Canada did not supply plutonium during the war. Their first reactor didn't go critical until after the war ended. They did however contribute research, and polonium.

Good paper summary (one author is current lab director of Los Alamos)
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
This tweet is also confusing facts. CP-1 was the first nuclear reactor, in Chicago. ZEEP was Canada's first reactor, in Chalk River. It was not the 2nd reactor in the world, the US created multiple reactors during the war, before CA (X-10, B reactor, etc)
Canada is the second country to have built a nuclear reactor. ZEEP is the first non-US reactor. These are true ways to recognize the historical significance of ZEEP. Calling it the "second nuclear reactor, after CP-1" is just not true
Aside: is CP-2 its own reactor? CP-1 was dismantled, moved, rebuilt, and slightly modified to produce CP-2. I have excluded it, but maybe others would consider it another reactor.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Katie Mummah

Katie Mummah Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nuclearkatie

22 Jun 21
Something is not misogyny just because it involves a man's actions towards a woman. When you tweet that female academics must ~dress modesty for their own good~ and get called out by older male academics, that's not misogyny, and they shouldn't have to "defend you on principle"
Just cuz you're a woman doesn't mean any criticism of your beliefs or actions is misogyny. Nor can your feelings about being criticized for an opinion on how women should dress be reasonably generalized to "this is why women can't thrive in science"
Did people get a little jumpy and dig deep to make sure there wasn't anything weird going on? Yeah, and I bet it's because science twitter has recently dealt with a spat of fake or misleading accounts that make many of us less trusting of everyone On Here
Read 6 tweets
14 Jun 21
This is a lot of words with very little explanation of the actual situation...

@CherylRofer, you're cited in this, do you have any more detail? The article just says that "fission gas" was detected, which isn't really that much info
cnn.com/2021/06/14/pol…
The detection of fission products (gases) in the primary loop is indicative of failed fuel, which means that at least one fuel rod has a hole in it. But that alone is not enough to raise concern levels, as many reactors in the US have failed fuel before
As an aside, I spent my very first nuclear internship cataloging and sorting failed fuel events into an internal database. There are a lot of them, and generally they present no hazard to reactor operation nor the public
Read 20 tweets
18 Feb 21
5.3 KILOMETERS PER SECOND
#CountdownToMars
Down to 1 km per second! Bonkers deceleration!
550 m/s...
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb 21
As we near closer to the touchdown of the #Mars2020 rover Perseverance, I want to note the key role that nuclear science plays here: Perseverance is powered by the radioactive decay of plutonium-238
The power source of Perseverance is not a nuclear reactor, and in fact Pu-238 isn't be a good choice for nuclear reactors because it doesn't readily fission. But its rate of radioactive decay is great for space exploration: it takes 87.7 yrs for half of the material to decay
#Mars2020 is powered by a Pu-238 radioisotope thermoelectric generator. The 87.7 year half life of Pu-238 means that RTG's can operate for a long time, for example Voyager 1, launched in 1977, is still sending signals back from its RTG. What % of the Pu mass at launch remains?
Read 6 tweets
17 Feb 21
Maybe it's just me, but I think many nuclear plants should do more to handle crisis comms on social media. This STP-1 trip is not a nuclear safety crisis, but misinformation is spreading that makes like it seems like it is. Plus the loss of power is especially poorly-timed
I've only seen a handful of quotes from STP comms, most notably the one shared in full by @Atomicrod
atomicinsights.com/south-texas-pr… Image
The website that Google previously linked when you search "South Texas Project" to is a broken Wix site. The other site I found (and recommended google change to) has a date of 2019 at the bottom and hasn't had a press release since October 2019
stpnoc.com
Read 6 tweets
16 Feb 21
I toured South Texas Project nuclear plant years ago and remember being shocked that their turbine deck was open-air. "We don't really get inclement weather here", I was told. Unfortunately, unit 1 is down bc a feedwater pressure sensing line failed due to cold. Unit 2 at 100% Image
They gave me a nice hat though, which is by far the best swag I've gotten for just going on a plant tour Image
Even at 19, I had the sense that having an open-air turbine deck = wider potential for failures, even if bad weather is rare. After pushing the engineer, I was again told "these aren't safety-critical systems"... ok but if it fails, the reactor stops producing power (see: now)
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(