So what are the implications for reactor design, physicists?
Probably not much. There's so much empirical data about the behavior of fission in reactor-like conditions that, even without a deep understanding of why things happen that way, we pretty much know what happens. That's almost certainly why they simulated the reaction they did -- we have tons of data about it already, so you can tell if the model's good.
Some slight refinements might show up eventually, but the impact of a model like this on reactors will be small.
Most nuclear physicists aren't researching fission reactors, though. The ones pushing the boundaries of the field, coaxing colliders into producing heavier nuclei, investigating weird excited states, and such, are the ones who will really notice this.
It's been 25 years. I can do this for another 25.
Arlo Guthrie would be proud.
Are you saying that writer doesn't know what he's talking about?
That is exactly the case. There is an infinitesimal kernel of truth at the center of that pearl of idiocy; a high-altitude nuclear detonation does produce geomagnetic field disturbances similar to, but much more violent than, a CME impact. But the effects one normally thinks of as coming from a nuclear EMP -- small electronics being suddenly destroyed by radio-frequency electromagnetic fields -- are absolutely absent from a CME-induced geomagnetic storm.
The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin