Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics

Robert Allan Leishear

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics

Robert Allan Leishear

Published in International Journal of Philosophy (Volume 9, Issue 1)

Received: 7 December 2020 Accepted: 1 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Due to misdiagnosed hydrogen explosions and ethically flawed publications, nuclear power plants are not as safe as published to be for decades. Previous publications inaccurately, unethically, and inappropriately assessed reactor safety with respect to other industries and natural disasters, where nuclear industry publications non-conservatively applied data to promote nuclear reactor safety, and published models skewed accident data to present nuclear energy as safer than it is. Major findings of this one-man study were calculated with 95% confidence. 1) Explosions caused by fluid transients accompany nuclear power plant meltdowns. 2) A meltdown similar to Three Mile Island (TMI-2) has a 50% probability before 2039, with a one in two probability of a radioactive release like Fukushima. 3) A large radioactive release like Fukushima has a 50% probability before 2067. 4) Radioactive releases can be prevented by fluid transient control with the exception of Chernobyl type accidents, which are expected far into the future. 5) Nuclear power plant accidental deaths are not significantly less than other industries as claimed for many years, but are comparable to other industries. An improved explanation of nuclear power plant explosion safety is provided here to better control dangers in the radiation business. Items 1 and 2 were previously published, but are summarized here as proof of principle to support this new research, and items 3, 4, and 5 are new to the literature. These latter concerns are the thrust for this discussion of ethics, nuclear safety, and the prevention of loss of life, property damages, and catastrophic environmental damages. A personal history of the difficulties of being the first to invent new theory and the government obstruction and unethical cover up to thwart legitimate safety concerns are intertwined with statistical proofs for nuclear reactor disaster predictions. Such disasters explode radioactive dust clouds into the air to circle our planet, and spread radioactive contamination that radioactively rains down across parts of the earth following large accidental explosions. Although the ethical path to accomplish this task has great personal costs, such as difficulty, stress, complexity of thought, long hours, impacts on family life, and money, the rewards are that imminent nuclear power plant explosions and loss of life can be stopped!

Published in	International Journal of Philosophy (Volume 9, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
Page(s)	11-51
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Hamaoka, Fluid Transient, Autoignition, Hydrogen Explosions, Ethics

