Podcasts about Atomic Energy Commission

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Nuclear fission is a safe, powerful, and reliable means of generating nearly limitless clean energy to power the modern world. A few public safety scares and a lot of bad press over the half-century has greatly delayed our nuclear future. But with climate change and energy-hungry AI making daily headlines, the time — finally — for a nuclear renaissance seems to have arrived.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Dr. Tim Gregory about the safety and efficacy of modern nuclear power, as well as the ambitious energy goals we should set for our society.Gregory is a nuclear scientist at the UK National Nuclear Laboratory. He is also a popular science broadcaster on radio and TV, and an author. His most recent book, Going Nuclear: How Atomic Energy Will Save the World is out now.In This Episode* A false start for a nuclear future (1:29)* Motivators for a revival (7:20)* About nuclear waste . . . (12:41)* Not your mother's reactors (17:25)* Commercial fusion, coming soon . . . ? (23:06)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. A false start for a nuclear future (1:29)The truth is that radiation, we're living in it all the time, it's completely inescapable because we're all living in a sea of background radiation.Pethokoukis: Why do America, Europe, Japan not today get most of their power from nuclear fission, since that would've been a very reasonable prediction to make in 1965 or 1975, but it has not worked out that way? What's your best take on why it hasn't?Going back to the '50s and '60s, it looked like that was the world that we currently live in. It was all to play for, and there were a few reasons why that didn't happen, but the main two were Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It's a startling statistic that the US built more nuclear reactors in the five years leading up to Three Mile Island than it has built since. And similarly on this side of the Atlantic, Europe built more nuclear reactors in the five years leading up to Chernobyl than it has built since, which is just astounding, especially given that nobody died in Three Mile Island and nobody was even exposed to anything beyond the background radiation as a result of that nuclear accident.Chernobyl, of course, was far more consequential and far more serious than Three Mile Island. 30-odd people died in the immediate aftermath, mostly people who were working at the power station and the first responders, famously the firefighters who were exposed to massive amounts of radiation, and probably a couple of hundred people died in the affected population from thyroid cancer. It was people who were children and adolescents at the time of the accident.So although every death from Chernobyl was a tragedy because it was avoidable, they're not in proportion to the mythic reputation of the night in question. It certainly wasn't reason to effectively end nuclear power expansion in Europe because of course we had to get that power from somewhere, and it mainly came from fossil fuels, which are not just a little bit more deadly than nuclear power, they're orders of magnitude more deadly than nuclear power. When you add up all of the deaths from nuclear power and compare those deaths to the amount of electricity that we harvest from nuclear power, it's actually as safe as wind and solar, whereas fossil fuels kill hundreds or thousands of times more people per unit of power. To answer your question, it's complicated and there are many answers, but the main two were Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.I wonder how things might have unfolded if those events hadn't happened or if society had responded proportionally to the actual damage. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are portrayed in documentaries and on TV as far deadlier than they really were, and they still loom large in the public imagination in a really unhelpful way.You see it online, actually, quite a lot about the predicted death toll from Chernobyl, because, of course, there's no way of saying exactly which cases of cancer were caused by Chernobyl and which ones would've happened anyway. Sometimes you see estimates that are up in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl. They are always based on a flawed scientific hypothesis called the linear no-threshold model that I go into in quite some detail in chapter eight of my book, which is all about the human health effects of exposure to radiation. This model is very contested in the literature. It's one of the most controversial areas of medical science, actually, the effects of radiation on the human body, and all of these massive numbers you see of the death toll from Chernobyl, they're all based on this really kind of clunky, flawed, contentious hypothesis. My reading of the literature is that there's very, very little physical evidence to support this particular hypothesis, but people take it and run. I don't know if it would be too far to accuse people of pushing a certain idea of Chernobyl, but it almost certainly vastly, vastly overestimates the effects.I think a large part of the reason of why this had such a massive impact on the public and politicians is this lingering sense of radiophobia that completely blight society. We've all seen it in the movies, in TV shows, even in music and computer games — radiation is constantly used as a tool to invoke fear and mistrust. It's this invisible, centerless, silent specter that's kind of there in the background: It means birth defects, it means cancers, it means ill health. We've all kind of grown up in this culture where the motif of radiation is bad news, it's dangerous, and that inevitably gets tied to people's sense of nuclear power. So when you get something like Three Mile Island, society's imagination and its preconceptions of radiation, it's just like a dry haystack waiting for a flint spark to land on it, and up it goes in flames and people's imaginations run away with them.The truth is that radiation, we're living in it all the time, it's completely inescapable because we're all living in a sea of background radiation. There's this amazing statistic that if you live within a couple of miles of a nuclear power station, the extra amount of radiation you're exposed to annually is about the same as eating a banana. Bananas are slightly radioactive because of the slight amount of potassium-40 that they naturally contain. Even in the wake of these nuclear accidents like Chernobyl, and more recently Fukushima, the amount of radiation that the public was exposed to barely registers and, in fact, is less than the background radiation in lots of places on the earth.Motivators for a revival (7:20)We have no idea what emerging technologies are on the horizon that will also require massive amounts of power, and that's exactly where nuclear can shine.You just suddenly reminded me of a story of when I was in college in the late 1980s, taking a class on the nuclear fuel cycle. You know it was an easy class because there was an ampersand in it. “Nuclear fuel cycle” would've been difficult. “Nuclear fuel cycle & the environment,” you knew it was not a difficult class.The man who taught it was a nuclear scientist and, at one point, he said that he would have no problem having a nuclear reactor in his backyard. This was post-Three Mile Island, post-Chernobyl, and the reaction among the students — they were just astounded that he would be willing to have this unbelievably dangerous facility in his backyard.We have this fear of nuclear power, and there's sort of an economic component, but now we're seeing what appears to be a nuclear renaissance. I don't think it's driven by fear of climate change, I think it's driven A) by fear that if you are afraid of climate change, just solar and wind aren't going to get you to where you want to be; and then B) we seem like we're going to need a lot of clean energy for all these AI data centers. So it really does seem to be a perfect storm after a half-century.And who knows what next. When I started writing Going Nuclear, the AI story hadn't broken yet, and so all of the electricity projections for our future demand, which, they range from doubling to tripling, we're going to need a lot of carbon-free electricity if we've got any hope of electrifying society whilst getting rid of fossil fuels. All of those estimates were underestimates because nobody saw AI coming.It's been very, very interesting just in the last six, 12 months seeing Big Tech in North America moving first on this. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have all either invested or actually placed orders for small modular reactors specifically to power their AI data centers. In some ways, they've kind of led the charge on this. They've moved faster than most nation states, although it is encouraging, actually, here in the UK, just a couple of weeks ago, the government announced that our new nuclear power station is definitely going ahead down in Sizewell in Suffolk in the south of England. That's a 3.2 gigawatt nuclear reactor, it's absolutely massive. But it's been really, really encouraging to see Big Tech in the private sector in North America take the situation into their own hands. If anyone's real about electricity demands and how reliable you need it, it's Big Tech with these data centers.I always think, go back five, 10 years, talk of AI was only on the niche subreddits and techie podcasts where people were talking about it. It broke into the mainstream all of a sudden. Who knows what is going to happen in the next five or 10 years. We have no idea what emerging technologies are on the horizon that will also require massive amounts of power, and that's exactly where nuclear can shine.In the US, at least, I don't think decarbonization alone is enough to win broad support for nuclear, since a big chunk of the country doesn't think we actually need to do that. But I think that pairing it with the promise of rapid AI-driven economic growth creates a stronger case.I tried to appeal to a really broad church in Going Nuclear because I really, really do believe that whether you are completely preoccupied by climate change and environmental issues or you're completely preoccupied by economic growth, and raising living, standards and all of that kind of thing, all the monetary side of things, nuclear is for you because if you solve the energy problem, you solve both problems at once. You solve the economic problem and the environmental problem.There's this really interesting relationship between GDP per head — which is obviously incredibly important in economic terms — and energy consumption per head, and it's basically a straight line relationship between the two. There are no rich countries that aren't also massive consumers of energy, so if you really, really care about the economy, you should really also be caring about energy consumption and providing energy abundance so people can go out and use that energy to create wealth and prosperity. Again, that's where nuclear comes in. You can use nuclear power to sate that massive energy demand that growing economies require.This podcast is very pro-wealth and prosperity, but I'll also say, if the nuclear dreams of the '60s where you had, in this country, what was the former Atomic Energy Commission expecting there to be 1000 nuclear reactors in this country by the year 2000, we're not having this conversation about climate change. It is amazing that what some people view as an existential crisis could have been prevented — by the United States and other western countries, at least — just making a different political decision.We would be spending all of our time talking about something else, and how nice would that be?For sure. I'm sure there'd be other existential crises to worry about.But for sure, we wouldn't be talking about climate change was anywhere near the volume or the sense of urgency as we are now if we would've carried on with the nuclear expansion that really took off in the '70s and the '80s. It would be something that would be coming our way in a couple of centuries.About nuclear waste . . . (12:41). . . a 100 percent nuclear-powered life for about 80 years, their nuclear waste would barely fill a wine glass or a coffee cup. I don't know if you've ever seen the television show For All Mankind?I haven't. So many people have recommended it to me.It's great. It's an alt-history that looks at what if the Space Race had never stopped. As a result, we had a much more tech-enthusiastic society, which included being much more pro-nuclear.Anyway, imagine if you are on a plane talking to the person next to you, and the topic of your book comes up, and the person says hey, I like energy, wealth, prosperity, but what are you going to do about the nuclear waste?That almost exact situation has happened, but on a train rather than an airplane. One of the cool things about uranium is just how much energy you can get from a very small amount of it. If typical person in a highly developed economy, say North America, Europe, something like that, if they produced all of their power over their entire lifetime from nuclear alone, so forget fossil fuels, forget wind and solar, a 100 percent nuclear-powered life for about 80 years, their nuclear waste would barely fill a wine glass or a coffee cup. You need a very small amount of uranium to power somebody's life, and the natural conclusion of that is you get a very small amount of waste for a lifetime of power. So in terms of the numbers, and the amount of nuclear waste, it's just not that much of a problem.However, I don't want to just try and trivialize it out of existence with some cool pithy statistics and some cool back-of-the-envelopes physics calculations because we still have to do something with the nuclear waste. This stuff is going to be radioactive for the best part of a million years. Thankfully, it's quite an easy argument to make because good old Finland, which is one of the most nuclear nations on the planet as a share of nuclear in its grid, has solved this problem. It has implemented — and it's actually working now — the world's first and currently only geological repository for nuclear waste. Their idea is essentially to bury it in impermeable bedrock and leave it there because, as with all radioactive objects, nuclear waste becomes less radioactive over time. The idea is that, in a million years, Finland's nuclear waste won't be nuclear waste anymore, it will just be waste. A million years sounds like a really long time to our ears, but it's actually —It does.It sounds like a long time, but it is the blink of an eye, geologically. So to a geologist, a million years just comes and goes straight away. So it's really not that difficult to keep nuclear waste safe underground on those sorts of timescales. However — and this is the really cool thing, and this is one of the arguments that I make in my book — there are actually technologies that we can use to recycle nuclear waste. It turns out that when you pull uranium out of a reactor, once it's been burned for a couple of years in a reactor, 95 percent of the atoms are still usable. You can still use them to generate nuclear power. So by throwing away nuclear waste when it's been through a nuclear reactor once, we're actually squandering like 95 percent of material that we're throwing away.The theory is this sort of the technology behind breeder reactors?That's exactly right, yes.What about the plutonium? People are worried about the plutonium!People are worried about the plutonium, but in a breeder reactor, you get rid of the plutonium because you split it into fission products, and fission products are still radioactive, but they have much shorter half-lives than plutonium. So rather than being radioactive for, say, a million years, they're only radioactive, really, for a couple of centuries, maybe 1000 years, which is a very, very different situation when you think about long-term storage.I read so many papers and memos from the '50s when these reactors were first being built and demonstrated, and they worked, by the way, they're actually quite easy to build, it just happened in a couple of years. Breeder reactors were really seen as the future of humanity's power demands. Forget traditional nuclear power stations that we all use at the moment, which are just kind of once through and then you throw away 95 percent of the energy at the end of it. These breeder reactors were really, really seen as the future.They never came to fruition because we discovered lots of uranium around the globe, and so the supply of uranium went up around the time that the nuclear power expansion around the world kind of seized up, so the uranium demand dropped as the supply increased, so the demand for these breeder reactors kind of petered out and fizzled out. But if we're really, really serious about the medium-term future of humanity when it comes to energy, abundance, and prosperity, we need to be taking a second look at these breeder reactors because there's enough uranium and thorium in the ground around the world now to power the world for almost 1000 years. After that, we'll have something else. Maybe we'll have nuclear fusion.Well, I hope it doesn't take a thousand years for nuclear fusion.Yes, me too.Not your mother's reactors (17:25)In 2005, France got 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear. They almost decarbonized their grid by accident before anybody cared about climate change, and that was during a time when their economy was absolutely booming.I don't think most people are aware of how much innovation has taken place around nuclear in the past few years, or even few decades. It's not just a climate change issue or that we need to power these data centers — the technology has vastly improved. There are newer, safer technologies, so we're not talking about 1975-style reactors.Even if it were the 1975-style reactors, that would be fine because they're pretty good and they have an absolutely impeccable safety record punctuated by a very small number of high-profile events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. I'm not to count Three Mile Island on that list because nobody died, but you know what I mean.But the modern nuclear reactors are amazing. The ones that are coming out of France, the EPRs, the European Power Reactors, there are going to be two of those in the UK's new nuclear power station, and they've been designed to withstand an airplane flying into the side of them, so they're basically bomb-proof.As for these small modular reactors, that's getting people very excited, too. As their name suggests, they're small. How small is a reasonable question — the answer is as small as you want to go. These things are scalable, and I've seen designs for just one-megawatt reactors that could easily fit inside a shipping container. They could fit in the parking lots around the side of a data center, or in the basement even, all the way up to multi-hundred-megawatt reactors that could fit on a couple of tennis courts worth of land. But it's really the modular part that's the most interesting thing. That's the ‘M' and that's never been done before.Which really gets to the economics of the SMRs.It really does. The idea is you could build upwards of 90 percent of these reactors on a factory line. We know from the history of industrialization that as soon as you start mass producing things, the unit cost just plummets and the timescales shrink. No one has achieved that yet, though. There's a lot of hype around small modular reactors, and so it's kind of important not to get complacent and really keep our eye on the ultimate goal, which is mass-production and mass rapid deployment of nuclear power stations, crucially in the places where you need them the most, as well.We often think about just decarbonizing our electricity supply or decoupling our electricity supply from volatilities in the fossil fuel market, but it's about more than electricity, as well. We need heat for things like making steel, making the ammonia that feeds most people on the planet, food and drinks factories, car manufacturers, plants that rely on steam. You need heat, and thankfully, the primary energy from a nuclear reactor is heat. The electricity is secondary. We have to put effort into making that. The heat just kind of happens. So there's this idea that we could use the surplus heat from nuclear reactors to power industrial processes that are very, very difficult to decarbonize. Small modular reactors would be perfect for that because you could nestle them into the industrial centers that need the heat close by. So honestly, it is really our imaginations that are the limits with these small modular reactors.They've opened a couple of nuclear reactors down in Georgia here. The second one was a lot cheaper and faster to build because they had already learned a bunch of lessons building that first one, and it really gets at sort of that repeatability where every single reactor doesn't have to be this one-off bespoke project. That is not how it works in the world of business. How you get cheaper things is by building things over and over, you get very good at building them, and then you're able to turn these things out at scale. That has not been the economic situation with nuclear reactors, but hopefully with small modular reactors, or even if we just start building a lot of big advanced reactors, we'll get those economies of scale and hopefully the economic issue will then take care of itself.For sure, and it is exactly the same here in the UK. The last reactor that we connected to the grid was in 1995. I was 18 months old. I don't even know if I was fluent in speaking at 18 months old. I was really, really young. Our newest nuclear power station, Hinkley Point C, which is going to come online in the next couple of years, was hideously expensive. The uncharitable view of that is that it's just a complete farce and is just a complete embarrassment, but honestly, you've got to think about it: 1995, the last nuclear reactor in the UK, it was going to take a long time, it was going to be expensive, basically doing it from scratch. We had no supply chain. We didn't really have a workforce that had ever built a nuclear reactor before, and with this new reactor that just got announced a couple of weeks ago, the projected price is 20 percent cheaper, and it is still too expensive, it's still more expensive than it should be, but you're exactly right.By tapping into those economies of scale, the cost per nuclear reactor will fall, and France did this in the '70s and '80s. Their nuclear program is so amazing. France is still the most nuclear nation on the planet as a share of its total electricity. In 2005, France got 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear. They almost decarbonized their grid by accident before anybody cared about climate change, and that was during a time when their economy was absolutely booming. By the way, still today, all of those reactors are still working and they pay less than the European Union average for that electricity, so this idea that nuclear makes your electricity expensive is simply not true. They built 55 nuclear reactors in 25 years, and they did them in parallel. It was just absolutely amazing. I would love to see a French-style nuclear rollout in all developed countries across the world. I think that would just be absolutely amazing.Commercial fusion, coming soon . . . ? (23:06)I think we're pretty good at doing things when we put our minds to it, but certainly not in the next couple of decades. But luckily, we already have a proven way of producing lots of energy, and that's with nuclear fission, in the meantime.What is your enthusiasm level or expectation about nuclear fusion? I can tell you that the Silicon Valley people I talk to are very positive. I know they're inherently very positive people, but they're very enthusiastic about the prospects over the next decade, if not sooner, of commercial fusion. How about you?It would be incredible. The last question that I was asked in my PhD interview 10 years ago was, “If you could solve one scientific or engineering problem, what would it be?” and my answer was nuclear fusion. And that would be the answer that I would give today. It just seems to me to be obviously the solution to the long-term energy needs of humanity. However, I'm less optimistic, perhaps, than the Silicon Valley crowd. The running joke, of course, is that it's always 40 years away and it recedes into the future at one year per year. So I would love to be proved wrong, but realistically — no one's even got it working in a prototype power station. That's before we even think about commercializing it and deploying it at scale. I really, really think that we're decades away, maybe even something like a century. I'd be surprised if it took longer than a century, actually. I think we're pretty good at doing things when we put our minds to it, but certainly not in the next couple of decades. But luckily, we already have a proven way of producing lots of energy, and that's with nuclear fission, in the meantime.Don't go to California with that attitude. I can tell you that even when I go there and I talk about AI, if I say that AI will do anything less than improve economic growth by a factor of 100, they just about throw me out over there. Let me just finish up by asking you this: Earlier, we mentioned Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. How resilient do you think this nuclear renaissance is to an accident?Even if we take the rate of accident over the last 70 years of nuclear power production and we maintain that same level of rate of accident, if you like, it's still one of the safest things that our species does, and everyone talks about the death toll from nuclear power, but nobody talks about the lives that it's already saved because of the fossil fuels, that it's displaced fossil fuels. They're so amazing in some ways, they're so convenient, they're so energy-dense, they've created the modern world as we all enjoy it in the developed world and as the developing world is heading towards it. But there are some really, really nasty consequences of fossil fuels, and whether or not you care about climate change, even the air pollution alone and the toll that that takes on human health is enough to want to phase them out. Nuclear power already is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels and I read this really amazing paper that globally, it was something like between the '70s and the '90s, nuclear power saved about two million lives because of the fossil fuels that it displaced. That's, again, orders of magnitude more lives that have been lost as a consequence of nuclear power, mostly because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even if the safety record of nuclear in the past stays the same and we forward-project that into the future, it's still a winning horse to bet on.If in the UK they've started up one new nuclear reactor in the past 30 years, right? How many would you guess will be started over the next 15 years?Four or five. Something like that, I think; although I don't know.Is that a significant number to you?It's not enough for my liking. I would like to see many, many more. Look at France. I know I keep going back to it, but it's such a brilliant example. If France hadn't done what they'd done in between the '70s and the '90s — 55 nuclear reactors in 25 years, all of which are still working — it would be a much more difficult case to make because there would be no historical precedent for it. So, maybe predictably, I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a French-scale nuclear rollout, let's put it that way.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* The U.S. Marches Toward State Capitalism With American Characteristics - WSJ* AI Spending Is Propping Up the Economy, Right? It's Complicated. - Barron's* Goodbye, $165,000 Tech Jobs. Student Coders Seek Work at Chipotle. - NYT* Sam Altman says Gen Z are the 'luckiest' kids in history thanks to AI, despite mounting job displacement dread - NYT* Lab-Grown Diamonds Are Testing the Power of Markets - Bberg Opinion* Why globalisation needs a leader: Hegemons, alignment, and trade - CEPR* The Rising Returns to R&D: Ideas Are not Getting Harder to Find - SSRN* An Assessment of China's Innovative Capacity - The Fed* Markets are so used to the TACO trade they didn't even blink when Trump extended a tariff delay with China - Fortune* Labor unions mobilize to challenge advance of algorithms in workplaces - Wapo* ChatGPT loves this bull market. Human investors are more cautious. - Axios* What is required for a post-growth model? - Arxiv* What Would It Take to Bring Back US Manufacturing? - Bridgewater▶ Business* An AI Replay of the Browser Wars, Bankrolled by Google - Bberg* Alexa Got an A.I. Brain Transplant. How Smart Is It Now? - NYT* Google and IBM believe first workable quantum computer is in sight - FT* Why does Jeff Bezos keep buying launches from Elon Musk? - Ars* Beijing demands Chinese tech giants justify purchases of Nvidia's H20 chips - FT* An AI Replay of the Browser Wars, Bankrolled by Google - Bberg Opinion* Why Businesses Say Tariffs Have a Delayed Effect on Inflation - Richmond Fed* Lisa Su Runs AMD—and Is Out for Nvidia's Blood - Wired* Forget the White House Sideshow. Intel Must Decide What It Wants to Be. - WSJ* With Billions at Risk, Nvidia CEO Buys His Way Out of the Trade Battle - WSJ* Donald Trump's 100% tariff threat looms over chip sector despite relief for Apple - FT* Sam Altman challenges Elon Musk with plans for Neuralink rival - FT* Threads is nearing X's daily app users, new data shows - TechCrunch▶ Policy/Politics* Trump's China gamble - Axios* U.S. Government to Take Cut of Nvidia and AMD A.I. Chip Sales to China - NYT* A Guaranteed Annual Income Flop - WSJ Opinion* Big Tech's next major political battle may already be brewing in your backyard - Politico* Trump order gives political appointees vast powers over research grants - Nature* China has its own concerns about Nvidia H20 chips - FT* How the US Could Lose the AI Arms Race to China - Bberg Opinion* America's New AI Plan Is Great. There's Just One Problem. - Bberg Opinion* Trump, Seeking Friendlier Economic Data, Names New Statistics Chief - NYT* Trump's chief science adviser faces a storm of criticism: what's next? - Nature* Trump Is Squandering the Greatest Gift of the Manhattan Project - NYT Opinion▶ AI/Digital* Can OpenAI's GPT-5 model live up to sky-high expectations? - FT* Google, Schmoogle: When to Ditch Web Search for Deep Research - WSJ* AI Won't Kill Software. It Will Simply Give It New Life. - Barron's* Chatbot Conversations Never End. That's a Problem for Autistic People. - WSJ* Volunteers fight to keep ‘AI slop' off Wikipedia - Wapo* Trump's Tariffs Won't Solve U.S. Chip-Making Dilemma - WSJ* GenAI Misinformation, Trust, and News Consumption: Evidence from a Field Experiment - NBER* GPT-5s Are Alive: Basic Facts, Benchmarks and the Model Card - Don't Worry About the Vase* What you may have missed about GPT-5 - MIT* Why A.I. Should Make Parents Rethink Posting Photos of Their Children Online - NYT* 21 Ways People Are Using A.I. at Work - NYT* AI and Jobs: The Final Word (Until the Next One) - EIG* These workers don't fear artificial intelligence. They're getting degrees in it. - Wapo* AI Gossip - Arxiv* Meet the early-adopter judges using AI - MIT* The GPT-5 rollout has been a big mess - Ars* A Humanoid Social Robot as a Teaching Assistant in the Classroom - Arxiv* OpenAI Scrambles to Update GPT-5 After Users Revolt - Wired* Sam Altman and the whale - MIT* This is what happens when ChatGPT tries to write scripture - Vox* How AI could create the first one-person unicorn - Economist* AI Robs My Students of the Ability to Think - WSJ Opinion* Part I: Tricks or Traps? A Deep Dive into RL for LLM Reasoning - Arxiv▶ Biotech/Health* Scientists Are Finally Making Progress Against Alzheimer's - WSJ Opinion* The Dawn of a New Era in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Treatment - RealClearScience* RFK Jr. shifts $500 million from mRNA research to 'safer' vaccines. Do the data back that up? - Reason* How Older People Are Reaping Brain Benefits From New Tech - NYT* Did Disease Defeat Napoleon? - SciAm* Scientists Discover a Viral Cause of One of The World's Most Common Cancers - ScienceAlert* ‘A tipping point': An update from the frontiers of Alzheimer's disease research - Yale News* A new measure of health is revolutionising how we think about ageing - NS* First proof brain's powerhouses drive – and can reverse – dementia symptoms - NA* The Problem Is With Men's Sperm - NYT Opinion▶ Clean Energy/Climate* The Whole World Is Switching to EVs Faster Than You - Bberg Opinion* Misperceptions About Air Pollution: Implications for Willingness to Pay and Environmental Inequality - NBER* Texas prepares for war as invasion of flesh-eating flies appears imminent - Ars* Data Center Energy Demand Will Double Over the Next Five Years - Apollo Academy* Why Did Air Conditioning Adoption Accelerate Faster Than Predicted? Evidence from Mexico - NBER* Microwaving rocks could help mining operations pull CO2 out of the air - NS* Ford's Model T Moment Isn't About the Car - Heatmap* Five countries account for 71% of the world's nuclear generation capacity - EIA* AI may need the power equivalent of 50 large nuclear plants - E&E▶ Space/Transportation* NASA plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon—a space lawyer explains why - Ars* Rocket Lab's Surprise Stock Move After Solid Earnings - Barron's▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* James Lovell, the steady astronaut who brought Apollo 13 home safely, has died - Ars* Vaccine Misinformation Is a Symptom of a Dangerous Breakdown - NYT Opinion* We're hardwired for negativity. That doesn't mean we're doomed to it. - Vox* To Study Viking Seafarers, He Took 26 Voyages in a Traditional Boat - NYT* End is near for the landline-based service that got America online in the '90s - Wapo▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Who will actually profit from the AI boom? - Noahpinion* OpenAI GPT-5 One Unified System - AI Supremacy* Proportional representation is the solution to gerrymandering - Slow Boring* Why I Stopped Being a Climate Catastrophist - The Ecomodernist* How Many Jobs Depend on Exports? - Conversable Economist* ChatGPT Classic - Joshua Gans' Newsletter* Is Air Travel Getting Worse? - Maximum Progress▶ Social Media* On AI Progress - @daniel_271828* On AI Usage - @emollick* On Generative AI and Student Learning - @jburnmurdoch Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Dive into the extraordinary life of Harald Malmgren, a 27-year-old “whiz kid” who played a pivotal role in averting nuclear disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Tasked by President JFK and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to outmaneuver General Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, Malmgren bought critical time for diplomacy. His remarkable career didn't stop there—he advised Presidents LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, built relationships with global leaders like Vladimir Putin and every Japanese Prime Minister since the 1970s, and worked alongside luminaries like Howard Baker, George Shultz, and Nobel Prize winners Tom Schelling and Sir John Hicks. With unparalleled Q Clearances, Malmgren was entrusted with secrets few others could access.In this gripping episode, we uncover Malmgren's revelations about UFOs and extraterrestrial phenomena:His handling of mysterious UAP material from the 1962 Bluegill Triple Prime nuclear test, handed to him by Atomic Energy Commission director Lawrence Preston Gise.Briefings from CIA's Richard Bissell, the architect of Area 51, on “otherworld technologies” and historic crash retrievals, including the 1933 Magenta crash in Italy.Classified intelligence on antigravity research involving Tesla and Thomas Townsend Brown.A chilling deathbed confession to his daughter Pippa about UFO crash survivors, including footage of a surviving extraterrestrial from Roswell.Malmgren's belief that JFK's knowledge of UFOs, rooted in his Naval Intelligence days, and his push for Soviet collaboration on space and denuclearization may have contributed to his assassination.His rare mention of the secretive “Majestic” group, an elite circle overseeing the UFO issue, which tracked him from a young age.Harald Malmgren was a hero who saved the world from catastrophe and navigated a shadowy realm of secrets. His untold story, filled with courage and conviction, challenges world leaders to pause and reflect on the dangers of global brinkmanship. Tune in to explore the legacy of a man who walked among giants—and perhaps beings from beyond.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/total-disclosure-ufos-coverups-conspiracy--5975113/support.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show LIVE from Heritage Foundation studios in Washington D.C. Dr. Coates reacts to a CNN report suggesting that the Trump Administration's targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities only set back Iran several months. The Trump Administration has vociferously denied the claim. During the 2025 NATO Summit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio flatly denied the report—saying the strike resulted in the “total obliteration” of Iran's nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump cited a letter from the Atomic Energy Commission which stated the “enrichment facility” is now “totally inoperable.” Dr. Coates is the author of the book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win.” 4:30pm- Should we be more concerned about artificial intelligence? A new report suggests that AI has learned to “blackmail” its users in order to achieve its goals. A second article suggests reliance on AI could stifle the intellectual growth of children.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/25/2025): 3:05pm- On Tuesday night, far-left candidate Zohran Mamdani earned 43.5% of the Democratic primary vote, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo to win the party's New York City mayoral nomination. Incumbent NYC Mayor Eric Adams will challenge Mamdani as an Independent in November. 3:20pm- In an interview with Fox News, New York City Mayor Eric Adams called Zohran Mamdani a “snake oil salesman” with “unrealistic” policies. 3:25pm- In his Democratic Primary victory speech, Zohran Mamdani promised to use his potential mayoral powers “to reject Donald Trump's fascism” and “to stop masked ICE agents from deporting our neighbors.” 3:40pm- When asked if Mamdani's win means the Democratic Party will embrace democratic socialism moving forward, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) declined to answer directly. 4:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show LIVE from Heritage Foundation studios in Washington D.C. Dr. Coates reacts to a CNN report suggesting that the Trump Administration's targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities only set back Iran several months. The Trump Administration has vociferously denied the claim. During the 2025 NATO Summit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio flatly denied the report—saying the strike resulted in the “total obliteration” of Iran's nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump cited a letter from the Atomic Energy Commission which stated the “enrichment facility” is now “totally inoperable.” Dr. Coates is the author of the book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win.” 4:30pm- Should we be more concerned about artificial intelligence? A new report suggests that AI has learned to “blackmail” its users in order to achieve its goals. A second article suggests reliance on AI could stifle the intellectual growth of children. 5:00pm- Sen. Dave McCormick—United States Senator from Pennsylvania—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to preview his Energy and Innovation Summit on July 15th, discuss the Trump Administration's targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and the Philadelphia Inquirer's article on his successful first six months in office. 5:20pm- During the House Oversight Committee's hearing on DOGE cuts, Congressman Brandon Gill (R-TX) asked a far-leftist: how do you define “birthing person”? 5:25pm- On Tuesday, the House of Representatives rejected Congressman Al Green's (D-TX) attempt to impeach President Donald Trump over his decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The House voted 344 to 79 to table Green's resolution. 5:30pm- During the 2025 NATO Summit, President Donald Trump was asked about providing the Patriot Missile System to Ukraine. He said, “we're going to see if we can make some available.” 5:40pm- During a recent flight, a passenger sitting behind Matt Gaetz caught the former Congressmen sending text messages to his mom. 6:00pm- Tom Azelby in for Rich!

