Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Honored with U.S. Postage Stamp

From Digital Journal: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Honored with U.S. Postage Stamp
Argonne, IL (PRWEB) July 29, 2011

Though physicists know Maria Goeppert Mayer left her own stamp on history, the U.S. Postal Service recently issued one of its own to commemorate the nuclear physicist.

This June, the Postal Service released a new stamp honoring Maria Goeppert Mayer, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who worked at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory in the 1940 and '50s. The year also marks the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Women in Science and Technology organization at Argonne.

Only the second woman to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, Goeppert Mayer was born in Germany in 1906. Her father was a professor of pediatrics, the sixth generation of professors in the family, which Maria—the only child—would one day carry on, though not until half a century later.

In school Goeppert excelled at math and physics. At the time she entered college in Germany, where she studied theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, just 10 percent of the students at the school were women.

While studying for her Ph.D. she met Joseph Mayer, an American student studying on a fellowship. The couple married and moved to the United States, where Joseph got a job with Johns Hopkins University; but nepotism rules prohibited more than one family member working in the same faculty. She had to "volunteer" to do research at the department, the first in a long string of unpaid volunteer positions she would take at several universities—all the while working alongside giants like Enrico Fermi and James Franck.

In 1946, Joseph Mayer was offered an appointment at the University of Chicago. Just nearby, Argonne National Laboratory had just been created as the first official national laboratory, and Maria was offered a regular appointment as a Senior Physicist—which she happily accepted. She split her time between Argonne and the University of Chicago's Institute of Nuclear Physics (now the Enrico Fermi Institute).

While studying the abundance of elements, she noticed that nuclei of elements with specific numbers of neutrons or protons tended to be more abundant than others. Nuclei with the "magic numbers" of neutrons or protons—2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and 126—are more stable, and thus appear more commonly in nature; no one knew why.

Physicists had already worked out a theory of how electrons move around the nucleus: in layers, or "shells", based on their energies. But at the time most physicists thought that protons and neutrons inside the nucleus, called nucleons, did not form shells the way electrons do.

Goeppert Mayer, inspired by a conversation with Enrico Fermi, set about proving that nucleons do form shells, and they exhibit individual particle motion. Much like the Earth spins around on its own axis while also rotating around the Sun at the same time, nucleons spin on their own axes while also moving in a larger orbit. This phenomenon is called spin-orbit coupling, and it allowed scientists to explain previously baffling observations about the atom, such as binding energies and rates of beta decay.

Magic numbers result when a particular shell is "full" of nucleons. With a full shell, the atom is less likely to interact with other atoms, and is thus more stable.

For this work, Goeppert Mayer shared one-half of the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physics with J. Hans Daniel Jansen. In 1960, she was finally offered a full professorship at the University of California at San Diego, where she and her husband both became professors. She died in 1972.

A plaque honors her at the entrance of Argonne's Physics Building, where she kept her office during her 15 years at Argonne.

Argonne's branch of the Women in Science and Technology program formed in 1991, 30 years after Goeppert Mayer left, to bring together the female community at the lab. The group held Friday lunches to talk about issues facing women scientists and engineers and soon expanded into community outreach. Every year, the Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day program brings middle school-aged girls to the lab to meet women researchers and participate in hands-on science experiments. For high schoolers, the Science Careers in Search of Women program offers hundreds of high school girls a chance to come to the lab to learn more about careers in science and technology.

"Maria Goeppert Mayer challenged everyone," said Kawtar Hafidi, an Argonne physicist who heads the WIST program and works in the same building that Goeppert Mayer did. "She showed everyone that we have to give a chance to more women—we need the best minds in science, whether male or female. The story doesn't end with Maria Goeppert Mayer."

The first-class postage stamp is part of a series called "American Scientists."

Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nation's first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance America's scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than 60 nations, Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Pittsburg State students will travel to Germany to study abroad

From Morning Sun.net: Pittsburg State students will travel to Germany to study abroad
PITTSBURG — A small group of Pittsburg State University students will soon embark on a 10-day tour of Germany’s culture, food and ... astrophysics?

Part of Pitt State’s study abroad program, the group will depart next Sunday for Heidelberg, Germany, where they will take part in programs and lectures about physics and astronomy at the world-renowned Max Planck Institutes for Nuclear Physics and Astronomy and Heidelberg University. The institutes are part of the broader Max Planck Gesellschaft, a network of 80 institutes that, according to its website, “conduct basic research in the service of the general public in the natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and the humanities.” It has produced at least 17 Nobel laureates since its establishment in 1948.

“These are the best institutes in Europe,” said physics professor Alex Konopelko, who will lead the group. “Heidelberg is a research city.”

The group includes students from a broad array of academic backgrounds, including communications, biology, English and, of course, physics. Normally, they would have to come up with most of the more than $10,000 tuition, but in this case they only have to cover the price of the plane tickets. That’s because the trip is being paid for mostly by the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst, or German Academic Exchange Service. According to its website the DAAD is a “publicly-funded independent organization of higher education institutions in Germany” that each year provides “information and financial support to over 67,000 highly-qualified students and faculty for international research and study.”

Pitt State is picking up a sizable chunk of the change as well. That’s indicative, Konopelko said, of the prestige the program commands. Not surprisingly, competition among universities for one of the coveted spots is strong.

“These are usually kids from Georgia Tech, MIT, the big schools,” Konopelko said. “This is the first time and the only time we will get to go. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for these students.”

It also helps that Konopelko was a researcher at the Plank Institute for Nuclear Physics from 1995 to 2003, and that he has connections at the DAAD’s branch office in New York. But his students and faculty at Pitt State are equally impressive and qualified for the honor, he said.

“We worked for three months on the application, and it was very solid,” Konopelko said. “Many people contributed to that. It’s like magic. I’m so happy and amazed that this happened.”

Of course, the students aren’t getting most-experiences-paid trip to Germany just to mingle with professors and tour the sites of Heidelberg. The trip is part of a class, Physics 540, Introduction to Astronomy and Astrophysics, and during the trip they will choose a topic from one of their lectures and write a research paper when they return.

“We had to apply for the course before any students signed up,” Konopelko laughed. “We worried that we might not find them, but in the end we did.”

The students signed up for the course for myriad reasons. Allen Fluck, senior in physics, said his brother was born in Germany and that he had spent time there while in the Air Force.

“I really wanted to go back,” Fluck said at a meeting where Konopelko briefed the group on the particulars of traveling abroad. “And this is such a great opportunity.”

David Heins, who also is a senior in physics said he wanted to advance his knowledge of astronomy.

“I also want to experience German culture,” he said.

Kathryn Whitbeck is a senior in communications, but her emphasis is on Earth and space science. She said the trip is an ideal opportunity to get out of the country for a while and still learn.

“It’s a good chance to study abroad, and I get to learn about topics I’m interested in,” Whitbeck said.

U.S. Department of Energy and India Partner to Advance Accelerator and Particle Detector Research and Development

Energy.gov: U.S. Department of Energy and India Partner to Advance Accelerator and Particle Detector Research and Development
WASHINGTON DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that it has signed an agreement with the Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to help advance scientific discovery in the field of accelerator and particle detector research. The agreement builds on a long-history of successful scientific collaborations between the U.S. and India and will leverage scientific, technical, and engineering expertise to facilitate basic science research and development (R&D) between the two Departments. U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman and Dr. Srikumar Banerjee, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, signed the agreement on the sidelines of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue in New Delhi last week.

"This agreement is the latest step in the deepening cooperation between the U.S. and India on a range of clean energy and scientific fronts," said Deputy Secretary Poneman. "Working together, we will be able to further our collective understanding of accelerators and high-energy particles, pursue new technologies and scientific discoveries, and advance our shared clean energy goals."

The new agreement provides DOE and DAE with a legal framework to expand upon ongoing collaborations and launch new joint projects in high energy physics and nuclear physics for discovery science and technological innovation. The agreement specifically aims to expand research collaborations in superconducting radiofrequency accelerator technology, heavy ion physics, and particle detector development at DOE's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Past accelerator R&D collaborations between the U.S. and India have already resulted in important scientific advances, including the successful search and discovery of the top quark, a fundamental constituent of matter, at Fermi National Laboratory in Illinois. Additionally, joint R&D efforts contributed to the identification of a new form of matter, a quark-gluon plasma, at Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. The quark-gluon plasma is thought to have existed a mere instant after the birth of the universe and have a temperature of around 4 trillion degrees Celsius - the hottest temperature ever reached in a laboratory.

In the U.S., DOE's Office of Science will be responsible for overseeing implementation of the agreement. For more information on high energy and nuclear physics research supported by DOE, visit the Office of Science website.

Israel and USA are killing Iranian Scientists

The title is incendiary...but I include ithere because it is something that has been published....

English Pravda: Israel and USA are killing Iranian Scientists

Western and Israeli media were quick to announce that the 35-year-old Iranian Dariush Rezai killed on July 23 in Tehran was a prominent nuclear physicist who played an important role in the development of Iran's nuclear program.

Iranian authorities have confirmed the fact of murder. However, according to the latest data, he was not a professor of nuclear physics but a student named Dariush Rezainedzhad, shot by mistake. Terrorists allegedly have confused his name with that of the scientist they were after.

It is not clear who was killed in reality. Both Western and Iranian sources have various inaccuracies in their reports. Take, for example, the assertion of the Western and Israeli channels that the individual was a 35-year professor of nuclear physics. The Iranian news agencies after the incident were giving conflicting information. There were discrepancies as to whether he had a degree, as well as the type of his occupation.

Some of the sources pointed out that the victim had nothing to do with nuclear physics and studied electronics. Iranian media quoted an interview with the rector of the "Hajj" university Majid Kasemi, where the murdered student allegedly studied. According to him, Rezainedzhad was a brilliant young scientist, whose assassination demonstrates concern of Iran's enemies with the country's rapid scientific and technological progress.

In any case the reaction of Western and Israeli media makes it clear that the aim of the terrorists once again were prominent figures among Iranian scientists involved in the development of the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic. Iranian news agency Fars quoted in this connection the Chairman of Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani, who accused the U.S. and Israel of this murder. This is by far not the first accusation against American and Israeli intelligence agencies.

The first "loud" statement about the special operations of American and Israeli intelligence agents against Iranian scientists emerged in 2007. It was connected with the fact that in early 2006, the U.S. administration made a number of anti-Iranian statements, and claimed that Iran was a major sponsor of the international terrorism, that its actions were the most serious threat to the United States and that Washington was ready, if necessary, to destroy the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic. Even more radical proposals were heard from the Israeli experts and politicians who proposed massive air strikes at the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Presumably, one of the first such operations of the Israeli "Mossad" was the destruction of a 44-year old Hasanpur Ardashir, a leading Iranian scholar who worked at a nuclear facility in Isfahan. He died in the same year under mysterious circumstances (the official version was gas poisoning). However, there were other cases of mysterious departure of his other colleagues to another world.

Now the secret is getting out. For example, on February 2009, British and Italian newspapers wrote about the Israel's ongoing "secret war" against the nuclear scientists in Iran.
British Daily Telegraph reported about the statements made by a representative of the U.S. intelligence Reva Bala, according to whom Israel and the U.S. decided to concentrate on slowing down the Iranian nuclear program by means of terror against its key figures, as well as the sabotage "aimed at the interruption of the supply chain of the required raw materials." A case in point is the creation of front companies by Israel that allegedly supplied to Iran faulty equipment and raw materials.

In turn, the Italian La Repubblica wrote that such a decision was taken at the time when the beginning of an open war against Iran was delayed for political reasons. First, Obama tried to change the image of the United States and did not want to start a new war at the time when he wanted to finish the Iraq campaign and change the situation in Afghanistan. Second, Washington had doubts about the rapid defeat of Iran and fears of a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Middle East.


Generally, there is nothing surprising in these reports. The Western media wrote that the "Mossad" has already committed murders of scientists in other countries. This, in particular, was the elimination of Canadian scientist Gerald Bull, who developed the well-known supergun for Saddam Hussein. The latter was hoping to use it for firing at Israel, as well as a series of attacks against a group of German scientists who left for the service of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser and were engaged in the development of the Egyptian missile program.

However, the mysterious death of Ardashir Hasanpur did not end the troubles of the Iranian nuclear physicists. On January 12, 2010 Professor Masoud Ali-Mohammadi who taught neutron nuclear physics at the University of Tehran was killed in a motorcycle bomb blast in a suburb of Tehran.


In October of the same year, Iranian Sunni terrorist separatist group "Jundullah" kidnapped Iranian nuclear physicist Amir Hossein Shirane. On November 28, he suddenly "surfaced", giving an interview to TV channel "Al Arabiya", where he stated that the ultimate goal of Iran's nuclear program was to build a nuclear bomb.

The very next day a double attack against Iran's leading nuclear physicists was organized in Tehran. As a result, Professor Majid Shahriar who worked in the department of nuclear activities at the Tehran Beheshti University was killed. Professor of nuclear physics Fereydoon Abbasi engaged in specialized research in the Defense Ministry of Iran was wounded. Allegedly, after his recovery he headed the nuclear program of Iran.

However, will the strategy chosen by the opponents of Iran yield results? Many military experts believe that it can only delay the inevitable for a few years. Iran, with the help of China, has streamlined the training of nuclear physicists and the place of a murdered scientist is immediately taken by someone else. In this regard, the former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro believes that the secret mission will not achieve its objectives and will not lead to serious political changes. According to him, one could not kill several people and hope to thwart Iran's nuclear program.


However, any delay is very dangerous. Every time terrorist acts were aimed at Iranian nuclear physicists, Tehran reacted quite violently and blamed American and particularly Israeli intelligence services for the incidents. As a result, in a series of successful special operations many terrorists of "Dzhandalla" group have been caught.

There were even reports on the arrest of an entire group of agents of "Mossad." However, the last successful assassination attempt aimed at an Iranian scientist proves once again that the local counter-intelligence has failed to seize the hand of the enemy that continues to sow death. Who knows where, when and in what direction will they strike again?

Based on the above-mentioned facts, neutralization of terrorist subversion network is a priority for Iran whose intelligence agencies made a number of mistakes, including failure to provide reliable protection to the Iranian scientists.

The analysis of all assassinations of 2010-2011 makes the following clear: 1) the murder and attempted murder are always committed near the homes of the scientists; 2) the attacks are directed against the vehicles of nuclear physicists, and 3) terrorist attacks are always committed with the use of motorcycles that are mined or used as a quick means of transportation by terrorists.

Of course, banning travel on motorcycles would be an overkill. However, a more rigorous accounting and control for those who purchase them would not be amiss. In addition, the Iranian secret services should further tighten the control over any foreign exchange transactions in the country.

Obviously, there is nothing impossible in safeguarding the pride of the Iranian nation. Iran should take the place of its scientists' residence under special protection. One solution to the problem is taking the scientists into the specially protected camps. However, this is not an absolute solution. The Islamic Republic should be ready that at some point the potential enemy will strike at such towns in the first place.

Iranian nuclear expert shot dead in Tehran

Al Bawaba: Iranian nuclear expert shot dead in Tehran
A prominent Iranian nuclear physicist was shot dead by "unknown terrorists" on Saturday, Iranian police confirmed. The assailants who were riding a motorcycle killed Daryoush Rezaie, 35, in front of his house in eastern Tehran on Saturday afternoon, ISNA reported.

His wife was wounded during the attack and was immediately transferred to hospital.

Dariush Rezai was born in 1965, and earned a doctorate in nuclear physics from the University of Ferdowsi in Mashhad in 2007. He studied nuclear physics at a university in Tehran.

On November 29, 2010, two other Iranian nuclear experts were gunned down in similar circumstances. A few days later, the Iranian Intelligence Ministry announced that Israel's Mossad, CIA and MI6 spy agencies played a role in those attacks

No land yet for Rs 6,000cr SINP project

The Times of India: No land yet for Rs 6,000cr SINP project
KOLKATA: The clock is ticking away on a Rs 6,000 crore project mooted by the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP) in Kolkata. A third generation high-energy synchrotron - which would aid cutting-edge research and would be only the fifth of its kind in the world - could hit a roadblock if land can't be identified soon. Even though SINP director Milan K Sanyal has written to chief minister Mamata Banerjee twice, asking for land allotment, the state government is yet to get back to the institute. The latter, however, has been told to buy the land when it is offered to them.