References

[1]	Leishear, R., 2020, “The Autoignition of Nuclear Power Plant Explosions”, Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., pp. 1-22.
[2]	Leishear, R., 2019, “The TMI-2 Explosion”, ANS Nuclear News Magazine, Le Grange Park, Illinois, 1 p.
[3]	Leishear, R., 2017, “Nuclear Power Plant Fires and Explosions, I, Plant Design and Hydrogen Ignition”, Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., 9 pps.
[4]	Leishear, R., 2017, “Nuclear Power Plant Fires and Explosions, II, Hydrogen Ignition Overview”, Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., 11 pps.
[5]	Leishear, R., 2017, “Nuclear Power Plant Fires and Explosions, III, Hamaoka Piping Explosion”, Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., 9 pps.
[6]	Leishear, R., 2017, “Nuclear Power Plant Fires and Explosions, IV, Water Hammer Ignition Mechanisms”, Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., 7 pps.
[7]	Leishear, R., 2017, “Nuclear Power Plant Fires and Explosions, Accident Overviews”, ANS 22950, American Nuclear Society, N. Y., N. Y., pp. 1-4.
[8]	Henrie, J. and Postma, A., “Analysis of Three Mile Island Hydrogen Burn”, 1983, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., pp. 1-50.
[9]	Leishear, R., “From Water Hammer to Ignition, The Spark That Ignited Three Mile Island Burst from a Safety Valve, Mechanical Engineering Magazine”, 2013, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., pp. 46-49.
[10]	Leishear, R., “PRE-GI-015, Hydrogen Fires and Explosions in Nuclear Reactors, ML15245A508”, 2015, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, Washington, D.C., 12 pps.
[11]	“U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Management Directive, MD 8.8 Management of Allegations DT-16-05”, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., pp. 3-13.
[12]	Boyce, T. H., “Response to PRE-GI-015: ML15191A397, ML15191A398, ML16007A181, ML16007A182, ML16063A320”, 2015, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 15 pps.
[13]	Dube, D., “ML082400370, Comparison of New Light-water Reactor Risk Profiles”, 2008, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-12.
[14]	“ML992930056, The Core Damage Frequency Objective to a Fundamental Commission Safety Goal”, 1997, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-7.
[15]	“Nuclear Power Plants, World-wide”, 2018, European Nuclear Society, Brussels Belgium,
[16]	http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm, p.1.
[17]	Modarres, M., Kaminsky, M., Kristov, V., An Introduction to Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis, 2010, A Practical Guide, CRC Press, New York, New York, pp. 12-70.
[18]	NEA, “Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources”, OECD, Paris, France, https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf, pp.1-52.
[19]	“NUREG-2201, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decisionmaking: Some Frequently Asked Questions”, 2016, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., pp. 17-49.
[20]	Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, “Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years, European Study Suggests”, 2012, Max Planck Institute, Science Daily, Rockville, Maryland, p.1.
[21]	“Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors”, 2019, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx, World Nuclear Association, London, United Kingdom, p.1.
[22]	Coleman, H., Steele, W., Experimentation, Validation, and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, 2009, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 240-245.
[23]	NRC, “WASH-1400, NUREG KM -0010, “The Reactor Safety Study, The Introduction of Risk Assessment to the Regulation of Nuclear Reactors”, 1975, NRC, Washington, D.C. pp. 23-24.
[24]	Knief, A., Nuclear Engineering, Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power, 2008, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, pp. 395-396.
[25]	“Health Effects at the Chernobyl Accident, an Overview”, 2006 World Health Organizations, Geneva, Switzerland, p.1
[26]	“Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR Report”, 2013, Vol. 1, United Nations Technical Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, New York, New York, pp. 1-311.
[27]	Yasumura, S., 2014, “Evacuation Effects on Excess Mortality Among Institutionalized Elderly After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident”, Fukushima, J. Med. Sci., 6, No. 2, Fukushima Medical University, Japan, pp. 192-195.
[28]	Wheatley, S., Benjamin K. Sovacool, Didier Sornette, “Reassessing the Safety of Nuclear Power”, 2016, Energy Research & Social Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 15, pp. 96–100.
[29]	Duffey, R., “Extreme Events: Causes and Prediction”, 2015, Sun Valley, Idaho, April 26-30, 2015, pp.318-324.
[30]	“Electricity, Generation”, 2018, OECD, NEA, Paris, France, https://data.oecd.org/energy/electricity-generation.htm#indicator-chart, p.1.
[31]	Leishear, R., 2018, “Pump Startups Ignite Nuclear Power Plants, History, Law and Risks”, British Hydraulic Research Group, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom, 16 pps.
