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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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%
They gave me a nice hat though, which is by far the best swag I've gotten for just going on a plant tour
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)