to terminate the Piqua contract was made:

The Commission is in the process of terminating the operating contract for the Piqua
reactor project. Several factors entered into this decision including: an increasing need
for available resources (manpower and funding) by higher priority programs; little
programmatic interest since support for organic cooled and moderated reactors and the
HWOCR concept has been phased out; the technical problems which continue to delay
reoperation of the plant and the unlikelihood of the City to purchase the plant.

Today the small dome still stands, and it looks
like
it’s used as a warehouse. The City had to change its nickname to “The City of
Opportunity”.

A 23-minute video explains Piqua in some detail.

Direct nuclear superheat in Puerto Rico and South Dakota

The Korean peninsula has been hit by record-breaking precipitation, with state-run Korean Main News Company (KCNA) reporting last week that floods had ruined 40,000 hectares (154 square miles) of farmland, 16,680 houses, and 630 other buildings all over the nation.

Commercial satellite imagery of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, the nation’s primary nuclear center, captured the attention of analysts at 38 North, a North-Korea analysis website moneyed by the Washington-based Stimson Center.

38 North reported that although the five-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon does not appear to have actually been recently operating, “damage to the pumps and piping within the pump houses provides the most significant vulnerability to the reactors.”

“If the reactors were running, for circumstances, the inability to cool them would need them to be shut down,” the report stated.

RFA’s Korean Service Thursday talked to Olli Heinonen, former Deputy Director-General for Safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Firm (IAEA), and current prominent fellow with the Stimson Center’s 38 North program.

He talked about the potential damage that the flooding might cause to Yongbyon and the Pyongsan uranium mine, another flooded center. The interview has actually been modified for length and clearness.

RFA: It has actually been reported that the North Korean nuclear facility in Yongbyon was impacted by the recent flooding. Do we have a major disaster on our hands?

Heinonen: As you understand, I have been a number of times to Yongbyon, and I have likewise been there during flooding, and in fact this flooding is about as bad as I think I saw when I was there. I believe the first big flood I saw there, maybe it was in 1992, that long earlier.

So I believe my first reaction to these images, which likewise come from the company which I now serve, the Stimson Center, … North Korea is aware of this flooding, they put on’t come as a surprise, and they have actually taken some countermeasures in the design of these nuclear facilities to conquered any difficulties. This is the very first point, and I’ll return to it quickly.

The 2nd thing we requirement to keep in our mind is actually that these facilities are virtually not operating now. So when you appearance at the satellite image survey, the five-megawatt reactor doesn’t run, the speculative light-water reactor is under building and construction, the processing plant is far away from the river, but it still needs water in order to keep it.

Same concern the uranium enrichment part, they need some water but the real operation, we are not so sure how much it’s operating now. And then there are some other setups that use radioactive product. Not nuclear material, but [they conduct] radioactive experiments for medical, scientific and other purposes.

I wear’t think this flooding has had much of an impact on those, so from an general security point of view, there is not a substantial issue for the time being.

The next question: Has this flooding triggered damage to the devices there?

I wear’t think there is any huge damage for the following factors:

Let’s appearance now at the experimental light-water reactor and the five-megawatt reactor. I believe that they can go for a while without having much water in utilize, or taken from the river, so they can stop the pumps… In addition to that, these kinds of installations, when they operate, they have a kind of filtering system in the front of the piping that takes the water. So it will also screen away some of the dirt, so if they requirement to briefly take some water I think they can maybe manage it.

But certainly under present scenarios, you can not go to long-lasting operations till the water level comes down, and until the front of these water-taking locations are cleaned and put back in complete order.

So this is my take on this, and I have seen them also designing and taking part in a reactor that was constructed in Syria. And I was at that point in the IAEA and we have actually composed some Syria reports about the water for that reactor…and it was I think, a relatively typical commercial plan for the water to be taken from the river, and how this system was made in such a way that it can manage likewise flooding.

