It looks like I have an opportunity to start my blog this year with yet another claim of a beneficial effect of alcohol. (Those who have been following this blog for some time will recall that I have previously written several posts on various intersections between radiation and wine, whiskey, and cheese.)
So far, the benefit has been demonstrated only in the case of mice. Of course, it would be hard to do a controlled study on humans! But the interesting part was that the effect was not attributed to alcohol alone, as the study did compare the response to radiation poisoning in mice that consumed sake, mice that consumed ethanol, and mice that abstained from alcohol altogether.
In the interests of full disclosure, I haven't reviewed the study in detail. However, I do find it interesting to hear of findings that both sake and red wine (in both cases, used in moderation) might confer benefits against effects of radiation. It is certainly an area that may merit further study!
Some of my colleagues who participated in the COP 21 conference in Paris recently noted the increased visibility of the nuclear community and predicted a backlash. Boy, were they right! But that backlash has not gone unnoticed, and people have stepped up to respond to the worst of the false allegations. I have been trying to follow the name-calling and the accusations, and it is more fun than a prize fight.
One of the first statements I came across was an article by Jim Green entitled, "The Attack of the Nuclear Hucksters." Attack? So, promoting a pro-nuclear viewpoint is an attack? But promoting an anti-nuclear viewpoint is not an attack in the other direction? The article accuses the Breakthrough Institute of "promoting its pro-nuclear [views] and arguing against...anyone who disagrees with them." Excuse me if I'm missing something, but when anyone has a viewpoint on anything, don't they try to argue their case?
Likewise, a letter to the editor by Alan Jeffery of "Stop Hinkley" complains that, "There seemed to have been a desperate last-ditch effort in Paris to
convince us all that nuclear power is an important part of the answer to
the climate crisis." But it appears that he is writing his letter because he would like all funding to go for renewable energy projects. So...it is OK to argue your case if you want windmills and solar panels, but if you want nuclear power plants, you are making a "desperate last-ditch effort"?
Another article, this one by Naomi Oreskes, referred to "a new form of climate denialism." The article somehow accuses people like James Hansen, who has been one of the most vocal figures in warning the world of climate change, of "climate denialism"--apparently because he wants to use all possible measures to combat climate change, including nuclear power. How that is denialism of anything, let alone climate, I don't understand.
I was apparently not alone in my confusion, as I noticed several authors who challenged the assertions. In particular, an article by Michael Specter in the New Yorker challenging this view makes the very astute observation that "denialism is not a synonym for disagreement." He goes on further to say that, "Oreskes is certain that we won’t need nuclear power to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions. This is a legitimate and essential debate. But
it should be possible to have it without denigrating positions held by
people who have spent their careers, quite courageously, trying to solve
the world’s biggest problem."
Mathijs Becker posted a lengthy blog in which he made a similar comment about the term "climate denialism," and further, went on to dissect the rest of the article point by point. In particular, he challenges the statement in the Oreskes article that this new form of denialism "says that renewable sources
can’t meet our energy needs." He turns this one around, saying to Oreskes that, "You are clearly part of a movement that denies fundamental scientific
principles." [emphasis added] "As such you deny that Nuclear Energy is a credible solution
to the most dire problem of Climate Change."
Becker goes on to address all the other issues raised in the Oreskes article and elsewhere about the cost of nuclear power, the time it takes to build, and--one of my favorites--the fallacy that so-called renewable energy sources are completely renewable. The sun and the wind may be renewable, but the materials needed in order to convert the sun and wind to electricity are not. In a companion blog, he also takes on the arguments made by Mark Jacobson and cited by Naomi Oreskes.
Finally, an article by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, gets away from the petty bickering and points out the magnitude of the challenges society faces. He doesn't take on any individual, but he does take on the arguments that solar and wind power can solve all our problems. He points out that the apparent large growth of wind and solar power is a result of the tiny base it started from and that both sources are still heavily subsidized. He says bluntly, "We invent soothing fantasies to simplify matters. The notion that the
world can wean itself from fossil fuels by substituting renewables is
one of these." To be fair, he highlights the challenges of nuclear power as well, including accidents, waste disposal, and threats of terrorism.
His solution, and one that I believe is needed as well, is that technological development is needed in all areas: "We know what’s needed: cheaper and safer nuclear power; better batteries
and energy storage, boosting wind and solar by making more of their
power usable; cost-effective carbon capture and storage — making coal
more acceptable by burying its carbon dioxide in the ground."
