Hmm, don't think they ever made it to Area 51, but the military did develop nuclear powered aircraft. The idea was an ultra-range bomber, and I saw what remains of the engines (using a molten-salt reactor for heat) out in Idaho National Lab. The program was scrapped because of missiles, subs, and because it's a bad idea.

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

Also those pilots were probably just wearing crazy looking flight suits for high altitude, like SR-71 pilots.

While it's true that radiation will mess with electronics, measuring things like temperature can be done reliably even in the core of an operating power reactor, which is a much harsher radiation environment than this. For instance, an off-the-shelf type-K thermocouple will last a year or two in-core before transmutation causes serious problems.

In this case, the trick is to keep the circuitry out of that kind of radiation but wires, high voltage, and most metals and ceramics will be fine for a while. A good fiber-optic scope will last maybe an hour before becoming too opaque, and you can keep the CCD etc. well away.

No, it is the speed of sound. That is how fast the waves (e.g. sounds) propagate, be it in air or metal.

One, I meant stupid on the part of the plant management.

Two, the MMP is interesting, but they make these claims without releasing any evidence. The RPHP also except some requotes of the Chernobyl effect which we know, but nothing else. MMP claim "dozens" tested? Where do they live in relation to the plant?

We all have a fair amount of Sr-90 in our bones, and almost all of it comes from weapons testing. People hear that there are plant effluents but you'd have to huff the stack opening to get a measurable dose. And they do monitor effluents and report them.

If there are elevated levels deposited in that area compared to that region then surely they would have some numbers from the livestock? It is not a gas, and what we get is mostly from what we eat or remains drifting down from atmospheric explosions. That would be important to know.

This has been studied quite a bit (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html see the references if you don't believe the NRC analysis).

This is (and has always been) false. We could, if we wanted to, reduce all long-lived (say thousands or more year half-life) isotopes to hundreds of years or less by neutron bombardment (pick any of a number of sources). The cost would be tremendous, so we usually don't talk about it aside from a few academic studies.

Nuclear power will produce waste, and that waste will ultimately need to be dealt with. I think non-permanent burial is the best option because in the future reprocessing will be much more economical. But there will be some parts that are always trash, like most other things we humans use that produces trash. But compared to other big energy producers, the trash nuclear plants produce (including emissions, mining waste, spent materials) is amazingly small. To go to a nuclear plant and see, for instance, all the spent fuel of decades of operation standing in a few casks is impressive. Nuclear's advantage is so much energy contained in a small fuel form. At the back end of the process that means the most radioactive waste is also contained in a very small form.

We are smart enough to hold it somewhere safely. I'm sure in the near future we will be even better equipped in ways we can't imagine, but I think today's tech is adequate. This doesn't mean we can't deal with it, or should stop thinking of how to improve waste management, that means we *are* dealing with it.

As someone who does a lot of research in the nuclear industry, I think your point here is a much more valid fear than the inane and FUD arguments made by the vocal anti-nuke as in the article. I believe in nuclear power, and I believe the current plants in the US are safe (and that new plants would be even safer). But at the same time they are being run by companies whose job is to (depending on their structure) break even or turn a good profit.

This is not a goal that is fundamentally out of line with safety, because plants that are run poorly have increasing numbers of small problems that cost money and attract the attention of the regulators and the public. But again they are like any company - they are not perfect. Take FirstEnergy, which has been plagued by terrible management. The cost is about a billion dollars in repair costs, fines, lawsuits, and replacement power. They made themselves the pariah amongst the public and their peers and a favorite topic in nuclear materials classes.

It is good to have distrust of management and to question the regulators. At the same time, the nuclear industry is incredibly heavily regulated compared to any other industry I can think of, even those that handle very dangerous materials. And having met many CEOs and regular employees, they are well aware of what they are responsible for. The plants are well designed for ultimate safety of the public (which doesn't mean radiation release in any form is impossible, it means significant releases are very unlikely). Like in any industrial system things will leak and break down, and even brand new components are not guaranteed to be more reliable than 40-year old ones. I would say most of the leaks mentioned in the article are inconsequential, though the tritium spills are stupid (harmless if you look at the amount one could get if one really tried to drink it) but those come from tertiary systems like storage and cleanup and holding tanks.