Talk:SEFOR

message: It's Strickler, not Stickler. See this USGS map:  Slicing 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Town name

message: In my opinion, the article is not correct in one important aspect: The main objective of the SEFOR project was to prove the efficiency of the DOPPLER EFFECT as an fast inherent safety maechanism.not the thermal core expansion effect. Oxide fuel was a new fuel at that time and could not rely on the thermal expansion of the fuel as the metal fuel did, which was in use at that time. The DOPPLER EFFECT was believed to replace the effect of thermal fuel expansion: The main objective of the SEFOR project was - as mentioned above - to prove and to demonstrate this effect. This goal was achieved extremely successfully.
217.233.254.209 13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked The stuart for sources on the pamphlets, but he never responded. Slicing 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, Maury.  This was clearly written by someone with a chip on their shoulder with respect to nuclear power.  There are many things hinted at that, if stated up front, would be quickly yanked as POV.  Also, the reason why the stated "significant" problems were important was not at all obvious.  :P
unknownkadath 17:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually guys, it was not my intention to write this with any bias. My main refrence came from an article in the Fayettville Free Press that alerted me to the exsitents of the plant owned by my university. The obvious liberal bias of the free press must have carried over.  However, the site is a pretty big mess that needs cleaning and no one seems to have the money or inclination to do it, that much is true. --The_stuart 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article bites 

message: * The "Atomic Pork" article
* Document from DOE archive (1MB PDF) — specifically the Introduction and Appendix A.1
I'd add the PDF to the article myself, but I'm not sure of the proper citation format to use for it. Slicing 19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another factoid on SEFOR can be found on page 12 of this PDF —Slicing (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: SEFOR should be added to the list of nuclear reactors, but I'm not sure where to place it. Any suggestions? —Slicing (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you put it in the "Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, Idaho" which is not where it is. Perhaps we should list it under "University of Arkansas"? How far from the campus is it? —Slicing (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of nuclear reactors 

message: I've had a long think about it, and an attempt at a refactor, leaving quite a lot out. What remains is entirely from the previous article and its references. Andrewa 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor

message: I'd like to reformat this entry to be more readable and allow future expansion.  This will involve breaking the entry into:
Introduction
Design and Construction
  need for full scale reactor; site selection
Operation
  findings of experiments
Decommissioning
  why the site was shut down; removal of fuel and coolant; transfer to UofA
Legacy
  SEFOR effects on later reactors; UofA plans; Harmon Road landfill?; ongoing cleanup plans
Notes 
References 
External Links 
Most of these sections will be very short and verbatim from the current entry.  Breaking up the current entry should allow for easier edits as new information is added and more appropriate placement of illustrations.  In particular the drawn out, on-again/off again cleanup plans are not being followed up on and the current format of the entry is confusing.
I have no technical interest in this subject or ability to cite sources other than those freely available online.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by I edit wikipedia (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting