Notes on Atomic Awakening: A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power

book
notes
history
My notes from the book Atomic Awakening: A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power by James Mahaffey.
Author

Christian Mills

Published

September 3, 2024

Book Links

Author’s Note

An Inside Joke

  • The term “atomic,” while outdated in the context of nuclear technology, persists due to its historical charm and literary origins.
  • Frederick Soddy’s 1909 book, “Interpretation of Radium,” detailed the discovery of energetic rays emitted during the disintegration of radium.
    • Soddy and Rutherford confirmed the existence of these rays.
    • Marie Curie, the discoverer of radium, named this energy “radiation.”
    • Rutherford jokingly suggested the possibility of triggering a chain reaction of disintegration in a radioactive metal, causing a massive explosion.
    • Soddy dismissed the idea as fantasy.
  • H.G. Wells’ 1914 novel, “The World Set Free,” was inspired by Soddy’s book.
    • Wells, a renowned science fiction author known for works like “The Time Machine” and “The War of the Worlds,” envisioned a future world war involving powerful bombs.
    • These bombs, dubbed “atomic bombs,” utilized radioactive decay as their explosive mechanism and could destroy entire cities.
  • Wells’ description of the atomic bomb’s technology was fictional and nonsensical:

    • “Those used by the Allies were lumps of pure carolinum, painted on the outside with unoxidized sidenator-inducive enclosed hermetically in a case of membranium, A little celluloid stud between the handles by which the bomb was lifted was arranged so as to be easily torn off and admit air to the inducive, which at once became active and set up radioactivity in the outer layer of the Carolinum sphere. This liberated fresh inducive, and in a few minutes the whole bomb was a blazing continual explosive.”

  • Despite the inaccurate science, the book gained popularity among some technologists and nuclear scientists.
    • Wells accurately predicted that artificially induced radioactivity would be achieved by 1933.
  • Leo Szilard, a Hungarian physicist, read Wells’ book in 1932 and was inspired to explore nuclear chain reactions.
    • He solved the problem of self-sustained nuclear fission in 1933 and filed a patent for the nuclear reactor in 1934.
  • By World War II, the term “atomic” had become scientifically outdated.
    • Rutherford’s discovery of the nucleus in 1911 revealed that radiation originated from nuclear decay, not atomic processes.
    • Atomic processes, such as chemical reactions, involve the electron clouds surrounding the nucleus, while nuclear binding forces are the source of radiation and a far greater energy source.
  • During the secretive wartime nuclear research, descriptive terms were avoided in favor of code names.
    • The test bomb in New Mexico was called “the Gadget.”
    • The Hiroshima bomb was “Little Boy,” and the Nagasaki bomb was “Fat Man.”
  • The term “Atomic Bomb” was adopted for the wartime nuclear weapons as a nod to H.G. Wells’ fictional creation, becoming an inside joke.
  • After the war, the term “atomic bomb” entered the public domain, popularized by the revelation of the Manhattan Project.
  • The United States Congress established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1946, officially adopting the outdated term.
    • The AEC was replaced by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1974.
  • The term “atomic” persists in the names of several international organizations:
    • Japanese Atomic Energy Commission
    • Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission
    • Atomic Energy Commission of India
    • Commissariat à l’énergie atomique of France

Introduction

The Paradox Inside a Puzzle, Inside a Fantasy

  • Purpose of the book: Not to promote nuclear power, but to provide a clear history and understanding of its development and inevitability.
  • Early perceptions of nuclear energy:
    • Sparked by a perceived energy crisis in 1939.
    • Douglas W. F. Meyer’s article “Energy from Matter” in Discovery magazine highlighted the potential of atomic power while acknowledging its limitations and dangers.
  • World War II and the Atomic Bomb:
    • Research on atomic energy shifted to military applications during World War II.
    • Public discussion of atomic energy ceased, replaced by a veil of secrecy.
    • The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 introduced the public to the destructive power of nuclear energy.
    • The subsequent publication of “Atomic Energy for Military Purposes” by Henry DeWolf Smith reignited public interest in the potential of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
  • Post-War Optimism and the Nuclear Paradox:
    • The post-war era saw widespread optimism about the potential of nuclear power to provide clean, abundant, and inexpensive energy.
    • Louis L. Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), famously predicted “electrical energy too cheap to meter.”
    • However, this optimism was tempered by the inherent dangers associated with nuclear technology, exemplified by the destructive power of the atomic bomb.
    • The nuclear paradox: The promise of a clean and abundant energy source juxtaposed with the potential for catastrophic destruction and long-term health risks.

The Challenges of Nuclear Power Development

  • Public Perception and Fear:
    • The association of nuclear power with nuclear weapons created a significant public relations challenge.
    • The development of increasingly powerful nuclear weapons, along with Cold War anxieties, fueled public fear and skepticism.
    • Government efforts to educate the public about the safety of nuclear power were often met with distrust.
  • The AEC’s Conflicting Roles:
    • The AEC was tasked with promoting civilian nuclear power while simultaneously managing the nuclear arsenal and downplaying potential risks.
    • This led to a lack of transparency and eroded public trust.
  • Economic Realities:
    • The high upfront capital costs of building nuclear power plants proved to be a major obstacle to expansion.
    • Nuclear power was ultimately more expensive than traditional fossil fuels, despite lower fuel costs.
    • Economic factors, not public fear, were the primary reason for the halt in nuclear power expansion in the 1970s.

The Decline of Nuclear Power in the United States

  • The Three Mile Island Accident (1979):
    • A partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in Pennsylvania further damaged public confidence in nuclear power.
    • While not a catastrophic event, it highlighted the potential for accidents and the challenges of managing nuclear technology.
    • The accident was a symptom of the decline, not the cause.
  • Chernobyl Disaster (1986):
    • The Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union, a catastrophic nuclear accident, solidified public anxieties about nuclear power safety.
    • The accident had a limited impact on the US nuclear industry, which was already in decline.
  • Nuclear Power in a Coma:
    • Following the economic challenges and public backlash, nuclear power expansion in the United States stalled.
    • New plant construction ceased, research and development slowed, and the nuclear industry entered a period of stagnation.

The Inevitable Revival of Nuclear Power

  • Changing Energy Landscape:
    • The continued reliance on fossil fuels has led to increasing concerns about climate change, air pollution, and energy security.
    • The need for clean and sustainable energy sources has become increasingly urgent.
  • Nuclear Power as a Necessity:
    • Nuclear power is now recognized as a crucial component of a diversified energy portfolio.
    • Its ability to provide reliable, baseload power without greenhouse gas emissions makes it an essential part of the transition to a sustainable energy future.
  • The Nuclear Awakening:
    • Driven by environmental concerns, energy security needs, and technological advancements, the nuclear power industry is experiencing a resurgence.
    • New reactor designs, improved safety features, and a renewed focus on public education are paving the way for a nuclear renaissance.

The Need for Informed Public Discourse

  • Lack of Public Education:
    • Decades of stagnation in the nuclear industry have resulted in a decline in public understanding of nuclear technology.
    • This lack of knowledge contributes to misconceptions and fear surrounding nuclear power.
  • The Role of This Book:
    • This book aims to provide a comprehensive and objective history of nuclear power, addressing both its benefits and challenges.
    • It seeks to foster informed public discourse and promote a more nuanced understanding of this complex and vital technology.

The Importance of Scientific Curiosity and Openness

  • The Role of Skepticism and Openness in Scientific Discovery:
    • Scientific progress requires both rigorous skepticism and a willingness to consider new ideas, even those that challenge established paradigms.
    • The discovery of radioactivity, a phenomenon initially considered “supernatural,” revolutionized physics and paved the way for the development of nuclear technology.
  • Examples of Scientific Visionaries:
    • Isaac Newton, despite his groundbreaking contributions to physics, also explored spiritualism and the occult.
    • Albert Einstein, renowned for his theories of relativity, dedicated his later years to the pursuit of a unified field theory, a highly abstract and speculative endeavor.
  • The Power of Imagination in Science:
    • A willingness to entertain “impossible” ideas and challenge conventional wisdom is essential for scientific breakthroughs.
    • The development of nuclear power, from a theoretical fantasy to a practical reality, exemplifies the power of human imagination and scientific inquiry.

Conclusion

  • The paradox of nuclear power – its immense potential for both good and harm – remains a central challenge.
  • Understanding the history, the science, and the complexities of nuclear technology is crucial for making informed decisions about its role in our future.
  • This book aims to provide the reader with the knowledge and context necessary to navigate this complex and vital issue, as nuclear power awakens from its decades-long coma and becomes an increasingly important part of the global energy landscape.

Part 1: The Fantasy

The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactors

Discovery of the Uranium Discrepancy

  • In France, uranium tetrafluoride (yellow cake) is processed and enriched for use in nuclear power plants.
  • Eurodif, a subsidiary of Kojima, operates a large gaseous diffusion plant to enrich uranium.
  • The plant enriches uranium from 0.7202% U-235 (the fissile isotope) to 20.0% U-235.
  • In May 1972, an alarm was triggered at the Pierre-Lotte facility due to a U-235 deficit in a batch of uranium hexafluoride.
  • The U-235 concentration was only 0.7171%, significantly lower than the expected 0.7202%.
  • An investigation by the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) traced the deficit back to the Oklo mine in Gabon, Africa.
  • Some Oklo samples showed U-235 deficits as high as 0.44%.

Explanation: Natural Nuclear Fission

  • Francis Perrin, a French physicist, was tasked with investigating the missing U-235.
  • All uranium on Earth is the same age and originates from the supernova explosion of a star billions of years ago.
  • Uranium is unstable and decays into thorium and eventually lead over millions of years.
  • U-235 decays faster than U-238, leading to a gradual decrease in the concentration of U-235 over time.
  • The expected U-235 concentration in 1972 should have been precisely 0.7202% in all uranium mines.
  • The investigation ruled out theft or processing errors as the cause of the deficit.
  • The only explanation for the missing U-235 was that it had undergone nuclear fission in a natural reactor.
  • Analysis of the Oklo samples confirmed the presence of stable fission products trapped in the rock formations.

The Oklo Reactors: Nature’s Nuclear Power Plants

  • 16 natural nuclear reactors were discovered at three locations within the Oklo mines.
  • The CEA announced the discovery of self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions at Oklo on September 25, 1972.
  • The reactors operated about 1.5 billion years ago.
  • At that time, the natural uranium at Oklo had a U-235 concentration of 3%, similar to the enriched uranium used in some modern reactors.
  • Groundwater leaking into the uranium deposit acted as a moderator, slowing down neutrons and initiating the chain reaction.
  • The reactors operated in pulse mode:
    • Water heated up and boiled away, shutting down the reaction.
    • The reactors cooled down, allowing water to seep back in and restart the cycle.
  • The operating interval was approximately two hours and thirty minutes.
  • The reactors operated for a few hundred thousand years.
  • They produced heat at a rate of 100 kilowatts, generated 11,907 pounds of radioactive waste, and 3,307 pounds of plutonium.

Oklo and Nuclear Waste Management

  • The sandstone shale structure of the Oklo mines is not considered ideal for long-term nuclear waste storage.
  • However, the radioactive waste from the Oklo reactors migrated only a few centimeters in 1.5 billion years.
  • No evidence of groundwater contamination or biological harm was found.
  • The Oklo reactors demonstrated that nature can effectively contain radioactive waste for extended periods.

Lessons from Oklo

  • The Oklo reactors provided several insights:
    • Clay can be used to stabilize radioactive waste.
    • Designing a nuclear reactor is not as complex as some might suggest.
    • The first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurred naturally at Oklo, long before the Chicago Pile-1 experiment in 1942.

The Origins of Energy: From Fusion to Fission

Solar Energy: The Foundation of Most Energy Sources

  • The Oklo reactors were not the first instance of nuclear power; all energy on Earth ultimately originates from nuclear reactions, primarily in the Sun.
  • The Sun is a fusion reactor that converts hydrogen into heavier elements, releasing energy in the process.
  • Solar energy drives various processes on Earth:
    • Direct sunlight
    • Wind power (caused by solar heating of the atmosphere)
    • Hydropower (driven by the water cycle, powered by solar evaporation)
    • Fossil fuels (coal and petroleum, formed from ancient biological material that utilized solar energy through photosynthesis)
    • Biomass energy (wood, biofuels)

Fission Energy: Stored Supernova Energy

  • Fission power from U-235 is also indirectly solar, but it originates from a different star’s supernova explosion, not our Sun.
  • Uranium stores significantly more energy than fossil fuels.
  • Supernovae create heavy elements like uranium through intense fusion reactions.
  • Fission releases energy when heavy elements split into lighter ones, converting mass into energy.

Earth’s Natural Nuclear History

  • The Oklo discovery revealed that Earth has experienced both fusion (in the Sun) and fission (at Oklo) as natural sources of energy production and conversion.
  • This understanding of energy’s origins was not developed until the late 19th century.

Chapter 1: Invisible Demons

The Need for a New Power Source

  • The Machine Age (1890s): Diesel and gasoline engines, electrical lighting, and mature steam technology were prevalent.
    • Most components needed for nuclear power plants already existed, except the power source itself.
  • Relocatable Power: Industry had shifted from location-dependent power (water wheels, windmills) to burnable fuels.
    • This allowed industries to be built anywhere, with fuel transported to them.
    • Drawbacks: Carbon dioxide and soot emissions caused pollution, particularly in major cities.
  • Search for a New Power Source: The need for a compact, non-combusting energy source became apparent.
    • This required significant scientific advancements, research, and serendipity.
    • Understanding the structure of matter at a fundamental level was crucial.

Early Theories of Matter

  • Ancient Theories:
    • Four Elements Theory: The belief that everything is composed of earth, air, fire, and water.
      • Examples: Mud (earth and water), bricks (heated mud, water driven off), steam (water and air heated by fire).
    • Atomic Theory in India (550 BCE): Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools described elementary particles combining in pairs and trios to form complex materials.
    • Greek Atomic Theory (430 BCE): Leucippus and Democritus proposed that matter is made of indivisible particles called atoms (“uncuttable”).
      • These theories lacked experimental evidence and were considered philosophical.
  • Practical Chemistry:
    • Ancient industries (soap making, tool production) required empirical knowledge of chemical combinations and metal alloys.
    • Limitations of the four-element theory became evident due to the lack of a systematic method of analysis.
  • Alchemy (Spagyric Art):
    • A 2,500-year-old practice focused on transmuting base metals into gold.
    • Three Elements: Alchemists believed in three elements: salt, sulfur, and mercury.
    • Contributions: Advanced distillation techniques, discovery of acids and bases.
    • Influence: Despite its mystical nature, alchemy contributed to the development of chemistry and metallurgy.

The Rise of Modern Chemistry

Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
  • Background: Born into wealth in Ireland, received a comprehensive education.
  • Scientific Contributions:
    • Boyle’s Law of Gases: Explored the relationship between gas pressure and volume using a self-devised air compressor.
    • “The Skeptical Chemist” (1661): Critiqued alchemy and advocated for a scientific approach to chemistry.
      • Distinguished between chemical compounds and mixtures.
      • Reintroduced the concept of matter being composed of fundamental substances (collections of atoms).
  • Impact: Shifted science towards a new direction, emphasizing knowledge advancement over the pursuit of wealth.
Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794)
  • Background: Wealthy Parisian, pursued chemistry research independently.
  • Scientific Contributions:
    • Introduced the metric system.
    • Law of Conservation of Mass: Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.
    • Defined elements (e.g., oxygen, hydrogen) as substances that cannot be chemically broken down further.
    • Compiled the first table of elements.
  • Impact: Established fundamental principles of chemistry.
John Dalton (1766-1844)
  • Background: Quaker, self-educated scientist, worked as a tutor.
  • Scientific Contributions:
    • Researched colorblindness, weather phenomena, and light.
    • “New System of Chemical Philosophy” (1808): Proposed Dalton’s Atomic Theory:
      • Elements are made of atoms.
      • Atoms of the same element are identical.
      • Atoms of different elements are different.
      • Atoms combine to form compounds.
      • Atoms cannot be created, destroyed, or broken down by chemical reactions.
  • Impact: Solidified the atomic theory and influenced chemistry for centuries.

Brownian Motion and the Electromagnetic Revolution

Robert Brown (1773-1858)
  • Background: Scottish botanist, explored Australian flora.
  • Discovery of Brownian Motion (1827): Observed the random, jittery movement of tiny particles (pollen, dust) in water under a microscope.
  • Impact: While Brown couldn’t explain the cause, Brownian motion would later be used to understand the movement of subatomic particles.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
  • Background: Self-educated chemist and physicist from humble beginnings.
  • Scientific Contributions:
    • Pioneered nanoscience, discovered benzene, liquefied chlorine.
    • Electromagnetism:
      • Discovered electromagnetic induction: A changing magnetic field induces an electric current in a nearby wire.
      • Showed that an electric current produces a magnetic field.
      • Demonstrated magnetic induction: A current in one coil can induce a current in a nearby coil.
      • Invented the electric generator and transformer.
      • Proposed the existence of electromagnetic fields extending into space.
  • Impact: Revolutionized the understanding of electricity and magnetism, laying the groundwork for future technologies.
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
  • Background: Scottish physicist and mathematician.
  • Scientific Contributions:
    • Researched thermodynamics, color, and photography.
    • Maxwell’s Equations:
      • Mathematically formalized Faraday’s observations on electromagnetism.
      • Predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves that travel at the speed of light.
      • Provided a theoretical explanation for light as an electromagnetic phenomenon.
    • “On the Stability of Saturn’s Rings” (1859): Proposed that Saturn’s rings are composed of loose particles.
  • Impact: His work on electromagnetism profoundly impacted physics and laid the foundation for future advancements in fields like radio and quantum mechanics.

Hertz and the Discovery of Radio Waves

Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894)
  • Background: German physicist, initially studied languages and engineering before shifting to physics.
  • Scientific Contributions:
    • Discovery of the Photoelectric Effect (1887): Observed that UV light can reduce the intensity of an electric spark.
      • This effect would later be explained by Einstein and lead to technologies like television and digital photography.
    • Discovery of Radio Waves (1887): Using a Ruhmkorff coil, Hertz observed that a spark in one circuit could induce a spark in a nearby, unconnected circuit.
      • This demonstrated the existence of radio waves, confirming Maxwell’s predictions.
      • Hertz showed that radio waves could be transmitted, reflected, and polarized, similar to light.
  • Impact: His discoveries revolutionized communication technology and paved the way for the development of radio, television, and other wireless technologies.

Röntgen and the Discovery of X-Rays

Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (1845-1923)
  • Background: German physicist, initially studied mechanical engineering before transitioning to physics.
  • Discovery of X-Rays (1895): While experimenting with cathode ray tubes, Röntgen noticed that a fluorescent screen glowed even when shielded from the tube.
    • He realized that a new type of ray was being emitted, capable of penetrating through materials.
    • He called these rays X-rays and demonstrated their ability to image bones inside the human body.
  • Impact: Röntgen’s discovery revolutionized medical imaging and opened up new avenues for studying the structure of matter.

Becquerel and the Dawn of Radioactivity

Antoine-Henri Becquerel (1852-1908)
  • Background: French physicist, initially focused on fluorescence.
  • Discovery of Radioactivity (1896):
    • Inspired by Röntgen’s work, Becquerel investigated whether fluorescent materials could emit X-rays.
    • He accidentally discovered that uranium salts emitted a penetrating radiation even without exposure to sunlight.
    • This radiation was not X-rays but a new phenomenon, later named radioactivity by Marie Curie.
  • Impact: Becquerel’s discovery marked the beginning of nuclear physics and the exploration of the atom’s nucleus.

Conclusion

  • The late 19th century witnessed a rapid advancement in the understanding of matter and energy.
  • Scientists like Boyle, Lavoisier, and Dalton established the foundations of modern chemistry and the atomic theory.
  • Discoveries by Brown, Faraday, and Maxwell revolutionized the understanding of electromagnetism and light.
  • Hertz confirmed the existence of electromagnetic waves, including radio waves.
  • Röntgen’s discovery of X-rays and Becquerel’s discovery of radioactivity opened up new frontiers in physics and paved the way for the exploration of the atom’s nucleus.
  • These “invisible demons” - X-rays and radioactivity - would reshape science and technology in the 20th century.

Chapter 2: A Couple of Remaining Questions

The End of the Century and Fantastical Discoveries (1897)

  • The late 19th century saw a surge of groundbreaking scientific discoveries, including the establishment of atomic elements and Henri Becquerel’s discovery of an unusual property in uranium.
    • Becquerel found that uranium left a ghost image on photographic plates, similar to the effects sought by spiritualists.
    • This “ghost” suggested an unexplained energy or ray emanating from within the uranium atom.
    • There was no clear explanation for Becquerel’s rays other than it being a unique property of uranium.

J.J. Thompson and the Nature of Cathode Rays

J.J. Thompson’s Background and Career
  • Sir Joseph John J.J. Thompson (born 1856) was a British physicist at the Cavendish Laboratory in England.
  • Thompson’s parents encouraged him to pursue engineering.
    • He enrolled in an apprenticeship but, due to a waiting list, joined Owens College in Manchester at age 14.
    • He later transferred to Trinity College in Cambridge, graduating with a B.A. in mathematics in 1880 and an M.A. in mathematical physics in 1883.
    • He became Cavendish Professor of Physics in 1884 and married Rose Paget in 1890.
  • Thompson focused on investigating cathode rays, a popular area of research involving vacuum tubes and high-voltage coils.
    • Cathode rays were streams of energy observed in vacuum tubes when high voltage was applied across electrodes.
    • Wilhelm Röntgen had used cathode rays to produce X-rays, but their nature remained a mystery.
Thompson’s Cathode Ray Experiments
  • Thompson conducted three sequential experiments to determine the nature of cathode rays.
    • Experiment 1:
      • Purpose: To determine if the negative charge associated with cathode rays could be separated from the rays themselves.
      • Setup: A specialized vacuum tube with a cathode, anode with a slit, and a third electrode at the end.
      • Procedure: High voltage was applied, and an electrometer measured current between the first and third electrodes. A magnet was then used to deflect the beam.
      • Results:
        • An electrical current flowed, indicating a component of electricity in the rays.
        • The magnet deflected the beam, causing the current to stop.
      • Conclusion: The negative charge and the rays were inseparable, indicating they were a single entity.
    • Experiment 2:
      • Purpose: To further confirm that cathode rays were streams of electrical charge.
      • Setup: A vacuum tube with a hole in the anode to create a thin beam, phosphorescent paint at the end, and two parallel metal plates in the flight path.
      • Procedure: High voltage was applied across the deflection plates.
      • Results: The beam bent towards the positive plate.
      • Conclusion: The deflection confirmed that the rays were indeed streams of electrical charge.
    • Experiment 3:
      • Purpose: To confirm the nature of cathode rays using magnetic deflection.
      • Setup: Similar to Experiment 2, but with external magnetic coils instead of deflection plates.
      • Procedure: A controlled magnetic field was applied across the tube.
      • Results: The beam deflected predictably in the magnetic field.
      • Conclusion: The results from both electrostatic and magnetic deflection solidified Thompson’s understanding.
Thompson’s Conclusions and the Plum-Pudding Model
  • Thompson concluded that cathode rays are composed of tiny, negatively charged particles he called “corpuscles”.
    • These particles were later named electrons.
  • Based on the deflection angles, he calculated the charge-to-mass ratio of the corpuscles.
    • He determined that the mass was negligible, and the charge was negative.
  • Thompson proposed the “plum-pudding model” of the atom.
    • This model depicted the atom as a large, positively charged sphere with embedded negative corpuscles (electrons).
  • Thompson’s discoveries revolutionized physics.
    • He demonstrated that atoms, previously thought indestructible, could be disassembled.
    • He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1906.
  • Physics was now able to detect subatomic particles through indirect means.
  • The study of physics became more organized, standardized, and systematic.

Marie Curie and the Discovery of Radioactivity

Marie Curie’s Background and Education
  • Maria Skłodowska-Curie (born 1867) was a Polish physicist and chemist.
  • Her parents were educators, fostering her interest in science.
  • She faced challenges in accessing higher education due to being Polish and female in Russian-controlled Poland.
    • She enrolled in the “Floating University,” an underground educational institution.
  • She moved to Paris in 1891, changed her name to Marie, and enrolled at the Sorbonne.
    • She earned a master’s in physics (1893) and mathematics (1894).
    • She joined the doctoral program under Henri Becquerel.
Marie Curie’s Research and Collaboration with Pierre Curie
  • Marie secured funding to research the magnetic properties of steel.
  • She became laboratory chief at the Municipal School of Industrial Physics and Chemistry, where she met Pierre Curie.
  • Marie and Pierre married in 1895.
  • They conducted research in a poorly equipped laboratory, referred to as the “Miserable Shed”.
Marie Curie’s Investigation of Becquerel Rays and Radioactivity
  • Marie became interested in Becquerel’s rays and chose them as her Ph.D. thesis topic.
  • She used Pierre’s electrometer to detect and quantify the rays through air ionization.
  • She obtained pitchblende, a uranium ore, and conducted experiments.
    • She confirmed that the rays were constant, regardless of the uranium’s physical or chemical state.
    • Minerals with higher uranium density emitted more rays.
  • Marie hypothesized that the rays originated from the core of the uranium atom, a revolutionary idea at the time.
  • She began using the term “radiation” and “radioactivity” to describe the phenomenon.
  • In 1898, she discovered that thorium also emitted radiation, confirming that radioactivity was an atomic property.
The Curies’ Discovery of Polonium and Radium
  • Pierre joined Marie’s research, recognizing its importance.
  • They observed that pitchblende was more radioactive than pure uranium, suggesting the presence of other radioactive elements.
  • Through extensive chemical processing of pitchblende, they isolated two new radioactive elements:
    • Polonium, named after Marie’s native Poland.
    • Radium, named after the term “radiation.”
  • They discovered these elements were products of the uranium decay chain.
    • Uranium and thorium, being the heaviest naturally occurring elements, are unstable and decay into lighter, radioactive elements, eventually ending with non-radioactive lead.
  • The Curies refined a small quantity of pure radium metal.
    • Radium is intensely radioactive and emits a blue glow due to its interaction with air.
  • Marie Curie’s 1903 Ph.D. thesis, “Research on Radioactive Substances,” was a landmark contribution to science.
  • Marie, Pierre, and Henri Becquerel shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903 for their work on radioactivity.
The Health Effects of Radiation and the Rise of a Radiation Industry
  • The Curies suffered health effects from constant exposure to radioactive materials.
    • They experienced burns, swelling, and peeling skin on their hands and fingers.
    • Pierre was particularly affected and suffered constant pain.
  • Despite the obvious health risks, the Curies continued their research.
  • A radiation industry emerged in the early 1900s, capitalizing on public excitement.
    • Products like Thoradia (beauty cream) and Doramad (toothpaste) were marketed with claims of health benefits, despite their radioactive content.
  • Medical demand for radium for cancer treatment and skin disorders soared.
  • The Curies gained fame and funding, leading to the establishment of the Radium Institute at the Sorbonne in 1919.

Ernest Rutherford and the Structure of the Atom

Ernest Rutherford’s Background and Early Research
  • Ernest Rutherford (born 1871) was a New Zealand-born physicist.
  • He excelled academically and earned scholarships to Nelson College and the University of New Zealand.
  • He earned an M.A. in mathematics and physical science at age 22.
  • He became interested in Hertz’s electromagnetic waves and radio transmission.
  • He received a scholarship to Cambridge and joined the Cavendish Laboratory in 1895, working under J.J. Thompson.
Rutherford’s Research on Radioactivity and Alpha and Beta Rays
  • Rutherford shifted his focus to radioactivity after Thompson’s discovery of the electron.
  • He studied the nature of radiation and identified two distinct types:
    • Alpha rays: Short-range radiation, easily stopped by solid objects or air.
    • Beta rays: Longer-range radiation with greater penetrating power.
  • He became professor of physics at McGill University in Montreal in 1899.
Rutherford and Soddy’s Research on Radioactive Decay and Transmutation
  • Rutherford and his colleague Frederick Soddy investigated a gas emanating from thorium.
    • They found the gas was chemically inert, leading them to believe thorium was transmuting into argon.
  • They studied the radioactivity of various elements using a method of counting flashes on a phosphorescent screen caused by radiation.
  • They discovered that:
    • Different elements had different radiation rates.
    • An element’s radiation rate decreased exponentially over time, a concept Soddy termed “half-life.”
  • They concluded that the gas was a result of thorium atom decay.
    • Radioactive decay involves an atom emitting radiation and transforming into a lighter element.
    • The decay product can also be radioactive.
  • They found that elements could have chemically identical subtypes with different half-lives, which Soddy termed “isotopes.”
    • Isotopes can be distinguished by their chemical properties and half-lives.
Rutherford’s Identification of Beta Rays and Measurement of Radioactive Energy
  • Rutherford suspected that beta rays were a natural form of cathode rays (electrons).
  • He confirmed this by deflecting a beam of beta rays using magnets and electrostatic fields, similar to Thompson’s cathode ray experiments.
  • In 1903, Rutherford and Soddy published “Radioactive Change,” presenting the first experimental measurements of energy produced by atomic decay.
    • They found that one gram of radium released an enormous amount of energy (estimated between 100 million and 10 billion calories).
    • This highlighted the vast difference in energy levels between chemical reactions (electron binding) and the forces holding the atomic nucleus together.****
  • Rutherford pondered the potential implications of artificially induced decay, suggesting it could have devastating consequences.
Philipp Lenard’s Cathode Ray Scattering and the Concept of Atomic Vacuum
  • Philipp von Lenard, a German physicist, worked on bringing cathode rays out of the vacuum tube.
  • He built a tube with a thin metal window that allowed cathode rays to escape.
  • He observed that some rays were scattered when passing through the window.
  • Lenard proposed that atoms were mostly empty space (vacuum) to explain the scattering.
    • He suggested that a cubic meter of platinum was as empty as outer space.
  • This was a radical idea that challenged the prevailing view of atoms as solid, continuous entities.
Hantaro Nagaoka’s Saturnian Model of the Atom
  • Hantaro Nagaoka, a Japanese physicist, developed a “Saturnian” model of the atom based on James Clerk Maxwell’s work on Saturn’s rings.
  • He proposed that electrons orbited a central positive charge like rocks orbiting Saturn.
  • This model had a flaw:
    • The repulsive force between electrons would cause them to fly apart, unlike the gravitational attraction that holds Saturn’s rings together.
Rutherford’s Alpha Particle Scattering and the Discovery of the Nucleus
  • Rutherford, intrigued by Lenard’s claim of atomic vacuum, conducted experiments with alpha particles.
  • He used a magnetic field to deflect alpha particles and observed their scattering through a thin piece of mica.
    • The mica deflected alpha particles more than the strongest magnet.
  • Rutherford moved to the University of Manchester in 1907.
  • In 1908, he proved that alpha particles were helium atoms stripped of their electrons.
  • In 1910, Rutherford, Hans Geiger, and Ernest Marsden conducted the Gold Foil Experiment.
    • They aimed a beam of alpha particles at a thin gold foil and observed their scattering using a zinc sulfide screen and microscope.
    • They unexpectedly found that some alpha particles were deflected at very large angles, even bouncing backwards.
  • Rutherford interpreted this as evidence for a dense, positively charged nucleus at the center of the atom.
    • He realized that most of the atom’s mass and positive charge were concentrated in a tiny nucleus.
  • Rutherford’s model replaced the plum-pudding model.
    • He envisioned the atom as mostly empty space with a dense nucleus and orbiting electrons, similar to a miniature solar system.
Rutherford’s Announcement and the Impact of the Nuclear Model
  • Rutherford announced his discovery at the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society in 1911.
  • His nuclear model of the atom became an iconic representation of atomic structure.
  • Rutherford’s work established the field of nuclear physics.

Remaining Questions and the Shift Towards Theoretical Physics

  • Despite the progress, two questions remained:
    • Johann Jakob Balmer’s formula (1885) accurately predicted the spectral lines of hydrogen but lacked a theoretical explanation.
    • The orbit of Mercury deviated slightly from predictions based on Newtonian physics.
  • These anomalies indicated a need for deeper theoretical understanding.
  • Physics was transitioning towards a more abstract and mathematical approach.
  • Rutherford’s model, although iconic, would eventually be found to be inaccurate.
    • The orbiting electrons would not be stable due to electromagnetic radiation.
  • The nature of the atom would require a radical shift in understanding, moving beyond classical physics.

Chapter 3: Einstein Drops a Bomb

The United States in Physical Science (Pre-1930s)

  • Backwater in physical science, with one major exception: the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment (1887)

Goal
  • Determine the speed and direction of the Earth’s movement through space.
  • Scientists believed the Earth moved through a stationary medium called the luminiferous ether.
Background
  • Earth’s known movements:
    • Rotation on its north-south axis.
    • Orbit around the Sun at 19 miles per second.
    • Suspected movement of the solar system around the Milky Way’s center.
  • Light was believed to travel in waves through the ether, similar to sound waves through air.
Experimental Setup
  • Interferometer:
    • Stone slab (1 foot thick, 4.5 feet per side) on a wooden float in a mercury-filled trough.
    • Concrete pier and brick foundation for stability.
    • Housed in a basement with a wooden cover for minimal temperature and vibration fluctuations.
  • Half-silvered mirror: Split a light beam (from a gas burner) into two perpendicular paths.
  • Mirrors at corners: Reflected the split beams back to the dividing mirror.
  • Telescope: Viewed the resulting interference pattern (bullseye with concentric rings).
  • Expected Outcome: Speed variations in the light beams would create interference fringes, indicating the Earth’s speed through the ether.
Results
  • No variation in the speed of light was detected in any direction.
Implications
  • Two possibilities:
    • The laboratory was stationary relative to the ether, and the universe rotated around Cleveland.
    • The ether does not exist.
  • The rippling pond analogy for light propagation was flawed.
  • No medium for light conduction - a paradoxical finding.
Subsequent Experiments
  • Countless repetitions with increasing sophistication (up to laser optics era).
  • 1992: Most recent experiment confirmed the null result.
  • Implications remain disturbing: No ether, no universal frame of reference.
Recognition
  • Albert Michelson: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics (1907) for the experiment.
  • Unique case: Nobel Prize for disproving the initial hypothesis.

Albert Einstein’s Entry

Background
  • Born in Ulm, Germany (1879).
  • Destined to revolutionize physics.
Views on the Michelson-Morley Experiment
  • Deemed it unnecessary, as he already knew no medium was needed for light propagation.
  • Addendum to his theory: Proved the equivalence of energy and matter (E=mc²).

Early 20th Century Physics

Atomic Energy
  • Scientists suspected a high-energy conversion in atomic nuclei beyond chemical energy release.
  • Einstein’s mass-energy equation:
    • Provided theoretical legitimacy for the pursuit of nuclear power.
    • Integrated it into a developing universal model.
Quantum Mechanics
  • Einstein inadvertently initiated the development of quantum mechanics.
  • Quantum mechanics would eventually explain energy release from the atomic nucleus.
Solving 19th Century Physics Problems
  • Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum mechanics addressed two unsolved problems:
    • The orbit of Mercury.
    • The Balmer series of hydrogen.
New Questions and Widening Gap
  • Solving these problems opened up new questions.
  • Increased the perceived distance between the real world and the atomic world.
Einstein’s Popularity
  • Achieved unprecedented popularity for a scientist.
  • Post-World War I: Published an English version of his Theories of Relativity for the general public.
  • Book tours and lectures: Drew huge crowds, becoming a media sensation.
  • Iconic image: Rumpled, lost in thought, reinforced the archetype of the physicist.
  • Ambivalent about fame: Hated the attention but thrived on it.
  • Opportune timing: His abstractions were needed by the developing field of nuclear physics.
  • Popularizing science: Made nuclear energy more acceptable to the public.

Einstein’s Early Life and Education

Early Fascination with Science
  • Age 5: Fascinated by a magnetic compass and its invisible force.
  • Age 10: Reading science books.
  • Age 12: Mastered Euclidean geometry.
  • High school: Wrote his first scientific paper on ether in magnetic fields.
Educational Path
  • 1895: Dropped out of high school in Germany.
  • Failed entrance exam to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich).
  • Completed secondary education in Aarau, Switzerland (1896).
  • Renounced German citizenship to avoid military service.
  • Accepted at ETH Zurich and graduated with a physics degree (1900).
Early Career Challenges
  • Struggled to find work as a high school teacher for two years.
  • 1902: Secured a job as a patent examiner at the Swiss patent office.

The Patent Office Years (1902-1909)

Ideal Environment for Thought
  • Freedom from academic pressures: Allowed for independent thinking.
  • Exposure to clock-synchronizing patents: Sparked his thoughts on time.
Annus Mirabilis (1905)
  • Published five groundbreaking papers:

1. On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light

  • Nobel Prize in Physics (1921).
  • Explained the photoelectric effect:
    • Observed by Max Planck.
    • Electron energy depends on light frequency, not intensity.
  • Proposed the concept of light quanta:
    • Discrete packets of energy.
    • Challenged the wave theory of light.
  • Implications:
    • Laid the foundation for quantum mechanics.
    • Supported the non-existence of ether.

2. A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions

  • Ph.D. thesis at the University of Zurich.
  • Studied the diffusion of sugar molecules in water.
  • Significance:
    • Confirmed the molecular structure of solutions.
    • Predicted the number and size of molecules theoretically.

3. On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in Stationary Liquids Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat

  • Published 11 days after his Ph.D. thesis.
  • Explained Brownian motion: Random movement of particles in a fluid.
  • Significance:
    • Further validated the atomic theory of matter.
    • Supported the use of statistical methods in physics.

4. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

  • Introduced the theory of special relativity.
  • Focused on the relative motion of observers.
  • Key Concepts:
    • Relativity of motion: No absolute frame of reference.
    • Constancy of the speed of light: The only constant in all frames of reference.
    • Non-simultaneity of events: Events simultaneous for one observer may not be for another.
  • Thought Experiments:
    • Moving electron and magnetic field.
    • Lightning strikes and synchronized clocks.

5. Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?

  • Addendum to the special relativity paper.
  • Introduced the famous equation: E=mc².
  • Mass-energy equivalence: Mass and energy are interchangeable.
  • Implications:
    • Revised the laws of conservation of mass and energy.
    • Small amounts of mass can be converted into enormous amounts of energy.
Impact of the 1905 Papers
  • Revolutionized physics.
  • Einstein’s career took off: Received numerous job offers from prestigious institutions.

General Relativity (1908-1919)

Expanding on Special Relativity
  • Goal: Extend the theory to accelerating reference frames.
  • Challenging task: Took ten years of intense work.
Key Concepts
  • Equivalence principle: Gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable.
  • Curvature of spacetime: Gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.
Thought Experiment: Elevator Car
  • Stationary elevator: Gravity holds you to the floor.
  • Accelerating elevator in space: Acceleration mimics gravity.
  • Light beam in an accelerating elevator: The beam appears bent due to the curvature of spacetime.
Non-Euclidean Geometry
  • Euclidean geometry: Straight lines, pi, 180-degree triangles.
  • Non-Euclidean geometry: Curved space, different rules.
  • Einstein used non-Euclidean geometry to describe gravity.
Gravity as a Property of Spacetime
  • Trampoline analogy:
    • Bowling ball creates a well in the trampoline, representing the curvature of spacetime caused by the sun.
    • Billiard ball is attracted to the well, representing the gravitational attraction of planets to the sun.
Explaining the Orbit of Mercury
  • Mercury’s perihelion precession: Its orbit shifts slightly over time.
  • Einstein’s explanation: Time is warped near the sun, affecting Mercury’s orbit.
  • 1915: Predicted the correct value of Mercury’s perihelion shift (43 arcseconds per century).
Experimental Confirmation
  • Prediction: Starlight should bend as it passes near the sun (1.7 arcseconds).
  • 1914: Erwin Freundlich’s expedition to observe the eclipse in Russia was thwarted by World War I.
  • 1919: Arthur Eddington’s expeditions during a solar eclipse confirmed the bending of starlight.
Impact of General Relativity
  • Further revolutionized physics.
  • Solved the Mercury problem.
  • Confirmed Einstein’s genius.
Public Reaction
  • Eddington’s announcement: Created a media frenzy.
  • Einstein became a global celebrity.
  • Relativity became a popular topic of discussion.

Conclusion

  • Einstein’s theories: Dropped a bomb on classical physics.
  • Paved the way for new and strange theories, preparing the world for the quantum revolution.
  • Bridged the gap between science and the public, making complex scientific concepts accessible to a wider audience.

Chapter 4: The Other End of the Universe

The Bohr Medal Story

The Story’s Premise
  • Niels Bohr, the originator of quantum mechanics and Nobel Prize winner in 1922, faced a dilemma during World War II.
  • German occupation of Denmark meant he couldn’t take his Nobel Prize medal (made of 200 grams of 23-carat gold) with him when escaping.
  • The story claims Bohr dissolved the medal in aqua regia (a mixture of hydrochloric and nitric acids), carried it out in a bottle, and later recast it in the United States.
Reasons for Doubt
  • Bohr’s escape was clandestine, involving a fishing boat and a nighttime journey to Sweden, making it unlikely he went through customs.
  • The author finds it improbable that Bohr would have declared the aqua regia to border guards.
  • The author concludes that the story is likely a myth, highlighting the fuzzy nature of history.

The Fuzzy Nature of Atoms and Quantum Mechanics

Einstein’s Relativity and its Limitations
  • Einstein’s theory of special relativity explained the immense energy released during nuclear decay (e.g., radium’s decay produces 10 billion calories per gram).
    • It showed that this energy comes from a tiny loss of mass (0.00047 grams per gram of radium).
  • Special relativity, however, doesn’t explain the mechanisms of nuclear decay or how it can be controlled.
  • General relativity, dealing with large-scale structures, predicts phenomena like black holes but breaks down at the atomic level where electromagnetic and nuclear forces dominate.
  • Relativity assumes a macroscopic world with smooth, infinitely divisible quantities and predictable actions.
  • The atomic world is fundamentally different, characterized by jerky movements, sudden jumps, and random, unpredictable behavior.
Quantum Mechanics: A Parallel Development
  • Quantum mechanics, developed alongside relativity, offered an alternative explanation for nuclear physics.
  • It became the last major physical theory synthesized in Europe before World War II.
  • It resolved many questions unanswered by relativity but created a conflict with relativity that persisted even after Einstein’s death.

Einstein’s Quantum Contribution and Bohr’s Atomic Model

Einstein’s Photoelectric Effect and Quantization
  • In 1905, Einstein published a paper on the photoelectric effect, showing that light consists of discrete packets of energy called quanta.
  • He concluded that light cannot be divided below a limit defined by Planck’s constant.
  • This concept challenged classical physics and Maxwell’s equations, which assumed light as a continuous wave.
  • Subsequent research revealed that quantization applies to various phenomena, not just light.
Quantization Example: Cobalt-60
  • Cobalt-60, a radioactive metal, has a half-life of 5.3 years (its radiation output halves in that time).
  • Repeatedly halving a block of cobalt-60 eventually leads to a single atom, which is the quantum cutoff.
  • At the macroscopic level, decay is predictable (half-life); at the quantum level, it’s probabilistic (50% chance of decay in 5.3 years).
  • This demonstrates the shift from certainty in the macro world to uncertainty in the quantum world.
Niels Bohr and the Quantum Leap
  • Niels Bohr, a brilliant physicist, recognized the connection between Einstein’s light quanta and atomic structure.
  • Bohr worked with Rutherford, whose solar system model of the atom had limitations:
    • Electrons orbiting the nucleus should repel each other.
    • An orbiting electron, constantly accelerating, should emit radiation and eventually collapse into the nucleus, contradicting the stability of atoms.
  • Bohr was inspired by spectral lines, the unique patterns of light emitted by excited gases.
    • Balmer’s formula (1885) could predict the wavelengths of hydrogen’s spectral lines using integer values.
    • Rydberg’s formula (1890) generalized Balmer’s formula for other elements.
  • Bohr realized that the integers in these formulas implied quantization of the emitted light.
  • He proposed that electrons exist in discrete energy states, not continuous orbits.
  • Electrons jump (quantum leap) between these energy states, emitting or absorbing specific amounts of energy corresponding to the spectral lines.
  • Bohr’s model successfully derived the Rydberg constant using fundamental constants (electron mass, electron charge, Planck’s constant).
  • It validated Einstein’s light quanta theory, Planck’s equation, and provided a physical basis for Balmer and Rydberg’s formulas.
  • Bohr effectively invented quantum mechanics.

The Bohr Model and the Periodic Table

Bohr’s Atomic Model: Shells and Ground States
  • Bohr’s model defined the ground state of an atom as a sphere at a specific distance from the nucleus.
  • Ground state energies are quantized (occur in integer steps).
  • Higher ground states correspond to larger spheres that can hold more electrons.
  • Hydrogen, with one electron, has a half-filled ground state.
  • Helium, with two electrons, has a filled ground state, making it inert (unable to form compounds).
  • Heavier elements have multiple electron shells, each accommodating a specific number of electrons (8, 18, 32, etc.).
  • Chemical reactivity depends on the ability to fill the outermost shell with electrons.
Impact on Chemistry and the Periodic Table
  • Bohr’s model clarified the periodic table of the elements, invented by Mendeleev in 1869.
  • Elements in the same column (e.g., alkali metals) have similar chemical properties because they have the same number of electrons in their outermost shell.
  • Electron shells fill from the inner to outer shells, with no gaps below the top level.
Bohr’s Continued Work and the Copenhagen Interpretation
  • Bohr became a professor in Copenhagen and director of the Institute of Theoretical Physics.
  • His refined theories became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.
  • Bohr predicted that element 72 (later named Hafnium) would have four electrons in its outer shell and behave chemically like zirconium, a prediction confirmed shortly after he received his Nobel Prize in 1922.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics
  • Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, collaborated with Bohr on quantum mechanics.
  • In 1927, they struggled with the wave-particle duality of light, its behavior as both particles and waves.
  • Inspired by Einstein’s statement, “It is the theory which decides what we can observe,” Heisenberg developed his Uncertainty Principle.
The Uncertainty Principle: Limits of Measurement
  • Heisenberg proposed that at the atomic level, there are fundamental limits to the precision of measurement.
  • The act of measuring a quantity inevitably disturbs the system, leading to a loss of information about other quantities.
  • Example:
    • Measuring the position of an electron precisely (e.g., with a flash photograph) makes its speed unknowable.
    • Measuring the speed of an electron precisely (e.g., by scattering gamma rays) makes its position unknowable.
  • Since an electron’s energy (and thus speed) can be precisely measured using spectroscopy, its position becomes uncertain.
  • Conclusion: The concept of a definite electron position around the nucleus is meaningless.
  • Bohr summarized this as “nothing exists until it is measured”.
Implications for Atomic Models
  • Heisenberg’s work showed that visual models of the atom, with electrons in specific orbits, are inaccurate.
  • Electrons are better represented as a cloud of uncertainty around the nucleus.
  • Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle revolutionized atomic physics, earning him the Nobel Prize in 1929.

The Double-Slit Experiment and Wave-Particle Duality

Young’s Double-Slit Experiment
  • Thomas Young, in 1801, conducted the double-slit experiment to demonstrate the wave nature of light.
  • A light beam passing through two narrow slits creates an interference pattern on a screen behind the slits, with alternating light and dark bands.
  • This pattern arises from the wavefronts interfering with each other.
The Double-Slit Experiment with Electrons
  • The experiment has been repeated with various types of waves and even particles.
  • In 1961, it was done with a beam of electrons, and in 1989, with a single electron.
  • The interference pattern still appeared, even with a single electron, suggesting it somehow passed through both slits simultaneously.
Wave-Particle Duality Paradox
  • These results contradicted the particle nature of electrons established by Bohr and Compton.
  • How could a single electron interfere with itself as if it were a wave?
  • Experiments attempting to measure both wave and particle properties simultaneously have shown that light can behave as either a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time.
The Role of Theory
  • Einstein’s statement about theory influencing observation becomes relevant.
  • The choice of experiment and the theory it’s based on determine whether light appears as a wave or a particle.

De Broglie’s Matter Waves

De Broglie’s Hypothesis
  • Louis de Broglie, in 1924, proposed that matter, like light, can exhibit both wave and particle properties.
  • He based this on the symmetry of nature and the established wave-particle duality of light.
  • He expressed this with the equation: λ = h/p
    • λ (lambda) is the wavelength.
    • h is Planck’s constant.
    • p is the momentum of the particle (mass x velocity).
Implications and Significance
  • De Broglie’s equation showed that any particle with momentum has a corresponding wavelength.
  • This provided a theoretical basis for the wave-like behavior of electrons in the double-slit experiment.
  • De Broglie’s work earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1929.

Schrödinger’s Wave Mechanics

Schrödinger’s Approach
  • Erwin Schrödinger, inspired by de Broglie, developed wave mechanics as an alternative model of the atom.
  • He treated electrons as standing waves rather than particles.
  • These waves, confined around the nucleus, can only vibrate at specific integer frequencies (harmonics).
Confirmation of Quantization
  • Schrödinger’s model, like Bohr’s, explained the quantized energy levels of electrons.
  • Electrons can only jump between specific energy levels corresponding to integer multiples of the fundamental frequency.
  • This independently confirmed the quantization inherent in Bohr’s model.
  • Schrödinger shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Paul Dirac in 1933.

Understanding Atomic Models

The Concept of Physical Models
  • The Bohr model (electrons in energy shells) and the Schrödinger model (standing waves) are both physical models of the atom.
  • The value of a model lies in its ability to accurately describe known phenomena and predict new ones.
  • Both models are successful in this regard.
The “Real” Picture of the Atom
  • There is no single “real” picture of the atom.
  • Both models are useful representations that highlight different aspects of atomic behavior.

The Fates of Bohr and Schrödinger

Bohr’s Escape from Denmark
  • Bohr delayed leaving Nazi-occupied Denmark until it became critical.
  • He escaped to Sweden in a fishing boat, avoiding German minefields.
  • Fearing assassination, the British flew him to England in a Mosquito bomber, stripped of armaments and adapted for a passenger in the bomb bay.
  • Bohr’s large head prevented the flight helmet from fitting properly, and he missed the instruction to turn on his oxygen at high altitude.
  • The pilots descended to avoid endangering him, and Bohr survived the flight, reportedly getting his best sleep in months.
Schrödinger in Ireland
  • Schrödinger spent World War II in Dublin, Ireland, at the Institute for Advanced Studies, directing the School for Theoretical Physics.
  • His unconventional lifestyle (living with both his wife and mistress) was tolerated by the Irish.

Conclusion

  • The chapter highlights the development of quantum mechanics, its key figures, and its profound implications for understanding the atom.
  • It emphasizes the shift from classical physics to a quantum world where uncertainty and wave-particle duality are fundamental.
  • The story of Bohr’s escape and Schrödinger’s wartime refuge adds a human element to the scientific narrative.

Chapter 5: Breaking Open the Atom

The Dichotomy of Physics

  • Physics, like many disciplines, frequently divides into opposing schools of thought.
    • Examples:
      • Arabic Spagyrus vs. Indian Chrysopaeus.
      • Newtonian astrophysicists vs. Einsteinian cosmologists.
      • Bosonic supersymmetric string theorists vs. Kaluza-Klein compactified M-theorists.
  • The most prominent division is between theorists and experimentalists.
    • Theorists’ view of experimentalists: Mechanics, linear thinkers, unable to visualize four dimensions.
    • Experimentalists’ view of theorists: Lazy, impractical, unable to perform basic lab tasks.
  • Quantum mechanically, both perspectives hold some truth.

The Rise of Theoretical Physics

  • 1920s: Theorists seemingly held the dominant position in physics.
  • Albert Einstein’s impact:
    • Theories of relativity: Revolutionized physics, challenged Newtonian concepts, and popularized complex scientific ideas among the general public.
    • Consequences: The public’s exposure to the intricacies of theoretical physics had unforeseen implications.
  • Niels Bohr’s contribution:
    • Quantum mechanics: Explained phenomena at the subatomic level, but demanded a significant leap of faith due to its counterintuitive nature.
  • Need for experimental validation: As quantum mechanics delved into uncharted territory, experimental physics was crucial for grounding these theories in a semblance of reality.

