Fission and Fusion
The Crème acolyte keeps insisting that DK was talking about fusion when writing about nuclear energy which will assist mankind in going into the new age. Now it is possible that fusion discoveries will be made that will be an improvement on what we have now, but we are NOT there yet. As I said. If he follows his own advice he would not buy a car equipped with current technology because of the hope they will have flying cars tomorrow.
Not once has DK even talked specifically about atomic fusion as it is understood today, so you are making a leap of faith in assuming that this is the energy he wrote of.
He specifically, however did talk about fission: Let me quote again:
“On the physical plane, the great scientific discovery, called colloquially the “splitting of the atom,” will be turned eventually to the production of those conditions which will enable mankind to follow the good, the beautiful and the true. This men will then be able to do, freed from the dread presence of purely materialistic thinking. This is no idle vision or vague dream. Many scientists today (and particularly those who love their fellowmen) are not only visioning the non-destructive aspect of atomic energy but are already engaged in harnessing-for the good of humanity-some of its products and its radioactive properties.” Rays & Initiations, Pg 648
How much clearer can the written word be? He specifically talks about the “splitting of the atom,” which IS fission as the technology “which will enable mankind to follow the good, the beautiful and the true.”
He further says that scientists “are already engaged in harnessing-for the good of humanity-some of its products and its radioactive properties.”
This was written shortly after World War II when scientists were first starting to build nuclear reactors for peaceful generation of power. The technology here was fission. This is a fact that you cannot circumvent.
Even though greater technologies will come along, this technology is here now. We have all the tools to produce unlimited fission energy and with the a new generation of breeder reactors we could completely reprocess the nuclear waste and are much safer than previous generations.. The nuclear waste processed through breeder reactors could supply us with all the power we need to last a thousand years. With that much safe energy fusion would only be looked upon as an added bonus.
You criticize a reader for taking a quote out of context, but as I see it she was much more accurate in interpretation than yourself.
Let us examine the important part of the quote. Note my comments in parenthesis:
DK “We have dealt in broad and general manner with this question of electricity and have seen that fire essence or substance is resolved through internal activity (radioactive matter) and external heat (the shooting of a neutron into the nucleus) in such a manner that the electric fire at the center of the atom is liberated (split) and seeks a new form” (two new atoms are created).
JJ: This is a good description of fission. He described atomic fission later as an initiation for matter which liberates the internal life. He does not speak negatively of fission as you insinuate.
DK “Through knowledge of the devas, (the form nature) Through external pressure and vibration, (producing heat and shooting neutrons at the nucleus) Through internal stimulation (radioactivity and atom splitting), through color applied in stimulation and vitalization, (creating Uranium isotopes or plutonium) Through mantric sounds (the secret of detonation) he will find the secret of atomic energy, latent in the mineral kingdom, and will bend that inconceivable power and force to the solution of the problems of existence. Only when atomic energy (the escaping life – pure energy) is better understood and the nature of the fourth ether (pure energy) somewhat comprehended, shall we see that control of the air (mind) which lies inevitably ahead.” TCF, Page 496
JJ: The amazing thing about this is that it was first published in 1925 before there was much knowledge of atomic energy. It is interesting that Alice A. Bailey lived to see a partial fulfillment of much of what he predicted about atomic energy.
Our Crème supporter friend again quotes D K on nuclear energy
“On the physical plane, the great scientific discovery, called colloquially the “splitting of the atom,” will be turned eventually to the production of those conditions which will enable mankind to follow the good, the beautiful and the true.” Rays and Initiations, Page 647
He interprets this as only applying to atomic bombs, not the production of electricity.
JJ: Why would you limit “the splitting of the atom” to the bomb only when all nuclear reactors also split the atom? Sounds like you are putting words into DK’s mouth.
DK says point blank that scientists “are not only visioning the non-destructive aspect of atomic energy but are already engaged in harnessing – for the good of humanity – some of its products and its radioactive properties.”
This sentence follows the mentioning of the “splitting of the atom” statement. Note that he says scientists “are ALREADY ENGAGED IN HARNESSING… its radioactive properties. In the late forties when this was given out scientists were working with fission, not fusion for the benefit of the people.
This statement would definitely apply to the 400 nuclear reactors because they operate on the principle of fission, of which DK spoke. Even today fusion reactors are far from being demonstrated as usable and depending on the problems that will be solved in their creation the presence of fast neutrons could also create a large number of atomic waste products.
Reader: it is NOT nuclear fission energy but fusion that produces those good conditions mentioned by DK.
JJ: Fusion has done nothing yet except produce the hydrogen bomb. but it is fission which supplies us with the much of our needed energy just as DK related. You really need to argue with him.
Reader: “The fission of the nucleus of the atom in the past few years is the outer sign or demonstration that humanity has “encompassed” the divine Mind and can now move on to “encompass” the love or the attractive nature of divinity.” Notice the words “now move on” … the process of nuclear fusion, not fission
JJ: Love is attractive, but the only energy we have from atomic fusion so far is the hydrogen bomb. He was not talking about atomic fusion here, but the attractive energy of love we need to acquire. Fusion reactors will eventually be perfected, but they may have some waste problems as do the current fission reactors. In the meantime, by the use of breeder reactors we can eliminate all waste by the use of current technology.
Are you still refusing to buy a car because you are waiting for the flying ones?
Reader: There is nowhere I have found in the writings of DK where he talks about “atomic energy for the peaceful production of power” which are your words
JJ: I have quoted it several times now and repeated it in the beginning of this post: DK talks about using the “non-destructive aspect of atomic energy” for the “good of humanity.” “Non destructive” implies peaceful use. Don’t tell me that only fission destroys atoms because so does fusion. Both of these processes destroy the atoms as they are and creates new ones. Obviously the use of the term “non destructive” is in reference to nuclear energy in relation to humanity.
Reader: It is also a falsity to consider nuclear fission as “peaceful”. The literal meaning of the word “fission” means breaking up into parts. There is nothing peaceful about this process, it is literally destructive. The process is explosion.
JJ: First there are no explosions in a nuclear reactor. Fission and fusion are equally destructive as far as effect on atoms go. We should not let our bias prevent us from using either one as the technology becomes available to help humanity.
Reader: Just because a bomb is not being dropped, does not mean it is “peaceful”. The explosion created during the nuclear fission process is unstable energy – hence why it explodes.
JJ: The is no explosion in a nuclear reactor. Hydrogen fusion bombs do explode and are generally even more destructive than fission bombs.
You’re picking at straws here with a mindset to be right even when you have no evidence.
Cross country skiing is great if you live in a small country. — Steven Wright
Oct 1, 2003
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


Meanwhile, just outside the bustling disaster response center in the city of Fukushima, 40 miles (60 kilometers) northwest of the plant, government nuclear specialist Kazuya Konno was able to take only a three-minute break for his first meeting since the quake with his wife, Junko, and their children.
“It’s very nerve-racking. We really don’t know what is going to become of our city,” said Junko Konno, 35. “Like most other people, we have been staying indoors unless we have to go out.”
She brought her husband a small backpack with a change of clothes and snacks. The girls — aged 4 and 6 and wearing pink surgical masks decorated with Mickey Mouse — gave their father hugs.
Low levels of radiation have been detected well beyond Tokyo, which is 140 miles (220 kilometers) south of the plant, but hazardous levels have been limited to the plant itself.
Nuclear reactors at the Fukushima plant began overheating and leaking radiation into the atmosphere in the days after the March 11 quake and the subsequent tsunami overwhelmed its cooling systems. The government admitted it was slow to respond to the nuclear troubles, which added another crisis on top of natural disasters, which officials believe killed more than 10,000 people and displaced more than 400,000 others.
There were signs of progress in bringing the overheating reactors and fuel storage pools under control.
A fire truck with a high-pressure cannon was parked outside the plant’s Unit 3, about 300 meters (yards) from the Pacific coast, and began shooting a stream of water nonstop into the pool for seven straight hours, said Kenji Kawasaki, a spokesman for the nuclear safety agency.
A separate pumping vehicle will keep the fire truck’s water tank refilled. Because of high radiation levels, firefighters will only go to the truck every three hours when it needs to be refueled. They expect to pump about 1,400 tons of water, nearly the capacity of the pool.
Edano said conditions at the reactors in units 1, 2 and 3 — all of which have been rocked by explosions in the past eight days — had “stabilized.”
Holes were punched in the roofs of units 5 and 6 to vent buildups of hydrogen gas, and the temperature in Unit 5’s fuel storage pool dropped after new water was pumped in, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said.
“We more or less do not expect to see anything worse than what we are seeing now,” said Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
Although a replacement power line reached the complex Friday, workers had to methodically work through badly damaged and deeply complex electrical systems to make the final linkups without setting off a spark and potentially an explosion. Company officials hoped to be able to switch on the all the reactors’ power on Sunday.
Even once the power is reconnected, it is not clear if the cooling systems will still work.
The storage pools need a constant source of cooling water. When removed from reactors, uranium rods are still very hot and must be cooled for months, possibly longer, to prevent them from heating up again and emitting radioactivity.
More workers were thrown into the effort — bringing the total at the complex to 500 — and the safety threshold for radiation exposure for them was raised two-and-a-half times so that they could keep working.


Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in an air raid just weeks before it went online in 2007, said a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.
“On September 6, 2007, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor built by Syria secretly, apparently with North Korea’s help,” then US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice wrote in the cable published in Yediot Aharonot newspaper.
“Our intelligence experts are convinced that the attack targeted by the Israelis is in fact an atomic reactor of the same type built by North Korea in Yongbyon,” she wrote in the message dated April 2008.
“We have good reason to believe that the reactor was not built for peaceful purposes,” she said, adding the attack came only weeks before the reactor was to become operational.
Rice also noted the secrecy surrounding the construction of the nuclear facility, with the Syrian authorities refusing to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency or any media to inspect the site.


The Council adopted the new emergency response plan (PIU) in the event of a nuclear accident. The plan sets the action the government will take in the event of a nuclear or radiological accident by establishing alert procedures, crisis management bodies and preventive, protective and emergency measures for the population. The accidents that the plan aims to manage are those that cause or could cause large quantities of radioactive materials to be released into the environment and which could pose a risk to public health. The draft plan was optimised following the 3-in-1 cross-border nuclear exercise organised at Greater Region level in 2012 and 2013. With the aim of getting the draft plan finalised and approved by the Council, it was presented to a series of stakeholders involved in the different levels of its implementation.
The emergency response plan plans for four main preventive and protective measures for the population:
Taking shelter, taking potassium iodide tablets, evacuation and food restrictions. It also distinguishes between the different accident phases: The emergency phase and the post-accident phase. The first is divided into a threat phase and a release phase, and the second into a transition phase and a long-term consequence management phase. The old plan's division into yellow, blue and red phases has therefore been replaced. The plan sets a primary planning zone (emergency phase) of 15 km in the event of an evacuation and 25 km if stable iodine tablets must be taken and shelter sought. To avoid having to rush distribution of potassium iodide tablets, the new plan provides for a supply of tablets to be distributed to the Luxembourg population in normal times.
The plan details the crisis management structure as stated in the document on the functioning of the Senior Council for National Protection and the Crisis Cell, approved by the Council of Government on 18 July 2014.
The new plan was presented in details at a press conference held on Tuesday 21 October 2014.


PSOC BASED DIGITAL FILTER DESIGN FOR PROCESSING SODIUM FLOW FROM EDDY CURRENT FLOWMETER FOR SAFETY OF SODIUM COOLED FAST BREEDER REACTORSPoornapushpakala Suriyamoorthi and Gomathy Chidambaram
Safe operation of the nuclear reactor is important for secure human life and their environment. Continuous monitoring of sodium flow is done by a measuring electronics which ensures the protection of reactor from loss of coolant. This paper discusses a novel approach in the design and implementation of digital signal conditioning system which is free of computation. It is developed for improving the performance of the analog signal conditioning circuit of the measuring electronics used for eddy current flowmeter. This flowmeter is employed in sodium cooled fast breeder reactors for monitoring the sodium flowrate. Sodium is the main coolant of the reactor. Hence monitoring is essential to check performance of primary sodium pump which ensures the safety of the reactor. The present work involves in bandpass filter design using Programmable system on Chip (PSoC) microcontroller which is a part of the monitoring system. The signal to noise ratio of the design is 15 dB as against 2.4 dB of the existing analog signal conditioning system. The average response time of the digital signal conditioning system is improved to 10.64 ms.
Enter your contact information below to receive full paper.


NASA seeks ideas for building a nuclear reactor on the moon
Boise, Idaho — If anyone has a good idea on how to build a nuclear fission power plant on the moon, the U.S. government wants to hear about it.
NASA and the nation’s top federal nuclear research lab on Friday put out a request for proposals for a fission surface power system.
NASA is collaborating with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory to establish a sun-independent power source for missions to the moon by the end of the decade.
If successful, the next objective would be Mars.
Submitted plans for the fission surface power system should include a uranium-fueled reactor core, a system to convert the nuclear power into usable energy, a thermal management system to keep the reactor cool, and a distribution system providing no less than 40 kilowatts of continuous electric power for 10 years in the lunar environment.
Additionally, when launched from Earth to the moon, it should fit inside a 12-foot (4-meter) diameter cylinder that's 18 feet (6 meters) long. It should not weigh more than 13,200 pounds (6,000 kilograms).
The proposal requests are for an initial system design and must be submitted by Feb. 19.


Expanded Partnership to Promote Open Access to Particle Physics Journals
Researchers from around the world will soon have increased free access to a wealth of resources in particle physics through the IAEA's partnership with the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3), thanks to an agreement signed this month.
The consortium, which is a partnership featuring 3000 libraries, funding agencies and research centres from 47 countries as well as three intergovernmental organizations, including the IAEA, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), enables open access to high-quality subscription journals in the area of particle physics by re-directing subscription funds. Under the scheme, publishers are paid centrally, thus reducing or eliminating the fees for SCOAP3members.
As of January 2018, researchers will also be able to access peer-reviewed articles published in American Physical Society's (APS) journals, including: Physical Review C, Physical Review D and Physical Review Letters. APS is the world's leading publishing house in the field of particle physics - the branch of physics that studies the nature of the particles that constitute matter and radiation.
"The participation of the IAEA in SCOAP3 highlights the importance of open science and making scientific research and data widely accessible to our Member States," said Zaven Hakopov, Coordinator of the IAEA's International Nuclear Information System (INIS) and the IAEA representative on the SCOAP3 Governing Council.
SCOAP3 maintains a repository enabling anyone to search, browse or download the open access articles made available by the consortium. Over 15000 records are accessible in the repository. The core activities of SCOAP3 are in line with the IAEA's efforts in making nuclear information on the peaceful use of nuclear science and technology universally accessible.
"An additional benefit of the consortium is that authors who would like to publish in journals taking part in the SCOAP3 initiative can do this free of charge with immediate open access to their articles, while retaining copyrights," Hakopov said.