[32]	NUREG-1860, “Feasibility Study for a Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulatory Structure for Future Plant Licensing”, 2007, Volume 2, Appendix D, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., pp. D-1 to D-6.
[33]	Slovic, P. “Perception of Risk Science”, 1987, 236, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., pp. 280-285.
[34]	Martinez, N., Wueste, D., “Balancing Theory and Practicality: Engaging Non-Ethicists in Ethical Decision Making Related to Radiological Protection,” 2016, J. Radiol. Prot. 36, 832–841.
[35]	Cho, K., Cantone, M., Kurihara-Saio, C., Le Guen, B., Martinez, N., Oughton, D., Schneider, T., Toohey, R., Zölzer, F. “Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection”, 2018, ICRP Publication 138, Ann. ICRP 47(1), pp. 1-65.
[36]	“Annals of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 138, Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection”, 2018, International Commission on Radiological Protection, Thousand Oaks, California, p. 7.
[37]	Leishear, R., Rhodes, C., Alford, L., “Dynamic Pipe Stresses During Water Hammer”, I, A Finite Element Analysis”, 2002, Young, Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., pp. 1-10.
[38]	Leishear, R., Fluid Mechanics, Water Hammer, Dynamic Stresses, and Piping Design, 2013, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., pp. 1- 448.
[39]	Leishear, R., "We Can Stop Nearly $1.7 Trillion in Water Main Breaks", 2020, NACE, Materials Performance Magazine, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston Texas, pp. 1-6.
[40]	Leishear, R., "Of Course We Can Stop Nearly $1.7 Trillion in Water Main Breaks", 2020, NACE, Materials Performance Magazine, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston Texas, pp. 20-24.
[41]	Leishear, R., “Explosions: A Fresh Look at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the Gulf Oil Spill, and Fukushima Daiichi”, 2013, Mensa World Journal, Mensa International Limited, Caythorpe, United Kingdom, p. 6.
[42]	Leishear, R., “DOE Cover Up of Explosion Dangers in U.S. Nuclear Power Plants and DOE Responses,” 2020, Leishear Engineering, LLC Aiken, S.C., leishearengineeringllc.com.
[43]	Coronel, S. A., Veilleux, J., Shepherd, J., “Ignition of Stoichiometric Hydrogen-Oxygen by Water Hammer”, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Elsevier Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1-8.
[44]	Crowe, A., The PMP Exam, How to Pass on Your First Try, 2018, Velociteach.com, pp. 1-735.
[45]	Pioro, I., Duffey, R., Kirillov, P., Pioro, R., Zvorykin, A., Machrafi, A., “Current Status and Future Developments in Nuclear-Power Industry of the World”, 2019, Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science, ASME, N. Y., N. Y., pp. 1-27.
[46]	Zhoul, F., Hicks, F., Steffler, P., “Transient Flow in a Rapidly Filling Horizontal Pipe Containing Trapped Air”, 2002, 128, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., p. 629.
[47]	Leishear, R., “Hydrogen Ignition Mechanism for Explosions in Nuclear Facility Pipe Systems”, 2010, ASME, Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, pp. 1-12.
[48]	“10 CFR, Part 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Domestic Licensing Of Production And Utilization Facilities”, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.
[49]	McLaughlin, T., Shean, P. Monahan, S., Pruvost, N., “A Review of Criticality Accidents”, 2000, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lo Alamos, New Mexico, pp. 1-142.
[50]	Draxler, R., “Fukushima Radioactive Dispersion Model”, 2011, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/fukushima-radioactive-aerosol-dispersion-model/
[51]	Hodges and Sanders,” Nuclear Criticality Safety, Near Misses and Classification”, 2014, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Elsevier Press, pp. 88-99.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Robert Allan Leishear. (2021). Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics. International Journal of Philosophy, 9(1), 11-51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Robert Allan Leishear. Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics. Int. J. Philos. 2021, 9(1), 11-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Robert Allan Leishear. Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics. Int J Philos. 2021;9(1):11-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13,
  author = {Robert Allan Leishear},
  title = {Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics},
  journal = {International Journal of Philosophy},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {11-51},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijp.20210901.13},