A list of probable locations will have to be sent to the Planning Commission soon. "I have written to Mamata Banerjee for a plot which is less than an hour's drive from Kolkata. This is necessary, for SINP scientists will be working at the project site and they will have to commute frequently between Kolkata and the new centre. We were asked to furnish further details on the project which has been done. Now, we are waiting to hear from the government," said Sanyal.

To be set up by the SINP under the stewardship of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the Rs 6,000 crore project will facilitate futuristic research on material science, crystallography and nano-technology, catapulting India to the big league of scientifically advanced nations. The SINP has sought a 200-acre plot within the periphery of Kolkata and sought 20 MW of electricity for the synchrotron.

The SINP is keeping its fingers crossed, for the IISC, Bangalore has also pitched in for the project. They already have a plot of land at their disposal. Since the site of the project is yet to be finalized at the government-level, Bengal could lose the synchrotron if it fails to identify a land.

Earlier this month, Sanyal met state finance minister Amit Mitra and discussed the project. The minister asked Sanyal to be ready to purchase the land.

"We are prepared to buy land for we have got money allocated for it. All we need is a quick identification of the plot," said Sanyal.

The issue could come up at a meeting of a committee set up to oversee such projects scheduled in Delhi later this week. While Sanyal will attend the meeting, he was not sure if the synchrotron project would be discussed. "There are several other important projects on the agenda. In any case, there's little to be discussed about the synchrotron project unless we het the land," added Sanyal.

SINP has recently signed an agreement with Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY) of Germany for access to its Petra III facility - the world's most advanced synchrotron - in Hamburg.

This will help SINP build capacity for the mammoth project which has been planned in Kolkata. It will also provide exposure to Indian scientists who haven't worked at such a large facility, it was felt.

"It had been declared that we need to freeze a location by end-July. Hopefully, that deadline has been relaxed or else we will lose the project," said a senior SINP researcher.

The SINP director, on the other hand, said there was no deadline. "No date has been set but the sooner we get the land the better," said Sanyal.

Nuclear Weapons are Old Threats

From Ground Report: Nuclear Weapons are Old Threats

Radioactivity is the spontaneous emission of a stream of particles or electromagnetic radiations in a nuclear decay; some of this subject is usually elaborated in Physics and Chemistry in middle school curriculum. In offering similar subjects after advancing to college, one understands the benefits of radioactive particles and how dangerous they can be.

An atom can be termed as the tiny piece of anything; for example, atoms of chemical elements are their smallest components and have their chemical properties. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons; protons and neutrons are in a positively charged dense center called nucleus; electrons revolve around the nucleus.

The concept of atomic or nuclear physics is about atoms or nucleus of radioactive particles. Energy generated from a radioactive process can be termed as Nuclear or Atomic energy. Power generation is a major use of Nuclear energy, but more topical is the use of Nuclear energy for defensive or military weapons.

Destructions from proliferation of nuclear weapons can be unimaginably devastating entering borders and dwarfing natural disasters of certain magnitude. Protecting the world and avoiding nuclear proliferation has made nations align in agreements and treaties; it has also made some nations to develop their nuclear arsenal and work to build what may shield or protect their people and territories incase of nuclear or military attacks.

Some of these nuclear weapons or shields developed by some countries are announced in the media; some are made by some countries unavowed. The former can be called Defense; the latter can be termed as Protection.

In a gym, there are all kinds of people; some professional blokes who come for fitness and some others who body-build to keep fit for their body-guard career. This too is some form of defense. Beyond fighting and contending, it sends a message to anyone that wants to engage such people to know how dangerous they can be.

While it is obvious what can come off a contention, in losses, disrepute and defeat; very few people or nations want to engage in a fight or war. The solution, more than shield or more nuclear arsenal to the threat of nuclear weapon is bloc(s). Blocs are so powerful nowadays that they are decision channels for global topical issues; they can be very formal with a name and perennial meetings or informal as nation with allies or friendship of leaders.

Despotic leaders have despotic friends, these despotic friends have relationship with leaders of other nations that are in one bloc or another; they can always mediate if their despotic friend threatens to engage a nation. While certain agencies and treaties seek to ensure non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, some countries keep working in nuclear direction and announce their progress to see that they are respected or (say) feared.

International alliance is growing so strong so nations may never engage in nuclear wars because of continued conciliation between blocs. The Nuclear Security Summit of 2010 in Washington moving to Seoul in 2012 is another direction to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons. Rather than quake for the fear of nuclear weapons, natural disasters and incurable diseases are threats at a close distance. Treaties, agreements and blocs present NO as answer to (will-it-happen) proliferation of nuclear weapons

Kan Takes on Japan’s ‘Nuclear Village’

From BLoomberg: Kan Takes on Japan’s ‘Nuclear Village’
Toshinobu Hatsui’s protest against construction of a nuclear power plant split friends and families in his hometown. After the biggest atomic accident in 25 years, resentment has turned to gratitude.

“Those of us who opposed the plant can finally be proud of what we did,” said Hatsui, a 62-year-old fisherman, recalling the anger among nuclear supporters in Hidaka, south of Osaka, who missed out on an economic windfall when the town rejected the plant in the 1970s. “Since the accident, people called to express their relief that it wasn’t built.”

Opinion polls show more Japanese agree with Hatsui in demanding a future less reliant on atomic power, a pillar of energy policy for five decades. Getting what they want may depend on Prime Minister Naoto Kan surviving the backlash from the so-called “nuclear village” of politicians, bureaucrats and power utilities that promoted the industry’s rise, academics including Jeff Kingston said.

“Japan’s nuclear village is worried and they’re extremely well connected,” Kingston, head of Temple University’s Asian Studies program at its Tokyo campus, said in a phone interview. “They’re out to get Kan and it’s not because he’s that incompetent. What worries them is that he’s been making provocative statements that trample on very powerful toes.”

It’s an unfamiliar challenge for the nuclear industry, which before the March 11 Fukushima disaster provided about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity. The national energy policy called for that percentage to rise to 53 percent by 2030.

Abandon Plan
After the magnitude-9 earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s plant in northern Japan and caused three reactors to meltdown, Kan said Japan should abandon plans to build 14 new reactors by 2030. He wants to pass a bill to promote renewable energy and questioned whether private companies should be running atomic plants.

“When we consider the risk of nuclear energy, I’ve come to strongly feel that this is a technology that cannot be controlled by our conventional thinking of securing safety,” Kan told reporters yesterday. “We should reduce nuclear dependency in a planned, step-by-step manner. We should eventually create a society where we can do without atomic energy.”

Other plans include separating Japan’s nuclear regulator from the industry’s chief promoter, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and ending the monopoly that utilities have over power production and transmission.

“All these things hit at the heart of the nuclear village and they’re not going down without a fight,” said Kingston, who also edited “Tsunami: Japan’s Post-Fukushima Future,” a collection of essays.

Key Policy
Nuclear power was a key policy of the Liberal Democratic Party, which governed Japan with almost no interruption for 55 years until 2009. Close ties with the government meant opposition was mostly confined to left-wing parties and the rural towns where utilities chose to build their plants.

All that changed when radiation began leaking from Tokyo Electric’s stricken nuclear plant in March, forcing more than 160,000 people to evacuate to shelters.

“Policy-makers face a stark choice between continued devotion to nuclear power, with all the attendant costs and risks, and a more sustainable future,” Andrew DeWit, professor of politics and public finance at Tokyo’s Rikkyo University, said in a phone interview. “The nuclear village is unraveling, and Kan realizes it because he doesn’t have ties to that base.”

Fighting Bureaucracy
Kan, Japan’s first prime minister in five who isn’t descended from past premiers, has a track record of taking on the establishment.

As health minister in 1996, he forced bureaucrats to release documents exposing their role in allowing as many as 5,000 Japanese to contract HIV through contaminated blood products.

While opinion polls show support for his stance on nuclear power, public backing for Kan has slumped on criticism about how his administration has dealt with the crisis. He survived a no confidence vote on June 2, though only after appeasing critics by saying he would step down once the crisis is contained.