At today's NATO summit, President Trump devoted a great deal of his press conference to the US's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. After a back and forth over a leaked Pentagon report suggesting the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program by months, Trump said it was preliminary and "inconclusive." Then he got another report by Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, saying the US attack on Fordow "destroyed the site's critical infrastructure." Iran itself also said the facilities were badly damaged. David Petraeus served as the Commander of Centcom and Director of the CIA and joins Christiane to discuss this all.  Also on today's show: former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, now Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations; former CDC epidemiologist Dr. Fiona Havers, who quit after actions by RFK Jr.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the mid-1940s, a teenage June Bacon-Bercey saw the image of a nuclear explosion on the cover of Time magazine and immediately had questions. How would the particles in the mushroom cloud move through the air? What effect would this have on our atmosphere? To find the answers, she set out to study atmospheric science, just as the field of meteorology was coming of age.Her career would take her to places few Black women had gone before: the Atomic Energy Commission as a senior researcher; a TV news station in Buffalo, New York, as an on-air meteorologist; and even a TV game show. As a Black woman entering a STEM career at the height of the Civil Rights movement, June's goal was always to be a role model for women and people of color. And she marched through life to the tune of her favourite composer, John Philip Sousa, who just happened to help her answer the $64,000 question. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

This is the Catchup on 3 Things by The Indian Express and I'm Flora Swain.Today is the 20th of May and here are the headlines.1. India's Global Anti-Terror Diplomacy DriveIndia has launched a major diplomatic outreach, sending seven multi-party delegations to 32 countries to highlight its fight against terrorism, particularly from Pakistani soil. Briefed by the Ministry of External Affairs, the teams will explain India's military response after the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor. PM Modi framed the doctrine as part of a global anti-terror campaign, stating there will be zero tolerance for terror sheltered by “nuclear blackmail.” The goal: convince the world not to equate India, a terror victim, with Pakistan, a terror perpetrator.2. TMC Replaces Yusuf Pathan With Abhishek BanerjeeAfter initially rejecting the Centre's move to include Yusuf Pathan in its foreign outreach delegations, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) has nominated Abhishek Banerjee instead. The switch came after Union Minister Kiren Rijiju spoke to TMC chief Mamata Banerjee. Abhishek, the party's general secretary, will now join the anti-terror diplomatic push. Separately, TMC is sending its own delegation, led by Manas Bhunia, to Jammu and Kashmir to support victims of cross-border terror. Earlier, Pathan, a cricketer-turned-MP, had been named without TMC's consultation, prompting the initial protest.3. Heavy Rains Disrupt Bengaluru; Red Alert IssuedBengaluru faced severe disruptions on Tuesday after intense pre-monsoon thundershowers caused widespread flooding and traffic chaos. The India Meteorological Department has issued a red alert for the city and Karnataka, forecasting heavy rain, thunderstorms, and lightning through May 26. Commuters struggled, with some taking two hours to travel just 7 km. The Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre has echoed warnings of extremely heavy rainfall and advised caution. The relentless downpour left several areas waterlogged, reigniting concerns over the city's poor infrastructure and monsoon preparedness.4. Veteran Nuclear Scientist M R Srinivasan Dies at 95M R Srinivasan, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and a pioneer of India's nuclear program, passed away on Tuesday at age 95. He is survived by his wife and daughter. Srinivasan played a key role in developing India's indigenous nuclear capabilities, working alongside legendary scientist Dr Homi Bhabha. Honoured with the Padma Vibhushan, his death marks the end of a historic era in Indian science. District Collector Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru paid floral tributes to the distinguished scientist's mortal remains.5. Netanyahu Offers Conditional End to Gaza WarIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he's willing to end the Gaza war if Hamas agrees to strict terms, including disarming. His statement comes amid rising international pressure, with the UK, France, and Canada threatening sanctions over Israel's latest Gaza offensive. Netanyahu slammed these nations for demanding a Palestinian state, calling it a reward for “genocidal attacks on Israel.” In a joint statement, the Western leaders criticized Israel's denial of humanitarian aid to Palestinians, warning that it could violate international law if continued.That's all for today. This was the Catchup on 3 Things by The Indian Express.

The United States has launched a couple of dozen nuclear-powered space missions. But only one used nuclear fission – the process that powers commercial power plants on Earth. Called Snapshot, it was launched 60 years ago today. The Atomic Energy Commission had been experimenting with nuclear power systems for space for years. It came up with a couple of alternatives. One used the decay of radioactive elements to generate heat, which is converted to electricity. That system has powered many missions throughout the solar system. The other design used nuclear fission – it split atoms apart, releasing energy. The commission developed a reactor called SNAP-10A. It was launched on April 3rd, 1965. And it quickly went to work, as explained in a commission film about the project: During the second orbit, less than four hours after launch, a radio command signal to activate the startup circuits was transmitted. Approximately six hours after initiating the startup command, the reactor was operating. At the beginning of the ninth orbit, a little more than eight hours after reactor startup, the SNAP-10A system was at full power, producing more than 500 watts of electricity. Mission accomplished. Snapshot operated for 43 days. The United States hasn’t launched another fission reactor since then. But it’s considering reactors for future missions to the Moon and Mars – descendants of a “snapshot” in space. Script by Damond Benningfield

The Stationary Low-Power Plant Number 1 was a small boiling-water reactor built at the National Reactor Testing Station, west of Idaho Falls, Idaho. On January 3, 1961, during a restart of the reactor, a catastrophic tragedy unfolded when the reactor went supercritical. Research: Divison of Technical Information Extension, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. “SL-1 The Accident, Phases I and II.” https://www.osti.gov/sciencecinema/biblio/1129428 Francisco, A.D. and E. T. Tomlinson. “Analysis of the SL-1 Accident Using RELAP5-3D.” Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. 2007 International RELAP5 User’s Seminar. November 7 -9, 2007. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/39/038/39038759.pdf?r=1 Idaho National Laboratory. “SL-1, Idaho: Just the Facts.” https://factsheets.inl.gov/FactSheets/Just%20the%20Facts_SL-1.pdf O’Connor, Bryan. “Supercritical: SL-1 Nuclear Reactor Explosion.” NASA. September 2007. https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-messages/safetymessage-2007-09-01-sl1nuclearreactorexplosion-vits.pdf McKeown, William. “Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America’s First Nuclear Accident.” ECW Press. 2003. Perry, E.F. “Stationary Low Power Reactor No. 1 (SL-1) Accident Site Decontamination & Dismantlement Project.” Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies. 10/27/1995. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/27/029/27029475.pdf?r=1 SL-1 Accident Briefing Report - 1961 Nuclear Reactor Meltdown Educational Documentary. United States: N. p., 2013. Web. https://www.osti.gov/sciencecinema/biblio/1122857 Sommers, Bryan W. “Idaho Falls: The First Nuclear Meltdown in America’s History.” 4/11/2024. https://www.argonelectronics.com/blog/idaho-falls-first-nuclear-meltdown-in-americas-history Stacy, Susan M. “Proving the Principle.” Idaho Operations Office of the Department of Energy Idaho Falls, Idaho. 2000. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. “IDO Report on the Nuclear Incident at the SL-1 Reactor, January 3, 1961, National Reactor Testing Station.” U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Idaho Operations Office. US Atomic Energy Commission. “REPORT ON THE SL-1 INCIDENT, JANUARY 3, 1961” https://archive.org/details/SL1PressRelease1961 Wander, Steve, executive editor. “Supercritical.” System Failure Case Studies. Vol. 1, Issue 4. https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-messages/safetymessage-2007-09-01-sl1nuclearreactorexplosion.pdf See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Killing of Karen SilkwoodNovember 18Karen Gay Silkwood was an American chemical technician and labor union activist known for reporting concerns about corporate practices related to health and safety in a nuclear facility.She worked at the Kerr-McGee Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Site in Crescent, Oklahoma, making plutonium pellets. She was the first woman ever elected to the union's negotiating team at Kerr-McGee. After testifying to the Atomic Energy Commission about her safety concerns, she was found to have plutonium contamination in her body and her home. While driving to meet with a New York Times journalist and an official of her union's national office, she died in a car crash, the circumstances of which were never explained entirely.Her family sued Kerr-McGee for the plutonium contamination that Silkwood suffered from. The company settled out of court for US$1.38 million, while not admitting liability. Her story was chronicled in Mike Nichols's 1983 Academy Award-nominated movie Silkwood in which she was portrayed by Meryl Streep.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

In 1954 the head of the Atomic Energy Commission declared that electricity would be too cheap to meter when generated by nuclear power. 70 years later I'm predicting that electricity will be almost free, but powered from that fusion generator 93 million miles away. Sounds crazy, but rooftop solar is already generating power for $0.06/kwh — compared to our average rates here in California of $0.45/kwh. As rooftop solar costs continue to decline and grid electricity costs continue to increase, we need to prepare for three traumatic energy industry changes: 1. Gasoline demand will plummet as EVs dominate road transportation. 2. Natural gas demand will decline steadily as heat pumps dominate space heating and solar dominates power generation. 3. The utility business model will collapse as technological changes (solar and batteries) turn the electric grid upside down. Please tune into this week's Energy Show as we dive into the capital costs, operating costs, ownership arrangements and timing for the four most common types of power plants. The results make it clear why utilities are trying so hard to stop the growth of rooftop solar and storage. For the details, please head over to www.energyshow.biz and listen to this week's podcast.

Iran, 'Main Source Of Regional Instability, Poses Threat To Peace, Security Worldwide' - Israel AEC DG ~ OsazuwaAkonedo #AEC #Edri #IAEA #Iran #Israel #Moshe #news #Vienna https://osazuwaakonedo.news/iran-main-source-of-regional-instability-poses-threat-to-peace-security-worldwide-israel-aec-dg/18/09/2024/ #news Published: September 18th, 2024 Reshared: September 19, 2024 5:25 am Moshe Edri, the Israeli Director General of Atomic Energy Commission, AEC, has told

UFO researcher Jon Stewart revealed this week the probable location that the U.S. government at one time would transport extraterrestrial crash survivors to for study. The Majestic-12 Special Operations Manual - which was leaked to UFO researcher Don Berliner in 1994 - included the abbreviation BBS as the place MJ-12 teams would take living extraterrestrials that survived UFO crashes. Stewart reported this week that BBS likely stands for Bermuda Biological Station, a marine biological research facility that has ties to major universities, the federal Atomic Energy Commission and the U.S. Navy. Links/Sources: Alien BOMBSHELL!!! Where the govt took LIVE aliens in the 50's-70's!!! (youtube.com) The Manual - SOM1-01 (specialoperationsmanual.com) THE BERMUDA BIOLOGICAL STATION FOR RESEARCH | Integrative and Comparative Biology | Oxford Academic (oup.com) Korean War Battlefield UFO Encounter (nicap.org) The time dozens of Korean service members claimed a UFO made them sick (wearethemighty.com) Loxton, Northern Cape, South Africa, Africa (luforu.org) Check out my YouTube channel: Quirk Zone - YouTube Extraterrestrial Reality book recommendations: Link to ROSWELL: THE ULTIMATE COLD CASE: CLOSED: https://amzn.to/3O2loSI Link to COMMUNION by Whitley Strieber: https://amzn.to/3xuPGqi Link to THE THREAT by David M. Jacobs: https://amzn.to/3Lk52nj Link to TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman: https://amzn.to/3xvidfv Link to NEED TO KNOW by Timothy Good:  https://amzn.to/3BNftfT Link to UFOS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, VOLUME 1:  https://amzn.to/3xxJvlv Link to UFOS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, VOLUME 2: https://amzn.to/3UhdQ1l Link to THE ALLAGASH ABDUCTIONS: https://amzn.to/3qNkLSg Link to UFO CRASH RETRIEVALS by Leonard Stringfield: https://amzn.to/3RGEZKs FLYING SAUCERS FROM OUTER SPACE by Major Donald Keyhoe: https://amzn.to/3S7Wkxv CAPTURED: THE BETTY AND BARNEY HILL UFO EXPERIENCE by Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden: https://amzn.to/3tKNVXn --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-quirk/support