  abstract = {Due to misdiagnosed hydrogen explosions and ethically flawed publications, nuclear power plants are not as safe as published to be for decades. Previous publications inaccurately, unethically, and inappropriately assessed reactor safety with respect to other industries and natural disasters, where nuclear industry publications non-conservatively applied data to promote nuclear reactor safety, and published models skewed accident data to present nuclear energy as safer than it is. Major findings of this one-man study were calculated with 95% confidence. 1) Explosions caused by fluid transients accompany nuclear power plant meltdowns. 2) A meltdown similar to Three Mile Island (TMI-2) has a 50% probability before 2039, with a one in two probability of a radioactive release like Fukushima. 3) A large radioactive release like Fukushima has a 50% probability before 2067. 4) Radioactive releases can be prevented by fluid transient control with the exception of Chernobyl type accidents, which are expected far into the future. 5) Nuclear power plant accidental deaths are not significantly less than other industries as claimed for many years, but are comparable to other industries. An improved explanation of nuclear power plant explosion safety is provided here to better control dangers in the radiation business. Items 1 and 2 were previously published, but are summarized here as proof of principle to support this new research, and items 3, 4, and 5 are new to the literature. These latter concerns are the thrust for this discussion of ethics, nuclear safety, and the prevention of loss of life, property damages, and catastrophic environmental damages. A personal history of the difficulties of being the first to invent new theory and the government obstruction and unethical cover up to thwart legitimate safety concerns are intertwined with statistical proofs for nuclear reactor disaster predictions. Such disasters explode radioactive dust clouds into the air to circle our planet, and spread radioactive contamination that radioactively rains down across parts of the earth following large accidental explosions. Although the ethical path to accomplish this task has great personal costs, such as difficulty, stress, complexity of thought, long hours, impacts on family life, and money, the rewards are that imminent nuclear power plant explosions and loss of life can be stopped!},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics
AU  - Robert Allan Leishear
Y1  - 2021/02/20
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
T2  - International Journal of Philosophy
JF  - International Journal of Philosophy
JO  - International Journal of Philosophy
SP  - 11
EP  - 51
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7455
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
AB  - Due to misdiagnosed hydrogen explosions and ethically flawed publications, nuclear power plants are not as safe as published to be for decades. Previous publications inaccurately, unethically, and inappropriately assessed reactor safety with respect to other industries and natural disasters, where nuclear industry publications non-conservatively applied data to promote nuclear reactor safety, and published models skewed accident data to present nuclear energy as safer than it is. Major findings of this one-man study were calculated with 95% confidence. 1) Explosions caused by fluid transients accompany nuclear power plant meltdowns. 2) A meltdown similar to Three Mile Island (TMI-2) has a 50% probability before 2039, with a one in two probability of a radioactive release like Fukushima. 3) A large radioactive release like Fukushima has a 50% probability before 2067. 4) Radioactive releases can be prevented by fluid transient control with the exception of Chernobyl type accidents, which are expected far into the future. 5) Nuclear power plant accidental deaths are not significantly less than other industries as claimed for many years, but are comparable to other industries. An improved explanation of nuclear power plant explosion safety is provided here to better control dangers in the radiation business. Items 1 and 2 were previously published, but are summarized here as proof of principle to support this new research, and items 3, 4, and 5 are new to the literature. These latter concerns are the thrust for this discussion of ethics, nuclear safety, and the prevention of loss of life, property damages, and catastrophic environmental damages. A personal history of the difficulties of being the first to invent new theory and the government obstruction and unethical cover up to thwart legitimate safety concerns are intertwined with statistical proofs for nuclear reactor disaster predictions. Such disasters explode radioactive dust clouds into the air to circle our planet, and spread radioactive contamination that radioactively rains down across parts of the earth following large accidental explosions. Although the ethical path to accomplish this task has great personal costs, such as difficulty, stress, complexity of thought, long hours, impacts on family life, and money, the rewards are that imminent nuclear power plant explosions and loss of life can be stopped!
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Robert Allan Leishear