Share is article:According to an EPRI modeling study, a combination of reduced capital costs, additional revenue streams, and stringent climate policies could enable significant deployment of advanced nuclear power technologies. Low natural gas prices have challenged e profitability of nuclear power in e United States, stalling new deployment. Implementation Status of Industry Change Management Plan for Materials Related R&D Committees under NEI 03-08 Mike Robinson Duke Power. Materials/Aging APC. Final Meeting Agendas Vary Slightly. EPRI Nuclear Power Council Advisory Meeting Agenda Meeting: Chemistry, LLW and RM Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Holder: K. Fruzzetti Meeting Location: Ballroom II Fairmont, Washington DC Date: 08-29- Time Discussion Topic Presenter 6:30 AM Continental Breakfast (Colonnade Room). 8 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. EPRI WRTC Program–Who We Are. EPRI Plant Support: • Steve Swilley, EPRI Sr. Director. EPRI sponsors at least two two-day workshops/meetings each year, which members are encouraged to attend. Each plant site is allowed two attendees from e plant or corporate staff. Non-members are invited to attend for a small fee at can be applied tod annual membership. Contact: Susan Rodgers, [email protected] 8:00.m. – 5:00 p.m. Nuclear Power Council General Session Grand Ballroom (BRL) Contact: Christine King, [email protected] Sav E- -DatES Nuclear Power couNcil advisory MeetiNgs uary 28 – February 1, location: tBd ust 26 – ust 30, Boston riott copley Place. Future MRP Advisory Meetings are scheduled as follows: • Pressurized Water Reactor Materials Management Program (PMMP) Executive Committee Meeting, February 4, in San Antonio, TX (during EPRI’s Nuclear Power Council Week). • MRP Utility Leadership Meeting, February 20-21, in . 20, · Paks Nuclear Power Plant in Hungary joined EPRI’s Nuclear Program in at a significant cture in e nation’s power system. e government had just granted life extensions to two of e four 500-megawatt VVER nuclear reactors at e site, about 130 kilometers sou of Budapest on e Danube River. Location, Location, Location Where to Site a New Nuclear Plant. EPRI has updated a siting guide for new nuclear plants based on user and regulatory feedback from more an 20 siting studies conducted worldwide sinc e 2002. EPRI has issued a guidance document at describes selection and evaluation criteria for siting new nuclear power plants. 18, · It was a signature meeting, co-hosted by e council’s Japanese members and attended by 1 nuclear industry representatives. e many chief nuclear officers in attendance, as well as e CEO of e World Association of Nuclear Operators, recognized EPRI’s critical role in Fukushima. New Member Orientation Power Delivery and Energy Utilization Sector Ivo Hug keting Manager Lora Cocco Senior Operations Manager Toge er Shaping e Future of Electricity. EPRI 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. 2001- All rights reserved. Follow us on: Facebook Twitter YouTube. e s ter energy network of e future, EPRI believes, will incorporate a diversified pool of resources located closer to e consumer, pumping out low- or zero-emissions power in backyards. UESI invited to speak at EPRI Nuclear Utility Coatings Council Annual Meeting. of industry personnel and coatings experts at help develop guidance and assist in resolving issues related to nuclear coatings. is meeting provides an open forum for all ose affected by coating systems in eir plant to ga er and share problems and provide. e Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI) conducts research and development relating to e generation, delivery, and use of electricity for e benefit of e public. As an independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI brings toge er its scientists and engineers to collaborate wi experts in academia and industry to address challenges in electricity. EPRI S t Grid Demonstration Overview: 1388k: 3/3/: EPRI S t Grid Demonstration Update: 798k: 3/4/: AEP Community Energy Storage: 00k: 3/3/: Architecture Panel Session Introduction: 487k: 3/3/: IBM EPRI DER Integration Architecture: 57k: 3/4/: FirstEnergy Architecture Operational Functions: 513k: 3/4/: Con Edison Architecture. Paks Nuclear Power Plant in Hungary joined EPRI’s Nuclear Program in at a significant cture in e nation’s power system. e government had just granted life extensions to two of e four 500-megawatt VVER nuclear reactors at e site, about 130 kilometers sou of Budapest on e Danube River. Paks was also in e. nuclear power plant operations. Provide policy direction on critical issues – regulation, legislation, congressional aeness / acceptance, waste, transportation and o er issues B. Aid in e integration of e several disciplines constituting nuclear science and technology B. Provide a medium rough which power producers and o er. A research and development plan recommending two strategies at would allow nuclear energy to play a substantial role in meeting future US energy needs has been released by e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and e Department of Energy's (DOE's) Idaho National Laboratory (INL). EPRI completed a feasibility study for a multi-state water quality trading in e Ohio River Basin in , which presented a strong business case for coal-fired power plant involvement in e development of interstate trading program. New technologies to control air emissions result in increased nutrient discharges to surface waters. Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Anne Demma Program Manager, EPRI Jim Cirilli PSCR Chairman, Exelon Technical Exchange Meeting on. 4 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Agenda Tuesday April 28 9:30 Opening Plenary –Welcome and EPRI Overview 11:00 Break. Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Anne Demma Program Manager, EPRI. Technical Exchange Meeting on Materials. Rockville, MD. 22, · UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 uary 31, 1995 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 95-09: USE OF INAPPROPRIATE GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT EVALUATION AND DESIGN Addressees All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power. 07, · EPRI claims its report is e most significant collaborative research in is area to date, wi funding and active support from more an 60 U.S. utilities, and collaboration wi e Defense reat Reduction Agency, e U.S. Department of Energy (including e ree nuclear weapons laboratories), and e Electricity Subsector Coordinating. EPRI JOURNAL is published by e Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI was founded in 1972 by e nation's electric utilities to develop and manage a technology program for improving electric power production, distribution, and utilization. EPRI JOURNAL Staff and Contributors: Agnes Waters, Managing Editor Ralph Whitaker, Feature Editor. Feb 26, · e SPID report is e product of significant interaction between e NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute, EPRI, and o er stakeholders at over fifteen public meetings over a 9-mon period. ese interactions and e insights gained from e meetings allowed for e development of is document in a very short time frame. 15, · Because of e radioactivity and extreme longevity of spent nuclear fuel, its management is a major policy challenge for virtually every country in e world at generates nuclear power. According to e National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 1990), e best way to dispose of nuclear waste is in a geologic repository. e plan, entitled INL/Nuclear Power Industry Strategic Plan for Light Water Reactor Research and Development, was developed by an industry-laboratory team and reviewed and approved by e leadership of e INL's Utility Advisory Board and EPRI's Nuclear Power Council. Special Called Meeting president of e Carolinas Virginia Nuclear Power Associates, Inc. ommissioning Project and chairman of e nuclear industry'sNew Plant Oversight Committee. A native of West Hartlepool, He is a member of e EPRI Nuclear Power Council Executive Committee. In e, EPRI, along wi e International Atomic Energy Agency, e United Kingdom's National Nuclear Laboratory, e OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency and Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, convened a global forum to develop an action plan for technical and process solutions to reduce operating costs and enhance nuclear safety for support of. Stephen Lee, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Ron Litzinger, Sou ern California Edison. Richard Lordan, EPRI. John McDonald, General Electric (GE) Ken Neme, Sou ern States Energy Board. Dave Nevius, Nor American Electrical Reliability Council. Dave Owens, Edison Electric Institute. Steve Pullins, Horizon Energy Group. UESI invited to speak at EPRI Nuclear Utility Coatings Council Annual Meeting – uary . e Nuclear Utility Coatings Council (NUCC) was formed to assist in handling safety related service level one coatings in e nuclear facilities. NUCC now addresses Service level III coatings, regulatory sensitive coatings issues, and specific issues. NEI’s conferences offer e opportunity for nuclear industry ision-makers, ought leaders, policymakers, government experts and o ers to network, discover e latest technologies and inspire industry in ation. Visit NEI’s conference webpages to find details on specific meetings. Apr 04, · PALO ALTO, Calif., April 04, (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) announced e election of a new chair and four members to e Board of Directors, as well as e. e industry cost share rough EPRI is more an 50 at bo levels. - $5 M level: DOE $4986, EPRI $7232 - $9 M level: DOE $8286, EPRI $,831? e House-Senate Conference completed eir work on e Energy and Water bill last week and au orized $7M for NEPO. NEI), and (4) e EPRI technology in ation fund. Gaertner reported at e first two sources have already approved funding and at he expects approval by e latter two by e end of e year. He said at if funding is not completed by e end of e year, he will appeal in uary, 2007, to e EPRI Nuclear Power Council for e remaining. e agenda for e uary 24-25, Fuel Cycle and Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting is shown below. e meeting provided members an overview of several research efforts funded by e DOE Office of Nuclear Energy’s Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain Office (NE-4), and related research at is . e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducts research development and demonstration activities for e benefit of e public in e United States and internationally. EPRI has an external group, Hoisting, Rigging, and Crane User Group (HRCUG), at provides a forum for e exchange of information and seeks to improve e technical expertise of plant personnel responsible for rigging. e DFOG Meeting was y 9-11, at e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in Charlotte, NC. e DFOG technical meeting occurred on Tuesday and ursday. On Wednesday, DFOG members participated in e Joint Owners Group (JOG) meeting consisting of members from industry Diesel Engine Owners Groups. ANNUAL INDUSTRY/NRC MATERIALS PROGRAMS TECHNICAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE PUBLIC MEETING Tuesday, e 2, 8:30.m. - 5:45 p.m. EST Wednesday, e 3, 8:30.m. - 5:45 p.m. EST ursday, e 4, 8:30.m. - 12:00 p.m. EXT Call-in 888-606-78 code 84754 To discuss bo pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) technical . 17, · WASHINGTON, D.C., y 17, (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) Mike Hod, President and CEO of e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), was selected by e United States Energy Association (USEA) as. 17, · In e, EPRI, along wi e International Atomic Energy Agency, e United Kingdom's National Nuclear Laboratory, e OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency and Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, . Apr 26, · Council (NIC), e Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, and e American Nuclear Society (ANS). of e Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI’s) Technical Advisory Committee Position Statement, Fif Topical Meeting on Spent Nuclear Fuel and Fissile Materials Management, Charleston, SC, 18, 2002. e division encourages research and disseminates information rough meetings and publications. Areas of technical interest include nuclear data, particle interactions and transport, reactor and nuclear systems analysis, me ods, design, validation and operating experience and standards. (EPRI) Nuclear Power Council Executive Committee. 30, · e Roadmap builds on a White Paper by EPRI, e IAEA and WANO on Nuclear Industry New Build / New Entrants, which focused on new nuclear programmes from e perspective of nuclear newcomers (‘new entrants’) and new builds in expanding nuclear countries or utilities. Some 30 countries are considering or embarking on nuclear power. Technical Executive, EPRI. Dr. Cool is currently e Technical Executive for Radiation Safety wi e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In is role, he provides technical guidance in radiation safety and protection, and is actively involved in EPRI research on low dose radiation effects.


Holtec International and Hyundai Engineering & Construction (a Hyundai Motor Group subsidiary) have signed an accord to accelerate the completion of Holtec’s SMR-160 small modular reactor development program, as well as to collaborate on diverse clean energy technologies.
October 24, 2022, 9:16AMNuclear News
July 25, 2022, 7:03AMNuclear News
The Department of Energy earlier this year approved part one of a loan application from Holtec International for small modular reactor construction and invited the firm to apply for a loan to help build four of its SMR-160 units and grow its manufacturing capacity to produce the first wave of SMRs.
March 30, 2022, 3:07PMRadwaste Solutions
Holtec International and Hyundai Engineering & Construction have signed an agreement to cooperate in the area of nuclear plant decontamination and decommissioning.
Under the teaming agreement, Hyundai E&C will participate in D&D activities at Holtec-owned decommissioning sites in the United States to build its capabilities and experience in preparation for decommissioning projects in South Korea, which will be undertaken by the two companies. The agreement also provides for the two companies to further expand their cooperation internationally.
November 1, 2021, 9:30AMANS Nuclear Cafe
Holtec International said its manufacturing specialists continue to bring forth new welding and weld examination technologies. The company recently highlighted three “landmark achievements” that are transforming its manufacturing program.
In addition to manufacturing spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation casks, Holtec provides products and services to the nuclear industry, including nondestructive examination of in-service reactor components. The company is also developing its own small modular reactor, the SMR-160.
April 5, 2021, 9:30AMANS Nuclear Cafe
Holtec International’s SMR-160 is a pressurized light-water thermal spectrum reactor that relies on natural circulation, thereby eliminating the need for reactor coolant pumps during normal operation. The reference design incorporates a lower pressure conventional steam turbine and wet cooling via a tube-and-shell condenser coupled with forced-draft cooling towers. Optionally, the plant can use dry cooling via Holtec’s HI-KOOL air-cooled condenser.
November 4, 2020, 3:01PMNuclear News
Holtec International announced yesterday a drive to secure Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification of the company’s SMR-160 small modular reactor on an accelerated schedule.
According to the announcement, Holtec met with NRC officials and staff on September 30 to present a licensing roadmap that charts what the company referred to as a “seamless progression from [10 CFR Part 50] to [10 CFR Part 52] and a licensing topical report submittal schedule to support an accelerated availability plan for our global customers.”
The first planned submittal, scheduled to occur within the next few weeks, is a topical report covering the SMR-160’s essential safety features: the Passive Core Cooling System (PCCS) and Passive Containment Heat Removal System (PCHR). These systems, Holtec said, “undergird the SMR’s guaranteed safety under the various operational occurrences and hypothetical accidents that may afflict the plant.”
The submittal also aims to demonstrate that the PCCS and PCHR comply with the NRC’s General Design Criteria (Part 50, Appendix A), “an important enabler to expedite licensing efforts,” according to Holtec.


