Science - 2018-19
CH.2 a-c, i - Properties & Models of Atoms
The student will investigate and understand that the placement of elements on the periodic table is a function of their atomic structure. The periodic table is a tool used for the investigations of:
a) average atomic mass, mass number, and atomic number;
b) isotopes, half lives, and radioactive decay;
c) mass and charge characteristics of subatomic particles;
i) historical and quantum models.
Bloom's Levels: Analyze; Understand
- The structure of an atom determines its properties.
- Atoms are composed of smaller particles.
- All elements have isotopes.
- Some nuclei can change due to radioactive decay.
- I can explain why the masses of elements on the Periodic Table appear as decimals.
- I can calculate how long medicine will stay in my body.
- I can explain how chemical bonding occurs.
- I can communicate how the model of the atom has changed over time.
UNDERSTANDING THE STANDARD
- The periodic table is arranged in order of increasing atomic numbers.
- The atomic number of an element is the same as the number of protons. In a neutral atom, the number of electrons is the same as the number of protons. All atoms of an element have the same number of protons.
- The average atomic mass for each element is the weighted average of that element's naturally occurring isotopes.
- The mass number of an element is the sum of the number of protons and neutrons. It is different from each element's isotopes.
- An isotope is an atom that has the same number of protons as another atom of the same element but has a different number of neutrons. Some isotopes are radioactive; many are not.
- Half-life is the length of time required for half of a given sample of radioactive isotope to decay.
- Electrons have little mass and a negative (-) charge. they are located in electron clouds or probability clouds outside the nucleus.
- Protons have a positive (+) charge. Neutrons have no charge. Protons and neutrons are located in the nucleus of the atom and comprise most of its mass. Quarks are also located in the nucleus of the atom.
- Discoveries and insights related to the atom's structure have changed the model of the atom over time. Historical models have included solid sphere, plum pudding, nuclear, and planetary models. The modern atomic theory is called the quantum mechanical model.
In order to meet this standard, it is expected that students will
a) determine the atomic number, atomic mass, the number of protons, and the number of electrons of any atom of a particular element using a periodic table.
determine the number of neutrons in an isotope given its mass number.
b) perform calculations to determine the “weighted” average atomic mass.
perform calculations involving the half-life of a radioactive substance.
differentiate between alpha, beta, and gamma radiation with respect to penetrating power, shielding, and composition.
c) differentiate between the major atom components (proton, neutron and electron) in terms of location, size, and charge.
identify key contributions of
principal scientists including:
- atomos, initial idea of atom – Democritus
- first atomic theory of matter,
solid sphere model – John Dalton
- discovery of the electron using the
cathode ray tube experiment, plum pudding model – J. J. Thomson
- discovery of the nucleus using the
gold foil experiment, nuclear model – Ernest Rutherford
- discovery of charge of electron
using the oil drop experiment – Robert Millikan
- energy levels, planetary model –
- periodic table arranged by atomic
mass – Dmitri Mendeleev
- periodic table arranged by atomic
number – Henry Moseley
- quantum nature of energy – Max
- uncertainty principle, quantum
mechanical model – Werner Heisenberg
- wave theory, quantum mechanical
model – Louis de Broglie.
- differentiate between the
historical and quantum models of the atom.
atom, atomic mass, atomic mass unit, atomic number, cathode ray, Dalton's atomic theory, electron, half-life, isotope, mass number, neutron, nucleus, proton


As we face the twin perils of an energy crisis arising from the ever increasing cost of oil extraction and the serious threat of climate change, nuclear power has again come back onto the agenda.
When the Nuclear Age first came into being in the 1950s, it seemed as though it was going to provide a clean power source that would soon be completely ubiquitous. As the sound-bite went, it would make electricity so cheap there would be no point in metering it. People dreamed up plans of nuclear powered neighbourhoods and even nuclear powered cars. The potential seemed limitless.
Nuclear power advanced much more slowly than was anticipated. Partially this was because oil still provided a cheap and abundant fuel source that didn’t require the large and expensive installations necessary to run a light-water reactor (the type most people immediately imagine in their heads). However, there was also a real popular movement in opposition to nuclear power even before the 1960s. The first such movement in the US occurred between 1958-1964 at Bodega Bay where the first commercially viable nuclear power plant was to be built. Eventually Pacific Gas & Electric had to abandon their attempt. Indeed these grass-roots movements continued through the 60s and 70s in the United States and may have had some hand in reducing the application of nuclear power.
In France on the other hand, things were different. The French embarked on an extensive nuclear power program in 1974, following the first oil shock. By 1985 the majority of their electricity energy production was from nuclear sources. The French standardised their nuclear plant design fairly early on, going for a pressurised water reactor and deploying it nationally. This is sometimes cited as the reason for the relatively low cost of its electricity generation and lack of safety problems. By contrast, reactors in the US are like snowflakes. Every one is unique, itself an experiment in diversity.
In some ways the popular opposition of the anti-nuclear movement was prophetic. It occurred long before any serious accidents. It wasn’t until the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 that any real large scale difficulties were encountered. And it wasn’t until Chernobyl in 1986 that nuclear energy suffered a true disaster.
After Chernobyl, nuclear power was forced to the very bottom of discussions on power generation, and not without reason. The size of the catastrophe was impressive. The west first became aware of the disaster when radiation alarms went off at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, which is several hundred miles from Chernobyl. Though 56 direct deaths are attributed, as many as 4000 people may have died due to increased cancer risk from radiation.
After this, nuclear power had to take a back seat. No politician with any sense would touch it. People were frightened of its destructive potential and certainly were not keen on having one in their neighbourhood. The marginal cost difference with oil was too narrow to make it worth the while of big business to pursue a lobbying strategy on its behalf. Its defence has since then largely been up to those companies already operating and a few nuclear scientists and enthusiasts.
Nuclear catastrophes aren’t the only worrying thing about nuclear power, however. Nuclear waste is another key issue in the debate. The waste products of light water nuclear reactors have half-lives that ensure that they are still radioactive after thousands of years. This means that disposal projects have to be commensurately long. Expecting to house nuclear products with integrity over a scale so large that language itself will drift to being unrecognisable raises serious concerns. Reading a maintenance manual two thousand years down the line will be akin to reading Aramaic text. Only a handful of institutions, such as the Catholic Church, have existed for time periods on this scale. Perhaps we would need a church of true nuclear disposal believers, with an army of monks taught the intricacies of the ancient texts. This is not to mention all the intervening opportunities for earth quake, material faults, seepage etc.
However, the objections to nuclear power are in some ways self fulfilling. As it turns out, long lived nuclear waste is not an inevitable consequence of nuclear reactions. It is merely the outcome of one particular type of nuclear reactor. These reactors, sometimes called once through reactors take mined uranium and increase the ratio of the fissionable isotope U235 in an enriching process. The fuel is then allowed to undergo fission resulting in a veritable cornucopia of elemental products including everything from Zirconium to Neodymium. Among these are the particularly nasty isotopes, Strontium 90, Cesium 137 and many others.
Strontium 90 and Caesium 137 have relatively short half lives of around 30 years. While these are potent radioactive sources, they decay relatively rapidly until they are no longer radioactive. The most problematic products are those with life-spans of between 10² an 2×10⁵ years. These products are in a class of being just radioactive enough to present a serious threat to human health, but not so radioactive that they decay to nothingness quickly.
As early as the 1940s it was realised that a particular class of reactors, known as breeder reactors could have a novel way around the problem. Nuclear reactions can provide a source of the radiation needed to convert elements. This means that if a reaction is tuned appropriately we can control the type of products made. If the products are themselves fuel then we are breeding. Of course the process isn’t infinite, our fuel products are still the result of moving down a chain towards Iron. It can, however, result in substantial increases in fuel economy, improving it by as much as 10 or even 100 times.
A light water reactor does in fact breed fuel itself, however the breeding ratio is low. A breeder is often defined as a reactor which aims to produce more new fuel than it consumes of the original fuel source. This is generally achieved by covering the core with a breeder blanket, a covering of material from which we are to breed fuel.
The output products of breeder reactors can be restricted to those which are very short lived, such as Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, and those which are tremendously long lived and so do not constitute a serious threat to human health if diluted. While it would be necessary to store Caesium 137 and Strontium 90 for sustained periods, it turns out that they are also useful as fuel sources for nuclear batteries. They can themselves be used to generate electricity and are the power source for most of our inter-planetary missions.
Not only are breeder reactors more efficient in their fuel economy and more tunable in their waste products, they are also able to use different sources which might not otherwise have been fuel. While once through reactors require that uranium be enriched, no such requirement exists for a breeder reactor. It can simply be added to the breeder blanket and the appropriate fissionable products can be produced from uranium 238 directly. In addition, Thorium becomes a viable fuel if we use breeder reactors. This increases the distribution and quantity of fissionable fuel tremendously.
The use of breeders can also be brought to bear on the question of the proliferation of fissionable products. Since the fuel is reduced to effectively useless products the only remaining danger is dirty bombs using Strontium 90 and Caesium 137. Since the quantity of these products is relatively low, it may be feasible to keep them on site for use in nuclear batteries for additional power until they are effectively inert.
If that weren’t enough already, breeders can also be designed to consume our present nuclear waste. The nuclear products should be consumed until they fit into one of the two classes of either very high half life products or those that are very low. Even if breeder reactors are not explored for the purpose of power generation, their ability to burn waste should be seriously considered as an answer to our four decades of nuclear waste accumulation, the storage of which seems to be infeasible in the long term.
Breeder reactors come in many types and designs. They range from the lead cooled fast breeder reactors that the Soviets used for their submarines to the newly designed salt-cooled thermal breeder reactor programme which India has started in order to make use of its abundant Thorium reserves.
Breeders can also be manufactured to fit very small and local designs. They need not be produced on the massive scales that generally come to mind when we think of nuclear plants. The nuclear submarine designs of the Soviets are currently being modified by the Russian state energy company Rosatom to produce modular nuclear reactors. These can be used to produce heat as well as power, which allows combined heat and power systems which can provide neighborhoods with essentially free heating using the waste heat from electricity generation.
The space of design possibilities is indeed quite large. As we know from the automobile and software industry, new designs are always problematic. It’s best to get the third year of a car model or a late minor version of a software product rather than the cutting edge. Designs have to be honed over time. Any practical nuclear programme should be restricted to only a few designs which should be deployed on a wide scale such that economies of safety and scale can be taken into account.
However, the question still remains: is nuclear power safe to use, or will we be contributing to a serious health hazard by taking it up? While the severity of the Chernobyl disaster cannot be denied, the numbers tell a quite different story than one might expect.
The most usual way to compare the safety of various energy sources is to compare the number of deaths per terrawatt year – essentially how many people are likely to die for the production of a terrawatt year. To get perspective on the size we are talking about, currently the world uses energy at a rate of about 15 terrawatts.
It has been estimated that Hydro power causes 883 deaths per terrawatt year, Coal causes 342 deaths, however Nuclear causes only 8 deaths per terrawatt year and only if you count Chernobyl. If you restrict to the French nuclear programme, this number is closer to zero.
This leads one to wonder not so much about the safety of nuclear power, but the safety of everything else. Clean power sources such as hydro really take their toll in human life. In fact, some of the largest human catastrophes in history are due to dam failure. Coal of course has the added deficit of contributing to a potential global climate catastrophe aside from all the dangers associated with its production.
However, even assuming that nuclear power is safe, is it really worth the effort when we’ll merely be shifting from one finite resource such as oil to another finite resource such as uranium? Is it simply kicking the can down the road and will it be a problem that we have to deal with in 100 years all over again?
Bernard Cohen did an investigation of nuclear power as a sustainable energy source and published his results in the American Journal of Physics. In it, he concluded that, assuming the use of breeder reactors, there were sufficient fissionable products in the ocean which can be reclaimed in an (energetically) economical fashion that they will last more than a billion years. While this is not technically sustainable or renewable, it’s on the order of the lifetime of the sun, so can be considered sustainable for all practical purposes. Beyond that we will have to be worried about the colonisation of new star systems rather than what power sources to use on earth.
From a purely technical perspective it does in fact seem that nuclear power can be used as a safe and sustainable energy source. However, all of this ignores the political and social problems of the research and development, the creation and the maintenance of nuclear power. In the past we’ve seen that the governments and corporations who run nuclear (as well as hydro and others) have not been transparent about plant management and have endangered human lives in pursuit of profit goals or for reasons of political expediency. No technical fix is possible for these problems.
Indeed, our environmental problems are not so much about lack of technical choices as lack of political will and the ever present drive of energy companies to maximise their profits regardless of impact. Unless these social questions can be solved, the question of nuclear power will largely remain theoretical.