About 77 percent of Japanese support the “gradual abolition” of nuclear power, the Asahi newspaper said on July 12, up 3 percent from June, citing its own polls.

The fight over Japan’s energy future is dividing some of the country’s biggest companies into separate camps, DeWit said.

Minority Voice
Nuclear power is “the only way to secure a stable supply of environmentally clean electricity at a relatively low cost,” Shosuke Mori, chairman of Kansai Electric Power Co., the nation’s second-biggest power producer, said in an interview last month.

Softbank Corp. (9984) Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son countered with plans to invest about 80 billion yen ($1 billion) to build 10 solar farms if he gets access to transmission networks and agreement from the 10 regional utilities to buy his electricity.

“A framework should be designed to make the power business open to anyone who has the will to start it,” Son said at a government panel meeting June 12.

Hiroshi Mikitani, president of Japan’s biggest online retailer Rakuten Inc. (4755), quit the main business lobby Nippon Keidanren in protest over the group’s support for the energy status quo.

Public Works
Around Japan, towns that agree to host nuclear power plants benefit from public works spending and jobs. The town of Ohi, north of Osaka, was saved from bankruptcy in the 1970s when Kansai Electric built a plant there, creating 2,400 jobs, Mayor Shinobu Tokioka said in an interview last month.

In contrast, there is little extra revenue for towns that host power-generating windmills, according to Masao Hatanaka, mayor of Yura, a town neighboring Hidaka.

“There’s not much advantage” to hosting the wind farms, he said in an interview. “They don’t provide employment as the maintenance is handled by two people.”

Osaka Gas Co., which operates a 10-megawatt unit wind power plant in Wakayama, said a feed-in tariff like the one Kan has proposed would stimulate investment. The tariffs guarantee renewable energy producers a higher price for their electricity.

For the 7,800 residents of Hidaka, the debate over nuclear power was decided during the 1970s and 1980s.

Support for the plan faltered after the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania undermined safety claims, Hatsui, the fisherman said. A sign next to the main road promotes it as a “nuclear-free, peaceful town.”

“If these plants were safe, they would have built them near population centers,” Hatsui said in an interview in the town. “We’re not sure what is the best alternative, but we know that we don’t want nuclear power.”

B Reactor recommended for national historical park

The News Tribune: B Reactor recommended for national historical park

Making B Reactor part of the National Park Service received the backing of Ken Salazar, the secretary of the Interior, on Wednesday.

He recommended to Congress that a national historical park be formed to commemorate the Manhattan Project, the top-secret effort to create an atomic bomb during World War II. In addition to B Reactor, facilities at Los Alamos, N.M., and Oak Ridge, Tenn., which also were part of the race to develop the atomic bomb, were included in the recommendation.

The recommendation is a turnaround from the park service's previous stand. A draft study released in December 2009 by the park service concluded that only part of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National Landmark District should be considered for a new national park.

The park service then was concerned about safety, liability and ownership of the nuclear facilities.

But it credited Ines Triay, the outgoing Department of Energy assistant secretary of environmental management, for proposing a solution that would have DOE continue to play a strong role at sites included in a national park.

Making B Reactor part of the National Park Service also was widely supported at park service meetings in the Tri-Cities and by the Washington congressional delegation.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, will write legislation authorizing preservation activities, according to his staff. The committee has jurisdiction over the National Park Service.

The final decision on whether B Reactor achieves national park status will fall to Congress and the president.

"The B Reactor played a critical role in the history of our nation, and establishing a national historical park will attract visitors from across the country and give them an opportunity to learn about and reflect on the contribution made by Hanford and the Tri-Cities during World War II and the Cold War," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in a statement.

She will be working with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., to make the recommendation a reality, she said. The reactor deserves preservation, Cantwell said.

B Reactor was the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor. It produced plutonium for the world's first atomic explosion in the New Mexico desert and for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, helping end World War II. It continued to produce plutonium until 1968.

Limited bus tours of the reactor are offered now, but they do not keep up with demand. About 7,000 people visit the reactor annually, despite tours now being closed to children, according to DOE. Last year the visitors came from 48 states and 29 countries.

The National Parks Conservation Association said that every federal dollar spent on national parks generates $4 in value. Annually visitors to national parks spend more than $11 billion in the regions near the parks, it said.

But in the Tri-Cities, many of its supporters have worked to save B Reactor not for the economic benefit, but because of the role it played in initiating the Atomic Age and to commemorate the feat of engineering needed to build the reactor not long after the first controlled nuclear reaction had been demonstrated.

"If the Manhattan Project National Historic Park is authorized by Congress and moves forward, it would be very well-deserved recognition of the efforts and sacrifices made by Hanford workers, the community and the nation during World War II and the Cold War," said Matt McCormick, manager of the Hanford DOE Richland Operations Office, in a message to employees.

The secret development of an atomic bomb in multiple locations across the United States was one of the most transformative events in the nation's history, Salazar said in a statement.

"The Manhattan Project ushered in the atomic age, changed the role of the United States in the world community and set the stage for the Cold War," he said.

There's no better place to tell the once-secret story of the atomic bomb's creation than the places where it happened, said National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, in a statement.

The environmental assessment report released to Congress by the park service this week calls for DOE to continue managing and operating B Reactor and for the National Park Service to provide museum-quality interpretation and education. The study was done after Cantwell and Murray sponsored legislation directing the park service to assess the potential for developing B Reactor and other Manhattan Project facilities as historical sites.

Triay assured the park service a year ago that the facilities "will remain in DOE ownership and that DOE will maintain them, preserve important historic resources at these sites, ensure visitor and employee safety, and request necessary funding from Congress to do so in the future."

Roles of the park service and DOE could be clearly delineated with each agency playing to its strengths, she said in a letter to Jarvis.

"We are ready to bring our radiological expertise, safety culture and in-depth knowledge of the individual facilities we manage," she wrote. "We look to NPS for its unparalleled interpretive and educational skills, understanding of the visiting public and ability to tie facilities at the three DOE sites together to tell the Manhattan Project narrative to future generations."

The park service would develop films, exhibits, kiosks, brochures and websites to tell the story of the Manhattan Project.

At Hanford, the park service would assign staff who could assist with programs at the proposed Hanford Reach Interpretive Center in Richland and in education programming through the Hanford area, the park service report said. It could also help train guides for B Reactor tours.

The park service envisions partnerships with local governments, museums and nonprofit organizations, said Ed Revell, chairman of the Hanford Communities governing board. He called the park service recommendation to Congress "fantastic news."

Georgia Power Braves Nuclear Headwinds

EnergyBiz: Georgia Power Braves Nuclear Headwinds

Despite the headwinds, the nuclear sector in this country is forging ahead with new construction. Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, is now in the spotlight and wants to build two new reactors on an existing nuclear site.

But concerns exist that the utility could exceed its timetable and allocated budget given the dynamics that underscore the energy marketplace today: Low natural gas prices, reduced demand and public apprehension in a post Fukushima Daiichi world. Still, the industry is insistent that it can deliver their product cheaply and safely -- and that loan guarantees are essential to do so.

Those loan guarantees assure borrowers that they will get reimbursed in the case of default. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress authorized such guarantees and then instructed the U.S. Department of Energy to devise the program. About $18.5 billion is now on the table, although the Obama administration wants to increase the total to $54 billion -- with the first two loans totaling $8.8 billion for the reactors to be built in Georgia.

The White House considers nuclear part of its overall strategy to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. "Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step," President Obama said in speech to union workers who would benefit from those jobs. "And what I hope is that this announcement underscores our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge."

Backers of that government policy emphasize that the loan guarantees are not taxpayer handouts but rather a form of insurance that will entice Wall Street bankers to invest in their enterprises. Opponents of them, conversely, say that nuclear plants are expensive and uncompetitive and that they have a proven track record of cost-overruns. As such, if they are unable to receive private financing then taxpayers should not become a backstop.

The one thing that both sides can agree upon is that the capital costs associated with constructing nuclear power plants are tremendous. According to Moody's Investor Services, the number is akin to $9 billion per reactor -- a lot more than a conventional fossil fired plant or a renewable energy facility. The nuclear industry responds that its plants operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, which is much better than competing facilities. Over the 40-year lifespan of such a plant, the operational costs are nominal.