LUSAKA, Sept. 6 (Xinhua) -- A team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is in Zambia to assess if the country had adequate infrastructure for nuclear development, a senior official said on Thursday.
Godfrey Malama, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Corporation, said the team was in Zambia to assess the status of nuclear infrastructure following the government's plans to acquire and operate a research reactor as part of its capacity building to operate a nuclear power plant.
In remarks delivered during a meeting of stakeholders, the official said the government has decided to pursue nuclear technology for industrial uses, medical applications and electricity generation.
"The research reactor project and a nuclear power plant require relevant nuclear infrastructure to be put in place in order to ensure that nuclear technology is used safely and in a secure manner," he said.
The official expressed optimism that the IAEA experts will help in identifying gaps, and assist in strengthening Zambia's nuclear infrastructure.


Amec Foster Wheeler is a global leader in the field of nuclear safety advice and analysis, and the company has built a powerful suite of software to model and simulate such facilities, and assess the safety and operation of nuclear reactors.
This includes tools for criticality calculations (determining whether or not a given geometric configuration is capable of sustaining a chain reaction or not); and reactor physics calculations (analysing the physical properties of a reactor that's currently sustaining a chain reaction). These computations are essential for reactor analysis and assessing the safety limits for fuel transportation and storage.
Increasing safety standards and demands for improved plant performance have led to requirements for improved fidelity of modelling and simulation tools, and to extend the domain of applicability of modelling tools to cover a wider range of plant scenarios. This was the case with one of the tools for perturbation analysis, which did not converge reliably when used over an extended range of scenarios. Reliability is paramount in the nuclear industry, which sets very high safety standards, so Amec Foster Wheeler approached mathematicians at Bath to investigate and suggest remedies.
Our researchers drew on their knowledge of relevant areas of numerical analysis, including numerical linear algebra, partial differential equations and eigenvalue problems - the fundamental mathematical building blocks used in modelling nuclear reactors. The team identified conditions under which the company's Monte Carlo perturbation module was not guaranteed to converge and, as a result, suggested a method to extend the range of scenarios for which it would. This prompted the company to recode parts of the module to extend its range of applicability.
Amec Foster Wheeler's nuclear modelling software is used throughout the UK nuclear industry and in many countries around the world. The research carried out by mathematicians at Bath had a clear impact on its robustness, and thus the ability of the company to compete as a world leader in the development of these software tools. They have now started a new programme of research with us.
Paul Smith from Amec Foster Wheeler said: "The work performed for the CASE project provided considerable insight into the convergence of the perturbation scheme and suggested improvements to the method. Our reactor physics code has been modified in the light of the improved understanding, resulting in improved robustness of the scheme over a wider range of applications. Without such improvements to the existing method, it would have been necessary to develop alternative methods to satisfy industry needs, at considerable cost to the nuclear industry."


Thursday, August 4, 2016
You Might be Operating an Unsafe Reactor If… - All Things Nuclear
There are currently two empty positions on the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). If comedian Jeff Foxworthy were nominated and confirmed to become a Commissioner, you wonder how he would finish the nuclear safety equivalent of his “redneck” routine?
You might be operating an unsafe reactor if …
This Ending Intentionally Blank
The NRC, at least during the last decade of the 20th century and so far in this 21st century, has never seen an unsafe reactor. Not once.
The NRC often claims they would shut down an unsafe reactor. Perhaps they would. But they’ve not spotted an unsafe reactor in nearly three decades. They suspected they saw an unsafe reactor about 15 years ago, but changed their mind(s).
So, it’s not that the NRC would fail to shut down an unsafe reactor. But it’s been so long since they spotted one, they seem to have forgotten what they look like...


|Sep7-12, 11:42 AM||#1|
Effective Nuclear Charge
I have come across the Slater's Rules that is used to calculate the numerical value of effective nuclear charge of elements.
Can somebody please show to me the calculation of effective nuclear charge of atoms of element down the group 2 by using the Slater's rule??
I calculate by using the information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater's_rules.
many books mention that increment in atomic radius down the group 2 is caused by the decreasing effective nuclear charge. is it true? Thanks for your help and i really need all your help.
|Sep10-12, 07:27 PM||#2|
Firstly, I am not sure that Slater's rules as presented in the wikipedia article are a correct interpretation. However , let us suppose that they are.
I calculate effective nuclear charges of 1.95, 2.85, 2.85, 2.85, and 2.85 for Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba respectively.
The increase in atomic radius is not the result of a decreasing effective nuclear charge. It is mostly the result of an increasing principal quantum number for the outermost electrons, and the increase in atomic radius is lessened by the increasing effective nuclear charge.
|Sep12-12, 11:23 AM||#3|
Or could you please share with me your knowledge and understanding on Slater's rule ?? Thanks a lot.
|Sep12-12, 05:50 PM||#4|
Effective Nuclear Charge
Slater's rules were designed for the specific purpose of trying to calculate molecular structures and chemical bonds in a simplistic model where only valence electrons were considered, with single electron wave functions, and "hydrogen-like orbitals" -- that is,
psi(3px) = x * exp(-alpha*r) rather than the truly hydrogen-like (b – x) * exp(-alpha*r)
They were also "tuned" for energy -- ionization potentials and bond strengths -- rather than atom size.
There is another method that is used for obtaining effective nuclear charge. It involves a close examination of the atomic spectrum of an element and identifying particular groups of lines as "Rydberg series". If this method is used, you can arrive at a significantly different pattern for effective nuclear charge.
|Similar Threads for: Effective Nuclear Charge|
|Determining effective nuclear charge||Advanced Physics Homework||0|
|Effective Nuclear Charge||Advanced Physics Homework||1|
|Effective Nuclear charge||Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework||0|
|Atomic structure and determing effective nuclear charge||Advanced Physics Homework||4|
|calculating effective nuclear charge||Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework||4|


TimeSkip said:was wondering if there was a meltdown in 2015 when it was taken.
What are you talking about? What leads you to believe there is a meltdown shown somewhere in those graphics?TimeSkip said:I was browsing a antineutrino map and was wondering if there was a meltdown in 2015 when it was taken.
I never heard about it in the news; but, here are some pictures from the paper:
The article mainly refers to 'geoneutrino' emanations from the Earth including mixing models of the three known antineutrinos.russ_watters said:What are you talking about? What leads you to believe there is a meltdown shown somewhere in those graphics?
The dark splotches in the US, Europe, Asia (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, eastern China), S. Americal and S. Africa are operating nuclear power plants. One has to look at the energy levels of the neutrinos, since there is a mix of U, Th isotopes and their decay products, and fission products and their decay products. Note that beta decay involves the release of an electron (beta particle) and anti-neutrino.TimeSkip said:The color doesn't look uniform around that circled spot.
Was just wondering.
As in: Something like wind blew something to the north of the reactor in question.
A nuclear meltdown is a catastrophic failure of a nuclear reactor, resulting in a significant release of radioactive material and immense heat. This can occur when a reactor's core becomes too hot, causing the fuel rods to melt and release radiation.
An antineutrino map is a visual representation of the distribution of antineutrinos, which are subatomic particles that are produced during nuclear reactions. These maps are created by detecting and measuring the energy and direction of antineutrinos emitted from nuclear reactors.
The nuclear meltdown in 2015 was caused by a combination of factors, including a faulty reactor design, inadequate safety protocols, and human error. The exact cause is still being investigated, but it is believed that a series of small malfunctions and human mistakes led to the meltdown.
The consequences of the nuclear meltdown in 2015 were severe and long-lasting. The release of radioactive material resulted in significant environmental and health impacts, including increased rates of cancer and other health issues in the surrounding area. The economic and social effects were also significant, as the affected area had to be evacuated and the nuclear industry faced increased scrutiny and regulations.
After the nuclear meltdown in 2015, there have been increased efforts to improve nuclear safety and prevent future meltdowns. This includes implementing stricter regulations, enhancing safety protocols, and investing in new technologies and designs for nuclear reactors. Additionally, there is a greater focus on training and educating personnel to prevent human error and improve emergency response in the event of a nuclear incident.