The Search for the Neutron

  • 1920s: The structure of the atomic nucleus remained an enigma, as experimental physics entered a period of contemplation.
  • Lord Ernest Rutherford’s Bakarian lecture (June 3rd, 1920):
    • Topic: Transmutation of nitrogen atoms using alpha particles.
    • Rutherford deviated from the main topic, raising a critical question about atomic weight discrepancies.
  • The Atomic Weight Problem:
    • Established understanding: Atoms consist of electrons (negative charge) orbiting a nucleus composed of protons (positive charge). The number of protons and electrons is equal, resulting in a neutral atom.
    • Discrepancy: Atomic weights of elements heavier than hydrogen did not align with the number of protons.
      • Example: Helium has two protons but weighs four times as much as hydrogen (which has one proton).
      • Further examples:
        • Nitrogen: 7 protons, atomic weight of 17.
        • Barium: 58 protons, atomic weight of 137.
        • Uranium: 92 protons, atomic weight of 238.
  • Rutherford’s hypothesis:
    • Proposed the existence of a neutral particle within the nucleus, which he called the neutron.
    • Neutron properties:
      • No electrical charge.
      • Weight equivalent to a proton.
      • Ability to penetrate matter easily.
      • Undetectable by existing radiation detectors.
  • The Elusive Neutron:
    • For 12 years after Rutherford’s lecture, experimentalists struggled to find the neutron.
    • Erroneous assumption: The neutron was thought to be a proton with an embedded electron.
    • Failed attempts: Efforts to create neutrons by bombarding hydrogen with electrons proved unsuccessful.

James Chadwick and the Discovery of the Neutron

  • James Chadwick (1891-):
    • Born in Bullington, Cheshire, England.
    • Studied physics at the University of Manchester, inspired by Rutherford’s lecture.
    • Obtained a Master of Science in Physics from the University of Cambridge.
    • Worked with Hans Geiger in Germany on the Geiger counter.
    • World War I: Interned at Ruhleben POW camp in Germany.
      • Continued scientific pursuits even in captivity, investigating the ionization of phosphorus and the photochemical reaction of carbon monoxide and chlorine.
    • Returned to England after the war and rejoined Rutherford’s team.
  • Chadwick’s Experiments:
    • Tasked with finding the neutron.
    • Began by bombarding various materials with alpha particles.
    • Alpha particles: Helium nuclei, heavy and capable of causing nuclear disintegration.
    • Beryllium anomaly:
      • When bombarded with alpha particles, beryllium emitted an unusually high intensity of gamma rays but no proton debris.
  • The Role of Polonium-210:
    • Chadwick needed a strong polonium-210 alpha source (which emits alphas without gamma contamination) for his experiments.
    • Irene Joliot-Curie and Frederic Joliot-Curie possessed the largest polonium-210 source at the time.
  • The Joliot-Curies’ Experiments (1931):
    • Used their alpha source and an ionization chamber to study beryllium’s response to alpha bombardment.
    • Ionization chamber: A metal can filled with air and a central wire; ionizing events create a conductive trail, allowing for the detection and measurement of radiation.
    • Cellophane experiment: Observed that gamma rays from beryllium, after passing through cellophane, caused a surge of protons in the detector.
    • Conclusion: Attributed the proton emission to the gamma rays knocking protons out of the hydrogen in the cellophane.
  • Chadwick’s Reinterpretation:
    • Found the Joliot-Curies’ explanation implausible due to the significant mass difference between gamma rays and protons.
    • Obtained a large polonium-210 source from used radon ampoules.
    • Replicated the experiment using a beryllium target, paraffin sheet, and an ionization chamber.
    • Chadwick’s deduction: The protons detected were not caused by gamma rays but by collisions with neutral particles of similar mass emitted from the beryllium – neutrons.
  • Chadwick’s Announcement:
    • Published “Possible Existence of a Neutron” in Nature (February 1932).
    • Presented his findings at the Kapitsa Club meeting.
    • Impact: Chadwick’s discovery transformed physics and the world.

Leo Szilard and the Concept of Nuclear Chain Reaction

  • Leo Szilard (1898-1964):
    • A genius with a passion for physics and politics.
    • Born in Budapest, Hungary.
    • Studied engineering and later physics in Budapest and Berlin.
    • Received his doctorate from the Humboldt University in Berlin in 1923.
    • Fled to England in 1933 due to rising anti-Semitism in Germany.
  • Szilard’s Epiphany (September 12, 1933):
    • Read about Rutherford’s skepticism regarding nuclear power in The Times.
    • While crossing the street, Szilard conceived the idea of a nuclear chain reaction.
  • The Chain Reaction Concept:
    • Neutron’s role: Neutrons, being uncharged, can penetrate nuclei easily.
    • Nuclear instability: A neutron absorbed by a heavy, neutron-rich nucleus can induce instability.
    • Nuclear fission: The unstable nucleus can split, releasing energy and more neutrons.
    • Self-sustaining reaction: The released neutrons can trigger further fissions, creating a chain reaction.
  • Szilard’s Patent and Research:
    • Applied for a patent for a nuclear reactor in 1934 (assigned to the British Admiralty).
    • Immigrated to the United States in 1938.
    • Continued research, initially focusing on beryllium and indium, but without success.
    • Became disillusioned and wrote to the Admiralty to withdraw his patent application.

Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and the Discovery of Nuclear Fission

  • Otto Hahn (1879-1968):
    • Born in Frankfurt, Germany.
    • Studied chemistry and became a pioneer in radiochemistry.
    • Headed the radioactivity department of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Chemistry in Berlin.
  • Lise Meitner (1878-1968):
    • A physicist from Vienna, Austria.
    • Collaborated with Hahn for 30 years.
  • Neutron Bombardment Experiments:
    • Hahn and Meitner systematically bombarded elements with neutrons, culminating with uranium.
  • Meitner’s Escape:
    • Meitner, being Jewish, had to flee Germany in 1938 due to the escalating Nazi threat.
    • Continued communication with Hahn through letters.
  • The Uranium Puzzle:
    • Hahn’s analysis of neutron-bombarded uranium yielded a puzzling radioactive isotope.
    • Initially suspected it to be radium, using barium as a carrier in fractional crystallization.
  • The Breakthrough:
    • Meitner realized that the product was not radium but barium itself.
  • Nuclear Fission:
    • Hahn had split the uranium atom, producing barium (slightly more than half the mass of uranium) and krypton (undetectable chemically).
  • Hahn’s Publications:
    • First paper (December 22, 1938): Cautiously reported the production of alkaline earth metals from uranium bombarded with neutrons.
    • Second paper: Reported the liberation of two free neutrons during fission.
  • Impact of the Discovery:
    • Generated immense excitement in the physics community, particularly for Szilard.
    • Szilard urged the British Admiralty to reinstate his patent application.
  • From Fantasy to Puzzle:
    • Nuclear power transitioned from a theoretical concept to a tangible possibility.
    • Experimentalists had validated Einstein’s prediction of mass-energy conversion.
  • The Remaining Question: The specific mechanism of how uranium converts mass into energy remained to be elucidated.

Part 2: The Puzzle

The State of Nuclear Engineering in the 1970s

A Technical Job Depression

  • Technical Job Depression: The early 1970s faced a global technical job depression.
    • NASA’s cancellation of the Apollo program: This resulted in a significant number of scientists and engineers losing their jobs.
    • Rumors of highly qualified individuals in low-paying jobs: Physicists were said to be driving taxis and delivering pizzas due to job scarcity.
    • Limited teaching opportunities: Even teaching positions in high schools were unavailable for physics graduates.

Graduate School as a Last Resort

  • Limited options: The job market forced many to consider graduate school.
  • Nuclear engineering as a potential path: The author, a physics graduate, opted for a master’s in nuclear engineering, hoping for better job prospects.
    • Hubris of a physics graduate: The author entered the program mid-curriculum without prerequisites, confident in their abilities.

The Nuclear Landscape

  • Light-water reactors: These were the dominant type of civilian nuclear reactors in the United States.
    • Limited innovation: The design had reached a mature state, leaving little room for further development.
  • Fast breeder reactors: These represented the future of nuclear research and engineering.
    • Plutonium-based: Breeder reactors utilized plutonium as fuel.
    • Fuel breeding capability: They produced more fissionable fuel than they consumed, making them a potentially sustainable power source.
  • Fermi 1 meltdown: The first civilian breeder reactor, Fermi 1 in Michigan, experienced a meltdown in 1966 and was shut down in 1972.
    • End of breeder reactor development: This incident marked the end of breeder reactor design and construction during the author’s career.

The Decline of Heroic Nuclear Engineering

A Coasting Field

  • Loss of momentum: Despite advancements, nuclear engineering was losing its dynamism.
  • End of an era: The time of groundbreaking discoveries and legendary figures like Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard had passed.
  • Decline in experimental research: The era of building innovative and potentially risky nuclear experiments was over.

The Afterglow of a Golden Age

  • Witnessing the sunset: The author entered the field as the “golden age” of nuclear engineering was ending.
  • Cancellation of ambitious projects: The Nerva nuclear rocket engine project, intended for a Mars mission, was canceled.
  • Impact on faculty: Professors were often veterans of canceled projects like NERVA and SNAP, or even the Manhattan Project.

The Manhattan Project and Its Legacy

The Birth of Nuclear Engineering

  • Manhattan Project: The atomic bomb project of World War II, the origin of nuclear engineering.
  • Transition from theory to reality: Nuclear physics transformed from a theoretical concept to a practical, albeit destructive, technology.
  • Solving the puzzle of power: The challenge of creating a powerful weapon from a laboratory effect was successfully addressed.

Secrecy and Silence

  • Gaps in the record: Some aspects of the solutions and data remained classified.
  • Reluctance to discuss details: Professors were hesitant to talk about the Manhattan Project or ongoing weapons research due to its sensitive nature.
  • Cold War context: The ongoing ideological conflict with the Soviet Union maintained secrecy around nuclear weapon design.
  • Varied responses to secrecy: Some professors were nervous, others frightened, and some simply tired of the secrecy surrounding the topic.

Neb Kendrick: A Window into the Past

A Source of War Stories

  • Professor Neb Kendrick: A physics professor and former bomb assembler at Los Alamos, who shared his experiences with the author.
  • Extensive experience: Kendrick had assembled various atomic bomb designs, including Little Boy, Fat Man, MK-6, and others.
  • Firsthand witness to tests: He observed surface tests in Nevada, experiencing the shockwaves firsthand.
  • Handling plutonium cores: Kendrick held plutonium cores, feeling the warmth from radiation.
  • Knowledge of the X-unit: He had memorized the schematic design of the A-bomb firing circuit, known as the X-unit.

The TX-9 Nuclear Artillery Shell

  • TX-9 Assembly: Kendrick assembled the TX-9 nuclear artillery shell for the Grable test in Nevada on May 25, 1953.
  • Miniaturized Hiroshima bomb: The TX-9 was a uranium-fueled atomic bomb similar to the one used in Hiroshima, but designed to fit an 11-inch cannon shell.
  • Gun-type design: It used a uranium projectile fired into a uranium target to achieve a hypercritical mass.
  • Safety pins: Three steel pins prevented accidental detonation during handling by blocking the projectile’s movement.
  • Arming mechanism: Centrifugal force during firing ejected the pins, arming the shell shortly after leaving the cannon.

The Grable Test

  • High-velocity projectile: The TX-9 shell was fired at 2,000 feet per second with a high spin rate.
  • Proximity of the firing crew: The crew was positioned only six miles from the detonation point.
  • Ace of Spades experiment: Some crew members placed playing cards facing the blast to observe the effects of the flash.
  • The Flash: The intense light from the explosion, even in daylight, burned out the black spades on the cards.
  • The Shockwave: The ground-traveling shockwave distorted the earth significantly, making it impossible to see the end of the trench.
  • “The very planet, indeed, quivered with implications”: A powerful statement reflecting the immense power and impact of the nuclear test.

Chapter 1: A Fortuitous Condensation of Genius

The Race for the Atomic Bomb Begins (1939)

  • 1939: The discovery of fission nine days prior to New Year’s Day sparked a race for the atomic bomb.
  • Physicists engaged in discussions, arguments, and research, creating a buzz of excitement, anticipation, and dread.

The New York World’s Fair (1939)

  • April 30, 1939: The New York World’s Fair opened, showcasing the “materials, ideas, and forces” shaping the future.
  • Focus: Technology and hope for the future.
  • Notable Exhibitors:
    • RCA (television)
    • Bell Labs (Vocoder)
  • Participating Nations: Great Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, USSR, Palestine, and others.
  • Germany’s Absence: Germany was absent, focusing on military applications of nuclear energy.

Germany’s Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons

  • April 29, 1939: One day before the World’s Fair, Germany began investigating military uses of nuclear energy.
  • Rationale:
    • Germany was where fission was discovered.
    • Germany had a strong scientific infrastructure.
    • Nuclear weapons aligned with Germany’s goal of world domination.
  • Key Players:
    • Paul Hartek (University of Hamburg): Contacted the army ordnance office.
    • Uranverein (Uranium Club): Formed by Georg Joos, Wilhelm Handler, and Reinhold Mankopf at the University of Göttingen.

The Uranium Club’s Challenges and Mistakes

Challenge 1: Uranium Enrichment
  • Problem: Natural uranium contains very little fissile U-235 (less than 1%).
  • Solution: Maximize the probability of fission using slow neutrons and a moderator to slow them down.
Challenge 2: Moderator Selection
  • Graphite:
    • Theoretically Ideal: Light, solid, low neutron absorption probability.
    • Practically Unsuitable: German industrial graphite was contaminated with boron, a strong neutron absorber.
  • Heavy Water (Deuterium Oxide):
    • Chosen Moderator: Deuterium has a low probability of neutron capture.
    • Production Issues: Difficult to produce in large quantities.
    • Mistake 1: Dependence on a scarce material (heavy water).
Mistake 2: Military Duty Interruption
  • August 1939: All able-bodied men, including the Uranium Club, were called to military duty.
  • Consequence: Weeks of lost work time.
Mistake 3: Failed Research Council Meeting
  • February 26, 1942: A meeting to secure funding for the nuclear program failed.
  • Reason: Physicists planned a luncheon with experimental food, deterring key decision-makers.
  • Consequence: Further delays and fragmentation of the project.
Mistake 4: The Brain Drain
  • 1930s: The Nazi regime purged Jewish scientists from universities and government programs.
  • Consequence: Loss of top nuclear research talent, including:
    • Jewish Hungarians fleeing Soviet policies.
    • Native German Jewish scientists.
  • “Jewish Physics” vs. “Aryan Physics”:
    • Aryan Physics: Classical physics taught in universities.
    • Jewish Physics: Relativity and quantum mechanics, discouraged due to their association with Jewish scientists.
    • Impact: Hindered progress in nuclear physics, which relies on relativity and quantum mechanics.

The United States: A Safe Haven for Genius

  • Slow Start: The US initially lagged behind Europe in nuclear physics research, focusing on practical industrial research.
  • The Edison Method: Favored trial and error over theoretical analysis.
  • Transformation: Immigration of displaced European physicists transformed the US into a nuclear research hub.
  • Key Immigrants:
    • Albert Einstein (1932)
    • Johnny von Neumann (1930)
    • E.P. Wigner (1930)
    • Hans Bethe (1935)
    • Edward Teller (1935)
    • Enrico Fermi (1938)
    • Leo Szilard (1938)
    • Niels Bohr (1943)
  • Factors Favoring the US:
    • Safe haven for immigrants.
    • Geographical isolation from Europe.
    • Strong industrial and university infrastructure.
    • “Foolish optimism” and a willingness to tackle ambitious projects.

Contrasting Approaches: Germany vs. the US

  • German “Realism”:
    • Believed developing a bomb would take at least four years.
    • Lacked the resources for a long war.
    • Focused on a quick victory.
  • American Enthusiasm:
    • Contagious optimism drove the effort.
    • Attracted British scientists to collaborate.

Enrico Fermi’s Contributions

Early Life and Education
  • Born: September 29, 1901, in Rome, Italy.
  • Family: Roman Catholic upbringing.
  • Turning Point: His brother’s death sparked his interest in physics.
  • Self-Education: Devoured physics books, including two volumes of “Elementary Mathematical Physics” written in Latin.
  • Education: Earned undergraduate and doctoral degrees in physics from the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa.
  • Göttingen Influence: Studied under Werner Heisenberg, developing a preference for rigorous simplicity in quantum mechanics.
Research in Italy
  • 1926: Started nuclear physics research at the University of Rome La Sapienza.
  • “The Pope”: Nickname given by his research team, the “Via Panasperna boys,” reflecting his authority in physics.
  • Beta Decay Research (1933):
    • Completed a detailed study of beta decay.
    • Published “Tentavio di una teoria dei raggi beta,” introducing the first complete theory of beta decay.
    • Initial Rejection: “Nature” rejected the paper, but later published it in 1939.
Beta Decay Explained
  • Definition: A type of nuclear decay that changes the element of a nucleus while maintaining its mass.
  • Types:
    • Beta Minus Decay: A neutron converts to a proton, emitting an electron (beta particle) and an antineutrino.
      • Example: Lithium-8 decays into beryllium-8.
    • Beta Plus Decay: A proton converts to a neutron, emitting a positron (beta particle) and a neutrino.
      • Example: Carbon-11 decays into boron-11.
Neutron Activation Research
  • Goal: Measured the interactions of neutrons with every element in the periodic table.
  • Activation:
    • Definition: The absorption of neutrons by atomic nuclei, leading to instability and radioactive decay.
    • Examples:
      • Aluminum: Low sensitivity to activation.
      • Silver: High sensitivity to activation.
  • The Wooden Bench Anomaly:
    • Observation: Neutron activation of silver was higher on a wooden bench than on marble benches.
    • Explanation: Hydrogen in the wood slowed down neutrons, increasing the probability of interaction with silver.
Slow Neutrons and Fission
  • Key Finding: Slow neutrons have a higher probability of interacting with nuclei, including causing fission.
  • Subatomic Interactions: All interactions at the quantum level are probabilistic.
  • Slowing Down Neutrons: Increases the probability of interaction and fission.
  • Fission:
    • When a slow neutron is absorbed by a U-235 nucleus, there’s a high probability of the nucleus becoming unstable and splitting (fission).
  • Fermi’s Near Miss: Fermi came close to discovering fission but didn’t win the Nobel for it.
Nobel Prize and Escape to the US
  • 1938: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on slow neutrons.
  • Escape from Fascism: Used the trip to Stockholm to flee Italy with his family due to rising anti-Semitism.

Understanding Neutron Speeds and Thermal Energy

  • Fission Neutrons: Travel at high speeds (around 2 million electron volts).
  • Thermal Neutrons: Neutrons slowed down to room temperature (0.025 electron volts) have a 1,000-fold increase in fission probability.

Fermi’s Nuclear Reactor

  • Collaboration: Worked with Leo Szilard to build a nuclear reactor.
  • Principle: Used a moderator to slow down neutrons and sustain a chain reaction of fission with low-grade uranium.
  • Patent: Fermi and Szilard shared the patent for the nuclear reactor.

Chapter 2: An Implied Threat from the Fatherland

The Iraqi Situation (2003)

  • Rumors and Warnings: Before the Iraq War, rumors, reports, books, and interviews with scientists and engineers escaping from Iraq warned the Western world of an impending crisis.
    • These individuals, seeking asylum, detailed nuclear activity in Iraq under a dictator seeking regional domination.
    • Concerns arose about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), particularly nuclear weapons.
  • Evidence Gathering:
    • Material and equipment traffic into Iraq was monitored.
    • Satellite photos were studied.
    • Human intelligence sources were pressed for details.
    • The ejection of international inspectors intensified suspicion.
  • Limited Information and Suspicion:
    • Difficulty in assessing the situation in Iraq led to speculation and heightened suspense.
    • The World Trade Center attack in 2001 fueled the belief that Iraq was developing an atomic bomb.
  • Invasion of Iraq:
    • The US Army, with support from Saudi Arabia, invaded Iraq.
    • No evidence of atomic bomb-making capability was found.

The German Situation (1939)

  • A Similar Situation: A comparable scenario unfolded in the United States in 1939.
    • President Roosevelt observed Europe and Asia preparing for another world war.
    • Refugee nuclear scientists from Europe arrived with warnings about Germany’s plans.
  • Hitler’s Ambitions and the “Ultimate Weapon”:
    • Adolf Hitler aimed to dominate Europe.
    • German scientists were reportedly developing a weapon capable of destroying an entire city – a uranium-based weapon utilizing the newly discovered fission process.
  • Refugee Advice and the Threat to the US:
    • Refugees from various countries had historically advised the US on invasions.
    • These European refugees presented a technical reason for intervention – the potential for Germany to use an ultimate weapon in the Western hemisphere.
  • Scientists’ Warnings:
    • Scientists like Leo Szilard issued dire warnings about the potential consequences of a German atomic bomb.
  • Germany’s Nuclear Program:
    • Information about Germany’s nuclear work ceased, creating suspicion.
    • Germany stopped the sale of uranium from Czechoslovakia.
    • This led to the assumption that Germany was building a bomb.
  • The US Response:
    • The resulting nuclear panic drove a crash program in the US to develop nuclear technology, prioritizing it over military action in the Pacific or Europe.
  • World War II and the Priority Shift:
    • The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, by Japan, formally brought the US into World War II.
    • Despite Japan’s attack, the US government prioritized defeating Germany.
  • Invasion of Germany:
    • The US invaded Germany from the west, using Great Britain as a staging area.
    • No evidence of atomic bomb-making capability was found in Germany.
  • The Atomic Bomb and the End of the War:
    • The US, having become a nuclear power, used its newly developed atomic bombs on Japan, ending the war.
    • The devastating impact of the atomic bombs introduced the world to the power and horror of nuclear weapons.

Leo Szilard and the Push for US Nuclear Research

  • Szilard’s Persuasive Abilities:
    • Leo Szilard possessed exceptional persuasive skills, able to quickly assess individuals and convince them to act as he desired.
  • Szilard’s Early Research:
    • In 1939, Szilard established a lab at Columbia University and began experimenting with nuclear fission for power production.
    • He obtained uranium oxide from the Eldorado Radium Corporation and persuaded the National Carbon Company to produce high-purity graphite bricks.
  • The Need for Government Support:
    • Szilard realized that a large-scale effort, requiring government resources, was necessary to achieve self-sustained fission.
  • Fermi’s Meeting with the Navy:
    • Szilard arranged for Enrico Fermi to meet with the Navy Department on March 17, 1939, to discuss nuclear power.
    • The meeting, attended by naval officers and scientists, was unproductive.
    • Fermi’s lecture was not well-received, and he was unable to provide specifics about potential applications.
    • The meeting ended with no commitments from the Navy.
  • The Einstein-Szilard Letter:
    • Szilard, along with Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller, decided to write a letter to Queen Elizabeth of Belgium to prevent Germany from acquiring uranium from the Belgian Congo.
    • They sought Albert Einstein’s help due to his connection with the Queen.
    • On July 16, 1939, Szilard and Wigner met with Einstein, who agreed to write a letter to the Belgian ambassador, with a copy to the State Department.
  • Alexander Sachs and a Letter to Roosevelt:
    • Alexander Sachs, an economist and friend of President Roosevelt, learned of Szilard’s plans and suggested writing directly to the President.
    • Szilard drafted a new letter, and on July 30, 1939, he, Einstein, and Teller finalized it.
  • The Letter’s Content:
    • The letter highlighted the potential of uranium as a new energy source and the possibility of creating a powerful bomb.
    • It warned of Germany’s potential development of such a weapon and urged the US to appoint an administrator and initiate its own research.
  • Sachs’ Meeting with Roosevelt:
    • Sachs delivered the letter to Roosevelt on October 11, 1939.
    • Instead of reading the letter, Sachs summarized its key points.
    • Roosevelt recognized the threat and initiated action.
  • The Uranium Committee:
    • The Uranium Committee was formed and held its first meeting on October 21, 1939.
    • Dr. Lyman L. Briggs headed the committee, with representatives from the Army and Navy present.
    • Szilard and Wigner presented their case, but the Army representatives were skeptical.
    • Teller requested $6,000 for initial research, which was granted.
  • British Developments:
    • In February 1940, the British government received a report about potential German nuclear weapons research.
    • The Maud Committee was formed to evaluate the feasibility of nuclear power and weapons.
    • By December 1940, the Maud Committee concluded that a uranium bomb was feasible and could change the course of the war.
    • Recognizing their limited resources, they recommended collaboration with the US.
    • A report was sent to Briggs, but he locked it in his safe and forgot about it.
  • NDRC and Project S-1:
    • Vannevar Bush formed the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) in June 1940.
    • By July 1941, the NDRC absorbed the Uranium Committee, and the sustained fission initiative became Project S-1.
    • Bush appointed Arthur Compton as the director of S-1.
  • Pearl Harbor and the Escalation of the Project:
    • The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, officially brought the US into World War II.
    • Four days later, Germany declared war on the US.
    • These events led to the acceleration of the atomic bomb project.