Loans Guarantees

In 2009, the Energy Department identified four nuclear projects that it said qualified for loan guarantees. But two of those have run into obstacles. That leaves the twin facilities that Georgia Power would like to build as well as two others that SCANA Corp's South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. wants to construct. Both remain on schedule to get the combined construction and operating licenses they need from the U.S. Regulatory Commission to build reactors that would generate more than 1,000 megawatts each.

"Loan guarantees allow utilities to lower capital costs for new nuclear construction, which ultimately leads to lower electricity prices for consumers," says Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy.

In the case of Georgia Power, the value of the project is estimated to be $14 billion. Of that, about $6 billion would fall on the utility. The rest would come in the form of loan guarantees. If those numbers hold up and the company is able to pay off its loan, then most agree that the endeavor would be worth it.

But with all the uncertainty that now shrouds the nuclear sector, Georgia's public utility commission wants to shift more of the risks over to Georgia Power. That is, if the utility exceeds its budget, it would then receive a lesser allowable rate of return.

That's a point of contention for the utility, which says that substantial penalties could affect its credit ratings and that there are a number of external factors beyond its control. Its customers currently pay a small monthly fee to ensure the plants get built by 2016, and may conceivably get dunned for money if the power company does not stay on track.

"The fact that Georgia Power won't even allow a modest penalty so that they are motivated to stay on schedule and on budget is unacceptable," says Steven Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

At least the neighbors of the would-be plant are supportive. Two such facilities already exist on the site. By adding two more, the utility says that it would employ a total of 800 people to work there -- not bad in an area of the state that has 12 percent unemployment.

It would seem that the odds are stacked against Georgia Power. Its push to build those two additional reactors is coming during a period of record national debts and on the heels of the worst nuclear accident in 25 years. But the utility -- and the entire nuclear industry -- says that over time the building of new nuclear plants is vital and that now is the time to start.

EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.

Dismantling Fukushima reactors will take decades

CNET.news: Dismantling Fukushima reactors will take decades
Japan today marked four months since the March 11 earthquake and tsunamis that left more than 20,000 dead and missing, with nuclear officials predicting it will take decades to dismantle the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Removal of melted nuclear fuel at the plant won't begin until 2021; the fuel is apparently now in a solidified state and presents extremely difficult technical challenges. Full dismantling, including demolishing the reactors, will take decades more and will only happen after radiation levels fall, Japanese media reported, quoting a draft report on the cleanup.

Compiled by operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, the draft based the estimate on the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania.

The Fukushima crisis is much more severe, and forced the evacuation of 80,000 people. In early June, Japanese nuclear officials doubled their estimate of the radiation released after March 11. The reevaluation followed the government's ranking of the event on par with the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.

Workers at the plant are still trying to bring the critical situation under control by January 2012. Decontaminated water is being used to cool the reactors ahead of efforts to achieve a cold shutdown.

Meanwhile, Tepco is constructing a massive steel frame to support a shroud of polyester fiber that will cover the unit 1 reactor, where a hydrogen blast severely damaged the walls and roof, to reduce the entry of rainwater. It may also help mitigate radiation leaks.

Remote-operated equipment will erect the 177-foot-tall structure. A larger concrete sarcophagus, similar to the one at Chernobyl, could be built in the future to cover several reactor buildings.

Speaking of remotes, robots continue to help with inspections and cleanup at Daiichi. Following reconnaissance by PackBot robots in April, Tepco recently fitted an iRobot Warrior with an industrial-strength vacuum cleaner to suck up radioactive dirt and other particles. Check it out in the vid below.

In the near term, the government is planning "stress tests" on other nuclear plants in an effort to shore up public support for nuclear power. The tests will take into account European Union standards and involve simulations of natural disasters and loss of electricity for cooling systems.

While Japan relies on atomic energy for a third of its electricity, the government faces an uphill battle. Public pressure led to the temporary shutdown of the Hamaoka nuclear plant, which is located on a major fault line southwest of Tokyo, and thousands of people rallied against nuclear power in June.

A particle physics private eye takes on the great interaction caper

SymmetryMagazine: A particle physics private eye takes on the great interaction caper

Quantum Diaries first published this story on July 6, 2011.
Two weeks ago, my Aunt and Grand mom (G-Mom) came from New Jersey to visit me at Fermilab. The first thing they wanted to see was the house in Fermilab Village where my bride-to-be and I would be living for the rest of my graduate career. G-Mom was impressed: “They hung pictures on the walls for you!”

Then it got complicated. G-Mom asked me what I do.

”I do nuclear physics with the MINERvA, a neutrino interactions experiment. This detector has an array of nuclear targets that vary in size. By looking at events that occur in nuclei of different size, we can discover things about those nuclei.” (See notation ** below)

Her follow-up question was: “How is it you find that interesting?”

I told her that what we do in nuclear/particle physics is try to solve mysteries and puzzles, and I like doing that. Being an avid reader of mystery novels and voracious solver of cross-word puzzles, G-Mom was on-board with this reasoning. So, I tried to explain the mysteries of nuclear physics that MINERvA will investigate in the style of a Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe private detective novel…

“MINERvA, Intra-Nuclear Detective”

MINERvA was starting to lose her cool. Of all the detectors in all the world, this proton walked into her’s.

After 23 hours of interrogating this proton about what he was doing at the time of the boson exchange, he wasn’t revealing sign one. The detector had picked up the proton in the vicinity of the incident. His usual accomplice, the muon, was seen fleeing north, where he was apprehended by MINOS, the adjacent detector. Even with the proton refusing to talk, the greenest rookie could spot a muon and a proton in the final state and tell you this was a case of charged-current quasi-elastic neutrino scattering.

It happens all the time at these energies. A neutrino with a few GeV of kinetic energy flies deep into some back-alley nucleus and meets up with a neutron. The deal goes down quickly: a W+ is exchanged; the neutron, fed its fix of charge, is now a proton; the neutrino flies away as a muon, thanked for its troubles with a charge of his own. This is textbook quasi-elastic scattering.

But this was not a textbook case. MINERvA had in her custody not one, but two protons! Only after she drained the last drop of espresso would MINERvA allow her weary legs to drag her back to the interrogation room. The questioning was fast and direct.

“Listen Proton, we know you and the muon came out of a carbon nucleus. Was it quasi-elastic scattering?”

“Sure, but it wasn’t me. It was the other proton.”

“The other proton told us the same thing. Then what were you doing fleeing the nucleus?”

“I already told you: I watched the neutrino come in and scatter off a neutron. Guy turns into a proton and runs right into me!”

“That’s what they all say. We think both of you protons were directly involved in the scattering.”

“Oh, yeah? How are you going to prove it? You don’t have jurisdiction inside the nucleus!

The proton was right. Experiments are not able to see inside the nucleus. It could not be proven that the protons were involved directly in the neutrino interaction.

But MINERvA was getting close to connecting the dots enough to figure out what this gang of particles was doing inside the nucleus. They couldn’t hide forever. Soon MINERvA would unravel their pattern and tell all the detectors in the world what was going on.

** When an interaction happens inside of a large nucleus, the particles involved in the neutrino interaction (“primary particles”) must travel through a sea of protons and neutrons to get outside the nucleus, where they can be detected. Primary particles may interact with the other protons and neutrons on their way out. For example, a primary proton can knock out another proton from the nucleus. Then the experiment will observe two protons coming out of the nucleus (“final state particles”). The messiness of primary particles interacting on their way out of the nucleus is called Final State Interactions (FSI). MINERvA will measure FSI in its wide range of nuclei, thus revealing clues about the mysterious inner-workings of the nucleus.

– Brian Tice

UK nuclear cuts could do lasting damage

timeshighereducation: UK nuclear cuts could do lasting damage

STFC commits to explore options to ameliorate long-term effects of reductions. Paul Jump reports

The Science and Technology Facilities Council has admitted to concerns that long-term damage could be done to UK nuclear physics by the cuts that it has imposed on the subject's funding.

The admission comes in the council's operational plan for 2011-12, which was published last week.

Total funding for nuclear physics will be £5.8 million, compared with around £9 million prior to the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review.

The council says this "significant" reduction was not a policy decision but the result of the prioritisation exercise it carried out in 2009, in which "a number of nuclear physics projects did not fare well".

