NRC Wants 100 Times Higher Acceptable Exposure Level

THIS is what DATA looks like …

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet6/brief6/...

The Kiwi Transient Nuclear Test (Kiwi-TNT) was a controlled power excursion in which reactivity was inserted into a nuclear rocket engine prototype at an unusually high rate calculated to vaporize a significant portion of the reactor core. The objectives of this simulated reactor accident were to examine the material and neutronic behavior of the reactor and to study the effects of the radiation and radioactive materials released. The reactor, including the core and pressure vessel, was, with few exceptions, a typical, late model Kiwi-B4. The test was conducted at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station (NRDS), Jackass Flats, on January 12, 1965, at 1058 PST.

The Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory (SWRHL) of the USPHS provided off-site radiation surveillance by aerial tracking of the effluent cloud, monitoring radiation dosage of the off-site population, and collecting environmental samples in southern Nevada and California. Twelve ground monitoring teams equipped with portable instruments tracked the cloud passage. Dose-rate recording instruments were placed at eight downwind locations bracketing the anticipated path of the effluent cloud. Film badges were issued to 157 people in Lathrop Wells, Amargosa Desert, and Death Valley. Forty-five routine air samplers were operated in Nevada, Utah, Arizopa, and California, supplemented by 18 samplers at anticipated downwind locations. All these high-volume air samplers were equipped with filter papers and charcoal cartridges. An Air Force U3-A aircraft carrying two USPHS monitors tracked the reactor effluent and assisted in positioning ground monitors. Two other pHS aircraft containing sampling equipment were used in cloud tracking, although their primary purpose was to determine cloud size and inventory.

The Kiwi-TNT reactor was "exploded" in the sense that it was a violent disruption and dispersion of an original intact object. It blew up in an unusual fashion resembling neither a typical nuclear detonation nor most types of chemical explosions. To give a better understanding of the eruption, its characteristics will be compared to those of more common explosions. The deflagration accompanying the Kiwi-TNT excursion was the result of rapid vaporization of part of the carbon-uranium- carbide core.The thermal release and the extremely high temperatures occurring during the excursion are results associated almost exclusively with nuclear reactions. The charring of wooden poles as far away as 70 ft and the brilliant mass of hot, burning graphite are phenomena not usually seen in explosions.

During the Kiwi-TNT excursion, however, the fission rate was deliberately increased so that the resulting heat could not be transferred fast enough to avoid vaporizing significant amounts of the beads and their surrounding graphite. The pressures resulting from this vaporization caused destruction of the reactor. Other experiments have shown that there is a critical fission density rate below which vaporization does not occur, since heat transfer is adequate to prevent it. It is also known that fission density rate is not uniform throughout the reactor core, but is highest at the center and diminishes towards the ends. Furthermore, neutronics calculations showed that some regions of the Kiwi-TNT core experienced fission density rates above, and others below, the crucial values. Thus, it may be hypothesized that, as reactivity was rapidly inserted into the reactor, the fission density rate at the center of the core exceeded the critical value and vapor began to form in and around the fuel beads. The vapor formed too fast to escape through core interstices.

To determine the contribution of each individual source or radiation (i.e., prompt, neutron, cloud, or contamination) to the total personnel exposure at given distances in the vicinity of an accidental excursion similar to the Kiwi-TNT, the following exercise was performed. Reference to Table IX will aid in following this discussion. The dose measured by the integral dosimeter at each station was recorded. From this was subtracted a contribution attributable to prompt gamma radiation derived from previous tests of Kiwi reactors (Fig. 30). The value of rads/MW-sec was 70% of the total rads/MW-sec measured on previous tests. The difference between the total dose and the prompt gamma dose is then due to doses from the debris cloud and ground contamination. The numerical integral of the dose-rate data (beyond 1/2 minute for scintillator stations, beyond 2 minutes for other stations) was taken as the contribution from ground contamination.

In his video, idiot Gunderson claims that the combustion of the hydrogen gas worked like the chemical high explosives in a nuclear weapon to implode the nuclear fuel.

Although that is the general principle, Gunderson's explanation shows just how manifestly shallow his "understanding" ( if you can call it that ) of the implosion physics of nuclear explosions.

The champion for implosion assembly at Los Alamos, in lieu of the gun-assembly method; was a scientist by the name of Seth Neddermeyer. One can read the story of Neddermeyer in both "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, and "Oppenheimer - Shatter of Worlds" by Peter Goodchild.

Although a 3-D spherically symmetric implosion of a sphere was called for, Neddermeyer experimented on an easier task of 2-D implosions of metal tubes into solid metal rods. He packed high explosives around the tubes; but to no avail. His implosions were not symmetric. We know why. The implosions are hydrodynamically unstable; in particular they are Raleigh-Taylor unstable. That happens when you attempt to push a denser material with a material of lower density. In this case, he was attempting to push dense metal with the combustion gases of an HE explosion. All he got was twisted metal pipes, and not the desired solid rods.

The problem is that the shockwaves were not focused. Shockwaves from explosions are outwardly convex. What Neddermeyer needed was shockwaves that were concave toward his metal pipes, and all waves with a common center of convergence. That doesn't happen by happenstance.

It REQUIRES an "explosive lens" to invert the convex shockwaves into concave shockwaves and focus them toward a common center.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_lens

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Neddermeyer

Nevertheless, seemingly irresolvable problems with shock wave uniformity brought progress on implosion to a crawl. At the urging of James Conant, Oppenheimer, brought in George Kistiakowsky (who had a specialized knowledge in the precision use of explosives) to help jumpstart the flagging program in January 1944....

Accordingly, it was left to others like Kistiakowsky (who contributed a background in military ordnance and explosives), Robert Christy (who contributed the insight that a subcritical sphere of plutonium could be imploded to a critical mass), John von Neumann (who contributed the breakthrough mathematical model for using shaped charges to create a truly spherical implosion), and Edward Teller (whose knowledge of the compressibility of metals led to the use of density change to achieve criticality rather than mere, same-density, “assembly”), to complete the work.

As noted in the above quote, the implosion technique is quite complex; it doesn't just happen automatically.

From the article on explosive lenses, one reads that the explosive lens requires either a special "wave shaper" or the use of two explosives with different propagation velocities to accomplish the task.

There were no "wave-shapers" at Fukushima, and only one explosive material; the hydrogen gas. Hence, there was no way available to invert the shockwaves and focus them as the implosion concept requires.

However, idiot Gunderson would have us believe that this very sensitive, very complex task of hydrodynamic assembly happened by "happenstance" in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool.

Idiot Gunderson also postulates that it was the sides of the fuel pool that focused the stem of the mushroom cloud upwards. Idiot Gunderson is just talking through his hat. The mushroom shape evolves naturally from the laws of hydrodynamics. An initial Raleigh-Taylor instability drives a Kelvin-Helmholtz rollup that forms the mushroom and mushroom stem. One doesn't need a fuel pool to direct the explosion upwards. After all, the nuclear tests in the Nevada desert that produced so many nice mushroom clouds had the the bomb on top of a tower; there was no pool to focus the explosion upwards and none is needed.

IDIOT Gunderson has shown in his videos that he doesn't understand high school level probability calculations, he doesn't understand Boltzmann transport theory, and he doesn't understand hydrodynamics.

Gunderson's STUPIDITY is only exceeded by that of the throngs of anti-nukes that fall for his misconceptions with reckless abandon.

Impractical is NOT impossible

Just hard to carry on an airplane to nuke a target due to size and weight.

What he said was ...

"Below a certain limit, weapons designers attest that the construction of a nuclear weapon or explosive device becomes impractical."