This Coordinated Research Project (CRP) seeks to advance the fundamental fusion-material research and technologies, in close connection with high gain target development, and enhance information exchange on Inertial Fusion Energy R&D, establishing an international network of working groups. This will open the door for more Member States to join the research efforts at different levels and contribute to moving forward in developing the peaceful use of fusion energy, serving the needs of both IFE and Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE) communities.
The present CRP proposal is the continuity of former highly successful ones, which:
– Contributed to stimulation and promotion of Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) development by improving international cooperation (Elements of power plant design for inertial fusion energy, 2000–2004);
– Covered research relevant to development of IFE and to enhancement of awareness in Member States regarding beam-plasma and beam-matter interaction, development of building blocks for IFE and on IFE power plants structure and integration (Pathways to Energy from Inertial Fusion: An Integrated Approach, 2006–2010);
– Provided an assessment of the material requirements, consequences and characteristic behaviours in pulsed, repetitively cycled IFE systems (Pathways to Energy from Inertial Fusion: Materials beyond Ignition, 2015–2019).
The CRP will comprise a coordinated set of research activities:
1. To advance the underlying science and develop novel materials for fusion energy.2. To understand the key processes in the target chamber.3. To assess tritium inventory and its handling.4. To develop next generation targets and diagnostics, that will also help enhance knowledge on high gain target materials.5. To develop driver (including materials research) and target fabrication technologies with an emphasis on repetition systems.
For that aim, it is planned:
1.1. To conduct supporting experiments in repetitive regimes of mechanical, thermal and radiation loads in relevant high-power pulsed plasma, beam and laser installations to understand the science of evolving materials (due to continuous erosion, re-deposition and continuous exposure to particles, radiation and plasma);
1.2. To understand the physics of electronic excitation in optical and dielectric materials which is the basic mechanism of material damage under high irradiation doses both in IFE and MFE;
1.3. To identify the limits in radiation power, particle flux, and radiation handling, for solid and liquid plasma facing component materials, and extend their performance to IFE and MFE reactor relevant conditions;
1.4. To coordinate experimental and modelling efforts towards common standards on material properties.
2.1. To investigate the interactions of the “dry” first wall material with deposited capsule, pellet debris/aerosol materials;
2.2. To examine the possible use of liquid metals as a “wet” first wall material;
2.3. To assess the requirements for chamber clearing in a reactor operating in the high repetition mode when considering driver and target injection, and first wall responses to implosions.
3.1. To evaluate chamber gas/exhaust compositions and the resulting chamber gas-wall interactions, to determine tritium inventory in an IFE power plant;
3.2. To understand mechanisms of permeation of hydrogen isotopes in the proposed materials, including the assessment of coatings from the manufacturing, adhesion and resistance;
3.3. To specify material requirements, and engineering strategies, for tritium breeding blankets and related systems, their development pathways and impact on the integrated power plant design with regard to confinement, storage and fuel cycle management.
4.1. To investigate alternative direct-drive ignition and high gain schemes including shock and fast ignition at intermediate and megajoule-scale laser facilities, in order to evaluate and validate their feasibility for IFE production;
4.2. To evaluate the neutron, particle, debris fluxes and inventory from next generation targets and their characterization for the chamber and blanket environment, first wall and final optics studies;
4.3. To evaluate target composition effects on neutron production and material modifications during the burning phase of the target, with newly developed in-line neutron diagnostics.
5.1. To develop technologies and appropriate structural and optical materials for rep-rate diode-pumped solid-state and KrF laser operation at the IFE relevant level with a high wall-plug efficiency;
5.2. To develop materials options and technologies for mass production, target injection and tracking systems for next generation targets with a low aspect ratio and increased robustness.
The efforts made by national and collaborative projects within this internationally coordinated framework will help advance nuclear fusion science and technology.
The overall objective of this CRP is to advance the fundamental fusion-material research and technologies, and enhance information exchange on Inertial Fusion Energy R&D, establishing an international network of working groups.
- To advance the underlying science and develop novel materials for fusion energy.
- To understand the key processes in the target chamber.
- To assess tritium inventory and its handling.
- To develop next generation targets and diagnostics
- To develop driver and target fabrication technologies
Lietuvos energetikos institutas, Lithuania


Question: we are measuring the decay of 60co from a table...
We are measuring the decay of 60Co. From a table (table 7.2, Krane) for energy calibration standards: 60Co, t1/2= 5.27y, it produces two γ radiations, of energy 1173.238 keV and 1332.513 keV, respectively. In this problem we consider that we are only measuring the 1173.238 keV radiation.
(a) Calculate the energy of the Compton edge in a γ ray spectrum of this decay.
(b) Draw the energy spectrum (schematics), showing the photopeak and the Compton edge.
(c) Do we have also single and/or double escape peaks in this spectrum? If yes, then calculate and indicate in the graph.


Britain's top scientific organisation has backed a controversial proposal to build a second multibillion-pound nuclear fuel plant at Sellafield in Cumbria to deal with the UK's enormous stockpile of civil plutonium, but it has done so without addressing either the cost or the failures of an existing fuel plant, which had to be closed this year.
A Royal Society report says another mixed oxide (Mox) fuel plant at Sellafield is the only way of dealing with the plutonium stockpile at the site, but it pointedly fails to discuss either the costs of the new plant or the reasons why the existing Sellafield Mox plant has been such a disaster.
Critics say that the society's inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle has been heavily influenced by the vested interests of the nuclear industry. One of the experts on the report's working group, Dr Christine Brown, was a key figure at Sellafield when British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) was building its Mox plant.
Dr Brown joined Sellafield in 1995 to work on the new plant, designed to produce 120 tonnes of Mox fuel a year but only managed about a tenth of this in its entire lifetime – at a total cost to the UK taxpayer of £1.3bn.
The report, Fuel Cycle Stewardship in a Nuclear Renaissance, highlights a French Mox fuel plant at Marcoule that does perform efficiently, saying Britain could learn much from its design. But the report makes no mention of the problems at a US Mox plant being built at Savannah River in South Carolina, with French help, which is behind schedule and five times over budget.
Asked by The Independent why his report fails to discuss the problems of the existing Mox plants at Sellafield and Savannah River, Professor Roger Cashmore, chairman of the Royal Society's working group, said the problems were not relevant to his inquiry. He said: "That wasn't what we were interested in. We were interested in taking things forward. We didn't address the issue of whether Mox plants around the world were satisfactory or had cost overruns as we felt it was not within our remit."
The Sellafield Mox plant was designed to turn foreign-owned spent fuel into Mox fuel for export, mainly to Japan. However, soon after the plant was opened in 2002, its design flaws became obvious. The Fukushima disaster in March this year led to a suspension of Mox fuel shipments to Japan from Europe and eventually forced the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is now in charge of Sellafield, to close the Mox plant.
Asked to explain why the Mox plant failed, Dr Brown said: "My job was to make sure that the fuel performed well. However, trying to transfer that specific part of the manufacturing process and make a plant which was up to modern-day standards has proved to be quite difficult. I'm terribly disappointed, but the decision [to close the plant] is correct, in that we've given the SMP quite some time to meet the expectations of the original design.
"It is clear we were not going to do that in the near future," she said.
Dr Brown said that two new nuclear reactors licensed to burn Mox fuel could deal with Britain's plutonium stockpile within a period of 50 or 60 years.
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Radioactive Fallout After Nuclear Explosions and Accidents (Radioactivity in the Environment)
Academician Professor Yuri A. Izrael is one of Russia's and indeed the world's top names in the environmental and nuclear sciences. As the most senior scientist involved in the monitoring, behavioural and assessment studies at and around the previously secret nuclear weapon tests of the former Soviet Union and at the Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, Professor Izrael has a wealth of unique knowledge and experience of the science of these sites of special scientific interest. Indeed, he has himself pioneered much of that science. The scientific career of Yuri A. lzrael, Doctor of Sciences (Physics and Mathematics), Professor and Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as a number of other academies, has been devoted to nuclear and environmental sciences, meteorology and climatology. Born in 1930, he worked at first in the Geophysical Institute and then in the Institute of Applied Geophysics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where he progressed from junior scientist to Institute Director (1969). He defended his PhD. (1963) and D.Se. (1969) theses (in the fields of physical and mathematical sciences). Since the beginning of his scientific career, Professor Izrael specialized particularly on the meteorological aspects of both radioactive contamination and chemical pollution of the natural environment. He became one of the first scientists to personally obtain and analyze extensive experimental data on the dispersal and behaviour of radioactive products after nuclear weapon tests (1954-1974), after accidents at nuclear power installations (1957-1967), after the Chernobyl nuclear accident (1986-1996), and on transport of chemical products during operations of different enterprises (1970-1996). This experience permitted Professor Izrael to encourage and play his own part in the development, and then improvement, of transport models for both conservative and chemically active admixtures in the atmosphere --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
*An electronic version of a printed book that can be read on a computer or handheld device designed specifically for this purpose.
Formats for this Ebook
|Required Software||Any PDF Reader, Apple Preview|
|Supported Devices||Windows PC/PocketPC, Mac OS, Linux OS, Apple iPhone/iPod Touch.|
|# of Devices||Unlimited|
|Flowing Text / Pages||Pages|
|The message text*:|