"Funding for the nuclear physics grants round now under way is...very constrained over the next few years, and it is not clear at what level existing support in some key areas can be maintained," the plan admits.

It also expresses fears that the "lack of a development line for future nuclear physics projects" could do long-term damage to the subject, and commits the STFC to exploring the "scope for opening up some modest level of support for future planning".

But a spokeswoman for the council confirmed that any extra funding for new projects would have to be offset against reductions in spending on existing projects.

Martin Freer, professor of nuclear physics at the University of Birmingham, said the budget fall had led to the erosion of the UK's leadership in the field.

"The subject is under severe pressure within the budgets set by the STFC," he said. "There are groups within the UK who now have had sustained periods without any real funding for research and key people are leaving the UK."

He said the council had not previously consulted on how to safeguard the subject's future, but added that academics would "welcome such discussions".

Sean Freeman, professor of nuclear physics at the University of Manchester, also welcomed the STFC's offer, but said many felt it was "too little and too late" to prevent damage.

He added that there was a feeling that "the process used in the prioritisation exercise did not treat nuclear physics very well" and that funding for nuclear physics was already low by international standards.

The operational plan also announces that the STFC's workforce will be reduced by 10 per cent by the end of 2011-12, with a "greater reduction" in senior staff.

The spokeswoman said that the council would shed scientific and administrative staff as a result of changes to its programmes and reductions in its administrative budget.

In astronomy, the council will press on with its controversial policy of withdrawing some UK-led ground-based optical and infrared telescopes. But Robert Massey, deputy executive secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, welcomed its pledge to "work to ensure that options for continued access to key capabilities are fully explored".

"This would take a relatively small amount of money but would go a long way towards offsetting real damage to the astronomy research base," Dr Massey said.

SA marks twentieth anniversary of move from nuclear weapons to nonproliferation

Engineering News: SA marks twentieth anniversary of move from nuclear weapons to nonproliferation


On July 10, 1991, South Africa signed the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, better known as the Non Proliferation Treaty and most usually referred to simply as the NPT. This marked the final step in South Africa’s transition from a nuclear weapons State to a country with a nuclear programme that was and is exclusively and verifiably devoted to peaceful ends.

In the process, South Africa became the first country with nuclear weapons to give them up. That nuclear weapons programme, whatever its political or military advisability (or lack thereof), represented a very significant South African scientific, technological and engineering achievement.

DEEP ROOTS

“South Africa is one of the oldest nuclear countries in the world,” affirms Stratek Business Strategy Consultants CEO, nuclear physicist and Engineering News columnist Dr Kelvin Kemm. “This is something we should be proud of.”

During the Second World War, the US, with the active participation of the UK and Canada, driven by fear of Nazi German research into nuclear fission, launched what came to be called the Manhattan Project, to develop and deploy atomic bombs which employed the principle of nuclear fission – splitting the atom. Uranium, the most abundant radioactive element on earth, was the basis of these weapons.

To digress a little, 99% of all naturally occurring uranium is in the form of the isotope uranium-238 (U-238) and 0,7% is uranium-235 (U-235). But it is U-235 that can be easily subjected to fission, and so essential to make the bomb work. U-235 cannot be chemically separated from U-238; this must be achieved using physical processes, which require large, complex and energy-intensive machinery. This process is called enrichment.

Uranium for use in weapons needs to be very highly enriched – the U-235 content must exceed 90%. (Uranium for use in civil nuclear power reactors needs only low enrichment levels – less than 20% U-235 content – indeed, it is usually around 5%; reactor fuel cannot produce a nuclear explosion: it is physically impossible.) Alternatively, U-238 can be put into a nuclear reactor, where it undergoes a nuclear transformation and becomes plutonium-239 (Pu-239). (The reactor itself is powered by low-enriched uranium.) Pu-239 is also easily fissionable, and so very suitable for use in a weapon.

The Manhattan Project developed both U-235 and Pu-239 bombs, the former being used on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and the latter on Nagasaki (August 9, 1945). But all this depended on a secure supply of uranium, and South Africa, where uranium was a by-product of gold mining, was one of the countries that the metal was sourced from – Canada was another. (Uranium ore from what is today the Democratic Republic of the Congo was also used.)

Then South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts was apparently briefed on the atomic bomb programme in London in mid-1944. In 1945, in response to requests from Washington and London regarding the supply of uranium, Smuts’ administration set up a Uranium Committee, headed by Dr Basil Schonland. In 1948 came the establishment of the Atomic Energy Board (AEB), to oversee the production and trading of uranium.

That year also saw, in May, the general election in which the then opposition National Party won a majority of seats in Parliament, despite winning fewer votes than Smuts’ United Party. This marked the beginning of the implemen- tation of apartheid in South Africa.

In July 1957, South Africa and the US signed a nuclear cooperation agreement within the framework of the American Atoms for Peace programme. Subsequently, in 1959, the Act governing the AEB was amended to permit the board to also carry out nuclear research and development and to employ nuclear technology. The very next year, and under the Atoms for Peace programme, planning for the construction of a nuclear research reactor was started in South Africa. The year after that – 1961 – a nuclear research centre was established among the hills at Pelindaba, west of Pretoria.

In 1965, the country’s first nuclear reactor, the US supplied 20 MWt research unit formally designated South African Fundamental Atomic Research Installation 1, inevitably acronymed to Safari 1, was commissioned. As a research reactor, Safari 1 originally employed highly enriched uranium – enriched to a level of 93%.

(In the past few years, the reactor was modified by South African scientists and engineers to employ low-enriched uranium and now uses fuel enriched to 19.5%. The 20% enrichment level is internationally regarded as marking the division between low-enriched uranium, which is useless for weapons, and the start of the high-enrichment zone.)

BENEFICIATION

“Safari 1 was not obtained to build nuclear weapons,” stresses Kemm. “The development of a local nuclear enrichment capability was originally, basically, a purely scientific and technological project. It was not a military or political one.” It should be noted that Safari 1 was always monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and always subject to IAEA safeguards.

Writing in the December 1995/January 1996 edition of the journal Arms Control Today, the then CEO of the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa (the successor organisation to the AEB), Dr Waldo Stumpf, stated that, as the country “was – and still is – a prominent producer of uranium, it was almost inevitable that the AEB would explore uranium enrichment technology as a means to mineral beneficiation”.

The conversion of uranium ore to usable uranium (whether low enriched for power plants or highly enriched for research or weapons) involves a number of steps. Firstly, the ore is milled and leached with acid, separating out the uranium oxide from the rest of the ore.

The uranium oxide is then precipitated, dried, and (usually) heated to produce another oxide, U308, which is popularly called yellowcake. This is internationally traded. The yellowcake is then refined into uranium dioxide. As uranium can only be enriched if it is in gaseous form, the uranium dioxide is converted into uranium hexafluoride gas and it is this that is used as the feedstock for the enrichment process.

The development of a South African enrichment tech- nology was led by the University of Pretoria’s Professor Pierre Haarhoff. His team developed a unique enrichment process, known as the Helikon Aero-dynamic Vortex Tube. “Haarhoff did all the theoretical calculations for the Vortex Tube,” highlights Kemm. “The South African nuclear programme joined very front-end science – theoretical nuclear physics – through applied science to engineering. All too often in South Africa there is a gap between scientists and engineers. Good science can help engineers.”

“The design, only superficially similar to the so-called German Becker process, was much closer to the ordinary centrifuge process except that the centrifuge wall was stationary and a vortex mechanism rapidly spun the uranium hexafluoride and hydrogen gas inside a stationary tube,” explained Stumpf in his article. “The uranium isotopes were separated by centrifugal force and exited through different concentric holes in the ends of the tube.”

Following success in laboratory experiments, in 1969, the government authorised the setting up of a pilot plant at Pelindaba to test the process on an industrial scale. This decision was made public in 1970 and construction of the pilot plant, known as the Y-Plant, started in 1971. Respons-ibility for this programme was vested in a new body, set up in 1970 – the Uranium Enrichment Corporation (Ucor). (In 1985, Ucor was merged with the AEB to form the AEC.)