I repeatedly hear of problems in our industrialized society that, when you think about it, are really the unintended consequences of decisions we made, sometimes a long time ago. We don't set out to pollute the environment, put poisons in food, or cause needed suppliers to go bankrupt, but somehow, we do it. And we keep doing it. And it takes a very long time to recognize what we've done, and even longer to fix it.
One such instance just came to my attention recently. Tests of wells in the San Joaquin Valley, described as the richest farm region in the world, are showing uranium levels that exceed safety standards. The reason: "a natural though unexpected byproduct of irrigation, drought, and the over-pumping of natural underground water reserves." [emphasis added]
Another instance that has been much in the news lately is how unregulated electricity markets are failing to put appropriate values on all the benefits (and shortcomings) of alternative forms of electricity generation, including reliability, lack of greenhouse gases, etc. The result is leading to the shutdown of nuclear power plants and their replacement by natural gas plants that put more carbon into the atmosphere.
I could cite many other examples, and I could include ones from all areas of society. Every time one of these cases comes up, we all rant about the stupidity of the decisions that led us to these predicaments. Sometimes, the decisions are conscious ones, like laws to fix some problem that we have noticed; other times, they are passive ones, like doing more and more of what has seemed to be successful.
In most cases, the laws or the decisions seemed rational at the time. I am always particularly struck by the fact that many of our problems stem from the fact that, in small amounts, pollution or poisons are often of little consequence. When we had only a handful of cars on the road, the emissions from cars were an inconsequential addition to the atmosphere. And cars were convenient, so we added more and more cars...until we suddenly noticed that they were a huge source of pollution.
Other problems stem from the fact that we don't seem to look at the big picture when we make decisions. Perhaps we can't figure out what the big picture is. When we make changes to the electricity marketplace--putting auctions in place, giving various kinds of financial incentives to some forms of electricity generation, we look primarily at an immediate objective--increasing the use of solar and wind power, for example. We don't look at the broader ramifications--impacts on existing power generators, impacts on grid stability, impacts on long-term reliability, and more.
There is no perfect solution to this problem. I could cite numerous examples from our everyday lives that follow the same pattern and just chalk it up to human nature. However, when the consequences become very large and significant, such as when they impact the environment, our food or power supply, or other critical parts of civilization, we somehow need to start thinking longer-term and more globally.
There are several hurdles we face. One is to identify what the potential problems are well in advance of when it becomes apparent that they are going to be problems. This is a huge hurdle. In the earliest days of automobiles, when they were a plaything of the very rich, and there weren't many roads, and everyone still had horses or lived near where they shopped and worked, who would have predicted how ubiquitous cars would become. A second problem is to sort out what is real and important from the voices of special interest groups on all sides of the spectrum.
I think scientists and engineers can play an important role in attacking these two problems. Scientists and engineers are not the only ones, of course, who may have insights, but they have the knowledge and the capability to analyze situations and
perhaps identify potential problems early on.
A final challenge is to convince policy-makers to act in a timely fashion. Since every decision affects someone's special interests, convincing policy-makers to act before there is a crisis is perhaps the biggest challenge of all. After all, every decision that is made affects some individuals or organizations negatively. Cutting the use of fossil fuels may encourage the development of nuclear power and renewable energy, but it adversely affects coal miners, a huge transportation infrastructure, and fossil plant operators.
Failing to act in a timely manner on any new challenge, of course, means that we will face risks to our health or our environment again and again, although perhaps from a different technology, or by a different part of the infrastructure, or to a different element of the environment. This reminds me of the old saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." It seems to me this saying applies even if it isn't literally the same thing, but rather, the same behavior in a different situation.
I thought those posts about covered everything I would ever find on the relationship between food and beverages and radioactivity, but I just discovered yet another connection. A recent news item reported that the Environmental Research Institute in Scotland is experimenting with biological materials that can absorb radioactive environmental contaminants, such as strontium, at the Dounreay site. Materials being examined for their biosorption capabilities include the grains leftover from whiskey-making.
This finding was part of a research program to test the efficacy of a variety of materials, including eggshells, seaweed, and crab shells, for absorption of radioactive contaminants. I will admit that the country probably has a lot of eggshells and seaweed, as well, but it really sounds so fitting to me for Scotland to use of a byproduct of a major industry to remediate a contaminated site in the country.
And now, just think--when you have a shot of whiskey, you may also be helping to clean up a contaminated site!
I have been struggling all week with my thoughts on the terrorist attacks in Paris just over a week ago (on November 13, 2015), and more recently, the attack in Mali, wanting to write something, yet feeling anything I could say would be inadequate.
First of all, the attacks reminded me vividly of my experience as a visitor to Paris during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. I was attending an international conference there, and I particularly remember how sensitive the French were to the events unfolding thousands of miles away in the United States.
The newspaper headlines shouted, "We are all American." The French organizers of the conference I was attending cancelled a planned social event that evening. I know that such events require significant down payments, so that must have cost the conference budget dearly, but there was no hint of that in their discussions of their action. It was the right thing to do, they said. I will always remember that.
A couple of days later, I went to dinner at a fancy restaurant, and the owner signed my menu with a message saying, "In these difficult times, we French are with you Americans." I have framed and hung that menu.
So I was very glad to see that the American response to the Paris attacks was no less sympathetic. I don't know if any social events at conferences were cancelled in the US, but I do know that the news coverage and the commentary reflected the fact that this was not just an attack on Paris, but rather, an attack on all humanity, and that America stood with France.
And indeed, the numbers bear out the fact that this was an attack on the world. Paris is a magnet for the world, and among the casualties were individuals from a dozen or so countries.
Furthermore, in this increasingly interconnected world, it is hard not to feel that these events strike pretty close to home. Since I lived in Paris for several years, friends and family immediately called to ask how close to home this event had hit.
Were any of the sites of the attacks places I had frequented? No, I assured them. These places were nowhere near where I lived or worked.
Was anyone I knew caught up in these events? The answer to that is also no. And yet--there is only one degree of separation between some of the victims and me. I know people who knew a young nuclear engineer, Juan Alberto González Garrido, who was killed in the attack. A French friend in turn has a friend who lost a family member in the attack. Someone else has a daughter who attended a concert in the same concert hall only the night before. And then, in the Mali event a week later, the one American who was killed lived only a few miles from me.
These events and others hit all of us in other ways, too. The implementation of greater security at public gatherings. The threats to Washington, DC, where I live, and to New York City. The speculation about what other kinds of actions terrorists may have in mind--airports, the electrical power grid, the computer systems that contain all our private information, nuclear power plants, the use of dirty bombs or chemical weapons. The list goes on.
Whether a terrorist event takes place on our own soil or far away, whether it is in a place we know well or a place we've never been, whether we know any of the names of the victims or not--every attack affects all of us. Our sense of security. The overlay of restrictions and checkpoints and delays that has become the new normal. The slight paranoia that becomes ingrained in us.
So, more than a week after the Paris attacks, I still have on my computer screen a picture of Juan Alberto, as I have been wondering what I could say about the senseless acts that led to his death. In the end, my condolences to his family and friends seems such a small gesture.
But if there is any silver lining, it is the fact that we have come to realize that these are not isolated event in places far away, but rather, events that attack all of us. If there is a silver lining, it is that we have a sense of solidarity with the victims of this attack. And finally, if there is a silver lining, it is in the determination of the Parisians not to let fear rule them, and not to let their way of life be changed. Perhaps that is the only hopeful message I can draw from these difficult times.
With this blog on key nuclear power "firsts" that occurred during the month of November, I have finally caught up with my monthly reports on milestones in nuclear power development in each calendar month, so without further ado, here are some of the most noteworthy events in nuclear history that happened in November of various years:
Nov. 3, 1954: First reactor to demonstrate molten salt as a fuel (ARE, Oak Ridge, TN)
Nov. 4, 1943: First reactor to operate above the zero power level; first reactor built for continuous operation (X-10 graphite reactor, Oak Ridge, TN)
Nov. 4, 1954: First large-scale reprocessing using the PUREX process (F-Canyon, Savannah River, SC)
Nov. 23, 1963: First on-line refueling for a reactor connected to the grid (NPD, Rolphton, Canada)
Nov. 25, 1961: First nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (USS Enterprise, US)
I should note that the first on-line refueling (not connected to the grid) was at the NRU reactor at Chalk River, Canada. This reactor started up on Nov. 3, 1957, but I do not have an exact date for the first refueling.