Now we see that the consumption structure or the pump home in Yongbyon, especially for the reactor, is surrounded by water, however I wear’t think that it makes a huge damage on that due to the fact that at least in Syria we saw that the electronic devices part was fairly well protected.

Then I also see that the individuals have not looked at the other water intake places. They are all concentrated just on water intake for the five-megawatt reactor and the experimental reactor.

On the other side of the river is a pump house which probably takes water to the river… and the situation there is quite much the same as for the reactor, so there is a lot of water around the pump house… so that’s where we are.

So I put on’t think that there is any significant situation. They requirement to do some repairing, but it’s not extremely likely that they are all damaged.

There is one thing that people likewise need to remember. The construction of the buildings, in North Korea, their standards are not that advanced as you and I have become used to.

For example when it rains a lot, in some centers, water can get to the cellar because of the bad isolation in the basement. So that’s another thing that is most likely taking place in some of the centers. We’re just not seeing it because satellite images will not program it.

What kind of damage has that triggered? It’s tough to say. A lot of likely they simply requirement to pump some water away and tidy the properties, the cellars, and the lower levels of those buildings.

But once again, I wear’t think it will stop the operation of those centers, considering that it didn’t do anything in the 1990 s, so why would it do that today?

RFA: What is the danger of flooding at the Pyongsan uranium mine?

Heinonen: When you do the uranium mining, you usage a lot of water to tidy the ore, which in this case is anthracite coal in Pyongsan. So you have to clean it, you have to liquify it, and then when you do this cleaning and this dissolution, you recover uranium, which is fine, however the exact same time you leave a lot of radioactive waste like radium, thorium, and then both of those, they are radioactive materials, so at one point in time, they decay to radon, which is a gas.

So, when you have these huge ponds where the wastewater goes, we wear’t understand how well they are developed and how they deal hen there is a huge rain—whether the rain simply falls into these open ponds, or whether they overflow and then this radioactive waste gets to the environment, groundwater, and then ultimately either to the river, or to the drinking water of the people.

If that takes place, then it has an effect.

Also, we put on’t understand how well these ponds are actually made. In regular cases, really they are like substantial swimming pools. So they are not such that there is a pond or lake on a typical rice paddy or regular ground. You need to isolate this waste liquid from the rest of the ground water.

Since we wear’t know how they have done that, I think that’s why when we appearance at this heavy rain, which was likewise in the Pyongsan location, that may be a matter of issue.

There is a possibility that water might overflow and get to the environment.

I’m not so worried about the milling center itself, the one that takes the ore and separates uranium there, since they are chemical procedures and they occur in piping and vessels and numerous tanks, so it should not effect the operations of those.

But the waste containment ponds are a different story. When you appearance at the image on the website, there are in fact 2 such ponds. One is near the actual mine, up there on the mountain, and then there is a pipeline that [connects with the] milling center, and then the liquids, which are waste from that milling center, they cross the river in another pipeline and go to a pond over there.

So those 2 ponds, one on the other side of the river and one up there on the mountain, I believe, might have some dangers when there is such a heavy rain as we have seen in the last couple of weeks.

Reported by Sangmin Lee for RFA’s Korean Service.

Once again it’s time to open up our mailbag for students. Today we’re going answer questions from students of all ages from all walks of life, sent in from all over the world. And if you’re a student yourself, you can do this too — just listen until the end to find out how. Today’s questions cover infrasound to enhance horror movies, the miraculous claims attributed to Padre Pio, whether oysters are vegan, how we can protect people thousands of years in the future from today’s nuclear waste, and finally, whether wearing yellow-tinted glasses can protect your eyes from damage from using screens. Let’s get started!

Infrasound in Horror Movies

My name is AJ Rodriguez from Bakersfield, CA. I have heard that infrasound (inaudible sound below 20 Hz) has been used in horror movies to increase fear in moviegoers. Is there any scientific basis for this?