The Berkeley Effort: Plutonium

  • A Parallel Threat: Another line of nuclear physics research was developing at the University of California, Berkeley.
  • Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Structure:
    • Quantum mechanics provided a solid model of atomic structure.
    • Scientists applied quantum principles to understand the nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons.
  • Element 94:
    • Quantum mechanics predicted the existence of Element 94, a hypothetical element beyond uranium, which could be fissile.
    • The fissile isotope would be isotope 239.
  • Transmutation and Neutron Capture:
    • Transmutation of elements was possible through nuclear decay and neutron capture.
    • Uranium could potentially be transmuted into Element 94 through neutron absorption.
  • Ernest O. Lawrence and the Cyclotron:
    • Ernest O. Lawrence invented the cyclotron, a device that could accelerate particles to high speeds.
    • Lawrence built increasingly larger cyclotrons at Berkeley.
    • The cyclotron could produce neutrons by bombarding beryllium with deuterons.
  • Glenn Seaborg and the Synthesis of Element 94:
    • Glenn Seaborg used Lawrence’s cyclotron to synthesize iodine-121 and iron-59.
    • In August 1940, Seaborg attempted to synthesize Element 94.
    • On February 23, 1941, they isolated a unique alpha emitter, believed to be Element 94.
    • On February 26, 1941, they confirmed the synthesis of Element 94, which they named Plutonium (Pu).
  • The Challenge of Plutonium Production:
    • Producing gram quantities of plutonium using the cyclotron would take an impractically long time.
  • The Need for a Nuclear Reactor:
    • A nuclear reactor was needed to produce a massive source of neutrons for converting U-238 into Pu-239.
  • Enrico Fermi and the First Nuclear Reactor:
    • Enrico Fermi and his team at the University of Chicago built the first nuclear reactor in late 1942.
    • This reactor provided a neutron source for plutonium production and proved that nuclear reactions could be harnessed for power.

Chicago Pile 1 (CP-1): The First Self-Sustaining Nuclear Reaction

  • A Flawless Experiment: Fermi’s demonstration of controlled, sustained chain-reacting fission was a remarkably flawless experiment.
  • The OSRD and Project S-1:
    • The NDRC evolved into the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD).
    • Arthur Compton continued to lead Project S-1.
  • Fermi’s Team and the Move to Chicago:
    • Fermi’s team conducted experiments at Columbia University before moving to Chicago for greater secrecy and space.
    • They chose an abandoned squash court under the West Stands of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago.
  • Construction of CP-1:
    • On November 16, 1942, Fermi’s team began constructing the “pile”, later known as Chicago Pile 1 (CP-1).
    • CP-1 was a roughly spherical structure made of graphite bricks and uranium cylinders, with cadmium control rods to regulate the reaction.
    • Neutron detectors and recording equipment were installed on a balcony overlooking the court.
  • The Experiment:
    • The experiment to achieve a self-sustaining reaction was scheduled for December 2, 1942.
    • George Weil controlled a major control rod, while others stood by with cadmium salt solution and a fire axe as emergency measures.
    • Norm Hilberry was prepared to cut a rope holding a “zip rod” for emergency shutdown.
    • Fermi, Compton, Herb Anderson, and Walter Zinn operated the control panel.
    • Leona Woods was the only woman present and recorded the experiment in her notebook.
  • The Sequence of Events:
    1. At 9:45 a.m., the experiment began with the withdrawal of electrically driven control rods.
    2. At 10:00 a.m., Zinn pulled out the gravity rod.
    3. Fermi directed the withdrawal of the vernier control rod in stages, observing the neutron count rate.
    4. At 11:35 a.m., the automatically actuated safety rod was accidentally triggered, shutting down the reaction prematurely.
    5. Fermi called for a lunch break.
    6. At 2:00 p.m., the experiment resumed.
    7. At 3:20 p.m., Fermi called for further withdrawal of the vernier control rod.
    8. At 3:52 p.m., Fermi announced that the reaction was self-sustaining, proving the feasibility of nuclear power.
  • Compton’s Phone Call:
    • Compton informed James B. Conant, head of the S-1 funding committee, about the success using a coded message: “The Italian navigator has landed in the New World.”
  • The Aftermath:
    • The pile was shut down, having produced power at a rate of half a watt.
    • The experiment marked a major milestone in nuclear physics and paved the way for the development of nuclear weapons and power plants.

The Alsace Mission and the German Nuclear Program

  • The Alsace Mission:
    • In 1945, as the war in Europe neared its end, the US sent the Alsace mission to investigate the status of the German atomic bomb project.
  • Disappointing Findings:
    • The mission discovered that Germany had abandoned its atomic bomb ambitions.
    • German scientists were conducting limited research in applied nuclear physics and attempting to build a heavy water moderated reactor.
    • The reactor experiment was moved to the beer cooling cellar of a castle in Heigerloch due to bombing raids.
    • The German reactor was far from operational size.
    • Upon learning of the approaching American forces, the German scientists hid the uranium and fled.
  • The Legacy of Heigerloch:
    • The Heigerloch reactor site is now a tourist attraction.

Chapter 3: A Jolt in the Dark

The Transition of Nuclear Physics

World War II and the Rise of Secrecy
  • World War II transformed nuclear physics from an open field to a military secret.
  • Journal publications ceased, and research moved from universities to secret laboratories.
  • Strict security measures were implemented:
    • Personnel were relocated and sworn to secrecy.
    • Construction workers and laborers were unaware of the projects’ true nature.
    • Code words replaced key terms (e.g., Uranium-235 became “ore alloy”).
    • Facilities were heavily guarded with barbed wire, watchtowers, and minefields.
    • Mail censorship, photography bans, and controlled documents were enforced.
  • Examples of secrecy:
    • Robert Spruill, president of the University of California and administrator of a nuclear lab, was uninformed about the lab’s purpose.
    • Laura Fermi, Enrico Fermi’s wife, remained unaware of her husband’s work until after the war.
    • Counter-stories explained unusual events to the public.
    • Foreign scientists were monitored by the FBI.
  • Despite the scale of the project, security was remarkably effective:
    • Germany and Japan remained unaware of the project.
    • Even Vice President Harry S. Truman was kept in the dark until FDR’s death.
  • Nuclear technology advanced rapidly in this secretive environment, transitioning from a theoretical topic to an industrial process in just three years.
  • The sudden unveiling of the atomic bomb at the end of the war shocked the world – a “jolt in the dark.”
Soviet Espionage and Response
  • The Soviets, masters of espionage, quickly deduced the American atomic bomb project.
  • The evidence was not direct communication, but the sudden absence of information in American physics journals.
  • Georgi Flerov alerted Joseph Stalin to this significant detail.
  • Two Soviet actions followed:
    1. Initiation of their own atomic bomb project, led by Igor Kurchatov, with research relocated to Serov.
    2. Infiltration of the American project through espionage, which proved highly successful and aided the Soviets in their post-war bomb development.

The S-1 Executive Committee and Project Y

The Bohemian Grove Meeting
  • On September 13, 1942, the S-1 Executive Committee held a crucial meeting to accelerate the atomic bomb project.
  • Attendees included:
    • Lyman Briggs (chairman)
    • James Conant (president of Harvard University)
    • Arthur Compton (physicist and Nobel laureate)
    • Ernest Lawrence (cyclotron expert from Berkeley)
    • Igor Murphree (petroleum chemist)
    • Harold Urey (chemist and Nobel laureate)
  • The meeting took place at the Bohemian Club in Monte Rio, California, a secluded location chosen for its secrecy.
  • The club’s motto, “Weaving Spiders Come Not Here,” was ironically disregarded as the committee strategized.
The British Mod Committee Report and its Implications
  • The committee reviewed a report from the British Mod Committee, which had been kept secret since 1941.
  • The report revealed a crucial finding: fast fission.
    • Fast neutrons (1 million electron volts) could also induce fission in U-235, occurring promptly without delay.
  • This meant that bombs could be smaller and lighter, without requiring a bulky moderator.
  • Instead of a large graphite pile, a bomb could be made of pure U-235, the “size of a pineapple.”
  • The possibility of a practical atomic bomb became more realistic.
Project Y and the Appointment of General Groves
  • The committee established Project Y, a centralized laboratory dedicated to studying fast neutrons.
  • They selected Colonel Leslie Richard Groves to lead the project, seeking a disciplined military officer to manage the scientists.
  • Groves, a West Point graduate and experienced engineer (fresh off building the Pentagon), was promoted to Brigadier General and given unlimited resources.
  • The project was initially named “Laboratory for the Development of Substitute Materials,” but Groves changed it to Manhattan Engineering District (commonly known as the Manhattan Project).
  • Groves’ singular objective was to build and test the atomic bomb.

Oak Ridge: The Manhattan Project Headquarters

Site Selection and Development
  • Within a week of his appointment, Groves’ team acquired 52,000 acres in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
  • The location was ideal:
    • Isolated and secure, between two mountain ranges.
    • Abundant electrical power from the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  • The existing population was relocated, and prefabricated housing was installed, creating a secret city.
  • Oak Ridge became the Headquarters of the Manhattan Project, referred to as Site X or the Clinton Works.
Groves’ Leadership and the Need for a Top Scientist
  • General Groves’ decisive leadership expedited the project:
    • Decisions were made quickly, and budgets expanded dramatically.
  • Groves recognized the need for a top scientist to manage the diverse team of experts.
  • He chose Dr. Julius Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist from Berkeley.
Oppenheimer’s Security Clearance and Contrasting Personalities
  • Oppenheimer’s security clearance was a concern due to his socialist leanings and connections to the Communist Party:
    • He subscribed to People’s World magazine.
    • His wife, mistress, brother, and others in his circle were Communist Party members.
  • Despite this, Groves ensured Oppenheimer’s clearance was approved.
  • Groves and Oppenheimer had contrasting personalities:
    • Groves: Heavyset, military officer, engineer, direct, conservative, read the World Almanac.
    • Oppenheimer: Thin, academic, theoretical physicist, chain-smoker, arrogant, left-leaning, read the Bhagavad Gita in Sanskrit.
  • Despite their differences, they formed a highly effective team, driven by the shared goal of success.

Los Alamos: Site Y

Site Selection and Development
  • Oppenheimer chose the Los Alamos Ranch School in New Mexico for Site Y.
  • The location was isolated, secure, and familiar to Oppenheimer from his childhood summers.
  • The project acquired the school and its property, and Oppenheimer’s family moved into the administrator’s residence.
  • Existing buildings were repurposed, and new facilities were rapidly constructed.
  • Los Alamos became the ideal location for experimenting with explosives and dangerous materials.
Bomb Design Concepts: Hypercriticality, Prompt Fission, and Fast Fission
  • By the end of 1942, with Fermi’s reactor operational in Chicago and Los Alamos under development, a basic atomic bomb design emerged.
  • The bomb’s explosive power relied on three principles:
    1. Hypercriticality: A state where the nuclear chain reaction rapidly escalates due to a large excess of fissile material.
    2. Prompt Fission: Utilizing only the neutrons released instantly during fission to ensure a rapid chain reaction.
    3. Fast Fission: Initiating fission with high-speed neutrons, eliminating the need for a moderator.

The Dual Paths to the Bomb

Path 1: The Uranium Bomb
  • Path 1 focused on building a bomb using uranium.
  • The challenge was uranium enrichment, separating the fissile U-235 (0.7%) from the dominant U-238 (99.3%).
  • Chemical separation was impossible, as isotopes of the same element have identical chemical properties.
  • Isotope separation methods, like ultra-centrifuges and mass spectrometers, had only been used on a small scale.
  • Oak Ridge became the center for large-scale isotope separation.
  • Path 1 was further divided into two parallel approaches:
    • Path 1A: Calutrons (Y-12)
    • Path 1B: Gaseous Diffusion (K-25)
Path 1A: Calutrons (Y-12)
  • Ernest Lawrence proposed using calutrons, large-scale mass spectrometers.
  • The process involved:
    1. Ionizing uranium metal.
    2. Accelerating ions using an electrical charge.
    3. Bending the ion path with a magnetic field.
    4. Lighter U-235 ions would curve more sharply and hit a different target than U-238.
  • Groves approved Lawrence’s plan, despite its ambitious nature.
  • Five alpha calutrons (racetracks) were built, achieving 12% enrichment.
    • Each racetrack was 122 feet long and 77 feet wide, containing 96 calutrons.
    • They relied heavily on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s power for the electromagnets.
  • “Z regulators” (voltage control systems) were operated by young women to maintain the magnetic field.
  • Copper shortage for magnet windings was addressed by borrowing silver from the U.S. Treasury ($300 million worth).
  • Calutrons proved inefficient: less than 5% of U-235 reached the target, the rest was contaminated.
  • Beta calutrons were built for a second stage, reaching 80% enrichment.
  • By early 1945, they were producing enough enriched U-235 for a bomb, albeit with significant waste.
Path 1B: Gaseous Diffusion (K-25)
  • Harold Urey championed the gaseous diffusion method.
  • The process exploited the slightly faster diffusion rate of lighter gas molecules through a permeable membrane.
  • The effect was small, requiring thousands of repetitions.
  • Practical challenges:
    • Uranium had to be converted into gaseous uranium hexafluoride.
    • Uranium hexafluoride is highly reactive, requiring nickel for all components (pipes, valves, etc.).
  • K-25 was a massive building, half a mile long and 1,000 feet wide, the largest in the world at the time.
  • 15,000 people were involved in its construction and operation.
  • K-25 did not reach full capacity during the war due to the time-consuming nature of diffusion.
  • However, it proved to be a more efficient and less wasteful process than calutrons.
  • The U.S. emerged from the war with the only uranium enrichment plant in the world, influencing future nuclear power development.
Other Enrichment Efforts: S-50
  • A third separation plant, the steam-powered thermal column cascade (S-50), was also built at Oak Ridge.
  • This method, originally used by the Navy for a submarine engine project, was less efficient (0.15% enrichment).
  • Groves appropriated the equipment and had H.K. Ferguson construct the plant in 90 days.
  • In the final weeks before bomb assembly, Oppenheimer, desperate for enriched uranium, arranged the three processes in series:
    • S-50 (raw uranium to 0.85%) -> K-25 (to 20%) -> alpha calutrons -> beta calutrons (to 82%).
Path 2: The Plutonium Bomb
  • Path 2 aimed to create a bomb using plutonium-239 (Pu-239), a man-made fissile isotope.
  • Pu-239 could be produced in large quantities using a scaled-up version of Fermi’s CP-1 graphite pile.
  • The process involved:
    • Running a nuclear reactor at high power.
    • U-238 in the fuel captures neutrons and transforms into neptunium-239, which decays into plutonium.
  • CP-1 was disassembled and rebuilt as CP-2 at Red Gate Woods near Chicago for further research.
  • A much larger reactor was designed for Site W (Hanford Works) in Washington State, near Richland.
Hanford Works: Plutonium Production and Challenges
  • The Hanford Works was a vast complex, primarily focused on plutonium production and chemical separation.
  • B Reactor, the first production reactor, was housed in a gymnasium-sized building.
    • It used graphite bricks as a moderator and natural uranium slugs as fuel.
    • Water from the Columbia River was used for cooling.
  • E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company engineered and operated the complex.
  • B Reactor achieved criticality on September 26, 1944, with Enrico Fermi present.
  • However, the reactor shut down unexpectedly after an hour of high-power operation.
  • John A. Wheeler identified the cause as xenon poisoning:
    • Xenon-135, a fission product, is a powerful neutron absorber.
    • At high power, xenon-135 buildup absorbs enough neutrons to stop the chain reaction.
  • Wheeler had anticipated a potential problem and insisted on extra fuel channels in the design, which proved crucial in overcoming xenon poisoning.
  • Subsequent reactors (D and F) were built with the enhanced design, and B Reactor was modified.
  • By April 1945, plutonium production was underway, and the material was shipped to Los Alamos.

Los Alamos: Bomb Design and Development

Oppenheimer’s Team and the Los Alamos “Ant Farm”
  • Oppenheimer assembled a brilliant team of scientists at Los Alamos, including:
    • Enrico Fermi
    • Hans Bethe
    • Edward Teller
    • Stanislaw Ulam
    • Seth Neddermeyer
    • George Kistiakowsky
  • He also recruited technicians and specialists in various fields (chemistry, explosives, etc.).
  • Notably absent were Leo Szilard (who refused to relocate) and Isidor Isaac Rabi (prioritizing radar development).
  • Oppenheimer secured equipment from universities, including Harvard’s cyclotron and Wisconsin’s Van de Graaff accelerators.
  • The Los Alamos facility’s construction was seemingly chaotic, hampered by security restrictions and Oppenheimer’s clashes with the Army Corps of Engineers (e.g., over tree removal).
  • Despite the apparent disorder, the facility took shape rapidly, resembling an “ant farm” in its organization.
The Los Alamos Primer and the Theoretical Division
  • In April 1945, a short course was held to brief incoming scientists on the project’s goals and progress.
  • The course, taught by Robert Serber, took place in the Technical Area Library amidst ongoing construction.
  • Hans Bethe, a German physicist, headed the theoretical division.
    • Initially skeptical about the possibility of a fission bomb, Bethe later calculated the critical mass of U-235.
  • Edward Teller served as the “idea man,” proposing numerous bomb concepts, often far ahead of their time.
The Gun-Type Bomb Design: Thin Man and Little Boy
  • The initial bomb design, called Thin Man, used a cannon barrel to assemble a hypercritical mass:
    • A cylinder of fissile material was propelled by an explosive charge to collide with another cylinder at the end of the barrel.
  • The Navy conducted drop tests of Thin Man models, but they exhibited poor aerodynamic characteristics.
  • The discovery of plutonium-240 (Pu-240) in the Hanford plutonium posed a major problem:
    • Pu-240’s tendency to pre-detonate rendered the gun-type design unsuitable for plutonium.
  • The uranium-based Thin Man design was shortened to 10 feet and renamed Little Boy.
  • Little Boy showed improved flight characteristics in drop tests.
The Implosion Bomb Design: Fat Man
  • Seth Neddermeyer proposed the implosion concept:
    • Compressing a subcritical sphere of fissile material to hypercriticality using explosives.
  • Oppenheimer put Neddermeyer in charge of implosion research.
  • Initial attempts to shape explosive charges for implosion were unsuccessful.
  • George Kistiakowsky, an explosives expert from Harvard, was brought in and appointed head of the implosion group.
  • John von Neumann contributed to the complex mathematical modeling of the implosion process.
  • The implosion bomb design, called Fat Man, took shape as a sphere of explosives surrounding a plutonium core.
Conclusion
  • Both paths to the atomic bomb, uranium (Little Boy) and plutonium (Fat Man), achieved success.
  • The Manhattan Project, driven by the urgency of war and the brilliance of its scientists and engineers, had overcome numerous technical challenges to create the world’s first atomic bombs.

Chapter 4: A Light at the Mouth of the Tunnel

The Manhattan Project’s Security Blanket and Its Holes

The Illusion of Impenetrable Security
  • By 1944, the Manhattan Project was progressing smoothly and rapidly, seemingly without major obstacles.
  • Key figures like Oppenheimer (losing weight), Groves (gaining weight), and Szilard (under surveillance) appeared to be operating within the expected parameters.
  • A strict security blanket aimed to conceal all nuclear activities from:
    • Axis enemies
    • Non-British allies
    • Taxpayers not involved in the project
    • Most personnel working on the project
The Cleve Cartmill Affair: A Potential Security Breach?
  • The Cleve Cartmill Affair, an incident in FBI history, raised concerns about a potential security leak.
  • John W. Campbell, Jr., editor of Astounding Science Fiction, tasked Cleve Cartmill with writing a story about atomic weapons.
    • Campbell, a physics graduate from Duke University, considered himself a nuclear scientist.
    • He insisted on plausible science in the stories published in his magazine.
  • Cartmill’s story, titled “Deadline”, was published in the March 1944 issue.
  • The story featured:
    • A terrifying super bomb built using uranium, beryllium, and radium.
    • Details about U-235 separation methods and quantities.
    • A fuse mechanism resembling the “Little Boy” bomb’s design.
    • Suspiciously coded names and places (e.g., Sixa powers, Yanomre, Yatal, Nilrek, Yabor Sibrof, Scylla, Syksa).
The FBI Investigation and Its Findings
  • Similarities between “Deadline” and the Manhattan Project triggered an investigation by the War Department’s counterintelligence corps and the FBI.
  • The FBI discreetly interrogated Cartmill through his mail carrier, who was a science fiction enthusiast.
    • Cartmill revealed he wasn’t proud of the story and considered himself a nuclear physics authority despite the story’s flaws.
  • The FBI visited Campbell and insisted on pulling the magazine from newsstands.
    • Campbell defended the story as fiction, claimed credit for its scientific accuracy, and argued that removing it would signal the existence of an atomic bomb project.
  • The FBI ultimately deemed Campbell and Cartmill semi-innocent but reminded Campbell about the Code of Wartime Practices, prohibiting mention of atomic research.
    • They threatened to revoke his periodicals-rate postage permit if similar incidents occurred again.
The Case of Don Gordon Harmer: Unintentional Revelation through Freight Bills
  • Don Gordon Harmer, a freight rate examiner for the U.S. General Accounting Office, stumbled upon clues about the Manhattan Project while reviewing railroad shipping bills.
  • He noticed a bill for 14,700 pounds of silver wire wound into magnets, shipped to an obscure location in Tennessee with no rail access.
    • The shipment was billed at the precious metals rate, despite being transported on flat cars without security measures typical for silver bullion.
  • Harmer argued that the silver should be billed as electrical machinery, saving the Manhattan Project $29.4 million.
  • Based on his knowledge of electrical engineering and physics, Harmer deduced that the magnets were likely for a mass spectrometer or cyclotron used in isotope separation at a secret location.

The Vexing Case of Dr. Leo Szilard

Szilard’s Change of Heart and Growing Opposition
  • Dr. Leo Szilard, initially a strong advocate for atomic bombing, had a change of heart after Germany’s surrender in April 1945.
  • He began circulating a petition at Los Alamos arguing against using the bomb on Japan.
  • Szilard proposed:
    • A demonstration of the bomb’s power on an uninhabited island or to a Japanese delegation.
    • Sharing atomic bomb research results with the Soviet Union, then an ally of the United States.
Groves’ Response and Surveillance
  • General Groves found Szilard irritating, counterproductive, and potentially influential on other scientists.
  • Groves considered Szilard’s actions as detrimental to the project’s progress.
  • While he might have preferred to eliminate Szilard, Groves recognized the potential negative impact on other scientists.
  • Instead, Groves ordered close surveillance of Szilard to ensure he wasn’t contacting the Soviets and received daily reports on his activities.

The Little Boy Bomb: Design Challenges and Solutions

The Critical Mass Question
  • The Little Boy bomb, using uranium, was a simpler design with fewer unknowns compared to the plutonium bomb.
  • A crucial question remained: What was the exact amount of U-235 needed for an explosive reaction?
    • Underestimation would prevent the chain reaction.
    • Overestimation could lead to premature detonation.
  • Limited experience with pure U-235 made this a challenging question to answer.
Moving from a Spherical to a Cylindrical Core
  • The ideal shape for a bomb core (plutonium or uranium) was a sphere due to its optimal surface area-to-volume ratio, minimizing neutron leakage.
  • However, the uncertainty about the critical mass made designing a bomb mechanism with a spherical core impractical.
  • The solution was to use a cylindrical core.
    • The cylinder’s length could be adjusted as the critical mass calculations became more precise, while maintaining a constant diameter of 6 inches.
Core Construction and Detonation Mechanism
  • The core was assembled from stackable disks (thick washers) made of U-235.
    • Fine adjustments were possible by adding or removing thin U-235 shims.
  • The core was hollow, with a 4-inch hole down the center line.
  • Detonation involved bringing together the 6-inch hollow cylinder and a 4-inch cylindrical plug, both assembled from disks and individually subcritical.
  • The final specifications for the Little Boy core were:
    • Mass of U-235: 64.15 kg
    • Enrichment: 82.68%
Correcting Misconceptions about the Gun Mechanism
  • Contrary to common depictions, the annulus (outer cylinder), not the center cylinder, was the projectile in the gun barrel.
  • Eight pounds of slotted-tube cordite propelled the annulus down the 6.5-inch smoothbore gun barrel towards a tungsten carbide anvil.
  • The inner cylinder was bolted to the anvil.
  • Upon impact, the outer cylinder engulfed the target disks, creating a hypercritical cylinder for a brief moment, triggering the explosion.
  • This design allowed for adjustments to the axial dimension and was relatively straightforward to model mathematically.
Safety Concerns and Mitigation
  • The Little Boy bomb was inherently dangerous and prone to accidental detonation, especially if dropped on its nose during transport.
  • To prevent accidental detonation, three copper studs were screwed into the gun barrel in front of the core to prevent it from sliding forward.
    • These studs would shear off during the intended detonation.

Otto Frisch and the Dragon Experiments

Frisch’s Initial Approach: Moderated Uranium Bars
  • Otto Frisch, a neutron physics specialist from Britain, took on the task of determining the critical mass of uranium for the Little Boy.
  • He mixed enriched uranium powder with powdered plastic (rich in hydrogen) to act as a moderator, allowing him to achieve criticality with a smaller mass of uranium.
  • Frisch stacked the uranium-plastic bars in a beryllium box and used a neutron source to excite the assembly, monitoring radiation levels with a Geiger counter.
  • He discovered that his body’s hydrogen acted as a reflector, bringing the assembly close to criticality when he leaned over it.
The Guillotine (Dragon) Experiment
  • Recognizing the dangers of his initial approach, Frisch developed a new experimental setup called the guillotine, later renamed the dragon.
  • The experiment involved:
    • A 10-foot-high steel gantry with aluminum guide rails.
    • Uranium bars stacked on a table with a hole for the guide rails.
    • Dropping a block of uranium through the hole to briefly achieve supercriticality with the stacked bars.
  • Richard Feynman humorously compared the experiment to “tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon.”
Frisch’s Legacy
  • Frisch successfully completed his criticality measurements for the Little Boy core on April 12, 1945.
  • He survived his dangerous work and went on to lead the Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Harwell, England, and teach at Cambridge.

Harry Daghlian and the Plutonium Core

The Fat Man’s Implosion Design
  • The Fat Man bomb (model Y-1561), fueled by plutonium, relied on an implosion mechanism to achieve criticality.
  • The design involved:
    • 5,300 pounds of high explosive surrounding the plutonium core in two layers.
    • An outer layer of fast-burning Composition B2 (60% RDX, 39% TNT, 1% wax) cast into 32 segments with concave lenses to direct the blast inward.
    • Lens cavities filled with slow-burning baritol-70 (70% barium nitrate, 30% TNT).
    • An inner layer of Composition B2, also cast into 32 segments, to amplify the shockwave.
Daghlian’s Criticality Experiment and Tragic Accident
  • Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., a 24-year-old physicist, worked on determining the critical mass for the Fat Man’s plutonium core.
  • On August 21, 1945, after the Fat Man had been used and the war was over, Daghlian conducted a dangerous experiment in the Omega site’s 49 room.
  • He manually moved blocks of tungsten carbide (WC) close to a 6.2 kg plutonium core to find the point of criticality.
  • While stacking WC bricks around the plutonium sphere, Daghlian noticed a surge in radiation levels when he held the last brick over the core.
  • The brick slipped from his grip and fell into the center of the setup, causing a criticality incident.
  • Daghlian instinctively knocked the brick away with his right hand but received a massive dose of radiation.
  • He died 21 days later from radiation burns and poisoning, becoming the first person to die from the effects of nuclear fission.