Material engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have developed a tungsten-based alloy that can withstand unprecedented amounts of radiation without damage. This would make it an ideal choice for the interiors of magnetic fusion reactors. Materials previously explored for this purpose fracture too easily under similar conditions, but this new alloy seems to defeat that problem as well. Still, the team continues to investigate the material’s mechanical properties under different stress levels and responses to plasma exposure.
“This material showed outstanding radiation resistance when compared to pure nanocrystalline tungsten materials and other conventional alloys,” says Osman El Atwani, the principal investigator.
“But it seems we developed a material with unprecedented radiation resistance,” says Enrique Martinez Saez, another Los Alamos researcher. “We have never seen before a material that withstand the level of radiation damage we have observed for this high-entropy alloy. It seems to retain outstanding mechanical properties after irradiation, as opposed to traditional counterparts, in which the mechanical properties degrade easily under irradiation.” (High-entropy alloys contain four or more principal elements.)
The research team used atom-probe tomography to discover that, at the atomic level, the alloy contained layers of different elements which changed to nanoclusters when subjected to radiation. The scientist say this helped them understand why this alloy tolerates so much highly radiation.
The material, created as a thin film, is a quaternary nanocrystalline tungsten-tantalum-vanadium-chromium alloy that has been characterized under extreme thermal conditions and after irradiation.
The team hasn’t tested its corrosion resistance yet, but they anticipate it should perform well there also. Then, if it is shown to be ductile (as is also expected), it could be made into turbines because it is a refractory, high-melting-point material.


Alissa Tabirian NS&D Monitor 9/25/2015 The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said this week that its repatriation of about 1 kilogram of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from a Jamaican research reactor to the Department of Energy’s (DOE)…
Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor
Article 2 of 11
September 25, 2015
Caribbean is HEU-Free Following Uranium Transfer from Jamaica to U.S.
Senior Manager, Defense Waste Management Programs Group (8880) - Sandia National Laboratories - Carlsbad, NM


In Mrs. M class, Friday we did the usual getting the homework stamped and looked over it. Following it we got off track talking about other things. In doing so we made it impossible to go over all of the neccessary information on the test. But we did go over half lives a bit more along with chain reactions and nucleor reactors. If you forgot, half-lives are the length of time it takes for a substance to decay over a period of time. Every set of years half of the substance dissapears until stable or gone. Chain reactions occur during Fission not fusion. Fission is the splitting of atoms and fusion is the combining of them. Fission occurs when a neutron hits a bigger nucleus causing large amounts of energy to be released in different elements and more nuetrons. More can be found on page 15 of the worksheets. Nuclear Reactors are divided into three parts. A.) Control rods absorb neutrons to slow down chain reactions B)Fuel Rods contain 3 percent of U-235 C.) Moderator slows down neutrons so they can be absorbed by the control rods. Again since we talked during class we ran out of time and did not cover Ionizing Radiation or Radon and we do not have to learn it for the test. Remember the test is MONDAY!


Z. Naturforsch. 68a, 79 – 84
Mass Dependence of Iron Isotope Fractionation in Fe(II)–Fe(III) Electron Exchange Equilibration
1 Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology, O-okayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
2 Present address: ATOX Co., Ltd. Takada, Kashiwa. Chiba 177-0861, Japan
3 Present address: Nano Convergance Practical Application Center, 891–5, Daecheon-Dong, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu, 704-801, Republic of Korea
Received September 9, 2012 / published online February 15, 2013
A one hundred meter long ion-exchange chromatograph was used to establish rigorously the mass effects in the iron isotope fractionation in the Fe(II)–Fe(III) electron exchange equilibration. We used a highly porous, strongly basic anion exchange resin packed in glass columns. The abundance ratios of all natural iron isotopes, 54Fe, 56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe, in the effluent at the iron adsorption band boundary were measured with a mass spectrometer. The enrichment correlations among these isotopes were analyzed by three-isotope plots. The results clearly showed that the isotope fractionation of Fe(II)–Fe(III) is governed by the normal mass effect; the iron isotope fractionation is not proportional to the nuclear size, but proportional to the reduced mass difference of the pair of iron isotopes.
Key words: Isotope Fractionation; Iron Isotopes; Isotope Effect; Anion Exchange Resin; Chromatography; Oxidation-Reduction Reaction.


Michael Abramson/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images
- On March 28, 1979, almost a decade before the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown. The event is now considered the worst nuclear disaster in US history.
- On that day, a combination of malfunctions and human error unleashed radioactive gases into the environment around the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.
- The Three Mile Island partial meltdown was not as damaging as the nuclear crises at Chernobyl or Fukushima: Nobody died because of the accident, but 2 million people were exposed to small amounts of radiation, and 140,000 people evacuated the area.
- Now, the plant’s owner, Exelon Corporation, is closing Three Mile Island due to financial struggles.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
Early on March 28, 1979, a combination of electrical and mechanical malfunctions, as well as human error, unleashed dangerous radioactive gases into the environment around the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. It wound up being the worst nuclear disaster in US history.
Leif Skoogfors/Getty Images
The plant sits on Three Mile Island in Susquehanna River.
Wally McNamee/Corbis via Getty Images
The island sits just outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Google Maps/Business Insider
- Trump suggested using bombs to fight hurricanes. These 4 graphics show why that would never work.
- Striking photos show the devastation wreaked by record-breaking fires in the Amazon rainforest
- Everything we know about uBiome, the startup that convinced Silicon Valley that testing poop was worth $600 million, and then saw its top leaders depart amid an FBI investigation
SEE ALSO: A photographer visited the abandoned towns around Chernobyl more than 20 times over the past 25 years, and the captivating photos show just how suddenly time stopped in its tracks after the disaster


Modelling the behaviour of host rock for nuclear waste
Nuclear energy is nowadays a crucial issue and the storage of radioactive waste raises many questions. Over the past few decades, many countries have subsequently built underground laboratories allowing them to test hypotheses on a large scale. In Belgium, a decision was taken in 1974 to create the HADES laboratory in the layer of clay situated under the Nuclear Energy Study Centre in Mol, with the first excavation works taking place in the 1980s. The various studies carried out over the past three decades have led to the development of various concepts. This is especially the case regarding the behaviour of the rock that will host the waste. This is due in particular to the development of calculation tools which currently allow the user to model these behaviours fairly accurately, by taking into account the most complex situations, especially in the long term over several tens of thousands of years.
In the first recently-defended thesis(1), Benoît Pardoen focuses on the argillaceous rock that hosts the underground ANDRA laboratory at the site in Bure. He particularly studied the phenomena that occur when this clay is excavated, and during exploitation and maintenance phases. These galleries have to be ventilated, which dries out the rock and thus alters its state; as for the waste, it releases heat, another element to be taken into account during long-term simulation.
(1) Hydro-mechanical analysis of the fracturing induced by the excavation of nuclear waste repository galleries using shear banding, Pardoen Benoît, University of Liège, 2015, doctoral thesis.


