America’s Worst Nuclear Disaster Was in California. Who Knew? 10

[RoopinderTara]

I was quite surprised to find out that the Santa Susana Field Lab, 35 miles from the center of Los Angeles, was the scene of partial core meltown in 1959. More radition was released there than Three Mile Island, over 900X according to one worst case analysis. A friend of mine, an engineer, told me about it. He is not one to believe in conspiracy theories so I checked it out. I read many accounts, looked at internal memos, listed to local broadcasts from investigative news teams, talked to people who lived nearby, too. Amazed how so few people have heard about it. Boeing owns the site now and denies that it is dangerous. Real estate agents sell houses less than 2 miles from the failed nuclear reactor. It is mind boggling. I wrote an article about it on engineering.com. I am very interested in what engineers in this forum have to say about it. If you have first hand knowledge about it or lived in the area I would very much appreciate hearing your story.

https://www.engineering.com/BIM/Art...lear-Disaster-Was-in-California-Who-Knew.aspx

Roopinder Tara
Director of Content
ENGINEERING.com

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Its worth quiet a bit more than normal steel.

The trick is to find someone that's looking for it.

Do some searches for radiation instrumentation producers and email them directly.

I got a plate of armour from scapa flow and it was very gratefully received by my dad.

The other places to try are university bio medical heath departments they use it for setting up experiments.

Another place to try is NASA.

There is also a requirement for low radiation lead.

 

[Sparweb]

Milliontown,
Thanks for that link.

"The radiation portals that were deployed in the aftermath of 9/11 are essentially fine, except for three problems: They won't find a nuclear bomb, they won't find highly enriched uranium, and they won't find a shielded dirty bomb," says Stephen Flynn, a terrorism expert and president of the Center for National Policy. "Other than that, they're great pieces of equipment."

Hmmm. yeah great.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[JohnRBaker]

For what it's worth, here's an interesting developing development:

Pentagon awards contracts to design mobile nuclear reactor

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuc...d-mobile-nuclear-reactor-contracts-this-week/

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[phamENG]

Interesting? Yes. Good idea? I think...no. The Army tried it once before and it didn't work out. I'm sure they'll get the tech right this time, but the other issues seem too big to justify.

“Fielding these reactors without commanders fully understanding the radiological consequences and developing robust response plans to cope with the aftermath could prove to be a disastrous miscalculation,” warned Lyman.

 

[byrdj]

I have been out of the industry for a decade now, however the few notices I still receive seem to be mainly work on small modular reactors, so I thought they were advancing and becoming mainstream

 

[JohnRBaker]

Years ago (30 or so) there was a company down near San Diego that was working on so-called SMR's (Small Modular Reactors). I made some sales calls down there trying to sell them our software. Nothing ever came of it as they were always strapped for cash, but it was interesting talking to them and looking at the drawings and scale-models. While they weren't talking about portable power plants, their idea was to develop small reactors that could be used to supply power to industrial operations in remote places, like a mining operation in the desert or the arctic.

If I recall correctly, the idea was to treat these 'reactors' as a sort of nuclear 'battery' in the sense that the reactor itself would be manufactured and assembled in a factory, the nuclear fuel would be loaded and then it would be sealed and shipped to the site where it was to be used, installed, hooked to the steam turbines and put in operation. When it came time to to refuel the reactor, the entire module would be swapped-out for a new one, already fueled, and the old one would be taken back to the factory to be either refurbished and refueled, or dismantled and scrapped, recycling what they could and disposing, as nuclear waste, the contaminated parts.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I think the UK already has a design.

But similar to the Nuke subs getting lifted out the water at Faslane as soon as it becomes out the water based it becomes highly illegal. Stick it on a boat and everyone is happy.

 

[JohnRBaker]

It appears that there are many different projects under way around the world working these SMR's, but so far, only a couple have ever gotten to the operational stage, although several appear to be in the licensing phase, per the chart in the Wiki article below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Comcokid]

Experimental modular or portable nuclear reactors have been around since the start of the nuclear era. Camp Century constructed in the Greenland ice sheet was powered by a PM-2A portable reactor (PM-2A for 'Portable Medium power, 2nd generation). There was a PM-3A deployed at McMurdo Base in Antarctica.