There may well be. In the most famous such experiment, researchers in 2003 designed a controlled study where 750 people heard four pieces of music in a concert hall, some of which were accompanied by inaudible infrasound at 17 Hz. Sure enough, a statistically significant percentage of the audience — 22% — reported increased feelings of unease, sorrow, chills down the spine, or even worse feelings such as nervousness, revulsion, and fear when the infrasound was present.

But has this been done successfully in the wild? No. A movie theater’s subwoofers — or indeed any commercially available subwoofers — cannot come close to the infrasound levels needed to show an effect in these studies. They required a gigantic specially designed acoustic pipe seven meters long.

Padre Pio

Hi Brian, my name’s Bernard and I’ve got a topic that I’m not sure you’d touch with a bargepole to be quite honest. Tonight I was watching on Unsolved Mysteries a story about Father Pio and it really started to hit a lot of notes that we talk about to be Skeptoid of, and I’d really be grateful if you could have a look into it for me.

Padre Pio (1887 – 1968) is a famous Catholic saint. All sorts of miracles are attributed to him, both during and after his lifetime. He was most famous for his stigmata, wounds on the body (most notably on his palms) corresponding to the crucifixion injuries of Jesus. We’ve actually mentioned him here on Skeptoid before, back in episode #126 on incorruptible corpses — bodies that do not decompose after death but remain lifelike, generally with some alleged divine cause. The Catholic Church lists Padre Pio as an incorruptible, even though by their own admission his body was badly decomposed when it was exhumed for display, and today a silicone reproduction is shown. And this one tidbit is a fair metaphor for everything about Padre Pio.

It’s not my practice to criticize belief systems here on Skeptoid, only factual claims that can be proven or disproven through science. There is no implied criticism of Catholic religious beliefs in pointing out that virtually everything about Padre Pio has been found to be fraudulent, and not just by outside investigators, but by some of the Church’s own investigators too. In 1919, an emissary was sent from the Vatican to check out reports of healings and other miracles attributed to Padre Pio, and found that every single one of them was bogus.

Much has been written about this; whole books have been devoted to debunking the claims of Padre Pio. This is to be expected, as any Catholic saint is (almost by definition) a controversial figure and is going to draw both passionate critics and passionate supporters, regardless of the merits. What counts is what the findings are and their validity. There’s no record of anyone actually observing Padre Pio self-inflict his stigmata, but he was known to keep and frequently request resupply of bottles of carbolic acid, a few drops of which produce a gory wound on the skin. He spent most of his life wearing fingerless gloves to keep his palms out of sight, consistent with someone who’s tired of putting acid on his hands — hands which were, at his death, found to be entirely injury-free. Many of his writings describing mystical experiences he’d had were later found to be plagiarized word-for-word from an earlier stigmatic, Gemma Galgani, and so we know for a fact that those claims did not reflect any experiences he’d actually had. The examples go on and on.

Did Padre Pio also make true miracles happen? Well, maybe he did; but if we believe that, we’re forced to consider why he would have also faked so many others.

Are Oysters Vegan?

Hi, I’m Jules Sans, and I am wondering: Are oysters vegan? I heard they do not feel pain and do not have a brain. Are oysters vegan?

So what you’re asking here really isn’t a science question; it’s a marketing question. Vegan is not a scientific term, it’s a word used to define a segment in the food marketing industry. This is handled differently in different countries, but in the United States, private companies arose to take advantage of this and sell their own self-styled certifications to food producers to assist them in promoting their products to customers who choose vegan diets. The certification is not official or legal, it’s purely marketing. Chief among these is Vegan Action, a 501(C)(3) nonprofit. Under their criteria, oysters are no way, nohow considered vegan. Products they certify contain “no animal ingredients or animal by-products, [use] no animal ingredient or by-product in the manufacturing process, and [are] not tested on animals.”

However, outside of this commercial context, different people may use the term vegan to refer to different things. Some may choose to apply it to products containing nothing from animals that have brains and/or feel pain, as you describe. To others it may not mean that. So, truthfully, there’s no hard-and-fast answer to your particular question. Without a strict scientific definition for what vegan means, it turns out to be a matter of personal preference.