WHAT WE DO
The mission of the Nuclear Enterprise Directorate is to provide capabilities that enable DoD Warfighters, interagency stakeholders, allies and partners to ensure a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent.
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE CAPABILITIES
The Nuclear Enterprise directorate conducts assessments to provide mission impact context to identified vulnerabilities for commanders at all levels - local, national, and strategic. NE assesses risk to DoD missions and provides remediation and mitigation. We conduct cyber vulnerability assessments with a unique suite of tools.
PROVIDE ACCOUNTABILITY AND LOGISTICS
Our accountability and logistics are critical to guaranteeing the viability of the nation’s stockpile. We write, review, and validate all technical procedures used by DoD agencies in maintaining the nuclear stockpile. We verify and validate all actions related to nuclear weapons.
EDUCATE AND TRAIN
NE supplies vital education and training to more than 30,000 nuclear personnel annually. We provide operators with education on nuclear and radiological weapons, as well as a full range of training in classroom, field, and tabletop exercises.
ENSURE NUCLEAR SURETY
NE enables the safety and security of the Nation’s nuclear forces through planing and execution of Nuclear Weapons Accident and Incident Exercises for the DoD and Interagency. We leverage interagency strengths to test and train whole-of-government response capabilities.
OVERSEE NUCLEAR INSPECTIONS
NE conducts independent nuclear surety inspection oversight, as well as training and development for Air Force and Navy Nuclear inspectors. We also host annual symposia to examine inspection trends and issues across the services.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WEAPONS SCHOOL (DNWS)
The mission of the Nuclear Enterprise Directorate is to provide capablilities that enable DoD Warfighters, interagency stakeholders, allies and partners to ensure a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent.
THE DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER (DTRIAC)
DTRIAC is the key Department of Defense source of information and analysis on nuclear and conventional weapons-related topics. Sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DTRIAC has major reference collections of documents, photographic data, and films and can search, retrieve and perform analyses on DTRA-internal and community-wide nuclear/conventional weapons phenomena, effects and technology matters and related nuclear/conventional technology transfer applications.


There is hardly a piece of hardware more iconic of the Cold War than the nuclear-powered submarine. Both nuclear-powered, and, in some cases, nuclear missile-equipped, these submarines have circled the world's oceans since the launch of the first nuclear submarine, the USS Nautilus, in 1954. Today, five nations (United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and China) operate hundreds of nuclear submarines around the world. For all these countries, missile-launching submarines form an important part of the nuclear triad, which includes land-based missiles, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).
A nuclear submarine has a huge advantage over what it replaced -- the diesel-powered submarines. Large, military diesel-powered submarines, which had been built since the Revolutionary War, required air for combustion to generate electricity for batteries. Diving times were limited to a few days at slow speed, or just a few hours at top speed. The need to resurface put submarines are great risk of attack. In contrast, nuclear-powered submarines are self-powered, and their dive times are generally only limited by the available food supply and the sanity of the crew. A modern nuclear submarine can operate for their entire 20 or 40-year lifetimes without refueling.
Nuclear submarines tend to be extremely expensive, as costly as the most expensive and sophisticated aerial bombers. The Virginia class submarine, a series currently being constructed for the United States Navy, costs about $1.8 billion USD (US Dollars) per unit, in part due to a lack of economies of scale and high requirements for safety and reliability. The hull of submarines must be crafted in a very precise manner for the submarine to be able to sustain the greatest possible hull pressures during deep dives. Modern nuclear submarines have a test depth (maximum depth allowed during peacetime operations) of about 1,600 feet (488 m), at which point the pressure is about 48 times as great as at the surface.
The nuclear submarines, operated only by the world's nuclear powers, are generally split into two classes: the attack nuclear submarine and ballistic missile nuclear submarine. Attack submarines, such as the Seawolf, Los Angeles, and Virginia class, are armed with dozens of torpedoes and cruise missiles, which can strike targets hundreds of miles away. Ballistic missile submarines, such as the Ohio class, each carry 24 nuclear-tipped Trident ballistic missiles.