The Trinity Test: The Dawn of the Atomic Age

The Decision to Test and Site Selection
  • By July 1945, the Fat Man’s design was finalized, and a test was deemed necessary due to its complexity and reliance on untested technologies.
  • The Trinity (TR) test was scheduled for July 16, 1945, at the Alamogordo bombing range in the New Mexico desert.
  • Norris E. Bradbury oversaw the test preparations.
  • An abandoned ranch house served as the final assembly shop for the bomb.
  • Instruments and cameras were set up to record the event.
  • A 60-foot tower held the bomb, and bunkers were constructed for observers at various distances.
Test Preparations and Weather Delays
  • Jumbo, a 240-ton steel canister, was initially intended to contain the plutonium in case of a fizzle but was ultimately placed 800 yards away as an observation target.
  • A cover story about an ammunition dump explosion was prepared for public release.
  • The bomb was assembled, winched to the top of the tower, and wired for detonation.
  • Scientists gathered and placed bets on the test’s outcome, with predictions ranging from a dud to atmospheric ignition.
  • Jack M. Hubbard, the meteorologist, warned of an approaching rainstorm, leading to a delay and threats from Groves.
The Detonation and Its Impact
  • At 5:29:45 a.m. local time, the Trinity test was initiated.
  • The detonation produced an intensely bright light, visible for 150 miles, followed by a powerful shockwave felt up to 200 miles away.
  • The blast created a 1,100-foot-wide crater, melted sand into glass, and generated a mushroom cloud that rose 7.5 miles high.
  • Jumbo was heavily damaged but survived.
Oppenheimer’s Reaction and the Aftermath
  • The Trinity test was a resounding success, with a yield of 21 kilotons of TNT (84 trillion joules).
  • Oppenheimer expressed mixed emotions of pride, accomplishment, and concern for humanity’s future, famously saying, “We have known sin.”
  • General Thomas Farrell declared, “The war is over,” recognizing the significance of the event.

The Birth of the Atomic Age and Its Implications

  • The Trinity test marked the beginning of the Atomic Age.
  • The subsequent decades witnessed rapid advancements in nuclear science, technology, and applications, along with significant funding and research efforts.
  • Nuclear power’s development was unconventional, starting with a powerful demonstration before peaceful applications were fully explored.
  • The analogy of gasoline’s first use being napalm highlights the potential for destructive applications to overshadow the beneficial ones.

Chapter 5: Post-War Planning

The Aftermath of the Trinity Test & Japan’s Surrender

Assessing the Situation and Preparing for the Atomic Bombing of Japan
  • Thomas Farrell was correct in stating that on July 16, 1945, the war was over in theory, as Japan had not yet surrendered.
  • Farrell and Deke Parsons flew to Tinian Island to begin preparations for the atomic bombing of Japan.
    • This effort was codenamed Project Alberta.
  • Technical glitches still needed to be resolved.
    • For maximum effectiveness, an atomic bomb needed to be detonated 2,000 feet above the ground.
    • The trigger signal for both bombs would be provided by ARCHIs (redundant RT-34-APS-13 tail-warning radars).
      • ARCHIs were used in fighter planes to warn pilots of approaching aircraft from behind.
      • Built by RCA, one ARCHI cost as much as a new Cadillac limousine.
      • Four ARCHIs would be used in each bomb, each providing an opinion of the bomb’s height above ground.
      • If any two Archies agreed that the bomb had passed 2,000 feet, the firing circuit would be closed.
    • To prevent confusion from Japanese air search radar, the Archies would be turned off until the bomb had fallen to 17,000 feet.
      • The turn-on altitude would be determined by six voting aneroid barometric switches.
    • The bomb run altitude of the plane would be 31,000 feet.
  • Pumpkin runs (tests over the ocean using dummy bombs) revealed problems with the barometers due to shock waves around the bomb case.
    • These problems would be addressed.
Tinian Island: The Busiest Airbase in the World
  • Tinian was a former sugar plantation located five miles southwest of Saipan and within easy reach of Japan for B-29 bombers.
  • In July 1945, Tinian was the busiest airbase in the world.
    • It had six 8,500-foot runways and 40,000 personnel.
    • B-29s were constantly taking off and landing, conducting incendiary bombing raids on Japan.
  • Over half a million people had been killed in the firebombing campaign, and Tokyo was essentially destroyed.
    • Dropping an atomic bomb on Tokyo would not provide any meaningful data.
  • Planners had intentionally left some large cities untouched to assess the effects of an atomic bomb on an undamaged city.
    • Kyoto was initially the top target but was removed from the list at the insistence of Secretary of War Henry Stimson.
    • Hiroshima, a port city near the southern end of Honshu, became the primary target.
      • Hiroshima was home to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Hiroshima shipyards, Second Army Headquarters, and the Hiroshima Ordnance Supply Depot, making it an ideal target.
    • Kokura was designated as the secondary target in case Hiroshima was obscured by clouds.
The Potsdam Declaration and Truman’s Order
  • On July 28, 1945, the United States, Great Britain, and China issued the Potsdam Declaration, outlining the terms for Japan’s surrender.
  • Japanese Prime Minister Admiral Baron Kentaro Suzuki responded with Mokusatsu (contemptuous silence).
  • President Harry S. Truman interpreted this as a rejection and ordered the use of nuclear weapons against Japan until they surrendered unconditionally.
    • This decision aimed to prevent a costly American ground invasion.
Preparing the 509th Composite Group and the Atomic Bombs
  • Tinian Island was equipped with a special bomb-loading pit and an air-conditioned cleanroom for assembling the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs.
  • The 509th Composite Group and the 313th Bombardment Wing, 21 Bomber Command had trained extensively on handling the atomic weapons without knowing their exact nature.
  • A set of new B-29s were modified to carry the atomic bombs.
  • Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., commander of the 509th, named the first plane Enola Gay after his mother.
    • The plane’s markings (a big R in a circle on the tail and 82 on the side) were meaningless and intended to confuse the enemy.
Assembling Little Boy
  • Parts for Little Boy arrived in Tinian in small batches and required assembly.
  • The nosepiece, Old Faithful, was a 5,000-pound, high-alloy steel forging chosen for its durability after surviving four drop tests.
  • The armor plates for the sides had to be adjusted due to warping during heat treatment.
  • The uranium target disks arrived on July 28th.
  • On July 31st, the assembly was completed, and final electrical tests were conducted.
  • Bad weather over Japan delayed the bombing mission.
Japan’s Internal Struggle and the Soviet Declaration of War
  • The Imperial Court in Japan considered surrender but was concerned about the “unconditional” term.
  • Japanese ambassador Naotaki Sato in Moscow was tasked with seeking Soviet mediation for an acceptable end to the war.
    • Japan aimed to retain captured territories.
  • On August 5th, the weather cleared, and Tibbets and his crew prepared the Enola Gay, loaded with Little Boy.
  • Deke Parsons insisted on accompanying the mission to perform the final bomb assembly in the air.
  • The Enola Gay took off at 2:45 a.m. on August 6th, followed by an instrument plane and a camera plane.
    • They rendezvoused over Iwo Jima before proceeding to Hiroshima.
The Bombing of Hiroshima
  • The mission proceeded smoothly and on schedule.
  • At 7:09 a.m. Hiroshima time, an air raid warning was issued, but it was disregarded by many as it was for only one B-29 (the weather plane).
  • At 7:25 a.m., the weather plane reported less than three-tenths cloud cover at all altitudes.
  • At 7:31 a.m., the all-clear siren sounded in Hiroshima.
  • At 8:12 a.m., the three planes were spotted, triggering another air raid siren, which was largely ignored.
  • At 8:15:17 a.m., the Enola Gay, aligned with the Aioi Bridge in the city center, released Little Boy.
  • Exactly 44.4 seconds later, Little Boy detonated, obliterating Hiroshima.
  • The B-29 was hit by the shockwave, followed by a second shockwave reflected from the ground.
    • The crew could taste the radiation burst, described as a fizzing sensation and the taste of lead.
  • The burst temperature exceeded one million degrees Celsius, igniting the air and vaporizing matter on the ground.
  • The bomb exploded approximately 900 feet southwest of the aiming point, directly above the Shima Surgical Hospital, which was completely destroyed.
  • After the 840-foot fireball dissipated, a firestorm engulfed the city.
  • A four-year survey concluded in 1995 confirmed 87,833 deaths.
  • The uranium bomb’s energy yield was estimated at 16 kilotons of TNT.
Aftermath of the Hiroshima Bombing
  • The Japanese government was initially confused by the destruction of Hiroshima, as communication with the Second Army Headquarters was lost.
  • Hiroshima’s electrical power consumption dropped to zero at 8:16 a.m.
  • Survivors with severe burns were found miles south of the city, recounting bizarre experiences.
  • On August 8th, the United States dropped leaflets warning of further attacks unless Japan surrendered unconditionally.
The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria and the Bombing of Nagasaki
  • On August 9th at 4:00 a.m., Tokyo learned that the Soviet Union had broken the Neutrality Pact, declared war on Japan, and invaded Manchuria.
  • At 7:50 a.m., an air raid siren sounded in Nagasaki but was a false alarm.
  • At 8:30 a.m., the all-clear was given.
  • At 10:53 a.m., two B-29s, Boxcar and The Great Artiste, were sighted but were mistaken for weather planes.
  • Captain Kermit Beahan, the bombardier on Boxcar, faced multiple problems.
    • They initially attempted to bomb the primary target, Kokura, but it was obscured by clouds.
    • A fuel transfer pump malfunction limited their fuel reserves.
    • They diverted to the secondary target, Nagasaki, but had difficulty seeing the ground.
  • Despite a prohibition against using radar for bomb aiming, Beahan resorted to it to avoid ditching the bomb in the ocean.
  • At 11:00 a.m. Nagasaki time, radar operator James F. Van Pelt Jr. identified the high school soccer field in the Urakami Valley on the radar scope.
  • At 11:02 a.m., Fat Man was released.
  • The bomb detonated approximately 300 feet northwest of the soccer field, destroying the industrial north end of Nagasaki, including the Shiroyama Elementary School and the Shinzei Gakkan High School.
  • The energy yield was 21 kilotons of TNT.
  • Boxcar barely made it back, landing on Okinawa with minimal fuel.
  • Another 80,000 Japanese people died in Nagasaki.
Japan’s Surrender
  • General Groves had another Fat Man bomb ready if needed.
  • Following the destruction of Nagasaki, the Japanese government accepted the reality of defeat.
  • After a period of internal conflict, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s surrender in a radio broadcast on August 15, 1945.
    • This was the first time the emperor’s voice had been broadcast to the public.
  • The war officially ended.

The Dawn of the Atomic Age and the Quest for Bigger Bombs

Public Release of the Smyth Report
  • The United States government had spent two billion dollars on the Manhattan Project, a secret endeavor.
  • Days after the war ended, the government released the Smyth Report (“Atomic Energy for Military Purposes”), revealing most of the project’s details to the public.
  • This marked the beginning of the atomic age.
Edward Teller and the Super Bomb
  • Edward Teller advocated for the development of a more powerful bomb (the “super bomb”).
  • Teller was born in Budapest, Austria-Hungary in 1908 and experienced the communist dictatorship of Béla Kun.
    • This fostered a deep animosity towards communism in Teller.
  • Teller’s family was terrorized by soldiers searching for hidden currency.
  • The communist regime was replaced by the fascist Miklós Horthy, leading to further oppression.
  • Teller escaped to Germany, then to Copenhagen to work with Niels Bohr, and finally to the United States in 1935 with the help of George Gamow.
  • Teller held professorships at George Washington University and Columbia University before joining the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos.
  • At Los Alamos, Teller was disruptive, pushing for his super bomb and refusing to work on implosion calculations.
    • Klaus Fuchs, a British physicist brought in to perform the calculations, turned out to be a Soviet spy, providing valuable information to the USSR.
    • Other Soviet spies were also present at Los Alamos.
Post-War Los Alamos and the Daniels Pile Project
  • After the war, Los Alamos experienced a sense of letdown and inactivity.
    • Scientists left to resume their previous positions.
    • Technicians were laid off.
    • There was a delayed sense of shock at the war’s devastation.
  • Interest in Teller’s super bomb was minimal.
  • At Oak Ridge, the Monsanto Chemical Company took over the uranium enrichment facilities, with Dr. Farrington Daniels as the new director.
  • The K-25 plant continued producing bomb-grade uranium despite no immediate plans for another Little Boy bomb.
  • Daniels proposed building the first civilian nuclear reactor power plant at Oak Ridge in 1946, known as the Daniels Pile.
    • The Army approved the project, and work began immediately.
The Knowles Atomic Power Lab and the Problem of Uranium
  • The General Electric Company established the Knowles Atomic Power Lab in Schenectady, New York, in 1946.
  • Their initial project was to design a nuclear-powered naval destroyer, funded by the Bureau of Ships.
  • Existing reactor technology was too large for shipboard use and needed miniaturization.
  • Two major problems hindered development:
    • Uranium shortage: The United States lacked uranium mines, and stockpiles were limited.
    • Lack of nuclear engineers: The field was non-existent, with mostly nuclear physicists involved.
  • Physicists envisioned power reactors as breeders, using depleted uranium (U-238) to produce plutonium fuel, addressing the uranium shortage.
  • They focused on complex designs with liquid metal coolants, magnetohydrodynamic pumps, and plutonium-fueled cores using fast neutron fission.
Hyman Rickover and the Nuclear Submarine Project
  • Hyman George Rickover, a Navy captain, observed the struggles of the Daniels Pile and Knowles projects.
  • Rickover was born in Mokover, Russian-controlled Poland, in 1900 to a Jewish family.
  • His family fled to the United States in 1905 to escape persecution.
  • Rickover grew up in Chicago, working hard and lacking leisure time.
  • He met Congressman Adolph Sabbath at the 1916 Republican National Convention, leading to his appointment to the United States Naval Academy in 1918.
  • Rickover graduated from the Naval Academy in 1922 and served on various ships, including destroyers and submarines.
  • His experience on S-boats (primitive submarines) exposed him to the dangers and limitations of the technology.
  • Rickover envisioned a new type of submarine powered by a nuclear reactor, eliminating the need for air and exhaust.
    • He named his dream submarine Nautilus, after Captain Nemo’s vessel in “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.”
Rickover’s Design Philosophy and the Navy’s Secret Project
  • Rickover worked on the nuclear submarine project with limited resources, borrowing office space from the Army at Oak Ridge.
  • He advocated for nuclear submarine propulsion, despite the Navy’s apparent lack of interest.
  • The Navy had actually started a secret uranium enrichment project in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, which was later absorbed into the Manhattan Project.
  • The Navy formally proposed nuclear propulsion in December 1944 (Project D), with a detailed appendix by Dr. Phil Abelson.
  • Rickover developed key design principles:
    1. Reactor design was primarily an engineering problem (95%), not a physics problem (5%).
    2. Design should start with the propeller shaft and work backward to the reactor.
    3. Assume future uranium abundance and do not constrain the design by fuel availability.
    4. The reactor must fit within the diameter of an ideal submarine hull.
  • Captured German Type 26 submarines, with their streamlined 28-foot-wide hulls, served as a model for Rickover’s nuclear submarine.
  • The nuclear submarine project faced resistance from the Navy, which was focused on managing existing ships rather than building new ones.
The Legacy of Rickover’s Design and Operation Crossroads
  • Contemporary nuclear power plant designs are heavily influenced by Rickover’s work and his critique of the Daniels Pile project.
  • Rickover’s focus on a passively safe reactor, cooled and moderated by ordinary water, proved crucial.
    • Inherent safety features ensured automatic shutdown in case of malfunctions.
    • Ordinary water as a coolant eliminated flammability and toxicity concerns.
  • Other reactor designs, such as the Fast Breeder and gas-cooled graphite reactors, lacked this inherent safety.
  • The end of the Manhattan Project left General Leslie Groves with diminished power.
    • He remained at Los Alamos, heading the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, but funding dwindled.
  • The remaining staff at Los Alamos refined the Fat Man design (renamed MK-3).
  • The Navy requested tests to assess the effects of atomic bombs on naval vessels.
  • Operation Crossroads, a series of live drop tests, was scheduled for June 1946 near Bikini Atoll.
    • Ninety obsolete ships, including captured enemy vessels, would be targeted.
    • Animals were used as test subjects instead of humans.
    • Civilian scientists and Navy personnel eagerly participated.
    • 42,000 men and 150 support vessels were involved.
Louis Slotin and the Demon Core
  • Dr. Louis A. Slotin, known as the “Chief Armorer” for his expertise in assembling the MK-3, was among the remaining scientists at Los Alamos.
  • Slotin, originally from Canada, had a PhD in Physical Chemistry.
  • On May 21, 1946, Slotin was demonstrating a near-criticality test with the Demon Core (the same plutonium core that killed Harry Daghlian in 1945) to Alvin C. Graves.
  • The test involved manipulating the tungsten carbide reflector hemispheres around the plutonium core with a screwdriver.
  • The screwdriver slipped, causing the reflector halves to close completely, resulting in a supercriticality event.
  • The room flashed blue, and Slotin received a lethal dose of radiation.
  • He died nine days later.
A Turning Point in Nuclear Science and the Paradox
  • Slotin’s accident marked a turning point in nuclear science.
    • The frantic wartime atmosphere of reckless experimentation was over.
    • Safety became a paramount concern.
  • Nuclear technology entered a paradoxical phase.
    • The Demon Core, destroyed in Operation Crossroads, would no longer pose a direct threat.
    • However, the legacy of the atomic bomb and the potential for future accidents remained.

Part 3: The Paradox

The Hatch Nuclear Plant Field Trip (1973)

Introduction to Boiling Water Reactor Technology

  • Spring quarter, 1973: Enrolled in Dr. Joe Johnson’s Boiling Water Reactor Technology course out of interest.
  • Textbook: General Electric BWR Technical Manual (dense and lengthy).
  • Course climax: Field trip to Georgia Power’s Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Generating Station near Baxley, GA.

Journey to Plant Hatch

  • Location: Near Baxley, GA, in the Vidalia onion-growing region of South Georgia.
  • Travel: Five-hour drive from Atlanta, departing at 2:00 AM.
  • Initial observation: Unit 1 reactor visible from a mile away in the rural darkness, brightly lit.
  • Plant status: Unit 1 nearing completion (95%), Unit 2 significantly behind (steel containment still being welded).

Exploring the Reactor

  • Unique experiences:
    • Descending a wooden ladder into the stainless steel core vessel.
    • Standing on the lower fuel support plate.
    • Walking the circumference of the steam expansion space around the primary containment.
  • Tour guide: Mr. Tom Beckham of Georgia Power (provided a VIP tour usually reserved for GE executives or major stockholders).

Observations on Reactor Size and Technology

  • Reactor size: Immense scale, surpassing the impression gained from diagrams, specifications, and photographs.
  • Plant components: Unusually large, from reactor vessel head nuts to the turbine shaft.
  • Control room:
    • Four walls covered in switch and indicator panels.
    • Every inch filled with handles, meters, or warning lights.
    • Behind the panels: Multiple layers of walls packed with dual-movement General Electric relays in airtight boxes with glass windows.
  • Technological surprise:
    • Not impressed by advanced engineering, but rather by its absence.
    • Control room technology seemed outdated (similar to a 1946 GE Industrial Electrics catalog).

The Scram System

  • Scram system: Banks of relays designed to automatically shut down the reactor in case of irregularities.
    • Purpose: Protect the core and steam system, prevent radiation release.
  • Relay logic: Each relay functioned as a node in a logic tree.
    • Example: “If condition A and condition B and condition C exist, then SCRAM.”
  • Complexity: Complicated but fundamentally straightforward.

Recognizing the Potential for Improvement

  • Author’s expertise: Real-time digital computing for industrial monitoring and control.
  • Observation: Relay rack space seemed wasteful.
  • Potential solution: Entire scram logic circuit could be miniaturized onto a single silicon chip (even in 1973).

Rationale for Outdated Technology

  • Reason for relay logic: Proven reliability and extensive use since before 1946.
  • Silicon chip limitations: Relatively new technology with less established reliability.
  • Paradox: The age of the relay technology made it the preferred choice for the new power reactor.
  • Conservative approach: Innovative power production concepts relied on well-established component technologies.
  • Limited computer use: Only slide rules were used for calculations at Plant Hatch.

Mil-Spec Computers and the LOFT Reactor (1979-1981)

Post-Graduate Work and Research

  • Graduation: Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering in 1979.
  • Work experience: Georgia Tech Engineering Experiment Station on Department of Defense projects.
  • Specialization: Military specification (mil-spec) computers.
    • Characteristics: Rugged, airtight, designed for extreme conditions (rain, sandstorms, vibrations, etc.).
    • Components: Selected for high-temperature tolerance and long mean time between failures.
    • Cost: Expensive.
  • Published papers: Proposed using mil-spec computers for data handling in nuclear power plants due to their robustness.

The LOFT Reactor Experiment and its Challenges

  • Idaho Nuclear Energy Lab (INEL) contact: Project engineers at INEL read the author’s paper and saw a potential solution to their problem with the Loss of Fluid Test (LOFT) reactor experiment.
  • LOFT reactor: Half-scale, fully operational power reactor.
  • Experiment: Simulate a pipe break by remotely opening a valve on the primary coolant loop.
  • Data collection: Extensive instrumentation and computers used to record and analyze the effects of coolant loss.
  • Problem:
    • The simulated pipe break caused significant vibrations in the control complex.
    • Vibrations led to computer crashes during experiments, resulting in data loss.

Visiting the LOFT Facility

  • Travel to Idaho Falls: January 1980, experiencing extreme cold (-26°F).
  • Travel to Test Area North (TAN): 52 miles northwest of Idaho Falls.
  • LOFT reactor housing: Simple cylindrical containment structure beside a massive Quonset hut.
  • Quonset hut:
    • Several stories tall, capable of housing an ocean liner.
    • Contained an internal environment with roads, streetlights, and huts.
    • Climate-controlled interior (fall-like weather on the day of the visit).
  • Quonset hut history: Former hangar for the NB-36H nuclear-powered strategic bomber (explained the small door at the top).
  • Reactor control room: Located deep underground at the end of a 660-foot sloping tunnel, maintained at a warm 69°F.

Project Details and Research Findings

  • Project funding: U.S. Department of Energy, overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as regulatory research.
  • Research focus: Hardening data collection computers against seismic shocks.
  • Final report: “Reactor Safety System Design Using Hardened Computers” (NUREG CR-2118, April 1981).

Impact of the Three Mile Island Incident

  • Three Mile Island (TMI) incident: Disastrous reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania (March 1979).
  • NRC’s response: Published NUREG-0696, “Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities” (February 1981).
    • Mandated the use of digital computers for data collection, display, and recording.
    • Did not address earthquake survivability requirements (specified in a separate regulation).
  • Author’s research relevance: Provided a solution to the earthquake hardness requirement using mil-spec computers.

Upgrading Plant Hatch and Navigating the Nuclear Power World

Securing the Contract and Returning to Plant Hatch

  • Contract with Georgia Power: Secured a multi-million dollar contract to upgrade Plant Hatch with earthquake-hardened computer systems, fulfilling the new NRC regulation.
  • Return to Plant Hatch: Eight years after initially observing the outdated control room technology.
  • Initial procedures: Briefings, radiation safety lectures, radiation level checks, access badge and yellow hard hat issued.

The Importance of Hard Hat Color

  • Encounter with Sam Hart (Georgia Power Technical Monitor): Hart expressed concern about the author’s yellow hard hat.
  • Hard hat color significance:
    • Yellow: Maintenance personnel.
    • White: Management.
  • Importance of white hat: Commanded more respect and better treatment.
  • Resolution: Hart arranged for the author to receive a white hard hat.

Plant Hatch Revisited and the Hazards of a White Hat

  • Plant Hatch changes: Undergoing significant renovations, with scaffolding and workers throughout.
  • Portal encounter: Stopped at a control deck entrance by a worker who noticed the white hard hat.
  • Warning: Maintenance workers might intentionally drop objects on those wearing white hats (management).
  • Demonstration: A pipe fitter in a yellow hard hat on the scaffolding smiled and waved menacingly.
  • Realization: The nuclear power environment had its own unique social dynamics and potential hazards.

Implementing the Safety Parameter Display System

The Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)

  • Project scope: Design, build, and test a new computer network called the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) for Plant Hatch.
  • Project duration: Four years.
  • Project cost: Several million dollars.
  • Team management: Oversaw a group of approximately 30 engineers at Georgia Tech.
  • Author’s role: Limited hands-on work during development, but determined to handle the final installation personally.

Final Installation and the Control Room Environment

  • Task: Connect the control room display computers to the data storage system in an auxiliary room using a mil-spec, redundant fiber-optic system.
  • Fiber optic technology: Relatively new at the time, requiring on-site optical grinding and fitting of connector ends.
  • Control room atmosphere:
    • Spotlessly clean, brightly lit, and quiet.
    • Strict rules: No eating, drinking, smoking, or loose particles.
    • Staff attire: Clean jumpsuits and brown hard hats.
  • Control room access: Required permission from the shift supervisor.
    • Approach: Polite, humble, and with a valid reason for entry.
    • Shift supervisor’s demeanor: Blank, unemotional expression.