The Y-Plant became fully operational in 1977 and the first highly enriched uranium was obtained in January 1978. This was enriched to 80%, which was not as high as desired, owing to the fact that the“enrichment gradient” of the plant had not reached “full equilibrium”.

Meanwhile, in parallel, and starting in 1971, the AEB had been, with government permission, secretly (because it was a sensitive topic) examining the possibility of using “peaceful nuclear explosives” (PNEs) in mining and construction projects. The PNE concept was not originally a cover for a weapons programme. The idea was seriously pursued by the US from 1957 to 1975 and by the then Soviet Union (USSR) from 1965 to 1989. Between them, these two countries carried out 151 PNE experiments. The Russians actually used five PNEs to construct water reservoirs, 21 to stimulate oil and gas recovery, and five for controlling runaway oil and gas fires.

By 1974, the AEB was certain it could construct a device for use as a PNE. But that same year, India detonated a nuclear device, claiming it was for peaceful purposes, and the hostile world reaction to the Indian action helped persuade the South African government to abandon the PNE idea in practice, although research continued.

Separately, South Africa also developed a facility at Pelindbaba to produce low-enriched uranium fuel – including the fuel elements and fuel assemblies – for the country’s solitary nuclear power station at Koeberg, near Cape Town, which started operation in 1984.
This plant, designated the Z-Plant, started commissioning in 1984 and reached full production in 1988. This was a major technological achievement for South Africa. Like Safari 1, the Z-Plant was never involved in the nuclear weapons programme. This was a major technological achievement for South Africa. Technically successful, but uneconomic to operate, the Z-Plant was closed in 1995 as South Africa was again able to buy nuclear fuel on the international market.

THE BOMB

The second half of the 1970s saw South Africa increasingly isolated because of its apartheid policies and facing a very major deterioration in its strategic position. The year 1974 also saw the Portuguese ‘Carnation Revolution’ in which the army overthrew the basically Fascist ‘New State’ regime. The result was the independence of Portugal’s African territories in 1975, followed by civil war in Angola, which led to intervention by both Cuba and South Africa; the first stage of this conflict ended in 1976 with South African forces withdrawing from Angola and Cuban forces staying in the country.

Also in 1976, then US President Jimmy Carter banned the export of fuel elements for Safari 1, despite the reactor being under IAEA safeguards. In addition, Carter refused to refund South Africa the payment it had already made for the fuel (according to Stumpf, South Africa got the money back five years later, during the administration of President Ronald Reagan).

“The Americans assumed that Safari would close down within a few months,” says Kemm. “Instead, South Africa used the expertise it had developed in uranium enrichment to produce fuel for Safari 1 in a programme called Beva (Brandstoff Element Vervaardiger – Fuel Element Manufacturer).”

Still formally under the aegis of the PNE project, South Africa had carried out a scale model test of a nuclear device using unenriched uranium (which cannot produce a nuclear explosion) in May 1974 and a full-scale device – but again equipped only with unenriched uranium – was tested in 1976. These were effectively tests of device design and detonation systems, and not of actual devices or weapons themselves.

Faced by a dramatically more dangerous strategic situation, in 1977, Pretoria decided to turn this research into a formal nuclear weapons programme. The highly enriched uranium required would come from the Y-Plant, originally intended to supply Safari 1 and research projects once it had achieved full equilibrium in its enrichment gradient.

But, in 1979, the Y-Plant suffered a major accident, and came to a total halt. Stumpf described this event as “a massive catalytic in-process gas reaction between the UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) and the hydrogen carrier gas, a mixture that is thermodynamically unstable, and, when contaminated by certain impurities, can react to form uranium tetrafluoride plus hydrochloric acid.” As a result of this accident, a “massive” amount of gas was lost. The subsequent repairs and modifications (to eliminate the impurities) meant that the Y-Plant did not resume operations until April 1980 and the first highly enriched uranium was not obtained from it until July 1981.

Meanwhile, the design of actual weapons went ahead, although there was no highly enriched uranium to arm them. In 1977, South Africa excavated an under- ground nuclear weapons test chamber at Vastrap, in the Kalahari desert, but this was detected by the USSR and the US. Intense international pressure led to Pretoria abandoning the Vastrap site.

In fact, South Africa was never to undertake a full nuclear weapons test. The infamous ‘double flash’ detected over the South Atlantic by a US satellite on September 22, 1979, which was, at the time, claimed to be evidence of a nuclear test, had nothing to do with South Africa, nor was any nuclear fallout ever detected, suggesting that the event was a natural phenomenon.

The country’s first nuclear weapon was produced in 1982. In all, six were completed, at a rate of fewer than one a year – in line with the output of the Y-Plant. Each, Kemm adds, was individually built and ranged in yield from 10 kilotons (Kt) to 18 Kt – the Hiroshima bomb was about 15 Kt.

All were to the same basic design, being of ‘gun tube’ type. In this design, the enriched uranium is divided into two elements, each too small to have the critical mass needed to produce an explosion. These two elements are positioned at opposite ends of a tube. At detonation, a conventional high explosive is used to blast one of these elements down the tube and into the other, creating critical mass and so generating a nuclear explosion.

The deterrence concept underlying the development of nuclear weapons was, first, to create uncertainty about whether the country had nuclear weapons or not, thereby complicating the strategic planning of the country’s foes. Secondly, if South Africa was subject to a major invasion anyway, Pretoria would secretly reveal the existence of the weapons to Western powers in the hope it would force them to intervene in the crisis.

Finally, the country could carry out a test detonation of a weapon as a warning.

“South African high government politicians and officials thought it would be crazy to actually use nuclear weapons – what would they be used against?” affirms Kemm. “And, if they were used, the USSR would retaliate.” Which raises a lot of questions – for example, if they were never meant to be used, why didn’t South Africa just resort to the much cheaper and simpler option of faking nuclear weapons? (Stumpf estimated the cost of the weapons programme to have been under R680-million in 1995 values.)

In 1989, FW de Klerk became President and, faced by a rapidly changing world, within a short period terminated the nuclear weapons programme. In line with the President’s decision, the Y-Plant was closed in February 1990 and the weapons were dismantled by June 1991. In July 1991, South Africa joined the NPT and supplied the IAEA with an initial inventory of its nuclear material (the highly enriched uranium retrieved from the weapons had been returned to the AEC) in October 1991.

SWORDS INTO PLOUGHSHARES

What advantages has South Africa gained from renouncing nuclear weapons and joining the NPT? For one thing, it eased the way to the conclusion of the African Nuclear Weapons Free (or Pelindaba) Treaty of 2009.

“The NPT forms the basis of global nuclear security,” points out South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) CEO Dr Rob Adam. (The AEC was restructured into Necsa in 1999.) “By being part of the NPT club, we contribute to global security. The primary advantage to South Africa was the achievement of the moral high ground by being the first country to voluntarily dismantle a nuclear weapons programme. At the same time, South Africa, through Necsa, transferred the expertise and the highly enriched uranium from the weapons programme into bene- ficial, peaceful applications of nuclear technology by becoming a global market leader in the supply of radioisotopes for medical applications. The signing of the NPT also opened doors for the South African government and the nuclear industry to be accepted into a variety of international collaborative programmes relating to advanced nuclear energy technologies, such as the Generation IV International Forum and various IAEA programmes.”

“As a result of joining the NPT, South Africa got great credibility. It also gave South African nuclear science a great boost,” states Kemm. “The NPT allows South Africa to access various nuclear capabilities and nuclear facilities around the world. We’ve been a model of compliance. As a result, the world would not be afraid of South Africa going back into the business of uranium enrichment. We are now trusted.”

Oregon Advertising Studio Tracks Fukushima Radiation

Voie of America News.com: Oregon Advertising Studio Tracks Fukushima Radiation

If you were to picture the sort of person who might take the lead in gathering radiation data from the Fukushima nuclear accident, Marcelino Alvarez probably wouldn’t come to mind.

“My background is actually not in physics or nuclear physics or science or radiation data," he says. "It’s actually in advertising, so, building websites and doing product development.”



But Alvarez also follows what’s happening in the world. During the early days of the Fukushima crisis, he watched the news coverage nonstop. And he was surprised that even the experts were having a hard time finding accurate up-to-date information.