REGIONAL – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) slapped the wrist of Seabrook Station Thursday for not projecting the likely deterioration of its structural concrete caused by alkali-silica reaction (ASR).
In a 20-page quarterly inspection report, the NRC issued a Green finding, its lowest level of citation, to NextEra. It found that the staff of the New Hampshire nuclear plant “did not adequately account for the future progression of ASR in their prompt operability determination for several Seabrook structures.
“Specifically, NextEra staff did not trend and project the periodic threshold monitoring data for the affected structural elements to ensure the structures would remain capable of performing their safety functions to the next scheduled inspection.”
Starting last fall, the NRC conducts inspections at Seabrook Station every six months.
During their walk-through of the plant, the inspectors also found that three structures – the emergency feedwater pumphouse, service water cooling tower and control and diesel generator building – had widening cracks that exceeded the design limits. The mechanical penetration area also has cracks that are approaching the limits.
Once a threshold limit is exceeded, more frequent inspections are required and may result in corrective action such as a structural modification to alleviate the condition, the report stated.
The 30-year-old atomic reactor has concrete infected by ASR, an irreversible type of concrete degradation, caused by water reacting with the concrete. It has been called “concrete cancer.”
The inspectors were also concerned with the degradation of the steel rebar in the concrete structures.
The NRC report from the inspection conducted in June was released two days after NRC Commissioner Jeff Baran visited the plant for the first time to learn about Seabrook’s degrading concrete.
C-10 Research and Education Foundation, a watchdog organization in Amesbury that monitors the safety of the plant, said it is pleased that “The NRC’s resident inspectors are doing their job and holding the licensee accountable to the safety provisions in its operating license.”
Natalie Hildt Treat, C-10 executive director, said, “While it is disappointing that NextEra has been cited for not properly analyzing the data to project whether the plant’s concrete structures will be able to perform the required safety functions, C-10 is heartened by the level of detail in this NRC report.
“The public should feel more confident knowing that Seabrook’s ASR problem is getting tough scrutiny by the NRC’s inspectors.”
Treat met with Baran and his staff by video on August 3 to ask that the NRC require more oversight and greater transparency into Seabrook’s concrete monitoring. She told the commissioner that the inspection reports were getting thin and had little useful information.
C-10 gave Baran a lengthy list of questions to ask NextEra during his visit. The NRC staff is expected to answer the questions in the next few months.
“These license conditions would not exist were it not for C-10’s tenacity in pursuing stronger oversight of Seabrook’s degrading concrete since it was first discovered in 2009,” Treat said.
In late 2020, the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a ruling in a legal challenge brought by C-10 relative to Seabrook’s ASR testing and monitoring program. While the Board ultimately approved the plant’s concrete management program, it did so with four new license conditions that direct NextEra Seabrook to conduct much more frequent and stringent monitoring and engineering evaluations in a number of situations. They were:
- NextEra must increase the frequency of monitoring from 10 years to six months.
- NextEra must develop a monitoring program to anticipate or monitor rebar failures.
- If the cracks in the concrete get worse, NextEra must monitor the concrete more often.
- Each concrete core extracted from Seabrook must undergo a detailed microscopic petrographic evaluation to detect microcracks.
“It’s frightening to think that were it not for C-10’s challenge, the inspection interval referenced in this report may have been as long as a decade,” Treat said. “Now NextEra has to perform them every six months. But collecting data without using it to model future trends in concrete degradation is of little use.”
Photo taken from C-10


In anticipation of a Biden administration, things are once again heating up in Iran and Iraq. Since I wouldn’t want to be accused of spreading unfounded stories, even conspiracy theories, I’ll just quote other news sources this morning.
The US and Iran charged each other with ratcheting up tensions in the Persian Gulf as concerns about potential conflict build days before Iran marks one year since the US assassinated its most powerful military figure and less than three weeks before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.
Iran appealed to the UN Security Council on Thursday to stop the US from conducting what it called heightened “military adventurism” in the Gulf and the Oman Sea, including dispatching nuclear-capable bombers to the region, declaring that it did not want conflict but would defend itself if necessary.
Meanwhile, a US official with direct knowledge of the latest intelligence told CNN Friday that some Iranian maritime forces in the Gulf ramped up their readiness levels in the last 48 hours. Earlier this week, defense officials told CNN new intelligence showed Iran has been moving short range ballistic missiles into Iraq.
Iran on Saturday announced that it intends to enrich its uranium to up to 20 percent at its Fordow facility amid heightening tensions with the U.S. in the waning days of the Trump administration.
Iranian state television confirmed that Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) informing it of Tehran’s decision to enrich its uranium just a short step away from weapons-grade levels.
The IAEA also confirmed to The Hill that it had received the letter and maintained that it would keep a close eye on any developments at the underground Fordow facility.


Canada starts construction of first small modular reactor nuclear power project
Pinwan, October 26, according to Xinhua News Agency, the Canadian Infrastructure Bank said on the 25th that the bank has signed an agreement with Ontario Power Company to start the construction of Canada's first small modular reactor nuclear power project. The bank will invest C$970 million ($710 million) in project design and site preparation for the 300-megawatt small modular reactor. The project is located next to Ontario Power's existing 3,500-megawatt Darlington nuclear power plant, which is expected to generate electricity by 2030. When completed, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 740,000 tons per year.


At a time when the world is searching for cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, much effort has been invested in alternative forms such as wind turbines and solar cells. However, as is well understood, harvesting these forms of energy does not provide a continuously reliable source of energy – the wind does not always blow, and the Sun does not always shine! Are there other abundant sources of clean energy found in nature that could be utilised for practical application? The answer to this question is yes – and this is where the story of nuclear fusion comes in.
Nuclear fusion is the process whereby two atomic nuclei can be fused together – overcoming the strong electrostatic repulsive forces (Coulomb barrier) between them – to produce a heavier atomic element and in the process release large amounts of energy. For instance, two deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) nuclei can fuse together to form tritium (another isotope of hydrogen), a proton and release energy. Such reactions occur in the Sun. Very high temperatures are normally required for this type of reaction to occur – the Sun at its core has a temperature of around 15 million degrees Celsius. Much research has been performed over the last 60 years to reproduce the conditions in the Sun and trigger fusion reactions. Consider, for example, the Joint European Torus (JET) project based at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Oxfordshire, UK. Although fusion reactions have been achieved, the break-even point of releasing as much fusion energy as the input energy necessary to instigate such reactions has not yet been established. Conventional fusion research is expensive – to date, around $50 billion has been spent on fusion reseach worldwide.
Since the fuel for fusion (deuterium) is commonly found in water, an abundant (and continually available) source of power is waiting to be exploited once the practical problems of fusion technology can be resolved. The yield of energy would be huge – a kilogram of deuterium would deliver around a million times more energy than that harvested from a kilogram of coal or oil. In addition, there would be no harmful radiation products.
Against this backdrop, an announcement made by University of Utah electrochemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann almost thirty years ago , on 23 March 1989, shocked the scientific world – the nuclear fusion processes that occur at the temperature of the Sun could be replicated at room temperature. Their apparatus was a relatively simple electrolytic cell comprising a heavy water electrolyte (the source of deuterons) and a palladium cathode. They found that excessive heat was produced, which could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions, and there was evidence of neutrons emitted – suggesting nuclear fusion. The finding was dubbed ‘cold fusion’.
Not surprisingly, the scientific establishment (especially physicists) were highly sceptical of the findings. Immediately, experiments were performed by laboratories around the world in order to reproduce the results. The results were mainly negative or inconclusive. Part of the problem was that many of the details of the original experimental setup and procedures were not disclosed by Pons and Fleischmann – probably as a result of a desire on the part of the University of Utah to file for patent rights. Hence, it was difficult to reproduce the conditions. For instance, it is now known that a certain threshold for the so-called loading effect (establishing the correct ratio of deuterium-palladium mix in the host metallic lattice) must be reached before any nuclear effect can be initiated. Overnight, ‘cold fusion’ became an object of derision. Universities discouraged any further reasearch into the pheneomenon, and academic journals would not publish any work on the subject. As a result, further research went largely underground, performed by a mix of enthusiasts and academics (consisting of many retired professors) in simple makeshift laboratories housed in home basements and garages around the world.
Fast forward to the present day, and the evidence from a great deal of research from the underground community is that reactions with nuclear signatures do indeed occur in electrolysis machines at room temperature. However, the effect is difficult to reproduce; some, as yet unidentified, conditions must be met in terms of the lattice properties and structure of the host cathode material (e.g. palladium). There are many scientific sources of information documenting these findings such as Cold Fusion Now.
Some conventional nuclear reactions involving D-D (deuteron-deuteron) interactions are described below:
D + D -> He4 + γ + 23.9MeV (<0.01)
D + D -> T + p + 4.03MeV (0.5)
D + D -> He3 + n + 3.27MeV (0.5)
The possible nuclear particle products are helium (He4), tritium (T), protons (p), neutrons (n) and helium-3 (He3). Energy releases are defined in mega electron-volts (MeV), and the probability of the reaction shown in parentheses – for instance, the probability of the second reaction is 50%.
These nuclear products, together with excess energy release, have been detected in ‘cold fusion’ experiments suggesting that nuclear reactions are indeed occurring. However, the amounts of nuclear particles emitted are not in line with that expected with ‘hot’ fusion. For instance, the major observation appears to be the least probable one for conventional fusion – i.e. the D-D reaction that creates helium4 and a gamma ray of 23.8MeV. Instead of a gamma ray emission, the energy associated with the ‘hot’ fusion gamma ray appears to be released as extra phonon energy within the lattice. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain how the fusion process might occur at room temperature, some invoking novel lattice conditions that allow for the drastic reduction of the Coulomb barrier in order that fusion occur. Other theories suggest the creation of neutrons from electron-proton interactions which are subsequently absorbed into nuclei (without the need to overcome Coulombic repulsion) to produce the chain of observed nuclear products. There is a growing consensus that the existence of special environments within the lattice act as triggers – for instance, closed cracks, voids or other deformations. A good summary of evidence and theoretical models may be found here.
As alluded to earlier, it is difficult to replicate results. For instance, with palladium as the cathode material, lattice deuterium build up can be susceptible to the formation of cracks on initial exposure to deuterium. These then act as pathways for it to escape if they end at the lattice surface, and the necessary build up of deuterons within the host lattice does not occur. This would hint that perhaps the crystalline structure, defects and composition of impurities within the lattice play a crucial role.
However, it is clear that the last thirty years has yielded much valuable work on ‘cold fusion’ – or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), as it is now commonly referred to. In fact, due to the consistency of positive results many governmental institutions, such as NASA, have been quietly working on their own research programs in recent times. In the private sector companies such as Brilluoin Energy in California are now taking the technology seriously, with a view to taking a practical solution to market.
Mastering ‘cold fusion’ has not been easy – the conditions under which it occurs are subtle. One lesson to be learned is that the disciplines of condensed matter and nuclear physics need to work more closely together – perhaps establishing a new sub discipline entitled Solid State Nuclear Reactions. More progress could have been made if the science community had not been so dismissive of the subject in the early days. In his book The Science Delusion, biologist Rupert Sheldrake describes how contemporary science easily dismisses ideas that do not fit in with current paradigms – thus stifling scientific and technological progress. In view of recent developments, it would make sense for the scientific community to promote LENR by way of more money for research. Then, ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ fusion research could be carried out on a more equitable basis. If the latter proves to become more viable and cheaper, we could then wind down the effort on the former. We could then embark on a road that encourages the technological development of a relatively inexpensive, safe and user-friendly source of energy.