The E-clip Incident

  • Fiber-optic connection process:
    • Installing a connector using a Daniels crimper.
    • Securing the connector with a tiny E-clip.
  • E-clip mishap: The E-clip slipped from the pliers and landed in a wastebasket under the control console.
  • Retrieving the E-clip:
    • Reached into the wastebasket to retrieve the clip.
    • Noted a strange sensation on the hand.
    • Upon withdrawing the hand, found it covered in a brown liquid.
  • Initial assumption: Coca-Cola (though drinks were prohibited in the control room).
  • Operator observation: Noticed an operator watching him.
  • Wastebasket prevalence: Observed numerous wastebaskets around the control room.
  • Revelation: The operator spit a stream of tobacco juice into a nearby wastebasket.
  • Unpleasant realization: The brown liquid was not Coca-Cola, but a collection of spit.

Paradox within Paradox

  • Control room contrast: The pristine, quiet, and orderly control room environment juxtaposed with the unsanitary practice of spitting tobacco juice into wastebaskets.
  • Conclusion: This incident exemplified the paradoxical nature of the nuclear power industry, where advanced technology and strict regulations coexisted with unexpected and sometimes unsanitary practices.

Chapter 1: A Quest for Power

Post-World War II Nuclear Landscape

The United States’ Position
  • At the end of World War II, the United States was the only country with atomic bombs, a position that had both advantages and disadvantages.
    • Advantage: The Soviet Union, under Stalin, was unlikely to initiate conflict in Europe due to the threat of atomic bombing.
    • Disadvantage: The secrets of atomic bomb construction would inevitably be discovered by other nations with sufficient scientific and industrial capacity.
  • Nuclear physics is a universal science and could be mastered by any capable team, making it a matter of time before other countries developed atomic weapons.
British Concerns and Agreements
  • During the Manhattan Project, the British expressed concern about a lack of cooperation with the United States despite being allies.
    • British scientists contributed expertise at Los Alamos but were excluded from production facilities like the Hanford plutonium reactors.
  • Winston Churchill convinced Franklin Roosevelt of the need for a formal agreement to share atomic bomb expertise and data.
  • The Quebec Agreement, signed on August 19, 1943, formalized this collaboration, including Canada in the information-sharing policy due to their contribution of nuclear physicists.
  • An extended agreement signed at Hyde Park on September 18, 1944, pledged full cooperation in post-war nuclear pursuits, both military and civilian.
  • Following Roosevelt’s death and Harry S. Truman’s presidency, the modified agreement was seemingly lost, and Truman showed no interest in sharing atomic bomb information.
  • By 1946, the British and Canadians were left to pursue their own nuclear programs independently.
The McMahon Act and Soviet Espionage
  • The Atomic Energy Act (McMahon Act), passed by the US Congress in August 1946, prohibited sharing atomic energy secrets with any foreign country, including Britain and Canada, under penalty of death.
  • The Soviet Union, despite being a wartime ally, was intentionally excluded from atomic bomb development information.
  • Soviet leaders recognized the importance of nuclear technology and initiated their own program, facing challenges such as the German invasion and a lack of resources.
  • They compensated for these limitations through a highly effective espionage operation, stealing crucial information that accelerated their nuclear development.
  • Soviet spies within the Manhattan Project included:
    • Klaus Fuchs (physicist, codenamed Charles)
    • Ted Hall (physicist, codenamed Imlad)
    • David Greenglass (machinist, codenamed Caliber)
  • Using this intelligence, Soviet scientists, led by Igor Kurchatov, built a replica of Enrico Fermi’s Chicago Pile Reactor in 1946 at Arzamas 16 (formerly Serov).
  • By 1949, the RDS-1 bomb (“Joe-1” to US intelligence) was ready for testing, a near copy of the US “Fat Man” bomb.
  • The successful detonation on August 29, 1949, in Kazakhstan yielded 21 kilotons of TNT, ending the US nuclear monopoly and marking the beginning of the Cold War.

The British Nuclear Program

Challenges and Solutions
  • Great Britain sought to develop its own atomic bomb, possessing the expertise but lacking the natural resources of the US and Soviet Union.
  • A key challenge was finding a suitable testing location due to safety concerns and the lack of large, uninhabited areas within Britain.
  • They established a plutonium production facility at Windscale on the Cumbrian coast, utilizing air-cooled reactors to vent exhaust over the Irish Sea.
  • Plutonium production was accelerated by using short irradiation times, resulting in plutonium with high PU-240 contamination, making bomb cores more hazardous.
  • Despite limitations, Windscale produced enough plutonium for a test, though not for a substantial arsenal.
Research and Development
  • Sir John Cockcroft returned from Canada to lead the newly established United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
  • The British equivalent of Los Alamos, the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, was built at Harwell, a former RAF airfield.
  • GLEEP (Graphite Low Energy Experimental Pile), a copy of the Oak Ridge X-10 Pile, was built at Harwell, followed by BEPO (British Experimental Pile Zero).
  • The British aimed to test a “Fat Man” type device by August 1952.
Operation Hurricane
  • Operation Hurricane, the British atomic bomb test, occurred on October 3, 1952, in shallow water off the Montebello Islands of Western Australia.
  • The test involved detonating the bomb within the hold of the HMS Plym, a frigate, to simulate a harbor attack scenario.
  • The 25 kiloton explosion vaporized the HMS Plym and left a 300-meter wide crater on the seabed.

The Canadian Nuclear Program

Focus on Nuclear Power
  • Canada, unlike the US and Britain, focused on the potential of nuclear power rather than weapons development.
  • In 1942, they established a nuclear research laboratory in Montreal under the National Research Council.
  • The facility was relocated to Chalk River, Ontario, in 1944 due to safety concerns associated with conducting experiments in an urban environment.
ZEEP Reactor
  • ZEEP (Zero Energy Experimental Pile), the first nuclear reactor outside the United States, was built at Chalk River.
  • It achieved criticality on September 5, 1945, at 3:45 p.m., marking a significant milestone in the global pursuit of nuclear power.

The Race for Nuclear Power

Early Achievements
  • The United States, Canada, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union emerged as the leading competitors in the race for nuclear power.
  • Canada, though not pursuing weapons, supplied plutonium to Britain for the Hurricane test.
  • The US focused on developing a fast plutonium breeder reactor (EBR-1) in 1949.
    • EBR-1 became the world’s first electricity-generating nuclear power plant on December 20, 1951, producing enough power to light four 200-watt bulbs.
The Obninsk Power Plant
  • The world’s first civilian nuclear power station was built in Obninsk, Russia, construction starting on January 1, 1951, and the first startup on June 1, 1954.
  • APS-1 Obninsk (Atomic Power Station 1) utilized a graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor design (AM-1, or “peaceful Adam”).
  • On June 26, 1954, the plant’s 6 megawatts of power were connected to the grid, making it officially the first civilian nuclear power plant.
  • The RBMK reactor design, later infamous for the Chernobyl disaster, was a scaled-up version of the AM-1.
Calder Hall Nuclear Power Plant
  • Great Britain claimed the title of the first nuclear power station to deliver electricity at commercial levels with Calder Hall.
  • They argued that Obninsk was semi-experimental and its output too small to be considered truly commercial.
  • Calder Hall was connected to the grid on August 27, 1956, and officially opened on August 17, 1956.
  • The plant comprised four graphite-moderated, carbon dioxide-cooled reactors, each generating 50 megawatts.
  • Calder Hall’s primary purpose was plutonium production for the British nuclear weapons program, replacing the Windscale reactors.
  • It also served a commercial purpose, providing an alternative to coal-fired power and potentially deterring coal miners’ strikes.
The Sodium Reactor Experiment
  • The United States followed closely behind Britain with the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California.
  • Santa Susana focused on rocket engines and experimental nuclear reactors.
  • The Sodium Reactor Experiment, a reactor using metallic sodium as coolant, went critical in April 1957 and began delivering power to the grid on July 12, 1957, serving 1,100 homes in the Moorpark area.
  • On July 13, 1959, it experienced the first core meltdown in a US commercial power reactor due to a tetralyn leak that blocked cooling channels.
    • One-third of the fuel melted, but there were no injuries.
    • Radioactive gas was released into the atmosphere over several weeks.
The CANDU Reactor
  • Canada continued developing nuclear power, focusing on unique designs due to resource limitations.
  • Unable to easily obtain graphite or enrich uranium, they opted for heavy water as a highly efficient moderator, allowing the use of unenriched uranium.
  • A heavy water extraction plant was built at Chalk River.
  • Atomic Energy of Canada and Canadian General Electric developed the CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium) reactor.
  • The first CANDU power plant, a 22 megawatt unit, was built in Rolfton, Ontario, marking the beginning of a series of distinctly Canadian reactor designs.

The United States Atomic Energy Commission

Establishment and Mission
  • The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created by the McMahon Act.
  • Its first chairman was David Lilienthal, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  • The AEC’s mission was multifaceted and seemingly contradictory:
    • Promote and explore nuclear power.
    • Control nuclear technology and protect the public from its potential dangers.
    • Take control of all nuclear weapons, laboratories, production facilities, and uranium resources in the United States.
Expansion and Resource Acquisition
  • The AEC organized and expanded the wartime nuclear weapons labs into a network of national laboratories:
    • Argonne National Laboratory (from Enrico Fermi’s Metallurgical Lab)
    • Los Alamos National Laboratory
    • Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    • Hanford Site
  • New facilities were built, often mirroring existing ones for redundancy in case of a nuclear attack:
    • Savannah River Plant (mirroring Hanford)
    • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (mirroring Los Alamos)
    • Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (mirroring Oak Ridge’s K-25)
  • Uranium ore was a critical resource.
    • In December 1949, the AEC set an artificially high price for uranium to encourage exploration and mining.
    • This triggered a uranium rush, particularly in the Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau.
    • Charles A. Steen discovered the massive Mi Vida uranium deposit in Utah in 1952, significantly boosting US uranium reserves.
  • By 1960, uranium stockpiles exceeded projected needs, causing a drop in its value.
The Hydrogen Bomb
  • The AEC also faced the challenge of the Soviet Union’s atomic bomb development.
  • The US response was to pursue a more powerful weapon: the hydrogen bomb.
  • Edward Teller’s enthusiasm for hydrogen fusion weapons (“the super”) gained traction in the late 1940s.
  • Early computer simulations using ENIAC and the IBM Harvard Mark I proved Teller’s initial designs unworkable.
  • Stanislaw Ulam proposed a modified design, separating the fission and fusion components and using the shockwave from the fission explosion to compress and heat the fusion fuel.
  • This led to the Teller-Ulam hydrogen bomb design.
  • Teller further refined the design, suggesting using X-rays from the fission explosion for compression.
  • The first hydrogen bomb test, Ivy Mike (“the Sausage”), took place on November 1, 1952, on Elugelab Island in the Pacific.
    • The explosion yielded power 1,000 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb, obliterating the island.
    • Teller, watching from UC Berkeley, telegrammed “It’s a boy” to Los Alamos.
  • The US hydrogen bomb monopoly ended on November 22, 1955, when the Soviet Union tested RDS-37, a staged fission-fusion bomb.

The Nuclear Submarine

Hyman Rickover’s Vision
  • Captain Hyman Rickover of the US Navy championed the development of a nuclear-powered submarine.
  • He challenged the conventional wisdom of using graphite reactors, recognizing their inherent safety limitations.
  • Rickover’s design utilized highly enriched uranium (50% U-235), eliminating the need for frequent refueling and allowing for a smaller reactor core.
  • Ordinary water served as both moderator and coolant, providing a safety feature: loss of coolant also meant loss of moderation, leading to automatic shutdown.
  • The pressurized water reactor (PWR) design kept coolant under high pressure to prevent boiling, minimizing reactor size.
  • A closed primary cooling loop confined radioactivity, and a secondary loop transferred heat to a steam turbine, ensuring safety for maintenance.
Overcoming Obstacles
  • Rickover faced significant challenges in securing funding and support for his project.
  • Despite Edward Teller’s endorsement, the project initially stalled.
  • Rickover revitalized the program by repurposing funding from the Daniel’s Pile power plant project at Oak Ridge.
  • He secured the approval of Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Chief of Naval Operations, by crafting a letter for Nimitz to sign.
  • The AEC also approved the project on May 1, 1948.
Development and Testing
  • Rickover established the Nuclear Power Division of the Bureau of Ships on August 2, 1948.
  • Westinghouse was contracted to design the steam generator and later the entire reactor system.
  • Rickover assumed leadership of the Naval Reactors Branch of the AEC in February 1949, giving him unique authority over both Navy and AEC aspects of the project.
  • Technical challenges were addressed, including the production of zirconium, a crucial material for reactor internals.
    • Rickover spearheaded the industrialization of the Kroll process for zirconium production, dramatically lowering its cost.
  • The first prototype reactor, Mark A, was built and tested underwater in the Horton Sphere in Idaho.
  • Shock resistance was rigorously tested by subjecting a non-nuclear power system in the submarine Ulua to depth charge attacks.
The Nautilus
  • The keel of the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) was laid on June 14, 1952, with President Truman in attendance.
  • The Nautilus was launched on January 21, 1954, and first went to sea under nuclear power on January 17, 1955.
  • President Eisenhower received the first message from the Nautilus: “Underway on nuclear power.”
  • The Nautilus set numerous records during its two-year shakedown trials, demonstrating the superiority of nuclear propulsion.
  • It became the first vessel to cross under the polar ice cap, passing under the North Pole on August 3, 1957.
Legacy of the Nautilus
  • The success of the Nautilus led the US Navy to adopt nuclear power for a wide range of vessels, including aircraft carriers, cruisers, and submarines.
  • Rickover’s PWR design, though not the cheapest or simplest, became the most widely used reactor design globally due to its compactness and safety features.

Chapter 2: Digging Canals, Curing Cancer, and Flying to Jupiter

Radiation and Nuclear Power

The Paradox of Nuclear Power
  • Radiation is a sinister and dangerous concept, even to those familiar with it.
  • Nuclear power, particularly fission, releases a tremendous amount of radiation.
  • Paradox: More people die annually from radiation-induced diseases from sun exposure than from nuclear power applications.
  • Radiation is ubiquitous: It constantly penetrates our bodies.
The ERB and the Georgia Tech Research Reactor
  • ERB (Electronics Research Building): Built in 1966 at Georgia Tech.
    • Constructed with concrete blocks sourced from a Florida phosphate mine.
    • Phosphate mine tailings are rich in uranium, making the ERB radioactive.
    • Occupants were exposed to higher radiation levels than in the adjacent reactor building.
  • Frank H. Neely Nuclear Research Center: Built in 1963, contained a 5-megawatt CP-5 heavy water reactor.
    • Meticulous radiation monitoring and safety protocols.
    • 1965 Incident: Radiation alarms triggered by the ERB’s construction materials, not a reactor incident.
  • Decommissioning:
    • Reactor meticulously decontaminated and disassembled at high cost.
    • ERB demolished with minimal precautions, spreading radioactive dust.
  • Paradox Illustrated: Extensive effort to protect from reactor radiation, while a greater, unmonitored radiation source existed in the ERB.
  • Public Perception: Protecting the public from the perception of radiation contamination was paramount, even if the actual risk was low.

The Age of Wild Experimentation (1954-1963)

Nuclear Weapons Testing
  • Early 1950s: US could detect Soviet nuclear tests through atmospheric radiation.
  • Escalation of Testing:
    • 1955: 20 above-ground tests
    • 1956: 30 tests
    • 1957: 50 tests
    • 1958: 105 tests
    • 1961: 140 tests
  • Consequences:
    • Atmospheric radiation levels rose to dangerous levels.
    • Rainwater became contaminated with radioactive fallout.
  • Weapons Development:
    • Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs designed diverse nuclear weapons: gravity bombs, artillery shells, anti-aircraft weapons, etc.
    • XM388 (Davy Crockett): Jeep-mounted recoilless rifle-fired nuclear device.
    • W45 MADM: Designed to destroy hydroelectric dams.
  • Testing Effects: Structures, vehicles, and objects subjected to nuclear blasts to study their effects.
  • Soviet Tsar Bomba (RDS-220):
    • October 30, 1961: Largest man-made explosion (50 megatons).
    • Never deployed, but demonstrated Soviet nuclear capability.
Industrial Uses of Atomic Bombs
  • Operation Plowshare (US) and Program 7 (USSR): Explored non-military uses for nuclear explosions.

Panama Canal

  • Problem: Existing Panama Canal was too narrow for modern ships.
  • Proposed Solution: Use nuclear explosions to excavate a new sea-level canal.
  • Sedan Test (July 6, 1962):
    • 104-kiloton bomb detonated at Yucca Flat, Nevada.
    • Created a crater 320 feet deep and 1,280 feet across.
    • Released significant radioactive fallout, exposing millions.
  • Consequences:
    • Project abandoned due to fallout concerns.
    • Public confidence in nuclear technology further eroded.

Pechora-Kama Canal (USSR)

  • Goal: Connect the Pechora and Kama river basins.
  • March 23, 1971: Three 15-kiloton bombs detonated, creating a 2,000-foot crater.
  • Project Abandoned: High radiation levels and the projected need for hundreds of bombs led to cancellation.

Project Chariot (US)

  • Goal: Create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska.
  • Opposition: Inuit villagers and the Sierra Club raised concerns about radiation.
  • Project Shelved: AEC put the project on hold in 1962 due to public unease.

Project Gnome (US)

  • Goal: Test electricity generation by detonating a nuclear bomb in an underground water stream.
  • December 10, 1961: Explosion at a salt bed near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
  • Failure: Radioactive steam escaped, and the project was deemed impractical.

Gas Stimulation (US)

  • May 17, 1973: Three explosions in Fawn Creek, Colorado, to stimulate natural gas flow.
  • Result: Gas became radioactive, and the project was economically unfeasible.
Legacy of Plowshare
  • Fallout Concerns: Despite attempts at positive PR, public perception of nuclear technology became increasingly negative due to fallout.
  • Paradox: While nuclear bombs were tested for destructive purposes, nuclear reactions were also being used to treat cancer.

Radiation in Medicine

Early X-ray Therapy
  • 1896: Wilhelm Röntgen discovers X-rays.
  • Rapid Adoption: Diagnostic X-rays quickly used in medicine.
  • Therapeutic Potential: Emil Grube’s accidental discovery of skin peeling from X-ray exposure led to the first cancer treatment using radiation.
  • Rose Lee: First cancer patient treated with X-rays, showing improvement.
  • Challenges: Early X-ray machines were imprecise, risking harm to healthy tissue.
Radium and Brachytherapy
  • 1898: Marie and Pierre Curie discover radium and polonium.
  • Brachytherapy: Using radium implants to treat cancer with localized radiation.
  • Advantages:
    • Solid-state radiation source, no bulky equipment.
    • Alpha particles have a short range, minimizing damage to surrounding tissue.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Radium is rare and expensive.
    • Radium’s long half-life (2,600 years) poses a long-term hazard.
    • Easy to lose or misplace, leading to accidental ingestion or inhalation.
Radiopharmaceuticals
  • Nuclear Reactors as Isotope Producers: Reactors can create specific radioisotopes for medical use.
  • Advantages:
    • Customized isotopes with desired radiation type, energy, and half-life.
    • Eliminates the need for dangerous radium.
  • Examples:
    • Calcium-47: Bone metabolism studies.
    • Yttrium-90: Prostate cancer brachytherapy.
    • Technetium-99m: Widely used for imaging various organs and tumors.
  • Technetium-99m:
    • Half-life of 6 hours, minimizing patient exposure.
    • Derived from nuclear power plant waste products.
    • Over 20 million people treated annually.
  • Dependence on Nuclear Reactors:
    • Without reactors, the radiopharmaceutical industry would not exist.
    • US relies heavily on a single reactor in Canada for isotope production.

Project Orion: Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft

Limitations of Chemical Rockets
  • Chemical rockets have limited energy density, making long-duration manned spaceflight challenging.
  • Manned missions beyond the Moon require a more powerful propulsion system.
Ulam and Dyson’s Nuclear Propulsion Concept
  • 1947: Stanislaw Ulam proposes using nuclear explosions for spacecraft propulsion (Project Helios).
  • Freeman Dyson develops the concept further, leading to Project Orion.
  • Nuclear Propulsion Advantages:
    • Millions of times more powerful than chemical rockets.
    • Enables faster travel times and larger spacecraft.
Orion Spacecraft Design
  • External Detonation: Small nuclear bombs detonated outside the spacecraft, propelling it forward.
  • Pusher Plate: A thick steel plate absorbs the blast and transfers momentum to the spacecraft.
  • Shock Absorption: Two-stage shock absorbers minimize the impact on the crew.
  • Pusher Plate Protection: Grease coating prevents erosion from repeated blasts.
Orion Variants
  • Satellite Version: 300 tons, single-stage.
  • Mid-Range Version: 2,000 tons, suitable for Mars missions.
  • Super Orion: 8 million tons, capable of interstellar travel at 10% the speed of light.
Project Cancellation
  • 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty: Banned atmospheric nuclear explosions, making Orion launches illegal due to fallout concerns.
  • Project Closed in 1964.
Orion’s Legacy
  • Remains the most efficient spacecraft propulsion concept.
  • Potential for future use if fallout concerns can be addressed.

German Battleship Part on the Moon

Scuttling of the German Fleet
  • June 21, 1919: German Navy scuttled at Scapa Flow, Scotland, following World War I defeat.
Radioactive Steel
  • Post-World War II steel became contaminated with radioactive fallout from nuclear testing.
  • Cobalt-60 used in steel furnace fire bricks further contributed to contamination.
  • Pre-Atomic Steel became a valuable resource for radiation-sensitive experiments.
Surveyor 5 Mission
  • 1967: NASA’s Surveyor 5 landed on the Moon with a radiation-sensitive alpha-scattering surface analyzer.
  • Need for Pre-Atomic Steel: To avoid background radiation interference.
Source of Pre-Atomic Steel
  • The British salvaged parts from the scuttled German fleet at Scapa Flow, providing pre-atomic steel for Surveyor 5.
Notre Dame Cathedral and Old Lead
  • Lead-210 Contamination: Freshly mined lead contains radioactive lead-210, hindering sensitive nuclear experiments.
  • Old Lead Solution: Lead used in Notre Dame Cathedral’s roof (circa 1250) was free of lead-210 due to its age.
  • AEC’s Offer: Replaced the cathedral’s roof and acquired the old lead for radiation shielding.

Chapter 3: The Graphites on Fire

Early Nuclear Power Research: Surprisingly Low Fatality Rate

  • The early decades of nuclear power research had a surprisingly low fatality rate. More people died in the development of the Ferris wheel than in the experimental phase of nuclear power.
  • The “peaceful atom” concept, while promising, was still in its early stages and capable of unexpected and significant accidents.
  • Numerous reactor accidents, both major and minor, occurred due to engineering flaws or operational errors.
  • Through in-depth study and analysis of these accidents, the principles of reactor design were continuously refined.

Two Classic Semi-Disasters: Illustrating Design Evolution

  • Two examples, the Windscale Incident (1957) and the SL-1 Mystery (1961), illustrate the evolution of reactor design.

The KISS Principle in Reactor Design

  • The 1950s and 1960s were characterized by the “keep it simple, stupid” (KISS) principle in engineering.
  • Simpler designs were considered better due to:
    • Fewer parts, reducing the probability of failure.
    • Lower manufacturing costs.
  • Simplified machines were believed to be inherently safer and more economical.

Public Expectations and the Paradox of Nuclear Power

  • In the 1950s, the public desired a clean, unlimited, and inexpensive power source, with safety as an implicit expectation.
  • Early nuclear power development may have fallen short of these expectations.
  • The paradox of nuclear power is that striving for engineering simplicity often leads to accidents like fires, meltdowns, and contamination.
  • Simpler and more economical large-scale reactor projects were more prone to malfunctions.

