[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What's New for Feb 01, 2002
Robert Park touches on some nuclear-related issues this week, including
containment-dome strength (#4). I agree with him that Sandia should
have been more forthcoming about the design of the test.
--Susan Gawarecki
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Feb 02 Washington, DC
1. SUMMER INTERN: THE APS WASHINGTON OFFICE HAS AN OPENING. We
need a physics major with great writing skills and a genius IQ to
spend eight to ten weeks in Washington battling the forces of
ignorance. The starting date is negotiable, but we're inflexible
on the genius thing. Write victoria@aps.org for details. We'll
need a resume, writing sample and two references by March 29.
2. MISSILE-DEFENSE: SHIP-LAUNCHED INTERCEPTOR HITS DUMMY TARGET.
Or was that, "dumb interceptor hits dumber target"? Missile
defense proponents crowed that we now have all the components of
a national missile shield. But an official quoted by AP said the
test "wasn't meant to determine if a ship-based interceptor could
intercept an enemy missile under realistic conditions." The
target, after all, had a homing beacon. To be part of a layered
national defense, WN was told, an interceptor would have to be
at least twice as fast. As one defense expert explained, "we're
now closer to a missile-defense shield to the extent that we're
closer to the moon when we stand on a step ladder."
3. ITER: A SECOND LOOK AT THE TURBULENT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM?
John Marburger, President Bush's science advisor, thinks U.S.
participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor should be reconsidered. Congress directed DOE to pull
out of the project three years ago in the midst of disagreements
over the site, escalating costs, and scientific concerns that
plasma turbulence would make ignition impossible. However, the
partners have since redesigned the device to meet scientific
objections, while scaling the cost down from $10B to $4.2B. It
still remains to be seen if agreement can be reached on a site.
4. TERRORISM: COULD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WITHSTAND 9-11 ATTACKS?
Maybe you saw it on 60-Minutes or the evening news: a film of a
plane crashing into a massive concrete wall. It disintegrates in
a fireball, but the wall is barely scratched. Hill staffers were
shown the film at an ASME briefing by R.E. Nickell, "an expert on
nuclear power." "Nuclear power structures," Nickell puffed, "are
very rugged and robust." The implications were obvious, and most
American's breathed a little easier. But it wasn't the wall of a
containment dome. Paul Leventhal, the President of the Nuclear
Control Institute, points out that the test, conducted by Sandia
Labs in 1988, used a wall 12 feet thick compared with 3.5 foot
thick containment domes. The purpose of the test was not to test
the strength of the wall, but to measure the impact forces. The
wall, therefore, was designed to move, and was displaced 6 feet
by the impact. Wait, there's more, the plane was a Phantom jet
fighter weighing about 5% as much as a jumbo jet airliner. Its
fuel tanks were filled with water to measure "fuel" dispersion.
Sandia made no attempt to clear up the misleading reports.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the
University or the American Physical Society, but they should be.
--
.....................................................
Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee
Please visit our Web site - http://www.local-oversight.org
.....................................................
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/