 

[JohnRBaker]

I think the chart in the Wiki item referenced in my post was attempting to represent the commercial efforts to produce SMR's. It doesn't appears to include any sort of government/military owned/operated installations.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[BridgeSmith]

If they could work out how to do a Thorium reactor as a microreactor, that would be a much safer alternative.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[phamENG]

Something seems off about that article. It feels more like a political statement (war is bad!) than an objective and informed scientific piece.

Thorium is only useful as a fuel if it's transmuted to uranium 233 by absorbing a neutron from another fissionable material. That's not to say there aren't benefits over fast fission, but it's still a fission reactor. And as for them being "meltdown proof"...well...the Titanic was unsinkable.

 

[BridgeSmith]

I don't know if it's really making the "war is bad" argument; maybe 'nuclear war is bad'. It is a fact that it's nearly impossible to create materials for nuclear weapons from a Thorium reactor, which is the main reason Uranium reactors were chosen back in the day.

It does require a small amount of Uranium to start the reaction, but far less than Uranium reactor of the same output, and the waste material, while toxic, is not what is needed to make a dirty bomb, so if the materials were to fall into the wrong hands, it is all around much less dangerous than if it was a Uranium/Plutonium reactor. While anything can theoretically happen, a Thorium reaction is not self-sustaining, which make the chances of a melt-down vanishingly small.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[phamENG]

My understanding is a little different. While Thorium itself may not be able to form a self sustaining reaction, once you've begun the transmutation process to U-233, you no longer have Thorium - you have fissionable uranium. And that is a self sustaining reaction.

I'm guessing by dirty bomb you mean nuclear bomb - while that has been true historically, it wasn't so much a shortcoming of U-233 as it was the seemingly inseparable presence of U-232 (which is too unstable for reliable weapons development). Newer technologies are thought to be capable of separating them. So a nuclear bomb could be possible in the near future if it isn't already. And then, of course, a dirty bomb is just a conventional explosive with radioactive material on top to be spread around and contaminate an area. U-233 can certainly do that.

I agree that this is a worthwhile technology to explore as it does seem safer and less environmentally hazardous than current nuclear pursuits. My only point is that we should be cautious about how it's portrayed. That article doesn't seem to bring up any of the downsides or risks, which is what I would expect from a thoroughly researched piece on a new develop in nuclear technology.

(Disclaimer: I've been out of the nuclear game for a while. If I've placed my foot in my mouth on any of these points, I hope somebody will inform me so I can remove it. Thanks.)

 

[BridgeSmith]

My understanding was that a typical Thorium reactor made the conversion of the Thorium to U-233 as it was needed for the reaction, so there would not be much, if any, U-233 present once the reaction was shut down. I could be wrong. I haven't read extensively on the subject, and I've never worked in the nuclear industry.

I'm sure there are more thorough articles out there about Thorium reactors; that just happened to be one that popped up in my web search that seemed with a quick skim to explain the basics.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[phamENG]

Fair enough - not trying to beat up on you. Thanks for bringing Thorium into the conversation.

 

[BridgeSmith]

A little more background on the Thorium reactor function and a waste material comparison to a U-235 reactor:

Thorium Converts to Uranium Inside the Reactor

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[3DDave]

A dirty bomb is a sub-nuclear/non-nuclear bomb that spreads radioactive material; the point isn't the explosive ability, but the environmental damage - hence dirty.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html

 

[BridgeSmith]

I understand what a radioactive dirty bomb is. My reason for contending that a Thorium nuclear power is safer in this respect compared to Uranium based nuclear power, is due to the minuscule to non-existent amount of radioactive waste produced.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

There is more than enough waste off thorium reactors to make a dirty bomb. Its just that the reactor runs relatively clean because the fuel processing is done on the fly so to speak. And it doesn't build up over the months between refuelling.

You don't actually have to have that much for a dirty bomb and its doesn't need to be particularly active for it to be a complete pain in the bum to get rid of.

Dirty bombs are more about terror than actual effect.