Threat convergence briefing the pros and cons of nuclear power march 2011 related analysis. Sample essay on advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy generation of electricity through nuclear energy has gone a long way to help prevent or at the very least mitigate global warming. This sample argumentative essay explores nuclear power production, how it is increasingly growing in number, and issues with safety and health advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. This content was stolen from brainmasscom - view the original, and get the solution, here 1 what are the advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power.
Earlier in the discussion about advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy we saw how nuclear energy is beneficial, if used in the right manner and its scope utilised to the fullest however, there is a great deal of radiation danger associated with nuclear energy. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power as you will realize later an analysis of european parliament an analysis of the themes in lorraine hansberrys a raisin in the sun in this hydraulic power pack ebook, the classification may depend on the. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power nuclear energy represents only 15% of the electricity produced worldwide though in france, 80% of its electricity production is from nuclear although nuclear is unrenewable because it uses uranium for fission reactions, it is very sustainable.
Advantages of wind power wind power is cost-effective land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing between two and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on the wind resource and the particular project's financing. Safety inspection at nuclear power plants (npps) including fire protection measures and fire fighting capability , fire protection system organization, management and procedural control , and evaluation of fire hazard analysis [4. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of renewable energy which must be considered a nuclear power plant of average size generates about 1,000. The boiling water reactor (bwr) is a type of light water nuclear reactor used for the generation of electrical power it is the second most common type of electricity-generating nuclear reactor after the pressurized water reactor (pwr) , also a type of light water nuclear reactor. The advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power advantages in using nuclear power include: the provision of a secure energy supply capability for countries that.
The emissions of greenhouse gas are the most important advantage of nuclear power on the other hand, a nuclear accident can blast all the advantageous effect of nuclear power in a seconds. What is solar power - uses, advantages & disadvantages risks of nuclear power plants and radioactive waste: what are fossil fuels - definition, advantages & disadvantages related study. Iaea international atomic energy agency nuclear power: benefits and risks h-holger rogner head, planning & economic studies section (pess) department of nuclear energy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of electricity a: advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy advantages and disadvantages of solar power.
However, it is convenient to know the advantages and disadvantages of solar energy to reinforce or contrast our opinion when we talk about energy sources, most people are positioned in favor or against a certain type (solar energy, nuclear energy , wind power , etc. The high density of nuclear power, ie, the amount of volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power essay netzsch lfa analysis essay importance of education in life essay in gujarati company law essay on directors.
Check out our top free essays on nuclear power advantages and disadvantages to help nuclear power symposium report detailed analysis of the swedish power. Nuclear energy essay examples the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power use and production an analysis of the nuclear energy as one of the most. The advantages and disadvantages of living in a big city essay (writing a film analysis essay first dance recital essay writing nuclear power research paper.
Advantages of coal as power plant fuel it is best to learn about the advantages- and disadvantages- of coal fired plants some of its advantages include reliability, affordability, abundance. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power - in this section we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of not many countries have uranium mines and not all the countries have details get price. There are some advantages and disadvantages of thermal power plant: what are advantages of nuclear power plants over thermal or hydroelectric power plants. Start studying advantages and disadvantages of descriptive statistics learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
As of today, nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants nuclear fission is the process that is used in nuclear. Nuclear power cost estimation and analysis methodologies epe is a governmental agency supporting the ministry of mines and energy in its policy decisions, via planning studies for the energy sector created by law in 2004. The what-if analysis is a powerful prha method if the analysis team is experienced and well organized otherwise, because it is a relatively unstructured approach, the results are likely to. Below you will find a nuclear energy pros and cons list, which covers the most important aspects of typical nuclear power plants advantages and disadvantages.


Dr. Noaline Sinha
Hospital - Artemis Hospital, Gurugram Haryana
Dr. Noaline has extensive experience in all aspects of Nuclear Medicine, both diagnostic and therapeutic. She brings with her several years’ experience of reporting whole body PET-CT studies, cardiac PET studies, Myocardial perfusion studies as well as innumerable other nuclear medicine procedures, including intraoperative use of hand held gamma probe. She has special interest in the treatment of patients of carcinoma thyroid with high dose I-131 therapy. In her previous employment, she played a major role in guiding the Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET CT through the NABH programme (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers) through successive years, creating all workflow processes and documentation related to the same.


All atoms of a given element contain the same number of protons. Atoms of an element with different numbers of neutrons are called isotopes. The half-life is the time it takes for half of a given amount of an isotope to decay.
Only a tiny percentage of carbon atoms are carbon-14. Figure below shows carbon dioxide, which forms in the atmosphere from carbon-14 and oxygen.
For instance, if an object has 50 percent of its decay product, it has been through one half-life.
A popular way to determine the ages of biological substances no more than 50,000 years old is to measure the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14.
Imagine that you start out with 100 grams of carbon-14. Figure below graphs the rate of decay of carbon-14.Radioactive dating uses the decay rates of radioactive substances to measure absolute ages of rocks, minerals and carbon-based substances, according to How Stuff Works.Scientists know how quickly radioactive isotopes decay into other elements over thousands, millions and even billions of years.We can estimate the amount of carbon-14 that has decayed by measuring the amount of carbon-14 to carbon-12. With this information, we can tell how long ago the organism died. It decays quickly compared to some other unstable isotopes.
So carbon-14 dating is useful for specimens younger than 50,000 years old. But radiocarbon dating is very useful for more recent events.
Radiocarbon dating was invented in the 1940s by Willard F. Radioactive dating is used in research fields, such as anthropology, palaeontology, geology and archeology.