Pokharan-II refers to test explosions of fivenuclear devices, three on 11 May and two on 13 May 1998, conducted by India at thePokhran test range. These nuclear tests resulted in a variety of sanctions against India by a number of major states.
On 18 May 1974, India exploded its first nuclear device code named Operation Smiling Buddha. After about a quarter century, on 11 May 1998, Operation Shakti was carried out. Shakti was the codename of a thermonuclear device that was exploded in Pokhran as part of Pokhran-II.
The word Shakti (Hindi:शक्ति) means Strength in Sanskrit. The Operation Shaktiwas the codename of a thermonuclear device that was exploded in Pokhran Test Range in May 11.
Development and test teams
The main technical personnel involved in the operation were:
Project Chief Coordinators
- Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (later, President of India), Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the DRDO.
- Dr. R. Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Atomic energy.
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
- Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Director of BARC.
- Dr. Satinder Kumar Sikka, Director; Thermonuclear Weapon Development.
- Dr. M.S. Ramkumar, Director of Nuclear Fuel and Automation Manufacturing Group; Director, Nuclear Component Manufacture.
- Dr. D.D. Sood, Director of Radiochemistry and Isotope Group; Director, Nuclear Materials Acquisition.
- Dr. S.K. Gupta, Solid State Physics and Spectroscopy Group; Director, Device Design & Assessment.
- Dr. G. Govindraj, Associate Director of Electronic and Instrumentation Group; Director, Field Instrumentation.
Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO)
- Dr. K. Santhanam; Director, Test Site Preparations.
- Dr. M.Vasudev; Range Safety Officer.
A total of five nuclear weapons were detonated during Operation Shakti. They were:
A two stage thermonuclear device with a boosted fission primary, its yield was downgraded from 200 kt (theoretical) to 40 kt for test purposes.
A pure fission device using the Plutonium implosion design with a yield of 15 kt. The device tested was an actual nuclear warhead that can be delivered by bombers or fighters and also mounted on a missile. The warhead was an improved, lightweight and miniaturized version of the device tested in 1974. Scientists at BARC had been working to improve the 1974 design for many years. Data from the 1974 test was used to carry out computer simulations using the indigenousPARAM supercomputer to improve the design. The 1998 test was intended to prove the validity of the improved designs.
An experimental boosted fission device that used reactor grade Plutonium for its primary with a yield of 0.3 kt. This test device was used to test only the primary stage. It did not contain any tritium required to boost the fission. This test was designed to study the possibility of using reactor grade plutonium in warheads and also to prove India’s expertise in controlling and damping a nuclear explosion in order to achieve a low (sub-kiloton) yield.
A 0.5 kt experimental device. The test’s only purpose was to collect data about the explosion process and to study the performance of various bomb components.
A 0.2 kt experimental device that used U-233, an isotope of uranium that is not found in nature but is produced in India’s fast breeder reactors that consume Thorium. This device too was used to collect data.
Reactions to the tests
The reactions from abroad started immediately after the tests were advertised. The United Nations issued a statement expressing its disappointment. On June 6, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1172 condemning the test and that of Pakistan’s. The United States issued a strong statement condemning India and promised that sanctions would follow. The American establishment was embarrassed as there had been a serious intelligence failure in detecting the preparations for the test. Canada, which had earlier supplied the CIRUS nuclear reactor to India which was the source of plutonium for the 1974 tests, reassured the world that the CIRUS reactor was not in any way connected to the 1998 tests. China issued a vociferous condemnation calling upon the international community to exert pressure on India to sign the NPT and eliminate its nuclear arsenal. With India joining the group of countries possessing nuclear weapons, a new strategic dimension had emerged in Asia, particularly South Asia.
Support for India
However, other nuclear powers, such as Israel, France and Russia, refrained from condemning India.
Israel issued a statement ‘praising’ India’s tests and declaring that India’s reasons for carrying out nuclear tests were the same as Israel’s.
The most vehement reaction to India’s nuclear test was Pakistan’s. Great ire was raised in Pakistan, which issued a severe statement blaming India for instigating a nuclear arms race in the region. Pakistan Prime Minister Navaz Sharif vowed that his country would give a suitable reply to the Indians. The day after the first tests, Pakistan Minister of Foreign Affairs Captain (retired) Gohar Ayub Khan indicated that Pakistan was ready to conduct a nuclear test of its own. As he said: “[Pakistan] is prepared to match India, we have the capability … We in Pakistan will maintain a balance with India in all fields”, he said in an interview. “We are in a headlong arms race on the subcontinent.”
Prime Minister Navaz Sharif was much more subdued, refusing to say whether a test would be conducted in response: “We are watching the situation and we will take appropriate action with regard to our security“, he said. Sharif sought to mobilize the entire Islamic world in support of Pakistan and criticized India for nuclear proliferation.
Given authorization by Prime minister Navaz Sharif, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) carried out nuclear testing under the codename Chagai-I on May 28, 1998 and Chagai-II on May 30, 1998. These six underground nuclear tests at the Chagai and Kharan test site were conducted just fifteen days after India’s last test. The total yield of the tests were reported to be 40 kt (see codename: Chagai-I).
Pakistan’s subsequent tests invited similar condemnations from multiple nations ranging from Argentina to Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. American president Bill Clinton was quoted as saying “Two wrongs don’t make a right”, criticizing Pakistan’s tests as reactionary to India’s Pokhran-II. The United States, Japan, and a number of other states reacted by imposing economic sanctions on Pakistan.
Pakistan’s leading nuclear physicist and one of the top scientists, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, held India responsible for Pakistan’s nuclear test experiments in Chagai.
May 11 has been officially declared as National Technology Day in India to commemorate the first of the five tests that were carried out on May 11, 1998. The day was officially signed by the then Prime Minister of India. The day is celebrated by giving awards to various individuals and industries in the field of science and industry.


Progress in Building Bangladesh's Nuclear Infrastructure
2013-10-11│ A recent IAEA mission to Bangladesh on the country's new nuclear power programme came away with the view that Bangladesh has responded well to the IAEA recommendations made during an Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) mission in February 2012.
The IAEA team met with senior officials and experts from the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC) and the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority (BAERA) in Dhaka to review and update the IAEA/Bangladesh Integrated Work Plan for nuclear power infrastructure development.
An Integrated Work Plan provides the framework for defining all IAEA assistance to national nuclear power development activities, tailored to national needs and reflecting national plans as well as recommendations from IAEA missions.
Progress made since the 2012 INIR mission included, for example, that Bangladesh promulgated nuclear law and established an independent regulatory body. In addition, a construction project management organization for the first nuclear power plant was established and started its work.
The IAEA team also attended a ceremony at Rooppur, chosen as site of Bangladesh's first nuclear power plant, to mark the beginning of the project. Construction is scheduled to start in 2016. The plant will generate 2000 megawatt electricity when completed in 2021. Rosatom, the State Atomic Energy Corporation of the Russian Federation, will build, operate and provide fuel for the plant.
Inaugurating the project, Prime Minister Seikh Hasina stated that her government has given top priority to cover all issues in developing an appropriate nuclear infrastructure based on IAEA standards and guidance, and international good practices.
In a message, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano extended his congratulations to the Government and people of Bangladesh. "Bangladesh has been working hard for several decades to prepare for the introduction of nuclear power. The IAEA has been a partner at every stage of the journey," the message said, which was delivered by Oscar Acuna of the IAEA Department of Technical Cooperation.
There is still considerable work to be done before the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant is completed and connected to the grid. The IAEA is ready to assist in the development of the nuclear power infrastructure to ensure a safe, secure, responsible and sustainable project.


Proceedings PaperLine Source X-Ray Microscopy
|Format||Member Price||Non-Member Price|
The theoretical aspects of using line radiation sources for soft x-ray microscopy are discussed. High resolution, absolutely calibrated spectra of a gas-puff z-pinch source are presented. A qualitative discussion of radiation damage mechanisms and the time scales involved indicate that any picture taken in less than a millisecond may be less damaged by the radiation. Results of a first attempt to use a 100J, nanosecond laser to produce a carbon plasma as a source for very short time-scale microscopy are presented.


What is meant by Radioactive Decay?
The spontaneous breakdown of the nucleus, which leads to the release of energy and matter from the atomic nucleus, is defined as radioactive decay in physics. It should be highlighted that radioisotopes lack sufficient binding energy to keep the nucleus in the atom, and it signifies that the radioisotopes' nuclei are unstable.
The atomic nucleus becomes unstable during radioactive decay, resulting in an imbalance in proton and neutron numbers.
Radioactive Decay Formula
This equation can be used to calculate the number of unstable nuclei that remain after time t. N(t) = N(0) * 0.5(t/T)
- After time t has passed, N(t) is the quantity of a substance that remains
- This substance's initial quantity is N(0)
- The half-life is denoted by the letter T
A few more parameters can also be used to figure out how much of a chemical is left i.e. N(t) = N(0) * e(-t/τ) or N(t) = N(0) * e(-λt)
- Where τ is the mean lifetime or the amount of time a nucleus stays intact on average.
- λ is the rate of deterioration (rate of decay)
The following is a relationship between the three criteria that characterise a substance's radioactivity T = ln(2)/λ = ln(2)*τ
When a quantity diminishes at a pace proportional to the current quantity, it is called exponential decay. To put it mathematically we write dNdt=−λN
To solve the differential equation for N as a function of time, use the following formula N(t)=N(0)e−λt
N(t) is the quantity at time t, where N0 is the initial quantity and N(t) is the quantity at time t. The half-life is related to the rate of decay: t1/2=ln(2)/λ. The amount of material is given by n=N/NA, where NA is Avogadro's constant = 6.022 x 1023, and the activity is supplied by A=λN
FAQ’s on Radio Active Decay Calculator
1. What is the formula for calculating half-life?
To locate half-life, follow these steps: Divide ln 2 by the substance's decay constant.
2. Does the rate of deterioration change?
Yes, a radioactive material's decay half-life can be altered. When an unstable atomic nucleus spontaneously transitions to a lower-energy state and emits radiation, this is known as radioactive decay. This process transforms one atom into a different element or isotope.
3. How can you figure out how long it takes for something to decay?
When the amount of reduction is directly proportional to the amount that exists, this is known as exponential decay. Subtract the final count from the starting count. For example, if you started with 100 germs and ended up with 80 bacteria two hours later, divide 80 by 100 to get 0.8.
4. Is the temperature a factor in the decay constant?
The decay constant is solely determined by the radioactive nuclide and decay mechanism in question. It is independent of the quantity of nuclei present or any other environmental factors (such as temperature).


Radiation leak at US nuclear power plant
Nuclear safety officials have moved to quell worries about a leak of radioactivity from Three Mile Island nuclear plant, saying that there is no threat to public health or safety.
The incident happened on Saturday, when the Pennsylvania plant — the same one that went to the brink of meltdown in 1979 — had what officials called an “unplanned exposure” and sent home 150 workers, media reports said.
John White, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), said federal experts sent to the plant found “nothing that indicates safety was ever in jeopardy”.
Diane Screnci, another NRC spokesperson, told CNN that there had been a leak within the reactor building that created minor contamination which was “well below regulatory limits”. She said the incident began when containment radiation alarms sounded.
Federal experts have been sent for investigation. The country’s worst civilian nuclear accident to date occurred at Three Mile Island on March 28, 1979, when the cooling system malfunctioned in one of the towers, causing a partial meltdown of Unit 2.
For days, many in the central Pennsylvania region around Harrisburg, near where the plant is located, slept with bags packed and boots on in case of disaster and forced evacuation.
The accident, which released radiation and krypton gas, put a decades-long moratorium in many countries on building new nuclear plants that was reinforced with the ensuing 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine.


