looking for historical facts about nuclear technology

[gonzo13]

Well, I need some help.....

I am writing a paper about the social status, in the US and across the world, of nuclear technology since its development in WWII.

The idea is that I would like to document the view of nuclear technology in modern society from the notions of it being a super powerful weapon, to the scare of a nuclear holocaust, to the hope that it will be the boon to mankind in the form of nuclear energy, to the scare that it was an unsafe and irresponsible form of generating power, and finally to present day where it is a little ambiguous as society seems to no longer be frightened of a nuclear holocaust, but wary of it being used to generate energy, and where it stands in comparison to the declining oil reserves.

The impact of nuclear waste must also be considered, as well as the pursuit of new technologies to make it safer/cleaner.

Also taking a look at the current proposal that the US invest in nuclear weapons again, as small scale, precision bunker busters, and the opinions that we as a society have of making nuclear weapons more viable for actual use.

It's status in pulp culture also being important as an indicator of public opinion.

Since the nature of this forum is what it is I thought that some of you may know of some interesting sites that document such historical content. I am particularly interested in some more obscure sites that you may have come across, that have historical rather than current content, but do not necessarily immediately show up in a preliminary search on google.

Naturally I will not scoff at any help in doing the research if this sparks anyone's interest.

If you wish I would be more than happy to post the final product for your appraisal... but only if "the powers that be" on this forum agree this would be welcome. This is a short 3 pg. research paper so the final product is likely to be a little dry.

I also think that such sites may be of inherent interest to many of you regardless of my plight with the assignment.

 

[Murdoch]

You're makiing a three page paper on that broad of a topic? And I assume it's double spaced?

Do you plan on writing it in 3pt font?

Pare down your expectations or you'll end up glossing over all the details and interesting points while trying to include everything. Hell, you can't do justice to any of those topics in three pages each, let alone three for the whole thing!

That is your first step, finding information comes second.

 

[welsh]

I agree with Murdoch, and being that we are both academics, best you listen to us or risk being a complete dumbass.

OK, even if you were to write a three page paper as nuclear power in pulp fiction as a statement on changes in popular culture since World War 2, you'd still be highly confined.

I would also suggest that you are already biasing your research. The notion that nuclear power is to be feared was a fairly late development. Nuclear weapons were often seen as the means to prevent future war (after all it ended the war in Japan) and the nuclear power was seen as the power source of the future. One can look at the importance of nuclear power in Carter's Energy policy, or even the notion that we would be going to Jupiter in nuclear fueled spacecraft in Clarke's 2001. Even before that you have nuclear power driving Nemo's ships in 20,000 leagues under the sea.

Nuclear power as something to be feared, primarily from war, does have a long history. Panic in the Year Zero is an old classic, but also Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Even the old version of film the Time Machine features London under nuclear attack.

 

[Scrapper]

Nuclear waste isn't really that big a problem.

...

Okay, I know I just sounded like some lunatic right-winger who likes to ignore environmental data, but get this: the size of the waste material in proportion to how much space you need to store it is pretty small. You only need approximately 125 square miles of land to store 1000 years of America's garbage, and a year's worth of nuclear waste has considerably less volume than a day's worth of garbage produced by McDonalds. My point is that if we have enough space to store Big Mac wrappers for 1000 years, we have more than enough space to store a few tons of nuclear waste produced from power plants in a decade.

And the radiation from the waste? All you need to do is store it in a lead-encased pit. There's a ridiculous amount of barren, inhospitable landscape in the world suitable for keeping nuclear waste stored until its half-life is over. And don't worry about lead or nuclear waste leaking into the water table, because odds are nobody is getting water from those places anyway.

And really, by the time we run out of space for all this garbage/nuclear waste, the previously stored stuff will have decomposed or its radioactivity will have dissipated.

I personally would rather have more nuclear facilities than coal or oil-burning power plants. They’re safer, more efficient, better for the environment because they’re not causing greenhouse gases and smog, and they take money away from evil oil companies by giving people an alternative.

 

[gonzo13]

The whole thing is a part of a larger presentation... somewhere between 10 and 15 pages total, this is just my part of the project.

I am well aware that the whole thing could well be a 50 pg. dissertation analyzing human attitudes and the historical events influencing them... but that is not what it is meant as.

The idea is just to provide a sort of skeleton overview of the trends in public opinion in a loose timeline.

Originally the part that I have been assigned was supposed to be the whole project, but the teacher redesigned the topic (and in my opinion dumbed it down). I think it dilutes the purpose of what I was trying demonstrate, but I am not the one making the decisions.

 

[Murdoch]

Nuclear waste isn't really that big a problem.

...

Okay, I know I just sounded like some lunatic right-winger who likes to ignore environmental data, but get this: the size of the waste material in proportion to how much space you need to store it is pretty small. You only need approximately 125 square miles of land to store 1000 years of America's garbage, and a year's worth of nuclear waste has considerably less volume than a day's worth of garbage produced by McDonalds. My point is that if we have enough space to store Big Mac wrappers for 1000 years, we have more than enough space to store a few tons of nuclear waste produced from power plants in a decade.

Source?
You cannot compare the storage of solid (household, etc) waste to the storage of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste has the potential to cause widespread environmental degradation if flung into the atmosphere, while solid waste basically 'only' pollutes the groundwater.
How deep is your source stipulating that the solid refuse is stacked to arrive at that figure? And 125 sq miles is misleading because the refuse piles would need to be spread out in order to service the entire population. Spreading it out makes the need for surrounding brownzone much more important (think surface area- 125 1 sq mi dumps have a much larger 'surface area' than a single 125 sq mi dump). This means that while the amount of actual waste storage is the same the amount of land degraded because of it is probably 300 sq mi. I have no data for this, only conjecture and extrapolation, plus conversations with dad working for the Fish and Wildlife people doing superfund sites.

And the radiation from the waste? All you need to do is store it in a lead-encased pit. There's a ridiculous amount of barren, inhospitable landscape in the world suitable for keeping nuclear waste stored until its half-life is over. And don't worry about lead or nuclear waste leaking into the water table, because odds are nobody is getting water from those places anyway.

Just because land is unavailable for use by humans doesn't mean its worthless. Polluting otherwise worthless land is by no means a good justification for misusing it. There is intrinsic value to open, barren, "useless" space that is lost on much of modern, corporate society.
Just because a location does not have surface water doesn't mean it lacks groundwater. The giant aquifer under...Texas and Nevada perhaps? with a specific name I can't recall is all fed by runoff from the Rockies. If nuclear fallout was allowed to seep into the groundwater from improper storage it could contaminate an inconceivably large amount of land, making areas that are inhabited unable to tap groundwater for fear of drinking radioactivity and making their crops glow in the dark a la that Simpsons episode.

And really, by the time we run out of space for all this garbage/nuclear waste, the previously stored stuff will have decomposed or its radioactivity will have dissipated.

And tell me, how long is the half life for the longest duration radioactive isotopes? Do you know the definition of half life? Just because something reaches its halflife age doesn't mean its no longer radioactive, just that half (and only) half of it is gone. Typically 7 half lifes must pass (iirc) before something is considered 'spent'. Do you realize that some long duration isoptopes have a halflife of 10,000 years and more?

I personally would rather have more nuclear facilities than coal or oil-burning power plants. They’re safer, more efficient, better for the environment because they’re not causing greenhouse gases and smog, and they take money away from evil oil companies by giving people an alternative.

Believe it or not I agree with you. In many ways nuclear power is better. The problem occurs when people think that the costs are insignificant and that objections by environmentalists are only because they have a hard-on after things like Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island.

A plan is in place and proceeding if I remember to create a national nuclear repository in a mine in Nevada or some other "barren" as you put it western state. Burying it all in one place deep underground is probably the best solution short of using it in a breeder reactor. Problem with the facility is that it was chosen as much for political considerations as scientific. There is an active (geologically speaking) fault running thought the region which could potentially shift, breaking the cask seals and allowing waste to enter the groundwater/atmosphere/mantle, causing unknown and potentially disasterous consequences. For people/critters/ aliens 100,000 or more years in the future; do we have the right to do that to them?

 

[Scrapper]

*shrugs*

It's just a matter of finding the proper location to store everything. Granted, there are potentially serious ramifications from storing anything underground near a fault zone, which is why it's important to find an area that's both remote and of negligible risk in terms of sudden subduction. There are places like this in the world, although I don't know of any right off the top of my head.

With careful conservation of materials, proper planning around geologic hotspots for seismic activity, and general common sense with using fissionable materials, there's more than enough places to store our refuse.

That being said, I wouldn't be the least bit upset if a few SUV-driving $500'000 home-owning Republicans had their water tables suddenly contaminated because the assheads in power decided to cut corners on a fairly straightforward energy plan... That's just karma.

 

[Loxley]

There were some very interesting discussion about this subject in the old forums, search them through and you should find something. Also i seem to remember roshambo had some interesting oppinions on the subject of nukes.

 

[Orthrand]

great just great that means everyones going to send all their nuclear waste to England.
Also interestingly enough the farther of the green movement is in favour of nuclear power.