While this looks like a somewhat skimpy list for the month, there were several important events this month for which I have been unable to find an exact date. These include two events in Nov. 1963 and one in Nov. 1968: the Piqua OMR in Piqua, OH was the first organically moderated and cooled power reactor to start operation (Nov. 1963); the BR3 in Mol, Belgium was the first LWR to operate using mixed-oxide fuel (also in Nov. 1963, and the first demonstration of the THOREX process for thorium extraction occurred at the West Valley Reprocessing Facility, Ashford, NY in Nov. 1968.
Readers with outstanding memories may recall that I actually started this project in December, so this blog reflects the twelfth and last in the series. As I wrap up this year-long project, I realize there are a number of
loose threads. There are probably a couple of dozen events for which I
have found only a year, not an exact date. A number of these are
institutional--the start-up of academic programs (various degree levels,
etc.) or professional society initiatives--and perhaps it is hard to
determine what constitutes the start of the activity. Several events
occurred in the USSR during the Cold War, so perhaps little information
was ever available in the West. In some cases, I'm not sure why the
record is not clearer on the exact date of an event.
However,
the bottom line is that these events did not "fit" in any month, so are
not covered by this series, although they are profiled in my book, "Nuclear Firsts: Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development."
The book also contains more information on events that are identified
in this blog, as well as in the previous blogs in this series. Since publication of the book, I have found a few additional dates and
other information, so there are one or two things reflected in some of
these monthly reports that are not in the book. For example, I
previously did not have a date for the first on-line refueling for a
reactor connected to the grid.
The new information will be included in
an e-book version of the book, which should be completed and available
soon. The e-book
will contain some updates, including a discussion of Fukushima and its
impacts, profiles of several firsts that I identified after the print
book was published, and some minor additions such as the dates I
didn't have before. When the e-book is available, I will publish some
information on how to obtain it.
This blog will finally end my catch-up activities to outline the significant milestones in nuclear power development that occurred in each month of the calendar year. These were intended to be published in the month being discussed, but unfortunately, I fell behind, for which I apologize. Now, if I just manage to publish one on November's events before the month is out, I will be up to date!
Let's get right down to it. Major developments in the history of nuclear power during the month of October include:
Oct. 2, 1968: First reactor to use U-233 as fuel (MSRE, Oak Ridge, TN)
Oct. 3, 1960: First portable, modular reactor (PM-2A, Greenland/a US project)
Oct. 4, 1957: First use of the centrifuge process to enrich uranium (Sverdlovsk-44, Sverdlovsk, USSR)
Oct. 10, 1962: First use of nuclear power in a country not involved in nuclear weapons development; and first PWR in Europe (BR3, Mol, Belgium)
Oct. 11, 1954: First professional society focused on nuclear technology (ANS, Oak Ridge, TN)
Oct. 12, 1943: First plutonium extracted from a chain reaction (Seaborg Laboratory, CA)
Oct. 18, 1945: First government agency to oversee civilian nuclear power (French CEA, Paris, France)
Oct. 19, 1957: First privately owned and operated reactor connected to the grid; first license for a power reactor (VBWR, Pleasanton, CA)
October also saw the occurrence of two significant nuclear reactor accidents: the accident at Windscale Pile 1, Sellafield, UK on Oct. 10, 1957, which was the first severe early reactor accident yielding contamination; and the accident at Fermi 1, Monroe, MI in Oct. 1966, which was the first full-scale reactor to experience a fuel-melt accident.
Dr. Gail H. Marcus is an independent consultant on nuclear power technology and policy. She previously worked as Deputy Director-General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) in Paris; Principal Deputy Director of the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; in various positions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and as Assistant Chief of the Science Policy Research Division at the Congressional Research Service. Dr. Marcus spent a year in Japan as Visiting Professor in the Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology, and five months at Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Dr. Marcus has served as President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and as Chair of the Engineering Section of AAAS. She also served on the National Research Council Committee on the Future Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education. She is a Fellow of the ANS and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Dr. Marcus has an S.B. and S.M. in Physics, and an Sc.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. She is the first woman to earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.
Ordering Information for Nuclear Firsts
Nuclear Firsts
Winner of ASME Engineer-Historian Award 2013
See my chapter on nuclear power (#22) in this new book