WARSAW – It is a nightmare scenario: clouds of radioactive contamination spreading high into the atmosphere and sweeping hundreds of miles across Europe after munitions strike a nuclear reactor in Ukraine. As the world scrambles to respond to the environmental crisis, accusations of deliberate sabotage fly back and forth, setting the stage for a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
While it would be comforting to imagine this scenario as far-fetched – a bit of hyperbolic hysteria – so long as fighting continues around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant in southeastern Ukraine there is ample cause for concern that a miscalculation or deliberate action by Russian or Ukrainian military forces could result in a disaster with global impact and environmental damage that could last centuries.
And even as officials in Moscow and Kyiv trade accusations about who is responsible for multiple instances of shelling in and around the sprawling complex – the largest nuclear power plant in Europe – global leaders are issuing increasingly dire warnings about impending nuclear catastrophe, while hawks in Russia and in NATO members say such an event could lead to a wider war.
“ANY deliberate damage causing potential radiation leak to a Ukrainian nuclear reactor would be a breach of NATO’s Article 5,” wrote one British lawmaker, referring to the “collective self-defense” clause that permits the alliance’s members to employ military force to defend each other.
As an emergency session of the UN Security Council gets underway Tuesday afternoon in New York to discuss the power plant, both Ukraine and Russia continue to say they want to end the crisis – but each claims that the other is preparing to carry out a “false flag” attack and create a nuclear incident. Meanwhile, strikes continue – and while conducting artillery duels near a nuclear power plant may seem like sheer madness, the simple fact is that controlling the facility and the electricity it generates is a key strategic objective for both parties. Neither side can afford to give up the plant, which despite Russian occupation, continues powering Ukrainian homes.
Unfortunately, it is also true that any explosion in a sensitive area of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant – located on the banks of the Dnipro River about 100 miles north of Russian-annexed Crimea – could spread radioactive contaminants across large portions of Europe.
“It is not an exaggeration to state that a stray missile or prolonged artillery strike to either the operational units at the power plant, the spent-fuel cooling ponds or spent-fuel storage facilities could be catastrophic,” says Dr. Lewis Blackburn, a researcher with expertise in nuclear materials and waste management at the Immobilization Science Laboratory, a nuclear engineering initiative at the University of Sheffield.
The power plant’s spent fuel rods contain “high-activity” radioactive isotopes that are generated from nuclear fission, Blackburn tells me. These “isotopes have extremely long half-lifes and could easily be dispersed into the wider environment, should an appropriate vector, i.e. a missile, cause the spent fuel to be compromised, i.e. blown up.”
“There is therefore a risk of significant contamination of vast land areas and risk to the wider environment in the event of an attack on these facilities. Whilst a single explosion may not cause significant damage, a targeted and sustained attack on this infrastructure could be disastrous.”
The spread of ionized radioactive particles is determined by environmental factors such as prevailing winds and moisture in the atmosphere. Ukrainian researchers created a simulation of how the radioactive particles would spread, showing them sweeping into Ukraine’s neighbors, including Poland and the Baltic States, in less than 24 hours.
Such an event would be among the worst nuclear disasters in history, affecting the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of people in multiple countries: a second Chernobyl or Fukushima, complicated by the fact that a response to mitigate the disaster would take place in an active war zone.
This is why Ukrainian officials and international watchdog agencies have been urging immediate intervention, while Ukraine’s allies have also joined the call for a demilitarized zone around the power plant.
Over the weekend, officials from the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency were in Ukraine as part of concerted multinational diplomacy to access the site. But they have made little progress: with the Russian military in de facto control of the power plant, Moscow must agree to any visit by international inspectors. It hasn’t yet.
“An IAEA visit has been in the works since June and would have already taken place if it were not for the U.N. chief’s interference,” Ivan Nechayev, a spokesman for Russia’s foreign ministry, said at a news briefing in Moscow.
When asked about the current status of a planned mission to the plant, a spokesperson for the IAEA could offer little new information: “The IAEA is in active consultations with all parties regarding its efforts to send an agency mission under the leadership of Director General [Rafael Mariano] Grossi to the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant as soon as possible.”
Over the past several weeks, Russia and Ukraine have been trading blame about an impending “provocation” or “terrorist action.” Ukrainian state-owned nuclear power provider Enerhoatom – which runs the power plant, and whose 11,000 employees continue to operate it under the eyes and guns of the Russian occupiers – warned via its official Telegram channel that “a Russian propaganda crew” had arrived at the facility and was filming Russian security services firing on the plant, in order to later blame an attack on Ukraine.
It provided no evidence, and this statement could not be independently verified.
Meanwhile Russia denies it is doing anything that would compromise the security of the facility. “We want to make it clear that Russian troops have no heavy weapons deployed either at the power plant or in areas adjacent to it,” Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian defense ministry spokesman, said last week. “The Russian armed forces are taking all the necessary measures to guarantee the security of the Zaporizhzhya NPP.”
Yet strikes near the power plant and its adjacent facilities continue, with one technician from the plant being killed in a mortar strike on a taxi on Monday, according to the mayor of Enerhodar, the city that surrounds the power plant.
These strikes may be part of ruthless – and increasingly desperate – calculations of economic warfare, which continue to drive a strategy of brinksmanship near the power plant.
A fully functional, safe nuclear power plant is obviously more useful than a damaged one leaking radioactive contaminants. It stands to reason that both Russia and Ukraine would not only prefer to own an intact facility, they would also like to control the electricity that it generates.
As of now, that is not the case. Russia physically controls the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, while Ukraine is still getting the bulk of the energy the facility generates – which is about 20 percent of the country’s entire electrical supply.
The last time the Zaporizhzhya facility was taken offline – in 2014, shortly after Russia invaded Crimea – it caused rolling blackouts across Ukraine. The loss of this energy capacity would have a major ripple effect for Ukraine’s economy, which is already reeling from damaged and destroyed infrastructure, blockaded or occupied ports on the Black Sea, and lost resources such as farmland and metals processing plants.
The Ukrainian government is now dependent on international donors to conduct basic operations, such as pensions payments and healthcare services: the World Bank earlier this month offered $4.5 billion in additional economic assistance for Ukraine to meet “urgent needs created by the war.”
So the diplomatic efforts and blame-game about “shelling” and “provocation” serve to veil the more practical consideration about who can control the power plant’s supply of electricity.
“There’s a macro story about economic warfare, and this is part of it,” said Mick Ryan, a military strategist and retired major general in the Australian Army, who has been a close observer of the war in Ukraine. “Russia is trying to deny Ukraine’s ability to carry out the necessary economic and administrative tasks that allow it to be a sovereign state that runs its own country.”
“To me, it’s who is responsible for and in control of the nuclear power plant that really matters,” said Michael Kofman, the director of the Russia Studies program at CNA, a federally funded research organization based in Virginia that focuses primarily on defense issues. “Consider the nuclear power plant and its future as an important consideration for both sides.”
Control of the power plant is ultimately about controlling the energy that it produces, and Russia would like to have the electricity taken away from Ukraine, to be used exclusively in areas under its control. But what precisely is entailed in transferring the electricity supply generated by the power plant from the Ukrainian power grid, to the power grid supplying Russian-held territory is not something a spokesperson from Enerhoatom was willing to explain, perhaps for obvious reasons.
But there are signs that the Russians are increasing their efforts to do so. One Ukrainian military intelligence source indicated that there had been an increase in the number of technicians from Rosatom – the Russian state-owned nuclear power enterprise – visiting the plant.
And Enerhoatom did offer a few clues in its warning on Telegram:
“Russian occupying forces are planning to stop operating power units in the near future, and disconnect them from the communication lines supplying power to the Ukrainian power system,” Enerhoatom wrote. If the goal of this is to disconnect the power plant from the Ukrainian grid, the next step would be rerouting the electricity it generates, and even replacing its staff with Russian technicians.
There is little reason to think that Russian technicians from Rosatom would have any difficulties in taking over operation of the plant from their Enerhoatom counterparts. The reactors at the Zaporizhzhya Power Plant are a Soviet design – a VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor – used in multiple variations across Russia, according to Blackburn, the nuclear materials and waste researcher.
“Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, given the Russian state operates many VVER-1000 NPPs [nuclear power plants] domestically, they would be able to export considerable expertise to the Zap site and assume control with, presumably, minimal training,” Blackburn said.
So the issue, then, becomes one of controlling how the reactors connect to the power grid. In the case of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, this would consist of physical infrastructure such as power lines and transformers, but also Enerhoatom’s control systems, information infrastructure and software.
An effort to disrupt the control systems and subsequently the flow of electricity into Ukraine is likely why Enerhoatom reported the “largest cyberattack” it has ever experienced on Wednesday. The company said the attack had originated in Russia, but was unsuccessful.
If Russia were to decide that it could not retain physical control of the plant, nor successfully transfer the power it generates to territories it controls, it could decide that seriously damaging the facility in order to strike at Ukraine’s economy was a viable strategic option.
A false-flag operation at the power plant would help to achieve this, while giving Russian authorities the ability to deny they were involved should such an action create a nuclear disaster.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian military has an incentive to attack key nodes of physical infrastructure that might eventually permit the energy from the plant to be rerouted to Russian-occupied territories.
Regaining control of the plant will be a major facet of any Ukrainian operations to retake territory lost to Russia. That will mean more fighting in and around its environs, increasing the chances of a nuclear catastrophe.
There are also signs that Ukraine is increasing its tempo of behind-the-lines attacks to undermine Russian forces in occupied territories. Efforts to target key infrastructure, in addition to military equipment or personnel, is part of this campaign.
“I’m beginning to think that the counteroffensive has been underway for several months and we haven’t really noticed,” Ryan, the Australian military strategist, said. “We are seeing partisans working with Ukrainian special forces, deep precision strikes on ammunition facilities and on headquarters. I wouldn’t call it a stealth offensive, but it is an offensive nonetheless.”
Kofman, the analyst, agrees: “I don’t think that the uptick in attacks in Crimea or in Kherson is a coincidence, I think it’s part of a broader strategy by Ukraine to shape the operating environment. Ukraine’s goal is to degrade Russian military ability in key areas, as well as strike at ground lines of communication in Kherson and Crimea.”
The increase in Ukrainian military attacks in the occupied south also means that Russian forces are taking a more defensive posture to prevent being targeted by partisans, special forces or precision munitions.
Which helps to explain why there are images of Russian vehicles and ammunition now being stored inside critical areas of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant: no sane military commander would order a missile strike against a nuclear reactor.
But expecting sanity to prevail in war is not ideal.
“It’s pretty disturbing. I mean the potential for something awful to happen here is significant. Not deliberate, but through miscalculation,” Ryan said.“The circumstances are ripe for some kind of miscalculation by either side.”


Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada
73.75 linear feet (59 record storage cartons)
The Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada collection is an information docket established by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The collection contains documents supporting the development of regulatory decisions by EPA on radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a potential site for a radioactive waste storage repository. The collection includes regulatory notices, technical documents, environmental reports, letters, minutes of meetings, public comments, and other materials.
Link to Collection Guide


This simple radiation detector meter uses a professional Geiger counter and an energy-compensated GM counter tube as the core sensor for accurate detection of beta, gamma and x-rays. Fast detection speed, strong anti-interference capability, high sensitivity, wide measuring range and long service life. Detection range: 0.08uSv/h~9999uSv/h.
Radiation dose data is updated in real-time per second.
This compact radiation detector can be set to sound an alarm on any cumulative value or dose rate. When the radiation value exceeds the set value, the radiation dosimeter will automatically emit a loud sound and a flashing screen for alarm. The main technical specifications of the personal radiation detector are in accordance with international standards.
A radiation dosimeter can be used in our everyday environment: food, water, imported goods, cosmetics, stone, and decoration materials. Medical environment: radiology, CT, CR, DR, radionuclides, pharmaceuticals, etc. Industrial environment: metallurgy, waste recycling, metal casting, etc. Or as personal protection.
The digital Geiger counter has been selected with a powerful microprocessor with a TFT display for clear page measurement data and to make operation easier. With the built-in 400 mA rechargeable lithium battery, the nuclear radiation detector can measure continuously for 15-24 hours after only 1 hour of charging.
Size: 105mm x 26mm x 16mm
USB C charging cable
top of page
bottom of page


Three methods of dating rocks
Radiometric dating or radioactive dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed.
The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.
The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.
It is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration.
As the mineral cools, the crystal structure begins to form and diffusion of isotopes is less easy.
At a certain temperature, the crystal structure has formed sufficiently to prevent diffusion of isotopes.
Additionally, elements may exist in different isotopes, with each isotope of an element differing in the number of neutrons in the nucleus.and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of fossilized life forms or the age of the Earth itself, and can also be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geologic time scale.Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.


The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, or Fukushima for short, has become synonymous with the dangers of a nuclear meltdown. Unlike the Chernobyl disaster, which was caused by a faulty reactor design and human error, the Fukushima disaster was the result of a tsunami damaging generators that helped keep the reactors cool. However, regardless of the cause, these disasters have created irradiated areas humans cannot safely navigate; one such area includes the infamous Elephant’s Foot, a solidified blob of corium — a lava-like substance formed inside reactor cores during nuclear meltdowns — found in Chernobyl that is so radioactive it can kill a human in several minutes. Scientists cannot explore or examine these contaminated areas without having every cell in their body hemorrhage after ten minutes (yes, seriously), which is where robots such as “Little Sunfish” come in.
Little Sunfish, also known as Mini Manbo, is a small exploratory robot no larger than a loaf of bread that looks like a hi-tech pizza cutter. The remotely-controlled robot, which started diving into the Fukushima reactor last week, uses lights, five propellers, two cameras, and a dosimeter — a device that measures ionizing radiation. According to The Japan Times, Toshiba Corp and the International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning (IRID) worked together to develop Little Sunfish for the express purpose of exploring the Fukushima reactor and removing nuclear debris, and all their hard work is starting to pay off.
According to sites such as BBC News and CNN, Little Sunfish and its operators have found “lava-like rocks and lumps” under the reactor. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) released a statement explaining, “There is a high possibility that the solidified objects are mixtures of melted metal and fuel that fell from the vessel,” and that the debris would have to analyzed. TEPCO spokesman Maki Murayama believes, “This is a big step towards the decommission process.”
The description of the debris is strikingly similar to Chernobyl’s Elephant’s Foot, which is still giving off beyond-fatal doses of radiation and will do so for at least one hundred years. While the Fukushima disaster didn’t release as much radiation as the Chernobyl disaster, if Little Sunfish has found what is essentially an underwater Elephant’s Foot, just how will TEPCO decommission it? All that could be done with Chernobyl’s Elephant Foot was quarantine it behind four hundred thousand cubic meters of concrete. Regardless, we wish the company the best in its attempts to fix this horrendous disaster.


Jan 5, 2021
Drs. Katlyn Turner, Denia Djokic, and Aditi Verma join Press the Button for an in-depth discussion on how systemic racism in the nuclear field is produced and sustained, and what needs to happen in order to begin combating it. Drs. Turner, Djokic, and Verma recently co-authored an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled "A Call for Anti-Racist Action and Accountability in the US Nuclear Community." Early Warning features co-host Tom Collina and our deputy director of policy Mary Kaszynski on incoming National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's recent comments regarding the extension of New START and support for the Iran nuclear agreement.


China on Tuesday urged the US, UK and Australia to shelve nuclear submarine cooperation, calling the plan an “act of nuclear proliferation”.
In a weekly briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin urged the troika to “take into account the concerns of the international community and stop nuclear proliferation acts such as nuclear submarine cooperation.”
- Advertisement -
Referring to reports by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen on Monday that “the small-scale alliance between the US, UK and Australia on nuclear powered submarines has become a concern for ASEAN and the countries of the region,” Wang said the Cambodian leader’s words were “including ASEAN countries.” It addresses concerns widely shared by the countries of the region.”
“The AUKUS security partnership and related nuclear submarine cooperation create nuclear proliferation risks, threaten the international nuclear nonproliferation system, undermine the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Agreement, and undermine the efforts of ASEAN countries to establish a Southeast Asian nuclear weapons-free zone,” he continued.
Citing “estimates” by anonymous international arms control experts, Wang said the weapons-grade nuclear materials the US and Britain plan to hand over to Australia would be sufficient to build between 64 and 80 nuclear weapons.
Wang said Beijing “absolutely” supports ASEAN countries’ efforts to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in Southeast Asia.
“We call once again on the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to heed the concerns of the international community, to cease non-proliferation actions such as nuclear submarine collaborations, to stop and end the double standard undermining the international nonproliferation system.” Storms are growing over the Pacific Ocean,” he added.
- Advertisement -
Only a part of the news presented to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS) and in summary form are available on the Anadolu Agency website. Please contact us for subscription options.


By A. Joseph Lynch
|Image of first nuclear explosion|
While many are familiar with the list of nuclear powers, few know anything about the vast number of nuclear bomb detonations or where they occurred. The map above is a screenshot of a video called "A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945." The video is somewhat lengthy (and it ends before North Korea's testing), but it is a very good representation of the temporal-spatial dimensions of nuclear testing.
If you asked someone where the United States tested its nuclear weapons, most would say the American Southwest. Although this is true, few are familiar with the two underground nuclear detonations that took place in the state of Mississippi in 1964, or that the United Kingdom also tested nuclear weapons in the United States. In fact, the last British nuclear detonation took place in the state of Nevada. French nuclear testing in Algeria and British nuclear testing in Australia make sense given their colonial holdings -- yet it is not well-known that the Sahara and the Australian Outback were home to many nuclear blasts.
|Oceanic Testing: Operation Crossroads (July 25, 1946)|
The oceans have also hosted nuclear tests. One such example, Operation Crossroads, took place on July 25, 1946, at Bikini Atoll. Nuclear detonations have not only taken place under the Earth's surface, but even high above. An American test called "Starfish Prime" took place in outer space on July 8, 1962. It was the largest nuclear blast to take place in space (the detonation occurred at an altitude of 250 miles). The blast was seen through cloud cover in Honolulu almost 900 miles away.
|The blast of Starfish Prime - 250 miles above and almost 900 miles away from Honolulu.|


Japan has announced that a worker at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant died after suffering radiation exposure.The man, who died from lung cancer, was first diagnosed in 2016. Japan's government had previously agreed that radiation caused illness in four workers but this is the first acknowledged death.
The ministry has ruled that the man's family should be paid compensation, after hearing testimonies from radiologists and other experts,
The employee who died, a man in his 50s, had worked at atomic power stations since 1980 and was in charge of measuring radiation at the Fukushima No 1 plant shortly after its meltdown. He worked there at least twice after the meltdown, and had worn a face mask and protective suit, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare said.
For almost six minutes, the worst to ever earthquake hit Japan with a 9.0 magnitude. Within 50 minutes of the initial earthquake, the first waves up to 14 meters high flowed over the nuclear plant's 10-meter high sea wall. The Fukushima plant's emergency power generators, located in the basement, were soon flooded and failed, shutting down vital cooling systems and causing reactor fuel rods to meltdown in three of the six reactors, leaking radiation into the surrounding area and the sea. Sixteen hours after meltdown began, the fuel rods in one reactor had almost completely melted. It would 88 days until the Japanese government admitted that a meltdown had taken place.
At the time of the nuclear disaster, there were no immediate deaths or cases of radiation sickness, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes to ensure this. More than 40 evacuated patients from the Futaba Hospital later died. Around 18,500 people died or disappeared in the quake and tsunami, and more than 160,000 were forced from their homes.
Three former Tepco executives were charged with professional negligence, resulting in death and injury, linked to the hospital evacuation. Though no-one died directly in the nuclear meltdown, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant operator, and state officials have been facing multiple compensation claims since 2012. The amount of compensation to be paid by TEPCO is expected to reach 7 trillion yen ( 61,889,940,000.00 US dollars).
The tsunami water caused the meltdown, but water is also the only way to stop it. Since the disaster, Tokyo Electric Power Company has been pumping hundreds of tons of water to cool Fukushima's reactors and stop the outflow of radiation. The cleanup also includes collecting radioactive contaminated earth from the surrounding area, which now sits in thousands of industrial-sized bags. Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion US). In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion US).
The true scale of the environmental impact is still unknown as radioactive material has been detected as far as 200 miles from the plant. The world may still be feeling the effects of this disaster for generations to come. Tokyo Electric Power Company estimates that cleanup operations at the Fukushima power plant could take up to 40 years.
The Fukushima triple nuclear meltdown meltdown, was the world's worst nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster that occurred three decades ago, in April 1986.