Exposure to radioactive iodine increases the risk of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents, a study of thyroid cancer prevalence after the Chornobyl accident shows.
The study is published in the July 5 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
In 1986, an accident at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant exposed large numbers of people in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation to radioactive material high in isotopes of iodine and cesium. Numerous studies have shown that exposure to certain types of radiation increases the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and teens. However, few studies have examined the effects of exposure to radioactive iodines, and only three studies have examined cancer risk from the Chornobyl-related exposures.
Geoffrey R. Howe, Ph.D., of Columbia University in New York, and colleagues screened 13,127 people for thyroid cancer who at the time of the Chornobyl accident were under 18 and lived in highly contaminated areas of Ukraine. The researchers estimated each participant's individual radiation dose using thyroid radioactivity measurements made shortly after the accident and interview data obtained during screening.
The researchers found 45 cases of thyroid cancer in the screened group in comparison with the 11.2 cases expected without the accident. Subjects had a tendency toward lower risk of thyroid cancer with increasing age at the time of the exposure. The authors suggest that exposure to radioactive fallout from the Chornobyl accident increased thyroid cancer in those exposed as children and adolescents.
The authors write, "We estimate that 75% of the thyroid cancer cases would have been avoided in the absence of radiation. With appropriate adjustment for dose, this estimate demonstrates a substantial contribution of radioactive iodines to the excess of thyroid cancer that followed the Chornobyl accident."


Nuclear astrophysics and Fusion
The nuclear reactions that occur in the stars during the various steps of their lives allows to explain both the energy they generate and the chemical abundance and isotopes. A precise measurement of these phenomena is an experimental challenge that can be met by operating a particle accelerator in a deep underground laboratory. The low radiation background of ANDES will allow such direct measurement experiment. The knowledge acquired will furthermore play a special role in the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors: the fusion reactors. These are based on the fusion of light elements in a way similar to what happens in stars, and could be a clean source of energy in the future.


Advances on Capturing Francium in a Magneto-Optical Trap
The strong confinement of atoms in six-dimensional phase space in magneto-optic traps makes them a promising tool for work with radioactives. The absence of Doppler broadening and laser-atom interaction more than one thousand times longer compared to atomic beams provide a very good environment for precision measurements. The long term project is to measure parity non-conservation effects in francium. Francium is attractive because the effects are larger than in the other alkalis and francium is trappable. However it does not have stable isotopes. With the Stony Brook linear accelerator we can produce a variety of neutron deficient isotopes. The neutron rich isotopes can come as daughters of radioactive decay in thorium. Since the production rate of radioactive atoms is not high, any experiment with them requires efficient use of the available sample. We have developed an on-line system to capture radioactive atoms from an accelerator.
KeywordsAtomic Beam Strong Confinement Trap Laser Neutron Rich Isotope Accelerator Beam
- Z-T. Lu, C. Bowers, S. J. Freedman, B. K. Fujikawa, J. L. Mortara, S-Q. Shang, K. P. Coulter, L. Young, Laser trapping of short-lived radioactive isotopes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72: 3791 (1994).Google Scholar
- J. A. Behr, S. B. Cahn, S. B. Dutta, A. Ghosh, G. Gwinner, C. H. Holbrow, L. A. Orozco, G. D. Sprouse, J. Urayama, F. Xu, A low-energy ion beam from alkali heavy-ion reaction products, Nzucl. Insir. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A 351: 256 (1994).Google Scholar


“The trust fund contained about $683 million at the end of 2015.
CORTLANDT, NY — Entergy has submitted a license amendment request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking the transfer of the decommissioning trust funds for the Indian Point 3 and James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plants to its control from the New York Power Authority.
Even though the plants were sold to Entergy in 2000, the Power Authority maintained ownership of the respective decommissioning trust funds for the facilities under an agreement, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.
NRC approval is needed for the change. Entergy is seeking approval by Dec. 31.
As of Dec. 31, 2015, the Indian Point 3 decommissioning trust fund contained about $683 million, which was above the NRC-required minimum (as of that point) of about $521 million, Sheehan said.
With respect to the FitzPatrick plant, Exelon has reached a tentative deal with Entergy to acquire the upstate New York facility. If that purchase goes through, Exelon would presumably take control of the FitzPatrick decommissioning trust fund.
As is the case now, the decommissioning funds will be held by the Bank of New York Mellon and cannot be accessed without NRC approval, Sheehan said.”
To view the complete article, click the link below:


It was her inner environmentalist that lured Asst. Professor Rachel Slaybaugh to Nuclear Engineering. “I have always been an environmentalist,” she explained. “When I was a freshman at Penn State I heard about this existing, large-scale, base load electricity source that didn’t emit air pollution, and I thought -- well, that sounds like a great way to get rid of coal plants -- I’m going to do that.” What Slaybaugh had heard about was nuclear power, which led to her B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from Penn State, then a Master’s and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.


Volume 40, May 2005ECORAD 2004
|Page(s)||S107 - S111|
|Published online||17 June 2005|
Bioavailability in the BORIS assessment model
Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), 171 16 Stockholm, Sweden
2 Facilia AB, Gustavslundsvägen 151A, 167 51 Bromma, Sweden
3 Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), DEI/SECRE, Bâtiment 159, C.E. Cadarache, 13108 Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France
The fifth framework EU project BORIS (Bioavailability Of Radionuclides In Soils: role of biological components and resulting improvement of prediction models) had three scientific objectives. The first was to improve understanding of the mechanisms governing the transfer of radionuclides to plants. The second was to improve existing predictive models of radionuclide interaction with soils by incorporating the knowledge acquired from the experimental results. The last and third objective was to extract from the experimental results scientific basis for the development of bioremediation methods of radionuclide contaminated soils and to apprehend the role of additional non-radioactive pollutants on radionuclide bioavailability. This paper is focused on the second objective. The purpose of the BORIS assessment model is to describe the behaviour of radionuclides in the soil-plant system with the aim of making predictions of the time dynamics of the bioavailability of radionuclides in soil and the radionuclides concentrations in plants. To be useful, the assessment model should be simple and use only a few parameters, which are commonly available or possible to measure for different sites. The model shall take into account, as much as possible, the results of the experimental studies and the mechanistic models developed in the BORIS project. The adopted approach was to introduce in the assessment model a quantitative relationship between bioavailability of the radionuclides in soil and the soil properties. To do this an operational definition of bioavailability was proposed. Here, operational means experimentally measurable, directly or indirectly, and that the bioavailability can be translated into a mathematical expression. This paper describes the reasoning behind the chosen definition of bioavailability and how it was used in the assessment model.
© EDP Sciences, 2005
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.


60.0 MB (1.2 MB compressed)
4579 x 4579 pixels
38.9 x 38.9 cm ⏐ 15.3 x 15.3 in (300dpi)
SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Actinium (Ac). Diagram of the nuclear composition and electron configuration of an atom of actinium-227 (atomic number: 89), the most stable isotope of this element. The nucleus consists of 89 protons (red) and 138 neutrons (blue). 89 electrons (green) bind to the nucleus, successively occupying available electron shells (rings). Actinium is an actinide in period 7, and the f-block of the periodic table. Actinides are soft radioactive metals. Actinium-227, isolated by Debierne from uranium ores in 1899, has a half-life of nearly 22 years. Its unstable nucleus decays by emitting a beta or alpha particle to form thorium-227 or francium-223.
Model release not required. Property release not required.


UK takes major STEP towards near limitless low-carbon energy
The UK Government has announced the creation of a new delivery body for the UK’s fusion programme, named UK Industrial Fusion Solutions Ltd.Read story
Register for newsletters and email alerts about the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s news and projects.
Fusion : the ultimate energy source
Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is turning the process that powers the Sun into carbon-free, safe and abundant electricity for a cleaner planet.Fusion in brief
A big STEP to commercial electricity
CCFE is leading the race to fusion power plants with the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production project.
Entering the delivery era
Our world-leading science and engineering aims to put fusion energy on the grid.
Developing compact reactors and exploring plasma exhaust – one of fusion’s biggest challenges.
Fusion Industry Programme
The Fusion Industry Programme (FIP) is stimulating growth of the UK fusion ecosystem and preparing it for future global fusion power plant market.
Why we need fusion
More than 80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels. Climate change and diminishing fuel reserves mean the race is on to find alternative, sustainable technologies to supply a growing global population. With no greenhouse gas emissions, inherent safety features and virtually limitless fuels, fusion could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future.
Who we are
Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is the UK’s national fusion research laboratory. From theoretical physics to operating two major experiments and carrying out advanced reactor engineering, we lead the world in putting this transformative energy technology on the grid.


Research Analyst Samuel Hickey spoke to Fox News about the current state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
“Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium is now twelve times more than what is allowed under the nuclear deal, but fortunately, the U.N.’s atomic inspectors continue to have access to Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said Samuel Hickey, a research analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, who noted that the decision ultimately rests on the top brass. “The reason we know exactly what is going on is because those inspectors are on the ground and in the room.”
So if Iran does boot out the U.N.’s atomic inspectors, he continued, the nuclear deal will effectively be dead.
“However, that is a decision that falls to the Supreme Leader, not the parliamentarians,” Hickey added. Read more