UFO researcher Jon Stewart revealed this week the probable location that the U.S. government at one time would transport extraterrestrial crash survivors to for study. The Majestic-12 Special Operations Manual - which was leaked to UFO researcher Don Berliner in 1994 - included the abbreviation BBS as the place MJ-12 teams would take living extraterrestrials that survived UFO crashes. Stewart reported this week that BBS likely stands for Bermuda Biological Station, a marine biological research facility that has ties to major universities, the federal Atomic Energy Commission and the U.S. Navy. Links/Sources: Alien BOMBSHELL!!! Where the govt took LIVE aliens in the 50's-70's!!! (youtube.com) The Manual - SOM1-01 (specialoperationsmanual.com) THE BERMUDA BIOLOGICAL STATION FOR RESEARCH | Integrative and Comparative Biology | Oxford Academic (oup.com) Korean War Battlefield UFO Encounter (nicap.org) The time dozens of Korean service members claimed a UFO made them sick (wearethemighty.com) Loxton, Northern Cape, South Africa, Africa (luforu.org) Check out my YouTube channel: Quirk Zone - YouTube Extraterrestrial Reality book recommendations: Link to ROSWELL: THE ULTIMATE COLD CASE: CLOSED: https://amzn.to/3O2loSI Link to COMMUNION by Whitley Strieber: https://amzn.to/3xuPGqi Link to THE THREAT by David M. Jacobs: https://amzn.to/3Lk52nj Link to TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman: https://amzn.to/3xvidfv Link to NEED TO KNOW by Timothy Good:  https://amzn.to/3BNftfT Link to UFOS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, VOLUME 1:  https://amzn.to/3xxJvlv Link to UFOS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, VOLUME 2: https://amzn.to/3UhdQ1l Link to THE ALLAGASH ABDUCTIONS: https://amzn.to/3qNkLSg Link to UFO CRASH RETRIEVALS by Leonard Stringfield: https://amzn.to/3RGEZKs FLYING SAUCERS FROM OUTER SPACE by Major Donald Keyhoe: https://amzn.to/3S7Wkxv CAPTURED: THE BETTY AND BARNEY HILL UFO EXPERIENCE by Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden: https://amzn.to/3tKNVXn --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-quirk/support

On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first, and thus far only, nation to deploy the atomic bomb. After the war, “father of the atomic bomb” J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Jewish American theoretical physicist and director of the Manhattan Project lab at Los Alamos, joined the Atomic Energy Commission, and would soon find himself at odds with his former professional ally, Lewis Strauss. This week, we're joined by Pulitzer-prize winning co-author of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer Kai Bird.

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER's Alisha Searcy interview Pulitzer Winner Kai Bird. Mr. Bird focuses on the life and legacy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the atomic bomb.” He discusses Oppenheimer's impact on history, his early life and education, and his academic achievements in quantum physics. Bird covers Oppenheimer's political views, relationships, as well as his leadership in the Manhattan Project and his role in the Trinity test. He reflects on Oppenheimer's ethical concerns about the atomic bomb's devastation of WWII Japan and impact on the Cold War's arms race. He examines Oppenheimer's post-WWII career, including his involvement with the Atomic Energy Commission and the security clearance hearings that marked his decline. Mr. Bird continues with a discussion of Oppenheimer's legacy and the lessons from his life about the interplay between science, technology, and politics. He shares the experience of his book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, being turned into an Oscar-winning film Oppenheimer directed by Christopher Nolan. Mr. Bird closes by reading a passage from his Oppenheimer biography.

fWotD Episode 2629: Hanford Engineer Works Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Tuesday, 16 July 2024 is Hanford Engineer Works.The Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) was a nuclear production complex in Benton County, Washington, established by the United States federal government in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project during World War II. It built and operated the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor. Plutonium manufactured at the HEW was used in the atomic bomb detonated in the Trinity test in July 1945, and in the Fat Man bomb used in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945. The HEW was commanded by Colonel Franklin T. Matthias until January 1946, and then by Colonel Frederick J. Clarke.The director of the Manhattan Project, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves Jr., engaged DuPont as the prime contractor for the design, construction and operation of the HEW. DuPont recommended that it be located far from densely populated areas, and a site on the Columbia River, codenamed Site W, was chosen. The federal government acquired the land under its war powers authority and relocated some 1,500 nearby residents. The acquisition was one of the largest in US history. Disputes arose with farmers over the value of the land and compensation for crops that had already been planted. The acquisition was not completed before the Manhattan Project ended in December 1946.Construction commenced in March 1943 on a massive and technically challenging project. Most of the construction workforce, which reached a peak of nearly 45,000 in June 1944, lived in a temporary construction camp near the old Hanford townsite. Administrators, engineers and operating personnel lived in the government town established at Richland, which had a wartime peak population of 17,000. The HEW erected 554 buildings, including three graphite-moderated and water-cooled reactors (B, D and F) that operated at 250 megawatts. Natural uranium sealed in aluminum cans (known as "slugs") was fed into them.B Reactor went critical in September 1944 and, after overcoming neutron poisoning, produced its first plutonium in November. Irradiated slugs were processed in two huge, remotely operated chemical separation plants (T and B) where the plutonium was extracted using the bismuth-phosphate process. Radioactive wastes were stored in underground tanks. The first batch of plutonium was processed in the T plant between December 1944 and February 1945 and delivered to the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory. The identical D and F reactors came online in December 1944 and February 1945, respectively. The HEW suffered an outage on 10 March 1945 when a Japanese balloon bomb struck a high-tension power line. The total cost of the HEW up to December 1946 was over $348 million (equivalent to $4.1 billion in 2023). The Manhattan Project ended on 31 December 1946 and control of the HEW passed from the Manhattan District to the Atomic Energy Commission.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:16 UTC on Tuesday, 16 July 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Hanford Engineer Works on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Joey.

[originally published on Patreon January 5, 2024] Today I'm joined by Reid (@seriations) to continue our conversation about Ira 'the Unicorn' Einhorn. We get into Einhorn's relationship to Andrija Puharich, his involvement with Earth Day, Bell Telephone company, and the development of "Einhorn's Network". Reid explains the importance of the Diebold Corporation and how this all might be a sophisticated method of OSINT and espionage, among whatever else it may have been. Note: in the episode, Reid said that he hadn't nailed down the name of the guy who introduced Einhorn, and mistakenly said that Geller was introduced via an American army attaché. Reid later found that this was Paul Henshaw, the head biophysicist for the Atomic Energy Commission. In 1947, Henshaw was on the US scientific team that studied radiation after-effects in Hiroshima. This same Henshaw introduced Ira Einhorn to Andrija Puharich. Geller was introduced to Puharich by Itzhak Bentov, an Israeli scientist, army officer, and mystic. Songs: Starman by David Bowie Telephone Line by ELO People Been Talkin' by Woody's Truck Stop Trouble Every Day by the Mothers of Invention

To understand the development of the post-World War permanent agriculture movement and the movements that followed, we need to follow the trajectory of the movement of the field of ecology, and we cannot trace this evolution without talking about the Odum brothers. Eugene and Howard T. Odum were the sons of sociologist Howard Washington Odum & Anna Louise Kranz and would go on to change the trajectory of agroecology, for better or worse.   In 1954, both were hired by the Atomic Energy Commission to study a coral reef at the Eniwetok Atoll atomic test bomb site.3 Just the year before, Eugene had published the first edition of Fundamentals of Ecology, the first textbook focused on the concept of the ‘ecosystem'. As they had refined their beliefs on ecology and systems thinking (while Eugene had been the primary author in the book, Howard T had contributed chapters to it), their time working at this test bomb site provided the foundation for both brothers and their belief around ecosystem energy. The coral reefs were described by the brothers as a steady-state system; it was their assessment that the coral reef system used most of the energy it consumed through photosynthesis to regulate the system. It would be the example that the brothers would point to of what a mature ecosystem looked like— self-regulating, self-maintaining, and a steady-state system. Both brothers would go on to study different ecosystems and each provided new data that the condition of stability was characteristic of all mature ecosystems.   To read about The Odum Brothers' contributions to history, check out the following substack for sources and further details: https://poorprolesalmanac.substack.com/p/the-odum-brothers   To support this podcast, join our patreon for early episode access at https://www.patreon.com/poorprolesalmanac For PPA Writing Content, visit: www.agroecologies.org For PPA Restoration Content, visit: www.restorationagroecology.com For PPA Merch, visit: www.poorproles.com For PPA Native Plants, visit: www.nativenurseries.org To hear Tomorrow, Today, our sister podcast, visit: www.tomorrowtodaypodcast.org/

Episode 497: New Mexico Norio Hayakawa discussed his extensive research into the mysteries surrounding Dulce, New Mexico, and the persistent UFO question that has captured the imagination of many. Allegations abound regarding the existence of an underground base in Dulce, purportedly jointly operated by the US government and extraterrestrial beings. According to Hayakawa, there are indications of US government involvement in the region, potentially linked to secretive experimentation and the disposal of waste from classified black budget projects. Notably, on December 10, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission conducted an underground nuclear detonation as part of Project Gasbuggy, located approximately 22 miles from Dulce near the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. Tragically, the aftermath of this experiment saw the release of radiation into the environment, resulting in elevated rates of cancer and infertility among the residents of the Dulce area. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michaeldecon/support