“Oppenheimer,” the epic new movie directed by Christopher Nolan, takes audiences into the mind and moral decisions of J. Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the team of brilliant scientists in Los Alamos, New Mexico, who built the world’s first atomic bomb.
J. Robert Oppenheimer : Wikipedia
|J. Robert Oppenheimer|
|Oppenheimer c. 1944|
|Born||Julius Robert Oppenheimer|
April 22, 1904
New York City, U.S.
|Died||February 18, 1967 (aged 62)|
Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.
|Education||Harvard University (AB)Christ’s College, CambridgeUniversity of Göttingen (PhD)|
|Known for||Nuclear weapons developmentTolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equationTolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limitOppenheimer–Phillips processBorn–Oppenheimer approximation|
|Spouse||Katherine “Kitty” Puening(m. 1940)|
|Relatives||Frank Oppenheimer (brother)|
|Awards||Medal for Merit (1946)Enrico Fermi Award (1963)|
|Institutions||University of California, BerkeleyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyLos Alamos LaboratoryInstitute for Advanced Study|
|Thesis||Zur Quantentheorie kontinuierlicher Spektren (1927)|
|Doctoral advisor||Max Born|
|Doctoral students||showSee list|
Julius Robert Oppenheimer[note 1] (/ˈɒpənˌhaɪmər/ OP-ən-HY-mər; April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist and director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II. He is often credited as the “father of the atomic bomb” for his role in organizing the Manhattan Project, the research and development undertaking that created the first nuclear weapons.
Born in New York City to Jewish immigrants from Germany, Oppenheimer earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Harvard University in 1925 and a PhD in physics from the University of Göttingen in Germany in 1927. After research at other institutions, he joined the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, where he became a full professor in 1936. He made significant contributions to theoretical physics, including achievements in quantum mechanics and nuclear physics such as the Born–Oppenheimer approximation for molecular wave functions, work on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling. With his students, he also made contributions to the theory of neutron stars and black holes, quantum field theory, and the interactions of cosmic rays.
In 1942, Oppenheimer was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project, and in 1943 was appointed director of the project’s Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, tasked with developing the first nuclear weapons, four years after the start of the German nuclear weapons program.[note 2] His leadership and scientific expertise were instrumental in the project’s success. On July 16, 1945, he was present at the first test of the atomic bomb, Trinity. In August 1945, the weapons were used against Japan in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.
In 1947, Oppenheimer became the director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and chaired the influential General Advisory Committee of the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission. He lobbied for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. He opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb during a 1949–1950 governmental debate on the question and subsequently took positions on defense-related issues that provoked the ire of some U.S. government and military factions. During the Second Red Scare, Oppenheimer’s stances, together with his past associations with the Communist Party USA, led to the revocation of his security clearance following a 1954 security hearing. This effectively ended his access to the government’s atomic secrets and thus his career as a nuclear physicist. Stripped also of his direct political influence, Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write, and work in physics. In 1963, he was awarded the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of political rehabilitation. On December 16, 2022, U.S. Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm ordered the 1954 decision to revoke Oppenheimer’s security clearance be vacated.


26 April 2022 — the 36th Anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and the International Chernobyl Disaster Remembrance Day26.04.2022
On 26 April 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl NPP in the north of Ukraine (then USSR) shook the world. The accident was the largest man-made disaster in the history of the nuclear power industry. Radioactive substances were released into the atmosphere and spread across the western part of the USSR and part of Europe. Radiation changed the lives of millions of people forever, and the consequences are still being felt today.
For Belarus, the Chernobyl disaster has a particular significance. Nuclear contamination of its vast areas led to the resettlement and disruption of the normal way of life of hundreds of thousands of Belarusians.
Since 1990, five state programmes worth USD 19.3 billion have been implemented to overcome the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.
Belarus is grateful to all international partners who have not remained indifferent and provided support.
Designation of 26 April as the International Chernobyl Disaster Remembrance Day by the UN General Assembly at its 71st session was symbolic.
Much has already been achieved but still a lot to be done. Belarus’ Government is expanding national efforts from assistance and rehabilitation to the sustainable development of the affected regions. The 6th State programme on overcoming the consequences of the Chernobyl NPP disaster for 2021 – 2025 sets the following goals: ensuring social protection, medical care, sanatorium treatment and health improvement of the affected population, especially children living or studying in the contaminated regions; improving radiation protection and targeted use of protective measures; promotion of socio-economic development of the affected areas; scientific research and public relations.
Overcoming the consequences of the accident requires a huge national effort, new partnerships, innovation and investment.
In 2019, the UN General Assembly recognised the remaining legacy of the disaster and the need to ensure sustainable development of recovering areas, with a focus on the promotion of local business and tourism, job creation, transition to green technologies, sustainable forestry and agricultural innovation, the inclusion of vulnerable people in local development, popularisation of healthy lifestyles.
Belarus counts on the support of UN institutions, UN Member States and private investors and is interested in attracting international partners to address the challenges in ensuring sustainable development of these regions and their residents.
We look forward to continuing fruitful cooperation with all partners to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in the affected regions.


My research effort is focused to the study
of nuclear matter through the study of particle production in
ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions.
The properties of nuclear matter are fairly well understood near normal density.
Nuclear matter is made of point-like quarks and gluons, which seem
to be confined inside hadrons such as protons and neutrons.
According to the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong interactions,
when nuclear matter become compressed or heated, it must undergo a change of phase to a new state of matter, the quark-gluon plasma, in which quarks and gluons are free to move about within a confinement volume much larger than hadronic sizes.
Quark Gluon Plasma has also a connection to astrophysics. Due to the enormous
densities and temperatures prevailing during the first microseconds after
Big Bang, quarks and gluons should, in the early universe, have moved
around freely. During the expansion temperatures and densities decreased and
the matter today found in the universe was created.
A new major accelerator, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has
recently come online at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) in Long Island about 65 miles East of New York City.
RHIC will provide the capability of colliding heavy nuclei (with masses up to Gold)
at very high energy, up to 200~GeV/c.
These collisions will produce extended volumes of hadronic matter
with high energy densities and will provide
the opportunity for observing directly the parameters of the
predicted phase transition, and the mechanisms of quark confinement.
This will improve our understanding of the strong force in a regime
where theoretical calculations are most difficult.
Currently my research effort is focused on the
the PHENIX experiment, one of the two large experiment
currently taking data at RHIC.


Australia Takes Seat on Security Council During 50th Anniversary of Cuban Missile Crisis
On this day 50 years ago the Cuban missile crisis was in full cry. American spy planes were reconnoitering Cuban missile sites and a fleet of Soviet ships carrying nuclear warheads was steaming towards Cuba. In Washington President Kennedy was discussing various military options with his Joint Chiefs of Staff. In New York the United Nations Security Council would soon be in emergency session.
In the days that followed, the United States ambassador to the UN, Adlai Stevenson, [...]


“The area of interest is approximately 1.2 hectares and is located within the secure area of the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), in the southwestern part of the complex,” said the statement.
Karl Dewey, a proliferation analyst at IHS Jane’s added: “It is sited within an established centrifuge facility, has strong security and shows some of the structural features of a possible new uranium enrichment facility. This makes it a strong candidate for a new centrifuge facility.”
The structure of the site also bears strong resemblance to facilities built by nuclear fuel company URENCO which also operates several nuclear plants in Europe, it said.
“This may be more than coincidence as AQ Khan, considered by many to be the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, worked at URENCO before stealing centrifuge designs and returning to Pakistan,” said Charlie Cartwright, an imagery analyst for IHS Jane’s.
Pakistan is currently seeking to join the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group that seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation by controlling the export of materials, equipment and technology that can be used to manufacture atomic weapons.
“It is difficult to see how these actions are consistent with the principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of responsible nuclear exporters which Pakistan is seeking to join,” said Ian Stewart, head of research group Project Alpha at King’s College London.
Pakistani physicist AH Nayyar told AFP if the site was indeed a centrifuge, “then primarily because they are being built inside KRL I would conclude they are being (built) for weapons,” adding that the country’s nuclear power plants were supplied by imported uranium from China.
He, however, cautioned it was not possible to be definitive about the site’s purpose based on imagery alone.