The Windscale Incident: A Classic Example of Simplicity Leading to Disaster

The Windscale Reactors: Design and Construction
  • The Windscale plutonium production reactors, built in Sellafield, England (1947), exemplify the paradox of nuclear power.
  • The design was based on limited information about the X-10 pile at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and a successful test of the Bepo reactor at Harwell.
  • The British nuclear industry prioritized simplicity and cost-effectiveness:
    • Graphite moderated with metallic, natural uranium fuel.
    • Air cooling was used to avoid the complexities of liquid cooling systems employed at the Hanford Works.
    • Eight large electric blowers forced air through the core and up a smokestack.
  • Construction, initially problematic, was eventually completed by 5,000 workers.
    • Concrete was poured before the design was finalized.
    • Over 300 architects, engineers, and surveyors were rushed to complete the plans.
Design Problems and Modifications
  • Problems arose due to the rushed design.
  • The fuel loading machine, designed to automatically insert uranium slugs, failed to function.
    • It was the most complex part of the project and proved too ambitious for the technology of the time.
    • A manual workaround was implemented: a worker would be lowered onto the reactor face to insert fuel cartridges using a stick.
  • Issues also arose with the air blowers and, most significantly, with the graphite and fuel.
The Wigner Effect: A Hidden Danger in Graphite
  • Existing knowledge of nuclear graphite was incomplete and, in some cases, inaccurate.
  • American scientists were prohibited from assisting the British project due to the Atomic Energy Act.
  • However, warnings about the Wigner effect were conveyed to the British.
  • The Wigner effect:
    • Predicted by Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner during World War II.
    • High-speed neutrons, used for moderation, displace carbon atoms in the graphite’s crystal lattice.
    • This displacement can cause the graphite to change shape, potentially damaging the reactor’s precision.
    • Displaced carbon atoms store energy, which can be suddenly released, causing a fire.
    • A graphite fire can ignite the uranium fuel, which is also highly flammable.
    • Water is ineffective in extinguishing a graphite fire and can even worsen the situation by providing oxygen and releasing explosive hydrogen.
    • Annealing – carefully raising and lowering the graphite’s temperature – is necessary to release the stored energy safely.
Teller and Cockcroft’s Warnings
  • Edward Teller informed the British about the Wigner effect during a visit to Sellafield in 1948.
  • John Cockcroft, after a trip to the United States, warned about the risk of a burst fuel cartridge contaminating the surrounding area.
    • He recommended filtering the air exhaust, a suggestion that was initially met with resistance.
The Windscale Reactors: Structure and Filters
  • The Windscale reactors were massive structures:
    • 2,000 tons of graphite in an octagonal stack (25 feet long, 50 feet in diameter).
    • Enclosed in a 7-foot-thick concrete bio-shield lined with steel plates.
    • Cooling air drawn in by eight blowers through holes in the core and up a 410-foot stack.
  • Incorporating filters into the existing design was deemed impractical.
  • Cockcroft insisted on filters, and they were eventually installed at the top of the exhaust stacks, despite being considered a suboptimal location.
    • These filters were dubbed “Cockcroft’s Folly.”
Criticality Concerns and Modifications
  • Before Windscale Unit 1’s startup, Cockcroft raised concerns about the critical mass calculation, suggesting it could be off by as much as 250%.
  • Engineers sought ways to improve core reactivity by reducing neutron absorption.
  • They decided to shorten the aluminum fins on the fuel cartridges by 1/16th of an inch to reduce neutron absorption.
  • This modification, implemented by a team led by Tom Toohey, proved successful.
Initial Operation and Early Issues
  • Windscale Unit 1 achieved criticality in October 1950, followed by Unit 2 in June 1951.
  • Toohey produced the first piece of plutonium metal in Great Britain on March 28, 1952.
  • Despite some operational challenges, including concerns about fuel cartridge bursts, the reactors were deemed operational.
  • The Burst Cartridge Detection Gear (BCDG), designed to detect ruptured fuel cartridges, had a tendency to damage the cartridges itself.
  • Unexplained temperature rises occurred in both units in 1952 but were managed by increasing blower speed.
The Ninth Annealing and the Onset of the Fire
  • By October 1957, Windscale Unit 1 was due for its ninth graphite annealing, a routine procedure to release Wigner energy.
  • The Annealing Process:
    • Main fans were turned off, allowing the core temperature to rise from its normal operating range (50-80°C) to approximately 250°C.
    • Thermocouples monitored the core temperature as Wigner energy was released.
    • The core was then cooled down using the blowers.
  • Challenges arose due to the uneven distribution of the Wigner effect and cracks in some graphite bricks.
  • The presence of polonium-210 and tritium production materials (AM and LM cans) was not considered to affect annealing.
  • October 7, 1957:
    • Annealing began at 11:45 a.m.
    • Control rods were slowly withdrawn to initiate nuclear heating.
    • Strange thermocouple readings led to temporary halts in rod withdrawal.
    • The pile reached criticality at 7:25 p.m.
    • Operators adjusted individual control rods to focus nuclear heating on the lower front of the pile.
Tuesday, October 8: Initial Signs of Trouble
  • October 8, 1957:
    • Two thermocouples reached 250°C after midnight, indicating the start of the annealing process.
    • The reactor was shut down to allow the Wigner effect to spread and release energy.
    • Ian Robertson, the pile physicist, left for home at 2:00 a.m.
    • By 4:00 a.m., the reactor was fully shut down.
    • Thermocouple readings started falling by 9:00 a.m., suggesting the annealing was not self-propagating as expected.
    • Robertson returned to the control room, feeling unwell due to the flu.
    • Operators noticed unusual behavior, with one thermocouple spiking to 380°C and difficulty controlling it with a single rod.
Wednesday, October 9: Rising Temperatures and Abnormal Readings
  • October 9, 1957:
    • The reactor remained in shutdown mode, and annealing seemed to progress normally.
    • In the afternoon, core temperatures rose as high as 415°C, considered abnormal but not yet cause for panic.
    • Following the instruction manual, operators closed inspection ports and the stack hatch.
    • At 10:15 p.m., they opened fan dampers for cooling, and core temperatures decreased.
    • October 10, 1957 (shortly after midnight):
      • Temperatures began rising again, reaching 400°C.
      • Opening the dampers had little effect.
      • By 2:15 a.m., a thermocouple reached 412°C, a highly abnormal reading.
      • Dampers were opened again, following the manual’s instructions.
      • Temperatures fluctuated as dampers were opened and closed.
Thursday, October 10: Radiation Detection and Growing Concerns
  • October 10, 1957:
    • The radiation monitor at the top of the exhaust stack detected activity, unusual for a shut-down reactor.
    • Radioactivity was also detected on the roof of the Sellafield Meteorological Station.
    • Ron Gosden, the shift manager, followed procedures and opened the dampers.
    • At 1:30 p.m., the stack radiation monitor went into alarm mode.
    • Fearing a burst fuel cartridge, Gosden turned on the shutdown fans.
    • At 2:30 p.m., Gosden ordered the pile to be “blown cold,” activating all fans at high speed.
    • The BCDG, designed for lower temperatures, was ineffective in locating the suspected burst cartridge.
    • Gosden informed Tom Hughes, the acting works manager, about potential issues at Unit 1.
    • Hugh Howells, the health physics manager, also alerted Hughes about abnormal air contamination.
    • Hughes contacted H.G. Davey, the works general manager, reporting a potential meltdown.
Discovering the Fire
  • At Unit 1, the staff believed they had located the burst cartridge and removed the plug covering the suspect fuel channel.
  • They discovered that the channel was cherry red, indicating a fire.
  • Further investigation revealed that the reactor itself was on fire, and it had been burning for two days.
  • Attempts to push out the burning fuel cartridges with a metal rod were unsuccessful.
  • Gosden realized the severity of the situation and the need to create a firebreak to prevent the entire reactor from igniting.
Fighting the Fire
  • A team of eight men, equipped with protective gear, began manually removing burning fuel cartridges using long steel bars.
  • Scientists gathered in Davey’s office to determine the cause of the fire and assess the risks.
  • A core temperature of 1,200°C was a theoretical point for a secondary Wigner energy release, potentially leading to a catastrophic temperature spike and the uncontainable spread of fission products.
  • Thermocouples reported a core temperature of 1,200°C, and the theoretical crisis point was revised to 1,500°C.
Friday, October 11: Escalation and Desperate Measures
  • October 11, 1957:
    • Davey summoned Toohey, informing him of the fire.
    • Toohey observed the fire at the reactor face and the red glow at the back end of the core through an inspection hole.
    • The fire intensified, with flames changing from red to yellow and then to hot blue.
    • Toohey, despite the risks, instructed the Works Fire Brigade to stand by with equipment.
    • By midnight, the fire was contained to 120 fuel channels (out of 3,440) by creating a firebreak.
    • Workers used scaffolding poles to push burning fuel cartridges into a water trough at the back of the core.
    • Some cartridges were jammed, and poles returned glowing red with molten uranium.
    • At 1:00 a.m., the local constable was alerted about a potential emergency.
    • Scientists attempted to smother the fire with carbon dioxide, but it proved ineffective.
    • Toohey discovered that inspection port covers were stuck due to the fire’s intense oxygen intake.
    • He observed blue flames shooting out the back of the reactor and hitting the concrete wall.
    • Fearing a breach in the bio-shield and the release of fission products, Toohey decided to use water as a last resort.
Using Water to Extinguish the Fire
  • Four fire hoses were improvised and inserted into the core through fuel holes.
  • Water was turned on slowly, and fortunately, no explosion occurred.
  • The water cascaded down the back of the reactor, but the flames persisted.
  • After an hour, Toohey ordered the fans to be turned off, and the fire subsided rapidly.
  • Hoses were kept running for 30 hours as a precaution.
  • The ground floor flooded with highly radioactive water.
The Role of Cockcroft’s Filters
  • Cockcroft’s filters, initially dismissed as “folly,” played a crucial role in preventing the widespread contamination of northern England.
  • They filtered out a significant portion of the 20 tons of burned reactor fuel and fission products.
  • The term “Cockcroft’s Folly” was quickly abandoned.
Radioactivity Releases and Aftermath
  • Despite the filters, two major radioactivity releases occurred:
    • Midnight on Thursday, before the firebreak was fully established.
    • Friday morning, when water was first applied to the fire.
  • The estimated release was at least 20,000 curies of radioactive material.
  • Comparison to other incidents:
    • The Sedan nuclear bomb test released 44 times more radiation.
    • The Chernobyl disaster released over 1,000 times more radiation.
  • The radioactive plume primarily drifted over the Irish Sea.
  • Iodine-131, with its short half-life but tendency to concentrate in the thyroid gland and milk, was a major concern.
  • The British government avoided mass evacuations but implemented measures to mitigate the impact of iodine-131 contamination.
  • Milk from surrounding areas was confiscated, diluted, and disposed of in the Irish Sea for a month.
  • Windscale Unit 2 was shut down.
  • Investigations into the incident highlighted inadequate engineering, cost-cutting measures, and a rushed schedule as contributing factors.
  • The specific cause of the fire remains a subject of debate.
Lessons Learned and Long-Term Impact
  • The Windscale incident revealed the limitations of the “keep it simple” approach in nuclear reactor design.
  • It demonstrated the need for a shift in engineering mindset, prioritizing safety and quality over economy and speed.
  • Air-cooled reactors were subsequently abandoned.
  • The Windscale reactors are undergoing robotic disassembly, scheduled for completion by 2037.
  • Follow-up studies of the 450 workers involved in controlling the fire have not shown unusual rates of cancer or radiation-induced illnesses.

The Search for a Safer Reactor Design

The PWR: A Complex but Safe Alternative
  • Hyman Rickover’s pressurized water reactor (PWR), used in nuclear submarines, emerged as a potentially safer alternative to the simpler designs.
  • PWR Characteristics:
    • Complex design with expensive fuel, exotic materials, numerous moving parts, and thousands of welds.
    • Rickover’s rigorous approach to training and psychological testing of personnel.
    • Excellent operational record with no harmful incidents.
  • The PWR’s complexity and cost made it less appealing to industry, which traditionally favored cheaper solutions.
The National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS)
  • The Westinghouse S-1W, Rickover’s submarine reactor, was extensively tested at the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) by 1953.
  • NRTS:
    • Established in 1949 by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) at the former Naval Proving Ground in Idaho.
    • 890 square miles of remote desert, ideal for conducting nuclear experiments without risk to populated areas.
    • Became a hub for reactor experiments, with 52 conducted over the next 30 years.

The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR): A Radical Simplification of the PWR

Samuel Untermyer’s Proposal
  • Samuel Untermyer II, an MIT engineer, proposed a simplification of the PWR, the boiling water reactor (BWR).
  • PWR Design:
    • Ordinary water as both coolant and neutron moderator.
    • Closed-loop circulation of pressurized water to prevent boiling.
    • Superheated water in the primary loop heats a secondary boiling water loop, generating steam for power production.
    • Requires enriched uranium fuel due to water’s inefficiency as a moderator.
    • Inherent safety features: coolant loss leads to moderator loss and reactor shutdown.
The BWR Concept
  • Untermyer’s BWR eliminated the primary loop:
    • Water was boiled directly by the reactor, simplifying the design and reducing the number of components.
    • Steam generators and pressurizers were eliminated.
  • Arguments against the BWR:
    • Physicists argued that boiling moderator would lead to unpredictable criticality and compromise safety.
    • Concerns about fuel vibrating loose and contaminating the steam loop.
Untermyer’s Counterarguments
  • Untermyer argued that the boiling moderator would enhance stability and control:
    • Steam bubble formation displaces moderator, reducing fission rate and power.
    • Reduced fission rate stops boiling, bubbles collapse, moderator density increases, fission rate climbs, and boiling restarts.
  • BWR Self-Regulation:
    • The BWR would be self-regulating, adjusting power output based on steam demand without constant control adjustments.
    • Increased steam demand cools the boiling action, increasing steam production.
    • Reduced demand increases boiling, powering down the reactor.
    • Coolant loss leads to immediate shutdown.
Advantages of the BWR
  • The BWR was inherently safe, with fewer welds and valves prone to failure.
The BORAX Experiments
  • Untermyer secured an AEC contract (BORAX) to test the BWR concept at the NRTS in 1953.
  • BORAX-1:
    • Built with minimal resources in the desert.
    • Operated during summer months due to lack of housing.
    • The core tank was semi-buried, with plumbing exposed.
  • Successful Testing:
    • The reactor performed flawlessly, validating Untermyer’s control hypothesis.
    • 70 tests simulated various accident scenarios, including pipe breaks, valve failures, and operator errors.
    • BORAX-1 proved resilient under these conditions.
The Maximum Accident Test
  • A final test simulated a maximum accident scenario:
    • Control rods were rigged to blow out of the core, inducing a prompt supercritical state.
    • The resulting steam explosion was more powerful than anticipated, categorized as a criticality accident.
  • Explosion and Aftermath:
    • The explosion was equivalent to 70 pounds of high explosive, ejecting the control mechanism and scattering fuel fragments.
    • Despite the explosion, the reactor instantly shut down due to the steam flash.
    • The damaged reactor remained in standby mode, ready for reloading.
BWR Development and Legacy
  • Despite the overshoot in the final test, the BORAX experiments demonstrated the viability of the BWR concept.
  • Concerns about fuel contamination proved unfounded.
  • Today, 90 BWR power plants operate globally, considered among the safest reactor designs.

The Army’s Nuclear Power Program: Small, Simple Reactors for Remote Locations

The Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line
  • In 1953, the US Army developed the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line:
    • A network of radar stations above the Arctic Circle to detect potential Soviet bomber attacks.
    • Powering these remote stations posed logistical challenges.
The Need for Nuclear Power
  • Diesel generators were initially used but required substantial fuel deliveries, which were difficult in the Arctic winter.
  • Accumulating fuel barrels also posed an environmental hazard.
  • The Army sought to develop nuclear power solutions for its remote installations.
Army Nuclear Power Plant Configurations
  • The Army envisioned three types of small, simple nuclear power plants:
    • Stationary (S):
      • Transportable in pre-manufactured sections.
      • Minimal site preparation and unskilled labor for installation.
      • Low maintenance, three-year fuel cycle, and small operating crew.
      • Ideal for fixed radar stations.
    • Mobile (M):
      • Lighter than stationary plants, requiring no assembly.
      • Transportable by heavy truck for rapid deployment.
      • Suitable for encampments, similar to MASH units.
    • Portable (P):
      • Jeep-transportable, similar to portable generators.
      • Eliminated the need for liquid fuel.
Power Levels and Designations
  • Three power levels were defined:
    • L: Low
    • S: Medium
    • H: High
  • Designation System:
    • Configuration letter (S, M, P) + Power level letter (L, S, H) + Version number.
The SL-1 Reactor: Prototype and Testing
  • The SL-1 (Stationary Low-power reactor, version 1) was the first prototype for testing.
  • Design and Construction:
    • Designed by Argonne National Lab and built by Combustion Engineering.
    • Tested at the NRTS, five miles from the Navy’s S-1W compound.
    • Reactor tank housed in a steel prefab building backfilled with gravel and steel punchings (no concrete).
    • Building was not designed as a robust containment structure.
    • Three-level building:
      • Lower: Tank and gravel.
      • Middle: Turbine deck and reactor top access.
      • Upper: Fan room for air-cooled steam condenser.
    • Control room in a separate tin building connected by an external staircase.
Engineering Considerations and Design Choices
  • The SL-1 was designed for simple, rapid deployment in Arctic conditions.
  • The use of concrete was avoided due to its impracticality in freezing temperatures.
  • Foolproof Design:
    • The Army sought a meltdown-proof reactor, resilient to mishandling.
    • Untermyer’s BWR, proven to be extremely robust in the BORAX experiments, was selected.
  • Simplified Control System:
    • A single, centrally located cruciform control rod replaced multiple independent rods.
    • Four auxiliary rods were used for neutron flux leveling and even fuel burning.
SL-1 Operation and Security
  • SL-1 achieved criticality on August 11, 1958, and began power production on October 24.
  • The project received relatively little attention at the NRTS compared to other experiments.
  • Security was minimal, relying primarily on the remote location.
Training and Personnel
  • The Air Force and Navy participated in the SL-1 project, with Seabees and Airmen training alongside Army personnel.
  • Training:
    • Four months of classroom instruction at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
    • Four months of control room simulator training and time on a training reactor.
  • Initial Trainees:
    • Early classes were comprised of experienced power company personnel and enthusiastic engineers.
    • Later classes had less experienced and motivated trainees.
  • Jack Burns and Dick Legg:
    • Part of the fourth wave of trainees, assigned to SL-1 in late 1959.
  • Jack Burns:
    • Army private, joined at 17, married at 19, facing marital problems.
    • Reckless driver, heavy drinker, financially unstable, disliked supervision.
  • Dick Legg:
    • CB, known for pranks and a quick temper.
Incident at a Friend’s House
  • In May 1960, Burns and Legg got into a fistfight after leaving the White Elephant Supper Club intoxicated.
  • The fight was triggered by Legg’s comments about a prostitute Burns had been with.
  • A sergeant intervened and separated them.
Deteriorating Conditions at SL-1
  • By December 1961, Burns was deemed not ready for promotion.
  • SL-1 suffered from underfunding, mismanagement, and inadequate oversight:
    • Limited personnel assigned to the project.
    • Lack of a policy and procedures manual.
    • Concerns about the discipline and training of new trainees.
  • Technical Issues:
    • Leaking water seals.
    • Crumbling core bottom.
    • Sticky controls.
  • Despite these issues, the reactor remained functional.
  • Cobalt flux wires were recently installed to map neutron distribution.
The Night of the Incident
  • January 3, 1961:
    • Legg and Burns reported for the second shift at SL-1 (4:00 p.m.).
    • Richard McKinley, an Air Force trainee, was present for observation and assistance.
    • Their task was to reassemble the reactor top after the flux wire installation.
    • Progress was slow.
    • 7:00 p.m.: Arlene Burns informed her husband (Jack) about the end of their marriage.
    • Arlene called back three times but received no answer.
    • 9:00 p.m.: Arlene’s last call, expressing concern about a possible problem at SL-1.
The Alarm and Initial Response
  • 9:01 p.m.: The NRTS fire stations and security center received a fire alarm signal from SL-1.
  • The nearest fire station responded, noting the potential hazards listed for SL-1.
  • 9:09 p.m.: Firemen arrived at the facility.
  • No visible signs of fire or damage were observed.
  • The control room was empty, despite the 24-hour staffing requirement.
  • Radiation alarms were sounding.
  • Portable radiation counters went off-scale near the reactor silo entrance.
Health Physicists’ Investigation
  • 9:17 p.m.: A health physicist (HP) from the Materials Test Reactor arrived, equipped with protective gear.
  • His radiation counter pegged near the silo staircase.
  • No personnel were found in the auxiliary buildings.
  • It was concluded that the three men must be inside the reactor silo.
Entering the Silo
  • Using a Jordan Redector, Assistant Chief Moschberger and two HPs, in full protective gear, approached the silo.
  • The detector registered 500 rads per hour near the silo door, an unprecedentedly high reading.
  • Moschberger briefly observed the interior:
    • Water on the floor.
    • Scattered gravel and steel punchings.
    • Damaged reactor top.
  • Limited visibility due to fogged face mask prevented him from locating the missing men.
Rescue Attempt and Burns’ Death
  • A five-man rescue team was assembled to retrieve Burns.
  • Each team member was limited to 60 seconds inside the silo.
  • They retrieved Burns, encountering respirator failures and limited visibility.
  • They scanned for Legg but did not find him.
  • Burns was found to be highly radioactive, emitting 1,000 rads per hour.
  • He died in the ambulance at 11:00 p.m.
  • The ambulance driver abandoned the vehicle in the desert, taking the night nurse with him.
The Aftermath and Investigation
  • The AEC faced a complex situation:
    • Two contaminated bodies (one still inside the silo).
    • One missing person.
    • A highly contaminated reactor.
  • Extensive planning, mock-ups, training, and personnel were required to address the situation.
  • McKinley’s body was retrieved.
  • Legg was eventually found pinned to the ceiling by a piece of the control rod, his remains severely damaged.
  • A remote-operated crane extracted Legg’s body nine days after the incident.
Autopsy and Burial
  • Specialized autopsy procedures were developed.
  • Decontamination attempts were unsuccessful due to embedded reactor fuel fragments.
  • The bodies were buried in lead coffins, with some parts treated as radioactive waste.
Cause of the Explosion
  • The reactor exploded during the reassembly of the control mechanism.
  • The metal silo, despite not being a containment structure, contained the blast relatively well.
  • Approximately 50 curies of radioactivity were released.
  • A plume of fission products, including iodine-131, drifted 100 miles southwest.
Investigation Findings
  • The investigation revealed:
    • Lax project organization.
    • Inadequate worker training and screening.
    • Poor engineering practices.
  • The single-control-rod design for criticality was deemed flawed.
  • Human error was likely a significant factor.
Reconstruction of the Incident
  • The incident was meticulously reconstructed using simulations and a mock-up.
  • An animated film detailed the sequence of events.
Sequence of Events
  • Legg was positioned over the control rod penetration.
  • Burns was grasping the control rod.
  • McKinley was observing.
  • Burns was supposed to raise the rod by one inch, and Legg would then remove a C-clamp.
  • T-0.5 seconds: Burns began pulling the rod.
  • Burns continued pulling beyond the one-inch mark.
  • T-0.120 seconds: The rod was withdrawn 16.7 inches, and the reactor became critical.
  • Burns rapidly pulled the rod to 23 inches.
  • T-0 seconds: The reactor went promptly supercritical (19 billion watts).
  • Fuel began to vaporize (3,740°F).
  • T-0.0005 seconds: The BWR self-scrammed due to steam void formation.
  • Water above the core accelerated upward.
  • T-0.034 seconds: Water hit the reactor lid (10,000 pounds of force).
  • Shield plugs cracked and parts were ejected.
  • The reactor tank began to move.
  • T-0.160 seconds: A shield plug hit the ceiling, and two-thirds of the water had left the reactor.
  • T-0.800 seconds: The reactor sheared off piping and hit the ceiling.
  • T-4.000 seconds: The reactor fell back into the gravel, and the explosion ended.
The Unanswered Question: Why Did Burns Pull the Rod?
  • The reason for Burns’ actions remains unknown.
  • Experiments simulating a startled reaction did not result in control rod withdrawal.
  • The deliberate force required to pull the rod to 23 inches suggests intentional action.
Possible Explanations
  • While not explicitly stated in the final report, a murder-suicide scenario is a possibility.
Lessons Learned
  • The SL-1 incident highlighted the vulnerability of even well-engineered systems to human error.
  • It emphasized the importance of psychological screening in personnel selection.
Continued Development and Eventual Cancellation
  • Despite the incident, the Army continued developing small nuclear plants.
  • March 8, 1961: Camp Century in Greenland became the first Army unit to operate a nuclear power plant (SL-1 with modifications).
  • December 14, 1961: A nuclear reactor was installed at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.
  • Axel Heiberg Island: The PL-1 powered an automated weather station.
  • 1965: The program was cancelled due to budget constraints caused by the Vietnam War.
Long-Term Impact of SL-1
  • The SL-1 incident led to improvements in:
    • Radiation suit and respirator design.
    • Photography, dosimetry, and environmental monitoring procedures.
  • Oversimplified BWR designs were abandoned.
  • A safety poster commemorating the incident was created.
  • Regulations were implemented to prevent single-control criticality and to eliminate the possibility of accidental rod withdrawal.
  • The emphasis on cost reduction and simplification in nuclear reactor design diminished.

The Hatch Nuclear Generating Station: A Modern BWR Experience

Installing the Safety Parameter Display System
  • In 1983, the author and Mark Pellegrini completed the installation of the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) at the EI Hatch nuclear generating station (two GE BWR-6 reactors in Mark I containments).
  • A year of testing was required before the SPDS could be used in normal operations.
The Scram Tape Feature
  • One untested feature of the SPDS was its ability to record data during a scram (unscheduled shutdown):
    • Upon scram, the system would record the past half-hour of reactor data on a hard disk and a nine-track magnetic tape.
    • Real-time data would then be recorded on the tape for the next hour.
    • This feature allowed operators to review the scram event in detail on the simulator system.
An Unexpected Scram
  • While celebrating the SPDS installation, a scram occurred at Unit 1, indicated by flickering lights and resetting video games.
Analyzing the Scram
  • The authors obtained the scram tape and analyzed it on the simulator.
  • The scram was caused by a transistor failure in the jet pump speed control amplifier.
BWR-6 Power Control
  • The BWR-6 uses jet pumps to control power levels by regulating water recirculation speed:
    • Faster water flow reduces steam bubble formation, increasing moderator density and reactivity.
    • Slower flow increases steam bubbles, displacing moderator and reducing reactivity.
  • Jet pump speed is controlled by a hydraulic coupling connected to an AC motor and a DC generator.
  • A scoop tube in the coupling, controlled by a servo motor, regulates the amount of hydraulic fluid.
The Transistor Failure and Its Consequences
  • A transistor in the amplifier controlling the scoop tube servo motor failed closed, causing the scoop tube to move to the full out position.
  • This led to jet pump overrunning and the collapse of steam bubbles in the reactor core, causing a rapid power increase.
Observing the Scram on the SPDS
  • The authors observed the effects of the transistor failure on the SPDS display:
    • The core temperature graph transitioned from green to red, exceeding

Chapter 4: Nuclear Rockets and Nuclear Airplanes

Introduction

  • Quote: “The universe is nuclear, and so we must use this energy source if we are to go there.” - Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, in the Congressional Record, September 1, 1960
  • The author’s experience as a licensed reactor operator highlights the complexity and safety measures involved in nuclear reactor operations.
  • Reactor Racing: A game devised by graduate students to test their reactor operation skills by rapidly increasing power levels without causing a scram (automatic shutdown).

The AGN Model 201 Reactor

  • Description:
    • Developed by Aerojet General Nucleonics.
    • Small research reactor, about the size of a paint can.
    • Used 20% enriched uranium powder mixed with polyethylene as fuel.
    • Graphite neutron reflector and water bioshield.
    • Maximum power comparable to a two-cell flashlight.
    • Inherently safe design with multiple safety features.
  • Aerojet General Nucleonics:
    • Founded by Theodor von Kármán.
    • Initially focused on JATO (Jet Assisted Takeoff Rockets).
    • Expanded into electronics, ordnance, and eventually nucleonics.
    • Anticipated major involvement in nuclear rocket engine development.