Nuclear Waste in 10,000 Years

Hi Brian, my question is how do we warn people in the future not to open our containers of nuclear waste? I mean, we don’t know what language they’re going to speak, or if they’re even going to be us. All the best, Rich Cattle.

So this is a question that scientists have been wondering about for a long time. The field actually has a name: nuclear semiotics, referring to durable, language-agnostic symbology that could be used to warn some future party about the danger. This decades-old conversation even has its own Wikipedia page. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, various international teams made all sorts of proposals and reports for how this message could be reliably communicated tens of thousands of years in the future.

But in the opinion of this writer, it’s one of those questions that’s more of an interesting, speculative thought experiment than it is a realistic problem in need of a serious solution. It’s like wondering “How do I keep aliens from beaming into my living room and stealing my TV,” which is also a difficult problem to solve, but probably one that we don’t need to worry too much about. I say this because all signs are that nuclear waste is a temporary problem — albeit a thorny one.

While it’s true that most nuclear power plants under construction today are still the same basic 60-year-old open fuel cycle design that produce radioactive waste, those on the drawing board are closed fuel cycle reactors that can consume the most dangerous components of existing radioactive waste. So far China is the only nation actively developing these so-called Generation IV designs, such as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, of which they already have several under construction. (For a complete rundown on these, see episode #555, Thorium Reactors: Fact and Fiction.)

Combined with the fact that technology for reducing and recycling existing nuclear waste continues to proceed — including options like simply diluting it into the oceans at levels far below the natural background, and even depositing it into subduction zones where nobody would be able to get to it even if they tried — my opinion (not presented as fact) is that such waste will be a historical footnote within a century or two, long before we have to worry about semiotics.

Yellow Glasses to Avoid Computer Eye Strain?

Hello Brian, this is Tim. I understand that UV light is harmful to our eyes, but lately I’m seeing advice from optometrists that anyone who’s in front of a computer screen for long periods should wear yellow tinted glasses to protect against blue light. I understand blue light interferes with being able to sleep, but is there any validity to blue light damaging your eyesight?

Wherever there is a product that can be sold, you can be assured that plenty of people will come up with plenty of reasons to sell it. Glasses claiming to block blue light from computer screens are the perfect example.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology, the world’s largest association of eye physicians and surgeons, has published a series of articles (like this and this) debunking virtually every claim you’ll find for such glasses. These include that blue and ultraviolet light from your computer screen will harm your eyes over time, both by retina damage and eye strain. The products have been successfully marketed, in part by misrepresenting a published study that retinal — a form of Vitamin A found in your eye — can damage cells when overexposed to powerful blue light. However nothing in the study was relevant to eyesight; that association was just marketing spin by the people selling these glasses.

Yes, overexposure to blue light and ultraviolet can indeed damage your eyes; but computer screens produce no measurable UV and the normal amount of blue light they produce is not harmful. Eye strain is real and has a number of causes, but blue light is not among them. To avoid it, sit the proper distance from your screen or use glasses to help you comfortably focus. Blink regularly. Follow the 20-20-20 rule: Every 20 minutes, look at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds. You’ll be just fine. Conversely, if you buy the yellow glasses but don’t do anything else to avoid eye strain, you’ll be just as susceptible as you were before.

Teachers!

So teachers, if you’ve got a classroom full of students — particularly if that’s a virtual classroom — let’s hear from your students. Use the Teachers Toolkit, which is our free platform for sharing collections of Skeptoid podcast episodes to a classroom full of students in a free, secure, anonymous, and accessible way. Have your students listen to some episodes in the field you’re currently teaching, and then get them to send some questions to be answered right here. In some cases I can even have the episode come out on a specific date that you request. It’s completely free and a great way to share Skeptoid with a classroom, and maybe make it an extra credit opportunity. For all the details, just come to skeptoid.com and click Answering Student Questions.

By Brian Dunning
Follow @BrianDunning