As Canada looks toward a low-carbon future, McMaster University, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. (USNC) and Global First Power (GFP) are embarking a new partnership to advance research in small modular reactors (SMRs) – a clean energy technology that will play an essential role in Canada's Net Zero by 2050 goal.
The three partners have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to further examine the feasibility of deploying a micro modular reactor (MMR) at McMaster University or an affiliated site. The partnership is expected to pave the way for Canadian communities considering the adoption of this new approach to greenhouse gas-free energy.
The MMR is a new class of nuclear reactor, much smaller in size and power than traditional nuclear reactors, with enhanced safety features. Factory constructed with a far smaller footprint and expected economies from fleet operation, the MMR is suitable for powering remote communities and providing process heat to industry, and is expected to be operational in Canada later this decade.
Seattle-based USNC has developed the MMR technology for worldwide deployment. GFP is the partnership between USNC and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) that is deploying USNC's MMR technology in Canada. Both USNC and OPG are contributors to Canada's SMR Action Plan.
Dave Tucker, McMaster's assistant vice-president, research (nuclear), said the partnership builds on McMaster's rich nuclear expertise and follows on the university's contributions to Canada's SMR Action Plan. "McMaster is a global leader in nuclear R&D and a recognized centre of excellence for training," he said, noting the partners are frontrunners in this field.
"Combining our capabilities with those of USNC and GFP will allow us to conduct life-cycle studies on the optimal utilization of SMRs and train the next generation of experts that will build, operate, maintain, monitor and regulate these facilities," Tucker said.
GFP is developing Canada's first commercial demonstration SMR at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratory's (CNL) Chalk River site, where much of the research and training will take place, according to Dominique Minière, GFP's president and CEO.
"It's the most advanced SMR project in the country and, arguably, the Western world," said Minière, adding that GFP's MMR project at Chalk River is expected to be operational in 2027.
This sentiment echoed by USNC's CEO Francesco Venneri, who said the GFP MMR project is a market-ready design, specifically designed for Canadian climates, and similar in size and power to McMaster's 5-MW reactor. "Partnering with McMaster at this stage will be instrumental for training the next generation of leaders as we collectively investigate enhanced safety measures, cost structures, power utilization, and waste management options," he said.
Tucker said the partnership is an important step in the launch of the university's SMR feasibility study – an estimated 18-month initiative in consultation with community, business and government stakeholders, including indigenous communities and municipal councils.
Based on those findings and McMaster's decision to pursue SMR deployment, the process of seeking the necessary licences from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will begin.
Visit the USNC or GFP websites to see how their respective technologies could help meet Canada’s energy demands.


To be more precise, the charge radius of this heaviest of helium isotopes (containing two protons and six neutrons) has been measured for the first time. The charge radius tells you how widely the proton charge is spread out in space. The new work, conducted by a Argonne-Chicago-GANIL-Windsor (Canada)-Los Alamos collaboration, arrives at a value of 1.93 fm (1 fermi equals 10^-15 m). For comparison, the charge radius of the He-6 isotope, is 2.068 fm; that is, the lighter isotope actually has a larger charge radius, the result of the binding effect of the strong nuclear force. He-8 is very rare, hard to make, and represents the most neutron-rich material known on Earth. Still heavier helium groupings, such as He-10, are not really bound entities-they can only be considered as “resonances.”
For the new experiment, He-8 was produced by bombarding a carbon target with 1-GeV beam of C-13 ions. The charge radius of the respective isotopes-He-4, He-6, and He-8-is determined by comparing the subtle shifting of the atomic spectra from the three different species of helium atom. The spectroscopy measurements involve only the electromagnetic force between the electrons and the nucleus in these atoms, and not the strong nuclear force that holds each nucleus together. However, once the charge distribution is determined, it can be used to infer things about the binding force operating in the nucleus.
The current thinking on the distribution of protons and neutrons (illustrated in the figure at http://www.aip.org/png/2007/291.htm) suggests that the He-4 nucleus, composed of two protons and two neutrons ( a unit usually referred to as an alpha particle), forms the default nucleus, while in He-6 the extra two neutrons are thought to orbit the core as a sort of “halo.” In this model, the alpha core wobbles a bit around the joint center of mass with the halo neutron pair. In He-8, the halo consists of two two-neutron pairings. This actually allows the core to wobble a bit less than in the case of He-6, allowing the charge radius of He-8 to be a bit less. One of the researchers, Peter Mueller (630-252-7267, firstname.lastname@example.org), says that the current nuclear theory did an excellent job of predicting the charge radius for He-8, giving confidence to those who model heavier nuclei. (Mueller et al., Physical Review Letters, 21 December 2007)


I’m proud to support the Daily Mirror campaign to formally recognise the service of our nuclear test veterans. It was a privilege to meet many of the family members and back their campaign.
Many have since lost their lives due to the work that they carried out in the 1950s testing nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. They were given no protective clothing, and many of their relatives still live with the effects today.
It’s time the Government recognised the brave work that they carried out and finally awarded them the medals they deserve. If you agree, please sign this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220170


What if a spoonful of neutron star, a celestial object with unimaginable density, suddenly materialized on Earth? The impact would be catastrophic, as neutron stars are incredibly dense and possess immense gravitational pull, capable of distorting space-time itself. The immense mass packed into such a tiny volume would exert a force like no other, causing widespread devastation and altering the very fabric of our planet.
The introduction of a spoonful of neutron star material on Earth would result in unprecedented seismic activity, potentially triggering earthquakes of unprecedented magnitude and tsunamis of catastrophic proportions. The intense gravitational forces at play would wreak havoc on our planet’s geology, fundamentally reshaping landscapes and causing untold destruction. The appearance of even a small amount of neutron star matter on Earth would undoubtedly have profound and far-reaching consequences for life as we know it.
Imagine a scenario where a spoonful of neutron star matter suddenly appeared on Earth. Neutron stars are incredibly dense remnants of massive stars that have undergone a supernova explosion, leaving behind a core composed mostly of neutrons. These celestial objects are among the most extreme and fascinating entities in the universe. In this article, we will explore the implications and consequences if such a dense and exotic material were to appear on our planet.
Understanding Neutron Stars
Neutron stars are born when massive stars collapse under their own gravity during a supernova event. With their mass several times that of our Sun, neutron stars are incredibly dense, packing around 1.4 times the mass of the Sun into a sphere with a diameter of only about 20 kilometers (12 miles). This immense density creates an incredibly strong gravitational force.
Furthermore, neutron stars possess unique properties. They have a solid crust, a superfluid core, and an incredibly powerful magnetic field. The outermost layers of a neutron star are composed of a solid crust made up of atomic nuclei tightly packed together. Below the crust lies the star’s mantle, which transitions into a superfluid core where neutrons flow like a liquid due to the extreme conditions.
The Impact on Earth
If a spoonful of neutron star material were to suddenly appear on Earth, the repercussions would be catastrophic. The intense gravitational force exerted by this small amount of material would likely cause widespread devastation. Nearby objects, structures, and even the Earth’s crust would be instantly crushed under the immense pressure.
The gravitational force from the neutron star matter would also disrupt the delicate balance of Earth’s tides and gravitational pull. This disturbance could lead to significant changes in the Earth’s rotation and potentially trigger massive tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. The consequences on global weather patterns and the environment would be severe.
Influence on Life
The appearance of a spoonful of neutron star matter on Earth would have dire consequences for all forms of life. The immense gravity would likely disrupt the delicate orbiting paths of satellites and space debris, leading to potential collisions and further destruction. The electromagnetic radiation emitted by neutron stars, including X-rays and gamma rays, could be hazardous to living organisms.
Moreover, the powerful magnetic field of a neutron star could disturb Earth’s magnetic field, which plays a crucial role in protecting the planet from harmful cosmic rays and solar flares. This disruption could expose the Earth to increased radiation levels, harming living organisms and potentially leading to genetic mutations.
While the appearance of a spoonful of neutron star matter on Earth would undoubtedly be catastrophic, it would also present a unique opportunity for scientific exploration. Scientists would be able to study the properties and behavior of this extraordinary matter up close, advancing our understanding of neutron stars and the fundamental laws of physics.
Studying neutron star matter on Earth could provide insights into the nature of super-dense matter, neutron star interiors, and the behavior of atomic nuclei under extreme conditions. It would be a rare chance to conduct experiments and collect data that would otherwise be impossible due to the immense distances and difficulties associated with observing neutron stars from afar.
The hypothetical scenario of a spoonful of neutron star material appearing on Earth is a fascinating and terrifying concept. While the consequences would be catastrophic for our planet and its inhabitants, it also presents an opportunity for scientific discovery. Understanding neutron stars and their extreme properties is crucial for unraveling the mysteries of the universe. However, given the immense dangers involved, it’s safe to say that we are better off observing these enigmatic objects from a safe distance in space.
The impact of a spoonful of neutron star material appearing on Earth would be catastrophic, resulting in extreme gravitational forces, radiation dangers, and potential destruction of our planet. It serves as a reminder of the immense power and danger of celestial objects in the universe.


An agreement on cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy was signed following President Maithripala Sirisena’s maiden visit to India. Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also agreed to expand defense cooperation.
This agreement would facilitate cooperation in the transfer and exchange of knowledge and expertise, sharing of resources, capacity building and training of personnel in peaceful uses of nuclear energy including use of radioisotopes, nuclear safety, radiation safety, nuclear security, radioactive waste management and nuclear and radiological disaster mitigation and environmental protection.
The two sides also signed Work-Plan 2014-2015 under the MoU on cooperation in the field of agriculture.
This agreement would facilitate bilateral cooperation in agro processing, agricultural extension, horticulture, agricultural machinery, training in farm mechanization, livestock diseases, etc. between relevant institutes and organizations from both countries.