Nuclear-Powered Transportation Systems: Optimism and Paradox

  • Early Concepts:
    • Nuclear-powered rockets and air-breathing jets were considered since the Manhattan Project.
  • Nuclear Rocket Advantages:
    • Significantly higher specific impulse (propellant efficiency) compared to chemical rockets.
      • Chemical rockets: Maximum specific impulse of 453 seconds.
      • Nuclear rockets: Specific impulse starting at 800 seconds, potentially much higher.
    • Enabled one-stage trips to the moon and manned missions to Mars.
  • The Nuclear Power Paradox:
    • Despite significant investment and potential, nuclear-powered transportation systems were not realized.
    • Reasons for the Paradox:
      • Cost: Nuclear energy is expensive.
      • Premature Development: Nuclear technology was ahead of its time, the limitations of chemical propulsion were not yet fully realized.
      • Negative Perception: Flawed development programs like the nuclear-powered airplane and cruise missile tarnished the image of nuclear technology.

The Nuclear-Powered Airplane: A Flawed Dream

  • Origins:
    • Concept explored by Enrico Fermi and the Manhattan Project team.
    • Initial goal: Develop a bomber with unlimited range.
  • Challenges:
    • Shielding:
      • Submarines offered inherent shielding due to their heavy construction.
      • Airplanes, built for lightness, posed significant shielding challenges to protect the crew from radiation.
    • Safety:
      • Reactor scrams in flight would lead to crashes and the dispersal of radioactive materials.
      • Submarines could safely sink to the ocean floor in case of accidents.
  • Project NEPA (Nuclear Energy for Propulsion of Aircraft):
    • Initiated in 1946 by the Air Force.
    • $10 million invested, but technical challenges were evident.
  • Project ANP (Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program):
    • Launched in 1951, jointly administered by the Air Force and the AEC.
    • Lacked a strong leader like Hyman Rickover, resulting in mismanagement and slow progress.
  • The X-6 Test Program (NB-36H):
    • Modified Convair B-36 Peacemaker bomber with an air-cooled reactor.
    • Used a shadow shield to protect the crew, weighing 12.5 tons.
    • Flew 43 successful test missions, mainly over deserts.
    • Always accompanied by a chase plane with marines to secure crash sites.
  • Ongoing Concerns:
    • Radiation exposure to people and livestock on the ground.
    • Neutron embrittlement of the fuselage.
    • Radiation effects on hydraulic fluid and electronics.
  • Soviet Competition:
    • Reports of a massive Soviet nuclear aircraft project fueled the urgency of the ANP program.
  • The General Electric Vallesitos Atomic Laboratory:
    • Awarded the reactor design contract in 1957.
    • Proposed a single, centrally located reactor with a detachable design for easier servicing.
  • The Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE):
    • Series of GE engine tests conducted at the NRTS in Idaho.
  • Lockheed Aircraft’s Involvement:
    • Built a mock-up of the crew compartment for psychological testing.
    • Developed specialized equipment like an electric incinerator toilet.
  • The Shielding Development Facility (Oak Ridge, Tennessee):
    • Tested shielding methods for minimizing radiation effects on the ground.
  • The Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory (GNAL, Dawsonville, Georgia):
    • Studied the effects of radiation on materials and living things.
    • Radiation Effects Reactor: 10-megawatt water-cooled reactor used for high-intensity radiation tests.
    • Critical Experiment Facility (Staging Reactor): Low-power reactor for fuel and moderator configuration experiments.
    • Unique Features:
      • Stainless steel buildings to prevent rust and contamination.
      • Water purification plant.
      • Concrete blockhouse with remote hot-cell arms for examining irradiated objects.
      • Meteorology towers to monitor wind conditions and potential spread of Argon-41.
      • Aircraft detection tower to prevent accidental pilot exposure.
      • Underground operations building for personnel safety.
  • Initial Tests and Observations:
    • First reactor startup on December 14, 1958.
    • Tested a wide range of materials and living organisms.
    • Observed instant taxidermy phenomenon.
    • Studied the effects of radiation on hydraulic fluid, tires, and transistors.
  • Cancellation of the ANP Program:
    • President John F. Kennedy canceled the program on March 28, 1961.
    • Advancements in ICBM technology made the nuclear bomber obsolete.
    • $20 billion spent with no tangible results.
  • Legacy of the ANP Program:
    • Technically feasible but ultimately a public relations disaster.
    • Raised safety concerns and contradicted the image of nuclear power as safe and economical.

Project Pluto (SLAM): The Nuclear Ramjet from Hell

  • Origins:
    • Based on George Gamow’s concept of “Self-Flying Atomic Bombs”.
  • Objective:
    • Develop a nuclear-powered ramjet cruise missile capable of supersonic flight.
  • Design and Features:
    • Mach 3 speed, low altitude flight.
    • Unmanned, self-flying.
    • Chemical rocket boosters for initial launch, followed by reactor startup.
    • Intended for deployment along the western Pacific Rim.
    • Carried multiple nuclear warheads and caused destruction through its shockwave and radiation.
    • Simple engine design with no moving parts.
    • Reactor operating temperature: 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit.
    • Fuel: Specialized ceramic fuel elements developed by the Coors Porcelain Company.
  • Project Tori:
    • Tori-2A: First complete engine design, tested at Site 401 in Jackass Flats, Nevada.
    • Tori-2C: Lighter and more powerful engine, ran at 513 megawatts for five minutes.
  • Challenges and Concerns:
    • Potential for catastrophic crashes and widespread radioactive contamination.
    • Extreme noise and heat signature.
  • Cancellation of Project Pluto:
    • Canceled on July 1, 1964, due to the development of ICBMs.
    • $260 million spent.

The Nuclear Rocket Engine: Project Rover and Beyond

  • Early Concepts:
    • Speculative papers on nuclear-powered rockets appeared in the early 20th century.
    • Fission was seen as a potential energy source for space travel.
  • Project Rover:
    • Initiated in 1955, funded by the AEC, focused on developing nuclear rocket engines for ICBMs.
  • Reactor Core Challenges:
    • Extreme operating conditions: high pressure, high temperature, liquid hydrogen flow.
  • Early Engine Designs:
    • Five initial designs with codenames like Uncle Tom, Bloodhound, Uncle Tongue, and Shish.
    • Old Black Joe: 46-inch long core with ceramic uranium fuel.
  • Shifting Priorities:
    • Development of smaller hydrogen bombs made nuclear rockets less critical for ICBMs.
  • The Space Race and Project Kiwi:
    • Sputnik 1 launch in 1957 spurred the U.S. space program.
    • Nuclear rockets were considered for lunar missions.
    • Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) established.
    • Kiwi: Series of test engines developed by Los Alamos, named after the flightless bird.
    • Kiwi-A: First test on July 1, 1959, encountered technical difficulties.
    • Kiwi A-Prime, Kiwi A-3: Further tests with improved core designs but fuel corrosion issues.
  • NASA’s Involvement and Project Phoebus:
    • Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) program initiated by NASA, based on Kiwi engines.
    • Phoebus: Series of larger and more powerful engines.
    • Phoebus 1A: Test on June 25, 1965, achieved over a billion watts of power.
    • Phoebus B: Test in February 1967, reached 1.5 billion watts.
    • Phoebus 2A: Test in June 1968, achieved 4 billion watts and 200,000 pounds of thrust.
  • The Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory’s Role:
    • Tested fuel tank insulation for nuclear rocket applications.
  • Cancellation of the Nuclear Rocket Program:
    • Lack of a clear mission after the Apollo program.
    • Budgetary constraints and competing priorities.
    • Program terminated in 1972.
  • Soviet Developments:
    • RIFT test in 1985: The Soviet Union conducted the first and only in-flight test of a nuclear rocket engine.
  • The End of Nuclear Flight:
    • By 1972, the era of nuclear-powered aircraft and rockets had ended.

Conclusion

  • Nuclear-powered transportation systems were technically feasible but ultimately unnecessary and ahead of their time.
  • The demise of these programs foreshadowed the fate of nuclear power in general.

Chapter 5: The Building Boom, the Bust, and a Resurgence

The Nuclear Rocket Program & Environmental Concerns

Operational Safety & Environmental Impact
  • The NRX-A5 nuclear rocket engine test in June 1966 demonstrated successful temperature control and simulated space cool-down.
  • A bird incident during the NRX-A5 test highlighted the growing emphasis on operational safety in nuclear experiments.
  • Increased awareness of environmental impact: The need to minimize the release of radioactive dust into the atmosphere was recognized.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advocated for the use of scrubbers to reduce pollution from nuclear rocket tests.
  • Extensive contamination in Nevada: Prior nuclear weapons tests and uranium mining had left Southern Nevada heavily contaminated with radioactive materials.
The BREN Tower & Test Ban Treaty
  • The BREN (Bear Reactor Experiment Nevada) Tower, also known as the BRIN Tower, was a 1,527-foot tall structure used to simulate the effects of an atomic bomb explosion.
  • Purpose: To study the impact of radiation from a nuclear detonation.
  • The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963, halted above-ground nuclear testing, including experiments at the BREN Tower.
  • Atmospheric radiation levels peaked in 1963 and began to decline following the treaty.
Public Distrust & Anti-Nuclear Movements
  • Nevada’s experience with nuclear testing fostered public distrust in the nuclear science establishment due to secrecy, misdirection, and perceived lack of government concern.
  • Anti-nuclear movements emerged in the 1960s, fueled by concerns about nuclear armaments and later encompassing civilian nuclear power.
  • Challenges for the nuclear power industry:
    • High construction costs and involvement of large corporations made it a target for criticism.
    • The experimental nature of early reactor designs and lack of standardization added to complexity.
    • Anti-nuclear groups raised concerns about environmental impacts and the long-term disposal of radioactive waste.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

The Challenge of Long-Term Storage
  • Anti-nuclear groups strategically focused on the issue of radioactive waste disposal to hinder the nuclear power industry.
  • The need for permanent storage solutions: Existing nuclear plants could only store spent fuel temporarily.
Transportation and Safety
  • Safe transportation of nuclear fuel: Despite public perception, nuclear fuel had been transported safely for decades using various methods.
  • Regulations and testing:
    • The Code of Federal Regulations, Title X, Part 71 mandates the use of approved spent nuclear fuel shipping casks.
    • Sandia National Laboratories conducted extensive testing to ensure the safety of fuel containers in accidents.
  • The Howard Street Tunnel fire in Baltimore (2001) served as a real-world test case for evaluating the resilience of spent fuel casks in extreme conditions.
Regulatory Changes and the DOE
  • Abolition of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1974: The AEC was replaced by two new agencies:
    • The Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA): Focused on research and development of nuclear technologies.
    • The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Responsible for regulations, licensing, and safety oversight.
  • Formation of the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977: The ERDA was reorganized into the DOE with expanded responsibilities, including radioactive waste disposal.
  • Focus on deep geological repositories: The DOE initiated studies for long-term storage of nuclear waste in geologically stable formations.
International Efforts and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
  • Deep geological repositories were being considered internationally: Several countries, including Germany, Belgium, and Canada, explored this approach for nuclear waste disposal.
  • The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP):
    • Opened in 1999 in New Mexico.
    • Located 2,150 feet underground in a salt formation.
    • Designed for the disposal of nuclear waste from weapons production, not civilian power plants.
Yucca Mountain and the “Screw Nevada Bill”
  • The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 mandated the construction of a larger repository for high-level waste from commercial power plants.
  • Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was selected as the site for the repository after extensive study.
  • Congressional mandate (“Screw Nevada Bill”): Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the repository site despite opposition from Nevada.
  • Delays and opposition: The Yucca Mountain Repository faced numerous delays due to legal challenges and opposition from Nevada, resulting in missed deadlines and financial penalties for the DOE.
  • Consequences of delays: Without a permanent repository, nuclear power generation in the US faces limitations.

Fuel Reprocessing

Composition of Nuclear Waste
  • Spent nuclear fuel is primarily composed of uranium-238, which does not undergo fission but can convert to plutonium-239.
  • Fission products constitute a small portion (3%) of spent fuel but are highly radioactive.
  • Decay rates: Many fission products decay quickly, while others, like strontium-90 and cesium-137, remain dangerous for decades.
Benefits of Reprocessing
  • Fuel reprocessing can significantly reduce the volume and mass of radioactive waste.
  • Comparison with coal waste: Nuclear waste from a lifetime of electricity use would be much smaller than the waste from coal-fired power generation.
The PUREX Process and Early Reprocessing Plants
  • Fuel reprocessing was developed during the Manhattan Project.
  • The PUREX (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by Extraction) process: Developed in 1949, it became the standard method for separating radioactive and non-radioactive components of nuclear waste.
  • The West Valley Reprocessing Plant:
    • Privately owned and operated in New York.
    • Faced regulatory issues and closed in 1973.
    • The DOE later took over the site for cleanup and vitrification (encasing waste in glass).
The Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant
  • Construction began in 1970 in South Carolina.
  • Advanced design: Incorporating lessons from West Valley, it was designed for automation, high capacity, and compliance with NRC regulations.
  • Successful test run in 1973.
  • Presidential veto: President Carter blocked the licensing of the Barnwell plant in 1977 due to concerns about potential terrorist threats.
  • Consequences of the veto: The decision halted reprocessing in the US, increased the volume of nuclear waste, and made the country reliant on foreign sources for medical isotopes.
Reprocessing in Other Countries
  • Fuel reprocessing is common practice in several countries, including France, the UK, India, Japan, and Russia.
  • Impact of the Barnwell veto: Anti-nuclear forces effectively made waste disposal more complex and discouraged investment in reprocessing in the US.

Terrorism and Nuclear Power Plants

Likelihood of Terrorist Attacks
  • The author considers the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant to be low due to the complexity of plant operations and security measures.
  • Stealing plutonium would be difficult due to strict regulations and tracking.
The Superphénix Attack
  • The 1982 attack on the Superphénix reactor in France is cited as the only example of a foreign terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant.
  • Background: France relies heavily on nuclear power and developed a plutonium economy to reduce dependence on foreign uranium supplies.
  • The attack: Anti-nuclear terrorists fired rocket-propelled grenades at the Superphénix containment building, causing minor damage but not breaching the reactor core.
  • Aftermath: The plant continued operation until 1997 when it was shut down due to sodium leaks.

The Global Nuclear Landscape

Nuclear Power Around the World
  • Nuclear power plants are operational in numerous countries.
  • Reactor types: PWRs, BWRs, CANDUs, and RBMKs are among the reactor designs used globally.
  • Japan, despite being the only country attacked with nuclear weapons, has a significant number of nuclear power plants.
  • The United States has the largest number of active reactors (104), but France generates the highest percentage of its electricity from nuclear power (87.5%).

The Nuclear Power Bust

Economic Factors
  • The decline of nuclear power plant construction in the US was primarily driven by economic factors, not anti-nuclear protests or safety concerns.
  • Rising construction costs, high interest rates, and a surplus of generating capacity contributed to the slowdown.
  • The technology had matured, but societal demand for clean energy had not yet caught up.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
  • Passed in 1978, this act mandated the cleanup of abandoned uranium mines and tailings to address radon gas and uranium dust contamination.
  • Current status of uranium mining: There are no active uranium mines in the US due to low uranium prices.
  • Shift from enrichment to dilution: The US now down-blends highly enriched uranium for use in power reactors.

The Three Mile Island Accident

Background
  • The Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor meltdown occurred on March 28, 1979.
  • Context: The accident coincided with the release of the movie “The China Syndrome,” which portrayed a nuclear disaster, amplifying public anxiety.
The Accident Sequence
  • A minor mechanical failure in the secondary cooling loop initiated a chain of events.
  • Operator actions:
    • The operators responded to alarms and attempted to manage the situation.
    • A stuck relief valve on the pressurizer and the decision to turn off emergency core cooling pumps contributed to the severity of the accident.
  • Core damage: Loss of coolant led to fuel rod exposure, cladding damage, hydrogen generation, and an explosion within the containment building.
  • Emergency response: A site emergency was declared, and notifications were made to the NRC, Congress, and the President.
Aftermath and Consequences
  • No significant radiation release: The containment building prevented a major release of radioactive material, and the only release was a controlled venting of inert gases.
  • Public perception and impact: The accident caused widespread fear and distrust of nuclear power, despite the lack of significant health consequences.
  • Babcock and Wilcox, the reactor manufacturer, did not sell any more reactors.
  • Many planned nuclear power plants were canceled.
  • Cleanup and decommissioning: The damaged TMI-2 reactor was defueled and the containment building sealed.
  • TMI-1, the other reactor at the site, continued operation.

The Chernobyl Disaster

Background
  • The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 27, 1986, in the Soviet Union.
  • Detection: The accident was first detected in Sweden when a worker was found to be contaminated with radioactive fallout.
The Accident Sequence
  • The Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor was an RBMK-1000 graphite-moderated reactor, a design considered obsolete and unsafe.
  • A flawed safety test: The accident occurred during a test of the reactor’s ability to run on emergency power.
  • Operator errors and unstable conditions: The reactor was in an unstable state due to withdrawn control rods and a xenon build-up.
  • Power surge and explosion: Shutting off steam to the turbines during the test led to a power surge, fuel melting, and explosions that destroyed the reactor and released radioactive material into the atmosphere.
Aftermath and Consequences
  • Evacuation and casualties: The nearby town of Pripyat was evacuated, and there were numerous casualties from radiation exposure.
  • Widespread fallout: The radioactive cloud spread across Europe.
  • Impact on the Soviet Union: The disaster damaged the Soviet Union’s reputation and may have contributed to its collapse.
  • Comparison with other industrial accidents: The author notes that other industrial accidents have caused more fatalities than Chernobyl, but the psychological impact of a nuclear disaster is significant.

Lessons Learned and Improvements

Post-TMI Changes
  • The TMI accident led to improvements in reactor design, instrumentation, and operator training.
  • Enhanced safety features: Precision core water level instruments, computer-based displays, and improved safety systems were implemented.
Post-Chernobyl Impact
  • The Chernobyl disaster reinforced the need to avoid graphite-moderated reactor designs.
  • The Fort St. Vrain graphite reactor in the US was shut down.

The Nuclear Power Resurgence

A Period of Dormancy
  • The nuclear power industry entered a period of stagnation in the 1980s due to economic factors and the negative public perception following TMI and Chernobyl.
  • Safety improvements led to a decrease in excitement and perceived risk associated with nuclear power.
Factors Driving the Resurgence
  • Increased demand for electricity and concerns about global warming have renewed interest in nuclear power as a clean and reliable energy source.
New Reactor Designs and Projects
  • The first application for a new nuclear power plant in 30 years was filed in 2007.
  • Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) are being planned for the South Texas project.
  • Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors are being planned for projects in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
  • New reactor component factories are being built in Louisiana and Virginia.
  • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for new nuclear plant construction.
  • The Nuclear Power 2010 program encourages the development and deployment of advanced reactor designs.
  • Enhanced security measures: New reactor buildings are designed to withstand the impact of a large jetliner.

The Future of Nuclear Power

The Need for Continued Innovation
  • The author emphasizes that despite the maturity of nuclear technology, there is always room for improvement and innovation.
  • The analogy of a PhD in nuclear physics: True understanding of a subject comes from questioning and challenging existing knowledge.
  • The evolution of scientific models: Rutherford’s model of the atom was replaced by more accurate theories, demonstrating the continuous refinement of scientific understanding.
The Quest for Simple and Cheap Reactors
  • The author challenges the notion that nuclear power plants must be complex and expensive.
  • The goal is to simplify and reduce the cost of nuclear power while maintaining safety.
The Paradox of Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear power is a well-established technology that has become incredibly safe, yet it will always require a degree of experimentation and innovation.
The Lesson of the SPDS Project
  • The author recounts an experience with a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) project that highlighted the importance of thorough testing and the potential for unexpected errors even in seemingly perfect systems.
  • The “March Zero” bug: A leap year date caused an unforeseen error in the SPDS software, demonstrating that even rigorous testing cannot guarantee absolute perfection.

Epilogue: The Radioactive Park

Early History and the Gold Rush

  • First Habitation: Archaeological evidence suggests Native Americans lived in Dawson Forest as early as 9,000 years ago, inhabiting rock overhangs along the Atoa River.
  • 19th Century Cherokee Settlement: By the 1800s, Cherokees established farms and communities in the area, focusing on corn and cattle farming.
  • Georgia Gold Rush (1828):
    • Gold discovered near Dalanega sparked the first US gold rush.
    • Over 300 ounces of gold extracted daily by 1830, leading to a population boom in Dahlonega (reaching 15,000).
    • Dawson Forest, rich in gold and water resources for ore processing, became a prime target for mining.
  • Cherokee Removal:
    • The Cherokee population residing on gold-rich land posed an obstacle to mining expansion.
    • The federal government intervened, condemning Cherokee farms and forcing them to relocate to Oklahoma via the Trail of Tears.
  • Georgia Gold Lottery (1832):
    • Following the Cherokee removal, the forest was divided into 40-acre lots and distributed through a lottery system to promote mining.
  • Mining Legacy:
    • Extensive excavation resulted in numerous mine shafts throughout the forest.
    • The Georgia Gold Belt produced approximately 870,000 troy ounces of gold.
  • California Gold Rush (1849): Many Dawson Forest miners migrated to California, hoping for easier mining conditions.

Moonshine Era

  • Post-Gold Rush Industry: Small-scale ethanol production (moonshining) emerged as a new industry in the forest.
  • Remnants of Distilleries: Park rangers can identify the ruins of numerous old moonshine distilleries.
  • Decline of Moonshining: Post-World War II, stricter enforcement by the state and the IRS led to the decline of moonshining, leaving Dawson Forest sparsely populated again.

The Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory

  • Lockheed Acquisition (1957): Lockheed Aircraft purchased the forest for a secret Air Force project: the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program.
  • AFP-67 (Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory): The 10,000-acre site was designated AFP-67 and underwent significant development:
    • Clearing of trees and brush.
    • Construction of fences and concrete structures.
  • Nuclear Support Facility: A one-story brick building near the entrance housed engineering offices, a laboratory, and a computer room.
    • A 600-car parking lot was built across the street.
    • Other facilities included a fire station, warehouse, waterworks, and the Radiation Effects Laboratory.
  • Radiation Effects Laboratory:
    • A large complex with a shielded laboratory designed to handle highly radioactive rail cargo.
    • Walls up to 8 feet thick, made of high-density concrete, provided protection from gamma radiation.
    • Robotic arms, including one on overhead rails capable of handling tons of material, were used to dismantle and analyze radioactive samples.
  • Railroad and Lethal Fence:
    • A standard gauge railroad traversed the forest, crossing the Atoa River twice and leading to a clearing at the center of AFP-67.
    • A 3,600-foot radius “Lethal Fence” surrounded the clearing, accessible only through a guarded gravel road.
  • Radiation Effects Facility:
    • A two-story stainless steel building housed a 10-megawatt nuclear reactor, fueled by highly enriched uranium-235 and lacking shielding.
    • The reactor could be raised 10 feet into the air, emitting lethal radiation within and beyond the Lethal Fence.
    • It was used to test the effects of radiation on various materials, including aircraft components.
  • Secrecy and Local Impact:
    • Information about the facility was limited, causing anxiety and speculation among the local population.
    • The night sky often glowed crimson due to the reactor’s activity, fueling fears of an apocalypse.
    • Rumors circulated, including speculation about a crashed flying saucer.

Research and Spinoffs

  • Radiation Effects Research: The facility yielded new insights into the effects of intense radiation on materials.
    • Lockwood: Lockheed developed a process to harden wood using radiation, creating “Lockwood” for use in buildings like the Atomic Energy Commission building.
  • Cobalt-60 Production: Lockheed attempted to commercialize Cobalt-60 production but faced challenges:
    • The facility was not optimized for cobalt handling, leading to widespread contamination.
    • The business failed, and the Georgia Nuclear Lab was dismantled in 1971.

Dismantling and Legacy

  • Dismantling (1971):
    • Reactor cores were removed, and most above-ground structures were demolished.
    • Georgia Tech absorbed many of the lab’s personnel.
    • Even salvaged materials like lead bricks were contaminated with Cobalt-60.
  • Sale to Atlanta:
    • The site was sold to the city of Atlanta, reportedly for $1, with warnings about potential buried hazards.
    • Initially intended for a new airport, the hilly terrain proved unsuitable, and the site became a nature preserve.

Exploring the Remains

  • Radiation Levels: A Geiger counter is recommended for exploring the site due to lingering radioactivity, particularly near the former Radiation Effects Laboratory.
  • Nuclear Support Facility Site: The current parking lot marks the location of the former Nuclear Support Facility.
  • Radiation Effects Lab Hot Cell: The fenced-off concrete blockhouse of the hot cell remains, emitting detectable radiation.
    • Despite decontamination efforts, Cobalt-60 persists in the area.
    • Dosimeters monitor radiation levels.
    • The hot cell’s interior is inaccessible.
  • Railway Remnants: The old railway path leads to the remains of a dynamited trestle.
  • Shadow Shield: A concrete monolith along Dawson Forest Road marks the former location of a shadow shield near the reactor pit.
  • Reactor Pit Area:
    • The area surrounding the former reactor pit was once devoid of life due to high radiation exposure.
    • Nature has reclaimed the area since the reactor’s removal.
    • Foundations of the reactor building and rail lines can still be found.
  • Europium-152: The prevalent gamma radiation in the area is primarily from Europium-152, a rare isotope created by neutron bombardment from the reactor.
  • Uranium Decay: Gamma rays from decaying uranium in the concrete also contribute to background radiation.

Life and Radioactivity

  • Subsurface Bacteria: Researchers discovered a type of bacteria (Firmicutes) that thrives on uranium decay deep underground.
  • Resilience of Life: These bacteria demonstrate that life can exist even in extreme radioactive environments, relying solely on radioactive decay for energy.
  • The Enduring Power of Biology: The author suggests that biology, with its adaptability and persistence, will ultimately outlast even nuclear processes.
    • Life and nuclear processes have coexisted throughout Earth’s history.
    • Despite human interventions and challenges, this balance persists.
About Me:
  • I’m Christian Mills, a deep learning consultant specializing in computer vision and practical AI implementations.
  • I help clients leverage cutting-edge AI technologies to solve real-world problems.
  • Learn more about me or reach out via email at [email protected] to discuss your project.