Leishear Engineering, Limited Liability Corporation, Aiken, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Robert Allan Leishear. (2021). Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics. International Journal of Philosophy, 9(1), 11-51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Robert Allan Leishear. Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics. Int. J. Philos. 2021, 9(1), 11-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Robert Allan Leishear. Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics. Int J Philos. 2021;9(1):11-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13,
  author = {Robert Allan Leishear},
  title = {Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics},
  journal = {International Journal of Philosophy},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {11-51},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijp.20210901.13},
  abstract = {Due to misdiagnosed hydrogen explosions and ethically flawed publications, nuclear power plants are not as safe as published to be for decades. Previous publications inaccurately, unethically, and inappropriately assessed reactor safety with respect to other industries and natural disasters, where nuclear industry publications non-conservatively applied data to promote nuclear reactor safety, and published models skewed accident data to present nuclear energy as safer than it is. Major findings of this one-man study were calculated with 95% confidence. 1) Explosions caused by fluid transients accompany nuclear power plant meltdowns. 2) A meltdown similar to Three Mile Island (TMI-2) has a 50% probability before 2039, with a one in two probability of a radioactive release like Fukushima. 3) A large radioactive release like Fukushima has a 50% probability before 2067. 4) Radioactive releases can be prevented by fluid transient control with the exception of Chernobyl type accidents, which are expected far into the future. 5) Nuclear power plant accidental deaths are not significantly less than other industries as claimed for many years, but are comparable to other industries. An improved explanation of nuclear power plant explosion safety is provided here to better control dangers in the radiation business. Items 1 and 2 were previously published, but are summarized here as proof of principle to support this new research, and items 3, 4, and 5 are new to the literature. These latter concerns are the thrust for this discussion of ethics, nuclear safety, and the prevention of loss of life, property damages, and catastrophic environmental damages. A personal history of the difficulties of being the first to invent new theory and the government obstruction and unethical cover up to thwart legitimate safety concerns are intertwined with statistical proofs for nuclear reactor disaster predictions. Such disasters explode radioactive dust clouds into the air to circle our planet, and spread radioactive contamination that radioactively rains down across parts of the earth following large accidental explosions. Although the ethical path to accomplish this task has great personal costs, such as difficulty, stress, complexity of thought, long hours, impacts on family life, and money, the rewards are that imminent nuclear power plant explosions and loss of life can be stopped!},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Nuclear Power Plants Are Not So Safe: Fluid Transients / Water Hammers, Autoignition, Explosions, Accident Predictions and Ethics
AU  - Robert Allan Leishear
Y1  - 2021/02/20
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
T2  - International Journal of Philosophy
JF  - International Journal of Philosophy
JO  - International Journal of Philosophy
SP  - 11
EP  - 51
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7455
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20210901.13
AB  - Due to misdiagnosed hydrogen explosions and ethically flawed publications, nuclear power plants are not as safe as published to be for decades. Previous publications inaccurately, unethically, and inappropriately assessed reactor safety with respect to other industries and natural disasters, where nuclear industry publications non-conservatively applied data to promote nuclear reactor safety, and published models skewed accident data to present nuclear energy as safer than it is. Major findings of this one-man study were calculated with 95% confidence. 1) Explosions caused by fluid transients accompany nuclear power plant meltdowns. 2) A meltdown similar to Three Mile Island (TMI-2) has a 50% probability before 2039, with a one in two probability of a radioactive release like Fukushima. 3) A large radioactive release like Fukushima has a 50% probability before 2067. 4) Radioactive releases can be prevented by fluid transient control with the exception of Chernobyl type accidents, which are expected far into the future. 5) Nuclear power plant accidental deaths are not significantly less than other industries as claimed for many years, but are comparable to other industries. An improved explanation of nuclear power plant explosion safety is provided here to better control dangers in the radiation business. Items 1 and 2 were previously published, but are summarized here as proof of principle to support this new research, and items 3, 4, and 5 are new to the literature. These latter concerns are the thrust for this discussion of ethics, nuclear safety, and the prevention of loss of life, property damages, and catastrophic environmental damages. A personal history of the difficulties of being the first to invent new theory and the government obstruction and unethical cover up to thwart legitimate safety concerns are intertwined with statistical proofs for nuclear reactor disaster predictions. Such disasters explode radioactive dust clouds into the air to circle our planet, and spread radioactive contamination that radioactively rains down across parts of the earth following large accidental explosions. Although the ethical path to accomplish this task has great personal costs, such as difficulty, stress, complexity of thought, long hours, impacts on family life, and money, the rewards are that imminent nuclear power plant explosions and loss of life can be stopped!
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download