“So I said, 'There’s got to be a better way.' And I drew a really crude sketch and I sent it to our creative director, and I said, 'What do you think about this? What if we made a site that just invited people to contribute their own data?' And so we designed it and, two days after that, basically launched the first version of the site.”

That website became what’s now called Safecast. The home page has a constantly-updating map of Japan with little pins charting the latest radiation data. Safecast aggregates data from official public sources and allows volunteers to upload their own Geiger counter readings

Alvarez drew on his background in web design and location-based mobile apps to pull it together. He’s also working with scientists in the United States and Japan as well as individual programmers in Tokyo.

“So we’ve got official Japanese ministry data. We have volunteers in Japan data. We have Greenpeace and other organizations that are driving around creating data," says Alvarez. "So it’s a mix, and we hope that mix will help create a more accurate picture of what’s actually going on.”

Many people in Japan are hungry for that picture, given what Pieter Franken says are the frustrations with official government data. The Dutch Internet researcher at Tokyo’s Keio University is a member of Safecast’s Japanese team.

“What we have been seeing is that information that has been given has either been given too late, weeks after the measurements were done," says Franken, "or may not have been done in a consistent manner.”

Safecast’s instant uploads mean its data is always timely. It’s also established standards for consistency for its volunteers. For instance, they’re asked to note where they took their measurements. Since fallout settles on the ground, a reading from a roof can be different from a reading at ground level.

Franken says knowing this is especially important when you’re trying to determine a possible risk to children.

“Kids love to touch soil, play with it, small babies stick it in their mouth and stuff like that. So when we’re measuring, it makes sense to measure at a height of one meter, actually a little bit lower than that, to understand what a child is exposed to in daily life.”

But even with established standards, relying on citizen-scientists means there are always questions about accuracy.

“So we make it very clear on the site that yes, there could most definitely be inaccuracies in crowd-sourced data," says Alvarez. "And yes, there could be contamination of a particular Geiger counter so the readings could be off. But our hope is that with more centers and more data being reported that those points that are outliers can be eliminated, and that trends can be discerned from the data that’s being reported.”

American scientist Stephen Frantz, of Reed College in Portland, sees value in this open-source model.

“If we get enough databases, enough information, we might see trends that nobody had ever measured." he says. "And we say, ‘Oh, look at that, the radiation levels here are doing this.’”

Frantz also says having so much data in a user-friendly format can serve another purpose: help people understand that not all radiation is due to leaks from nuclear power plants, that background radiation is a natural part of life.

“We live in a sea of radiation," says Frantz. "We’ve evolved in it and, since we can’t sense it with our five senses, we didn’t even know about it until 100 years ago. But we’ve been living in it all of time.”

The situation at the Fukushima reactor site remains volatile. That’s why Alvarez continually adjusts the website in response to suggestions from citizens and scientists. Safecast recently completed a fundraising campaign to send 600 Geiger counters to volunteers in Japan.

Alvarez hopes the non-profit Safecast model can grow, eventually creating a resource for collecting and sharing all kinds of environmental data, from pollen counts and seismic activity to pollution levels.

The nuclear industry stinks. But that is not a reason to ditch nuclear power

Guardian.co.uk: The nuclear industry stinks. But that is not a reason to ditch nuclear power

by George Monbiot

Power corrupts; nuclear power corrupts absolutely. The industry developed as a by-product of nuclear weapons research. Its deployment was used to shield the production of weapons from public view. Though the two industries have now been forced apart, in most parts of the world the nuclear operators remain secretive, unaccountable and far too close to government.

Last week the Guardian revealed that the British government connived with corporations to play down the impact of the disaster at Fukushima. Comments from the nuclear companies, a business department official suggested, should be incorporated into ministers' briefings and government statements.

It is through such collusion that accidents happen. The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency shows that Tepco, the firm that ran the stricken plant at Fukushima, had under-estimated the danger of tsunamis, had not planned properly for multiple plant failures and had been allowed to get away with it by a regulator that failed to review its protective measures. Nuclear operators worldwide have been repeatedly exposed as a bunch of arm-twisting, corner-cutting scumbags.

In this respect they are, of course, distinguished from the rest of the energy industry, which is run by collectives of self-abnegating monks whose only purpose is to spread a little happiness. How they ended up sharing the names and addresses of some of the nuclear companies is a mystery that defies explanation. The front-page story in Friday's Guardian quoted "former government environmental adviser" Tom Burke saying the following about the government's relationship with the nuclear companies. "They are too close to industry, concealing problems, rather than revealing and dealing with them." What the article did not tell us is that Burke currently works for Rio Tinto, one of the world's biggest coal-mining corporations. It has, of course, always refrained from colluding with governments.

All the big energy companies – whether they invest in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind or solar power – manipulate politicians, bully regulators and bamboozle the public. Their overweening power causes many kinds of harm; among them is the damage it has done to the case for nuclear technology. Strip away the interests and the arguments are strong.

Let's begin with safety. The best evidence for the safety and resilience of nuclear power plants can be found at Fukushima. Not at Fukushima Daiichi, the power station where the meltdowns and explosions took place, but at Fukushima Daini, the plant next door. You've never heard of it? There's a good reason for that. It was run by the same slovenly company. It was hit by the same earthquake and the same tsunami. But it survived. Like every other nuclear plant struck by the wave, it went into automatic cold shutdown. With the exception of a nuclear missile attack, it withstood the sternest of all possible tests.

What we see here is the difference between 1970s and 1980s safety features. The first Daiichi reactor was licensed in 1971. The first Daini reactor was licensed in 1982. Today's technologies are safer still. The pebble bed reactors now being tested by China, for example, shut themselves down if they begin to overheat as an inherent property of the physics they exploit. Using a plant built 40 years ago to argue against 21st-century power stations is like using the Hindenburg disaster to contend that modern air travel is unsafe.

Even the Daiichi meltdown, the same energy agency report tells us, has caused no medical harm. While the evacuation it necessitated is profoundly traumatic and disruptive, "to date no confirmed health effects have been detected in any person as a result of radiation exposure" from the accident. Compare this to the 100,000 deaths caused by air pollution from coal plants every year, and you begin to see that we've been fretting about the wrong risks.

Compare it to the damage and death that climate change will cause, and you find that our response is so disproportionate as to constitute a form of madness. It's a straightforward pay-off. Germany's promise to ditch nuclear power will produce an extra 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. In June Angela Merkel announced a possible doubling of the capacity of the coal and gas plants Germany will build in the next 10 years. Already Germany has been burning brown coal, one of the most polluting fuels on earth, to make up the shortfall. The renewable technologies which should have replaced fossil fuels will instead replace nuclear power.

This is the point at which anti-nuclear activists reach for one of four arguments. The first is that we should concentrate on reducing energy demand. Dead right we should – regardless of which technology we favour. But even with a massive cut in overall demand, getting the carbon out of transport and heating means increasing electricity supply. The Centre for Alternative Technology's radical and optimistic plan for decarbonising Britain envisages a 55% cut in energy consumption by 2030 – and a near-doubling in electricity supply. Contest this by all means, but you'll have to explain what it got wrong.

The second is that it takes 10 to 15 years to build new nuclear plants. This, they argue, is too long. It is. So is the 10 to 15 years it takes to roll out a major renewables programme. The third is that uranium supplies will run out. They will, one day. The Committee on Climate Change estimates that they're good for 50 years. Long before then, we should have switched to fourth generation technologies, which would run on the waste produced by current nuclear generators. This leads us to the fourth objection: that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of safely.


Even if we assume that we'll want to get rid of them, rather than use them as a valuable fuel, the claim that it's unsafe to put fissile materials underground is inexplicable. Isn't that where they came from? Why is it less safe to leave uranium several thousand metres below the surface, encased in lead, backfilled with bentonite and capped with concrete than it is to leave it, as nature did, scattered around the planet, just beneath the surface? And is it plausible that a future civilisation would possess the technology to extract our waste from those astonishing depths, but not to figure out that it might be harmful?

All these arguments have been obscured by the justifiable distrust bred by industry spin and collusion. There is no contradiction between favouring the machines and opposing the machinations. A new generation of nuclear power stations should be built only with unprecedented scrutiny and transparency – and the same applies to all our energy options. Corporate power? No thanks

.