In a world facing climate change and clean energy challenges, it's starting to look like a nuclear energy renaissance is starting to happen. That is, if we can overcome our irrational fear of nuclear. In this episode of Faster, Please! - The Podcast, I talk with Dr. Spencer Weart about the cultural influences that shaped generations of anxiety around nuclear power, and how that tide may be turning.Weart holds advanced degrees in both Astrophysics and History. For over three decades, he served as Director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics. He is the author of two children's science books and has written or co-edited seven other books. Among his most recent is The Rise of Nuclear Fear, published in 2012.In This Episode* A history of radiation (1:05)* The rise of nuclear fear (7:01)* Anti-bomb to anti-nuclear (11:52)* Today's anti-nuclear voices (20:21)* Changing generational attitudes (24:01)* Nuclear fear in today's media (28:58)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationA history of radiation (1:05)Pethokoukis: To what extent, when radiation was discovered at the turn of the century—and then, of course, the discovery of nuclear fission—to what extent were we already as a society primed by our cultural history to worry about radiation and nuclear power?Weart: Totally. Because you say radiation was discovered, presumably you're referring first to the discovery of X-rays and then, shortly after that, the discovery of what they called “atomic radiation,” we now call it “nuclear radiation.” But, of course, before that, there was the very exciting discovery of infrared radiation. And before that, people have always known about radiation: the rays, the heat from the sun; and they've always had a very powerful cultural significance. You think of the halos of rays of light going out from holy figures in Buddhism and Christian iconography, or you think of the ancient Egyptians with the life-giving rays of the sun bestowing life on things because actually, of course, radiation of the sun is life-giving, it does contain a vital life force. So it's not a mistake to think of radiation as some kind of super magical, powerful thing.And then of course there's also death rays. Death rays actually did become very popular in the literature after the discovery of X-rays because X-rays could, in fact, cause great damage to people, and then so could atomic rays, so, already by the early 20th century there were lots of kids' books and exciting adventure fiction featuring death rays. But you go back before that, there's the evil eye. There's rays radiating out from the evil eye could cause harm. Then there's astrology, the rays from the stars could influence human destiny. So as soon as you mention radiation, there's an enormous complex of things that come out, which was very easily linked to atomic radiation because of all the other characteristics of atomic discoveries.And yet, certainly in the first half or first third of the 20th century, there was, people saw radiation as having great promise, even to create a Golden Age. Tell me a bit about that.It came out as soon as radiation was discovered. Whenever there's a new physics discovery, almost the first thing that people think about is medical applications. And that happened with electricity and with X-rays—of course, x-rays do have great medical applications—and nuclear radiation (I'll call it “nuclear,” even though they called it “atomic” back then). Nuclear radiation did turn out to be radon and radium and so forth that Curie discovered did turn out to be useful for curing certain types of skin cancers and so forth.But people went much beyond that because there was all this magical stuff associated with it. We have to remember that very early on it was discovered that nuclear radiation is the product of the transmutation of elements: uranium and radium and so forth and even other elements.Like alchemy.Yeah, transmutation was alchemy. It was immediately recognized that, oh, the nuclear physicists were the new alchemist and they were happy to talk of themselves as that. But of course, as soon as you have something powerful, as I said, the first thing, when you have a new discovery, that you think about is medicine. The second thing you think about 10 seconds later is weapons, so nuclear death rates were very early imagined. And the atomic bomb—the first atomic bomb actually was sort of a device carried by a terrorist in the 1901 novel. And then in 1915, H.G. Wells conceived of the idea of an atomic warfare weapon that civilization destroyed, but then followed by transmutation and of course humans destroy civilization, then we'll rise again in atomic powered cars. We love utopia powered by nuclear energy. So all these things were there together, the good side and the bad side. On one side you had people saying that this is the 1930s mind. This is before nuclear fission was discovered. This was entirely science fiction.Would you call that a period of general sort of pro-progress science and technology enthusiasm?Well, it was, except… this was certainly the case in the 1900s. People thought that radium could cure all ills. Nuclear energy was seen as the elixir of life, talking about the old alchemists and so forth. There were all these wonderful things it could do and by the time it got to the First World War and the Great Depression, people were a little less happy about technology. So in addition to the wonders of atomic power plants and so forth, there were also things like… my favorite is a movie in which Boris Karloff doesn't play the mad scientist's monster, he plays the mad scientist who discovers a new kind of radium rays, and of course he means to use it for good and he uses it… always using it to irradiate the young women to cure them, because, of course, radiation carries not only life force, but if you dig down deep into the radium side that has this sort of sexual thing. So these 1930s science fiction images of nuclear or mad scientists irradiating young women having a definite violation aspect. In this movie Boris Karloff gets too big a dose of radiation and goes mad and it turns him into a monster and goes around glowing in the dark—maybe the origin of the glowing in the dark idea—and then killing people with the touch of his radioactive hand. So it was all there together, both magical good and magical evil. Very, very strongly mythologized and Freudenized. The writers at the time read their Freud and they were happy to put in all these ideas of bad parents. And the mad scientist is the bad parent out to rape… well, I probably shouldn't go too far with this because… You have to see the pictures to really appreciate how deep this stuff goes.Would you say that, overall, pre-Hiroshima, that the general public attitude was sort of positive about the potential of radiation and, eventually, atomic fission? Was it overall positive?Yes, I would say it was generally positive, but with very deep roots. The positivity was mingled, when you go down deep enough, with all sorts of negative or ambiguous things: ideas of mad scientists as sort of the bad parent or the authority figure, the mean, merciless dictator, all of these things and the evil eye death ray kind of thing. They're all there sort of broiling around at a very deep level, a very deep psychological level and a very deep cultural level. And on the surface side, I would say it was generally positive and the overall idea was positive.The rise of nuclear fear (7:01)So if those things were sort of bubbling around, was it the atomic bombings of Japan that brought that stuff to a boil? Was that the key moment, or did that happen afterward? Was that the key inflection point?It came afterwards. When Hiroshima happened, all the commentators from President Truman on down, the feeling was, “Oh, oh, it's actually real!” All the stuff that we thought was things that teenage boys read in their pulp fiction or in horror movies, all this stuff is actually real, so that was a shock.And so it went two ways. One of course was the actual image of Hiroshima. And then when atomic bombs started to proliferate, when the Russians got the atomic bombs and we worried about them bombing our homes, then all this stuff that was sort of underground and seemed mythological—atomic war and the end of the world, and so forth—all became a scientific reality.But at the same time, the other side also was coming out very strongly, and this was partly done deliberately. The government—well, the American government, the British government, the French government, the Soviet government—all got very worried about how upset their publics were and how frightened they were by atomic bombs. So they made a very strong effort to promote what they called “Atoms for Peace:” nuclear reactors, nuclear-powered ships, nuclear-powered everything. We use radiation. Radiation has a life force, right? So we'll radiate seeds and we'll get these new kinds of petunias and better crops.Both of these things came out and there was a strong mixture of positivity and negativity, mostly connected with nuclear war, originally. It originally was connected with atomic explosions. And then this phase ended, this sort of 1950s Atoms for Peace thing ended with the hydrogen bomb, all of a sudden, there was a very big shift.Is that just because it was just obviously a much more powerful explosive, or was it the Bravo incident which you write about in the book?Yeah. There's two things going on here. First place is the hydrogen bomb is a thousand times more powerful than an atomic bomb. So this whole business of “duck and cover,” which, I was born in 1942, I did the “duck and cover” in school and so forth, that made sense with an atomic bomb. Okay, oh, the atomic bomb goes off in New York City, I'm in the suburbs, I duck under the desk. In a hydrogen bomb, you're inside the fireball. The whole idea of hiding from it is useless. So there's that one overwhelming thing. And the second thing with hydrogen bombs is that besides burning a city, they produce an enormous amount of fallout. Now, the fallout from the Hiroshima bomb actually didn't do much damage and the atomic bomb tests that people conducted in Nevada, they actually did do damage, but people didn't know it at the time because the atomic authorities were kind of hiding it. The Atomic Energy Commission had what they called—everybody at the time, called it—a “father-knows-best attitude,” which later turned out to be the bad father, the dangerous father.But with the hydrogen bombs coming along, you couldn't hide the fallout. It was just enormous. If you were a thousand miles away, you had to take shelter from the fallout. And so there was a big rush for a couple of years to build fallout shoulders. And then people realized, “No, what's the use of staying in a fallout shoulder for two weeks, and then when you come out, what are you going to get?” It was at this was point that the positivity got just overwhelmed. Particularly the positivity about radiation got overwhelmed.Radiation can be useful. Radiation is very medically useful. In fact, medical radiation and use of radioactive isotopes and nuclear rays saves, I don't know, millions of lives a year. In a single year it saves far more lives than I've ever died from nuclear radiation. But people then were sort of overwhelmed by the idea of nuclear war and of nuclear fallout, and this had a very strong political component.Anti-bomb to anti-nuclear (11:52)So tell me about the political component and then tell me how people sort of went from fearing radiation from nuclear war to fearing a nuclear reactor, which is not a bomb.After the hydrogen bomb an anti-war movement appeared, and it began in Japan, and it began in an interesting way. The first hydrogen bomb test polluted some fishermen who were nearby and they made them very sick and a pool of Marshall Islanders, Pacific Islanders, and made them very sick, and it caused some deaths, and the commission didn't want to admit it. But it also came down in the Pacific and all the tuna in the Pacific, the Japanese got very upset. Tuna to the Japanese is hamburger to Americans. Okay, it's a sacred thing. And the idea that you could hold a Geiger counter to it and there might be radioactivity in it was very frightening. And, of course, the Japanese had a natural worry about atomic warfare in the first place, so a movement began against fallout from nuclear weapons. It was against the testing of nuclear weapons.What they really didn't want—and this was true as the movement spread entirely around the world—what they mainly didn't want was to be bombed. The actual aim of the anti-nuclear movement, which ended up mobilizing millions and millions of people coming out into the streets, a very major movement, which had a very strong effect on politics and even in the Soviet Union. So what the leaders of the movement decided is they were going to focus on the fallout from bomb tests. The idea was to stop the bomb tests as a way of slowing down the nuclear arms race. If we could stop the tests, at least they won't be making more bombs. That's the first part, because it was a backyard issue. We can tell people the fallout is going into their backyard. My favorite is a kid says, “Oh, my mother says you shouldn't eat snow because there might be a piece of the bomb in it.” Okay, that's what radioactive material is now, it's a piece of the bomb. And so it was very powerful. It's in mother's milk, it's in your children's teeth. So it was a very powerful thing.And in order to do this, however, there was a certain little scientific difficulty, which is that the radioactivity in fallout, by the time it's thousands of miles away, is extremely low. Now, we do not know the effects of extremely low radiation. If you give a dose of unit one to one person, that person will die. If you give a dose of one millionth of a unit to one million people, will one person die? Well, that can be argued.And, in fact, the scientific evidence suggests that when you get to very, very low levels, that is, to the levels that are sort of normally in an environment, the levels that you get when you take one flight in the airplane or you go to some places in China where there's natural radioactivity, or if you live inside a brick house, these very low levels of radiation don't seem to be especially harmful. Life evolved for 5 billion years in the presence of low levels of radioactivity. So there's a scientific argument about this, and there's still a scientific uncertainty, but the scientists, feeling very bad about atomic weapons, decided, “We will say that, scientifically, very low levels of radioactivity experienced over millions of people are a bad thing.” And that's been the sort of official view of the anti-nuclear, anti-bomb scientists to this day. And so that became established. That was the point in which radiation, which is, as I said, is something we've lived with for three billion years, was established—this force of nature was established as just definitely an evil thing. It's a piece of the bomb. We don't want to have anything to do with it.And if it's an evil thing, then whether that radiation is generated for military use, or peaceful use, it's a bad thing, and there's just inherent risk. We cannot control this demon.It's the mad scientist's monster, it's the evil eye, it's the death ray. And, again, there's politics here because after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the tremendous excitement, and Kennedy and Khrushchev said, “We have to do something, our populaces are terrified now. This is very bad for us as leaders of our countries, to have our populace terrified that the things that we as leaders are doing are going to do…” Well it's very simple. We put the bomb test underground. Go on testing the bombs, we don't stop the arms race, we put the bomb test underground, so there's no fault. And the whole anti-nuclear movement just collapsed. They'd made this their issue. They made a good background issue. They say, we're going to stop fault. They did stop fault. So the thing went away. So what happened to these people? Well, meanwhile, atoms for peace was progressing.Nuclear reactors were beginning to come online, and some of the people who had been anti-atomic bomb began to worry about low level radiation for reactors. It's the same issue. And for reactor issues, this tiny, tiny amount of radioactivity, but that's over millions of people. Well, we've already decided it is a bad thing. And so an anti-nuclear reactor movement began up, and it made, through a very substantial extent, the same arguments about low level radioactivity and the same organizations and the same individuals, in many cases, who'd been agitating against atomic war. I would argue that this may be a case of psychological formation known as “displacement.” You can't deal with something: nuclear war, you deny. We're just going to go into denial about if the bombs are there. We're not going to think about, which is still the case, by the way. We're still largely in denial of the fact that the president of the United States and the president in the president of Russia, by their sole power, can press a button, so to speak, and can launch nuclear war. Each of these two men—well, I guess it's also true of Xi now, he seems to be pretty much in power in China—there's three people now who've been launched a nuclear war on their own say-so and launch hundreds and hundreds of missiles essentially destroy civilization. We're all in denial about that, and people have been in denial about that since about 1965.But if you're locked in a room with a guy with a flame thrower and somebody lights a match, you're going to get upset. And that seems to be what happened with the anti-nuclear reactor movement. And that's now become embedded, for example, the Green Party in Germany began as an anti-bomb party, converted to an anti-reactor party. What they actually are, if you get down to it, is an anti-additional low levels of radiation. When radiation is at a certain level, we don't want to add one percent in any place on earth from any reactor to it, and that's become their DNA, it's in their DNA. So the Green Party in Germany, it can't escape from their original orientation because of the same anti-bomb…So we see this transfer from nuclear weapons to nuclear reactors with radiation as sort of the common… But then in the '70s, it's also then sort of the anti-reactor position then seemed to get mixed up with a broader anti-modernity, anti-industrial society sort of attitude.Right, but actually this began more in Europe and the Europeans were very big on this, the whole 1960s thing, and really it's a 1960s phenomenon—the Baby Boomer, the 1968 generation, perhaps—that don't like nuclear. There is a feature of nuclear reactors, and this is an inherent feature of nuclear actors, is you need a lot of capital. If you're in a socialist country like the Soviet Union, you still need a lot of capital, it's just going to be under some big organization. In fact, the government always has to be involved, especially when people are worried about the safety of it, and you're going to need government regulations, so you're going to have a big government, you're going to have big corporations, and, because nuclear weapons are involved, you're also going to have secrecy. So, no matter what, you're dealing with these sort of secret, paternalistic authorities, which the kids of 1968 hated the whole idea of paternalistic authorities with their immense powers, and secrets, and God knows what they're up to with their machinations.Whereas, the original idea was, “Well, solar power is dispersed.” Okay, anybody can put up a solar panel, so that's very communitarian. So that became a very important part of the politics of it. Less so now, I would say. Today's anti-nuclear voices (20:21)Let me ask you about the politics of now because I understand that, and then obviously Three Mile Island was perhaps the capstone event, but yet, today, maybe the attitudes toward nuclear are changing and there's talk of nuclear renaissance, and in Europe—though not Germany—there's a lot of talk about building new reactors, keeping reactors open. Is the anti-nuclear sentiment today… in what ways is it different? Is it more about cost, or nuclear waste? It's not necessarily a fear of sort of “bigness,” we seem to generally like technology in this country.That was the thing of the '60s. That's not the thing now. In the United States and Western Europe, cost is a big feature because we can't seem to be able to build these things on time and in budget, but then we can't build a subway or a highway or a railroad on timer and budget, either. So these big projects we're not very good at these days, and that is a problem for the nuclear reactors. So the hope is to build smaller nuclear reactors so we don't run into this giant project syndrome that the United States and Western Europe seem to have problems with. But there's a lot of other things going on here.Certainly the younger generation doesn't have the same feelings that the older generation did. Nuclear energy for the young folks, it's the symptoms. It's a postmodern thing. The three-eyed fish is not a scary thing. It's kind of a postmodern reference to the stuff that your parents were afraid of. So it's all ironic. The game Fallout, which is enormously important, made a billion dollars of sale (well, four, I think it was a billion dollars of sales in the first 24 hours after it was released) these are big cultural phenomena, so it's the post-apocalyptic wasteland, but it's a reference to the scary post-apocalyptic wasteland. Like I say, we're in denial about the actual. Radioactive mutant monsters? Of course there are radioactive monsters. When I give this lecture, I show a picture of one, he's wearing shades, he's is kind of cool. It's all ironic and distancing, and so on and so on. The younger generation doesn't have that thing, but they have sort of an automatic response, which has just been built into the culture, an automatic response that, “Oh, there's something bad about radiation, I'm not actually viscerally afraid of it the way my parents were, but I just automatically think it's bad. And I'll give you an important example, okay, I'm going to give a life and death example.After the Fukushima accident, when the tsunami overcame this thing—the Japanese had done very bad job there—the Japanese evacuate a lot of people from around there. Two thousand people died in the immediate evacuation, mostly the older people were yanked out of their homes or retirement homes or hospitals and so forth. Since then, a lot of the people have not been allowed to go back. They've been displaced. There's a lot of morbidity and mortality among these people whose communities have disrupted. This was totally unnecessary. If they had just left everybody in place and maybe handed out some iodine pills, nobody would have died. The kind of reactions that people have to these things… But that's not the worst mortality from Fukushima, the worst mortality from Fukushima is that the Japanese and the Germans shut down the nuclear power plants and burned coal instead, and the death rate—the deaths from burning the coal instead of the nuclear reactors—is now estimated at about 400,000 people. 400,000 people died from—oh, sorry, I'm off by an order magnitude: 40,000 people. Anyway, many tens of thousands of people have died from coal smoke that didn't have to die if people hadn't panicked.Changing generational attitudes (24:01)It is significant. It's research I mentioned in my book, and I've actually had some of the economists who've done some of that research on this podcast, and it's a lesson that the Japanese seem to have learned, whether it's to have less pollution or meet various environmental objectives, they seem to have re-embraced nuclear. Given, perhaps, how younger people today, younger voters maybe don't have that sort of deeper repulsion toward radiation that their parents did. Do you think, one, maybe putting the economics aside, that from a public perceptions standpoint, are you positive or negative about a nuclear renaissance in this country and can any optimism survive any sort of nuclear accident almost no matter how small?It's going to be difficult because, like I say, the reaction to Fukushima shows that the government reaction and the media reaction shows that there's still an enormous amount of this stuff going on, both in the older people and also just by habit, by automatic response from the younger people. What's the worst power accident that's happened recently? Most people wouldn't realize it was the breaking of hydroelectric dams in Libya. They killed tens of thousands of people. Over 10,000 people died when a hydroelectric dam broke. A hydroelectric dams, that's renewable, that's supposed to be great stuff, right? Nobody talks about that. No nuclear reactor has ever killed 10,000 people, or a thousand people, or a hundred people, even. But hydroelectric dams, this isn't the first time a hydroelectric dam has broken and killed 10,000 people, either. It seems to happen every 20, 30 years or so, but people aren't afraid.So yes, it's very serious. Nevertheless, there is another thing which is becoming very prominent in many people's minds, and which has, in fact, led to quite a substantial number of environmentalists who were originally opposed to nuclear actors who were saying, “We must have nuclear reactors,” and you know what this is: This is climate change. This, as you may know, is the other thing I've spent 25 years of my life on, is climate change. And so I'm now just going to give you a very brief little homily.Under the current agreement, Paris Agreement as extended, if all the countries keep their pledges (that's a big “if”), they keep their pledges, some countries may do better than the pledges, but the estimate from the IPCC is that there will warm up to 2.7 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial. We're now at about 1.4, so that's getting about twice as far as we are now. 2.7 degrees Celsius, in a world at that level, it will be rather difficult to maintain a prosperous and liberal civilization. Right now we have maybe a third of the world lives in a prosperous, liberal, fairly liberal free society. We would like that to be a hundred percent by the year 2100, but if we get up to 2.7 degrees C, which is the trajectory we're on now, then it's going to be extremely difficult to maintain that even for the third of the people who have it now.But there's another feature which the climate people mostly don't like to talk about. You actually have to read the footnotes in the IPCC report to get this. You have to look at the graphs and get the numbers off the graphs. People, when they say, everybody says 2.7 degrees C, that's what the IPCC says is the most likely outcome, but there are large error bars on that. It could be 4.5 C degrees Celsius. What's the probability of going above 4.5 if you read it off the graphs? Five percent. And I have quotes from two separate very senior climate scientists saying, “Well, you wouldn't get on an airplane if it had a five percent chance of crashing.” This is why people are fighting to keep it down below two degrees. Once we get above two degrees, the probability of the airplane crashing becomes fairly high.Is the consensus middle path or sort of these more extreme predictions, are they scary enough that environmental groups, which still are anti-nuclear, will change and there'll be a broader environmental pro-nuclear shift?It definitely has made a difference to some prominent individuals. I'm not going to name names, but they're quite a substantial number of people and increasing numbers of people who are… The scientists are terrified, and the climate scientists are just, they have a hard time sleeping at night, so they worry about their kids. I had experience because I lived for 25 years studying nuclear war and all that stuff, so I guess I have a little thick skin when I think about the climate, but it's even scarier than nuclear war, simple fact of the matter, because nuclear war was a question of, can we avoid it? But climate change is something we're on track for now. That's where we're actually heading.Nuclear fear in today's media (28:58)Let me finish up with this question, since you talk so much in the book about culture and the images that we sort of feed to ourselves. So I can think of two, perhaps, relevant bits of media over the past few years. I was wondering if you've seen either and if you had any general thoughts. One was the fine Chernobyl miniseries, which may have been on HBO, it was a four-part series on Chernobyl. And the film Oppenheimer. Have you seen either, and maybe give some context on how you look at those?I'm not going to comment on Oppenheimer, that's very complicated. Chernobyl, they did a wonderful job of reproducing the Soviet thing. Everybody was smoking all the time. I was in the Soviet Union, you know? I'll just give you one example. They showed a helicopter going over and they showed it crashing. And the implication there is, “Oh, somehow magical radiation from the reactor crashed the helicopter.” Well, there actually was a helicopter crash, and it crashed because it ran into a crane. So that's just dishonest. That's just dishonest. And unfortunately, this is the way that the media is still, to a substantial extent, treating radiation.There came a point in that miniseries, which, overall, I thought was excellent, when you finally found out what the actual death toll was, I think many viewers were surprised because if you watched every one of those episodes where they were talking about just how dangerous this meltdown was and the potential deaths, if the reactors exploded, you would've thought that many, many tens of thousands or a hundred thousand people had died—and they didn't! It was almost anti-climactic to find out how few people actually died. And if this is the first you had ever heard of Chernobyl, I think it was probably fairly surprising to people.People die all the time in coal mine accidents. I have no idea what the death toll is. It's terrible. But coal is familiar, okay, as one of the people said in 1946 when they were talking about reactors, “Well, it wasn't 10,000 tons of coal they dropped on Hiroshima.” We have these associations with nuclear things that we just don't have with traditional things. And the associations, as we've discussed, go very far back into death rays, mad scientists, bad fathers, sexual implications of things, all kinds of magical and mysterious things that get associated with nuclear energy that they've never been associated with the more traditional forms of energy production.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Oppenheimer (2023) stars Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American theoretical physicist known as the “father of the atomic bomb” for his role as director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II . The film was written and directed by Christopher Nolan, based on the book, American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin. The film traces Oppenheimer's early life, his rise to world prominence through the Manhattan Project, and his subsequent downfall after being stripped of his security clearance in 1954 due to his alleged past communist sympathies and outspoken criticism of the nuclear arms race. The cast includes Emily Blunt as Oppenheimer's wife “Kitty”; Matt Damon as General Leslie Groves, the Manhattan Project's director; Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss, chair of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and rival of Oppenheimer; and Florence Pugh as Oppenheimer's lover and former Communist party member, Jean Tatlock. The film provides a window not only into one of the 20th century's most iconic figures, but also into the political and social forces that surrounded the birth of the Atomic Age and America's transition from World War II to the Red Scare and Cold War.  My guest is Audra Wolfe, a writer and historian who focuses on the role of science during the Cold War.Timestamps:0:00         Introduction4:01         Reinvigorating debates about the bomb7:48         Oppenheimer's views in context14:46      The factors driving the decision to drop the bomb17:32      Was secrecy really required?19:49      Science in Germany vs. the Soviet Union24:14      FBI surveillance of Oppenheimer and other scientists28:46      Revocation of Oppenheimer's security clearance37:37      Oppenheimer's complicated legacy41:09      Castle Bravo and nuclear testing: another seminar Cold War moment45:01      Leslie Groves, Oppenheimer, and scientists with leftist affiliations51:20      Vannevar Bush and other early Cold War science figures53:45       Congress's hearing on Lewis Strauss' cabinet nomination1:00:17   The film's broader messages and lessons for today1:04:37   Making nuclear weapons front and center1:08:26   “Barbenheimer”Further reading:Bernstein, Barton, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered”, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 1383 (1990)Bird, Kai & Sherwin, Martin J., American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer (2005)Curtis, Charles, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (1955)Sims, David, “‘Oppenheimer' Is More Than a Creation Myth About the Atomic Bomb,” The Atlantic (July 19, 2023)Wellerstein, Alex, Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States (2021)Wolfe, Audra J., Freedom's Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science (2020)  Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

pWotD Episode 2484: J. Robert Oppenheimer Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of a popular Wikipedia page every day.With 236,434 views on Monday, 19 February 2024 our article of the day is J. Robert Oppenheimer.J. Robert Oppenheimer (born Julius Robert Oppenheimer; OP-ən-hy-mər; April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist. He was director of the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II and is often called the "father of the atomic bomb".Born in New York City, Oppenheimer earned a bachelor of arts degree in chemistry from Harvard University in 1925 and a doctorate in physics from the University of Göttingen in Germany in 1927, where he studied under Max Born. After research at other institutions, he joined the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, where he became a full professor in 1936. He made significant contributions to theoretical physics, including achievements in quantum mechanics and nuclear physics such as the Born–Oppenheimer approximation for molecular wave functions, work on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and early work on quantum tunneling. With his students, he also made contributions to the theory of neutron stars and black holes, quantum field theory, and the interactions of cosmic rays.In 1942, Oppenheimer was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project, and in 1943 he was appointed director of the project's Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, tasked with developing the first nuclear weapons. His leadership and scientific expertise were instrumental in the project's success. On July 16, 1945, he was present at the first test of the atomic bomb, Trinity. In August 1945, the weapons were used against Japan in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.In 1947, Oppenheimer became the director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and chaired the influential General Advisory Committee of the newly created U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. He lobbied for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. He opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb during a 1949–1950 governmental debate on the question and subsequently took positions on defense-related issues that provoked the ire of some U. S. government and military factions. During the second Red Scare, Oppenheimer's stances, together with his past associations with the Communist Party USA, led to the revocation of his security clearance, following a 1954 security hearing. This effectively ended his access to the government's atomic secrets and his career as a nuclear physicist. Also stripped of his direct political influence, Oppenheimer nevertheless continued to lecture, write, and work in physics. In 1963, as a gesture of political rehabilitation, he was given the Enrico Fermi Award. He died four years later, of throat cancer. In 2022, the federal government vacated the 1954 revocation of his security clearance.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:39 UTC on Tuesday, 20 February 2024.For the full current version of the article, see J. Robert Oppenheimer on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Emma Neural.

In 1974, Karen Silkwood was a technician at a plutonium processing plant near Oklahoma City. In November of that year, she would be killed in a mysterious one-car crash. Prior to her death, Karen Silkwood had been critical of the plant's health and safety procedures and had files numerous complaints to the Atomic Energy Commission about unsafe conditions at the plant. Was Karen's death a tragic accident, or was it her status as a whistleblower that lead to her being killed?SummaryIn this episode, Morgan and Cherry discuss the case of Karen Silkwood, a chemical technician and advocate for labor unions who died under suspicious circumstances in 1974. Karen worked at a nuclear facility where she discovered multiple breaches of health and safety protocols. She was contaminated with plutonium and her car crashed shortly after attending a union meeting. The circumstances surrounding her death raise questions about possible foul play and a cover-up by the company. The missing documentation and the presence of sedatives in her system add to the mystery. Karen Silkwood's suspicious death and the subsequent investigation into the nuclear facility she worked at revealed potential foul play and safety concerns. The missing paperwork, threatening phone calls, and exposure to plutonium raised suspicions. Legal battles ensued, with the jury initially awarding Karen's estate $10.5 million, which was later reduced to $5,000. The case led to a federal investigation and the closure of the plant. Karen's story inspired a movie and serves as a reminder of the importance of workplace safety.TakeawaysKaren Silkwood's death raised suspicions of foul play and safety concerns at the nuclear facility she worked at.The missing paperwork, threatening phone calls, and exposure to plutonium added to the suspicion.Legal battles ensued, with the initial jury award being reduced to a mere $5,000.The case led to a federal investigation and the closure of the plant, highlighting the importance of workplace safety.

Our next month's book to discuss is the best seller “American Prometheus: the triumph and tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer” DB61087 by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin, 699 pages. Because of its length, we will cover the growing up and transformation of the brilliant Oppenheimer and ultimate triumph in Chapters 1 through 23In our January 2nd meeting and the remainder of the book covering the outcome of his loss of security in our February 6th meeting. American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. the first full-scale biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, "father of the atomic bomb," the brilliant, charismatic physicist who led the effort to capture the awesome fire of the sun for his country in time of war. Here's the NLS annotation: American Prometheus: the triumph and tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer DB61087 Bird, Kai; Sherwin, Martin J Reading time: 27 hours, 34 minutes. Steven Carpenter A production of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress. Science and Technology Biography Biography of physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967)--"the father of the atomic bomb." Chronicles his New York City upbringing, marriage to Kitty Puening, work on the Manhattan Project, and life after the 1954 Atomic Energy Commission hearings which denied Oppenheimer his security clearance for questioning the ethics of nuclear weapons. Pulitzer Prize winner 2006. 2005. Here's the Bookshare link for this title: https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/5599711?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZrZXl3b3JkPUthaSUyQkJpcmQlMkI

A federal program tasked with surveying abandoned uranium mines used during the Cold War era held a meeting last week about mines located on the Navajo Nation. More than 3,400 defense-related uranium mines are scattered throughout the Four Corners region, the result of a prospecting rush beginning in the 1940s sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The meeting was held in Sanostee, New Mexico, a community that's home to 12 such abandoned mines, many of which are located at the base of the Chuska Mountains near the Sanostee Wash. The Defense-Related Uranium Mine program, or DRUM, is a Department of Energy initiative started in 2017 to both survey abandoned mines and ensure they're sealed off and inaccessible to the public. Some Sanostee residents who attended the meeting expressed concern about runoff from the mines and its effects on livestock that graze nearby, as well as potential health problems for residents, like cancer.

I don't think I've seen a movie with more humanity. I wept. Godzilla Minus One (Japanese: ゴジラ-1.0マイナスワン, Hepburn: Gojira Mainasu Wan) is a 2023 Japanese kaiju film directed, written, and with visual effects by Takashi Yamazaki. Post war Japan is at its lowest point when a new crisis emerges in the form of a giant monster, baptized in the horrific power of the atomic bomb. It is an astounding contrast to Oppenheimer, written and directed by Christopher Nolan is the story of American scientist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and his role in the development of the atomic bomb. FRUMESS is POWERED by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.riotstickers.com/frumess⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ GET 1000 STICKERS FOR $69  RIGHT HERE - NO PROMO CODE NEED! JOIN THE PATREON FOR LESS THAN A $2 CUP OF COFFEE!! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/Frumess ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

What happens when things go wrong at the Atomic Energy Commission? When meters stop working and there is no uranium? Is the enemy about to strike? The Pause by Isaac Asimov, that's next on The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast, with at least one lost vintage sci-fi short story in every episode. Special thanks to all of you who have bought us a cup of coffee. JonathanG and DonS we appreciate you!! If you'd like to show your support by buying us a cup of coffee the link is in the description. Support the show - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/scottsV We've got Merch! The Lost Sci-Fi merchandise store has t shirts, hoodies, jackets, coffee mugs and pints to consume your favorite beverage. There's a link to the store in the comments with a coupon code to save 15% for a limited time. https://lostscifi.creator-spring.com  Use the coupon code EARLYBIRD and save 15% for a limited time. Tomorrow we'll kick off the month of October with a new short sci-fi story every day. That's 32 straight days with a new episode of The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast! During his lifetime, Isaac Asimov was considered one of the "Big Three" science fiction writers, along with Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. We will hear from all three of these fabulous authors in consecutive days in October. Today we go back to the days when the U.S. launched its first satellite and NASA was established. You could buy a bleacher seat to see the New York Yankees win their 18th World Series title for $2.10. Gas was 30 cents a gallon in the US, and the Peace Symbol was designed by a British textile designer named Gerald Holtom for use by England's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.  The year was 1958 and nuclear war was on the mind of author Isaac Asimov. From the pages of the paperback publication Time To Come edited by August Derleth The Pause by Isaac Asimov… Tomorrow on The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast, As curator of the Twentieth Century Exhibit, George Miller felt that to do a good job he had to live his work. Then, one day, somebody got into his exhibit, and he went to investigate… Exhibit Piece by Philip K. Dick. That's tomorrow on The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast, with at least one lost vintage sci-fi short story in every episode.Support the show

At one time—this was before the Robot Restriction Laws—they'd even allowed them to make their own decisions... Arm of the Law by Harry Harrison, that's next on The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast, with at least one lost vintage sci-fi short story in every episode. The Lost Sci-Fi Merchandise store is open for business. There are several designs and a multitude of t shirts, hoodies, sweatshirts, cups and pint size glasses so you can drink your favorite beverage while listening to the podcast. The link to our store is in the description and when you use the code in the description you get 15 percent off for a limited time. https://lostscifi.creator-spring.com  Use the coupon code EARLYBIRD and save 15% for a limited time. And in case you didn't hear the big announcement on our YouTube Live last week, there will be a new episode of The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast every day in October which starts Sunday.How could a robot—a machine, after all—be involved in something like law application and violence? Harry Harrison, tells what happens when a police robot hits an outpost on Mars. From the August 1958 issue of Fantastic Universe turn to page 132 for Arm of the Law by Harry Harrison... In two days on The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast, What happens when things go wrong at the Atomic Energy Commission? When meters stop working and there is no uranium? Is the enemy about to strike?The Pause by Isaac Asimov. That's in two days on The Lost Sci-Fi Podcast, with at least one lost vintage sci-fi short story in every episode.Support the show

This episode of Welcome To The Party Pal celebrates Oppenheimer, the epic biographical thriller film written and directed by Christopher Nolan. Based on the 2005 biography American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, the film chronicles the career of American theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The story predominantly focuses on Oppenheimer's studies, his direction of the Manhattan Project during World War II, and his eventual fall from grace due to his 1954 security hearing. The film stars Cillian Murphy as the title character, Emily Blunt as his wife, "Kitty," Matt Damon as head of the Manhattan Project Leslie Groves, Robert Downey Jr. as U.S. Atomic Energy Commission member Lewis Strauss, and Florence Pugh as Communist Party USA member Jean Tatlock. The ensemble supporting cast includes Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, and Kenneth Branagh. Listen is as hosts Michael Shields and River Jordan marvel over the genius of Christopher Nolan, tip their hat (a hybrid of a porkpie crown with a somewhat Western brim) to Ruth De Jong's brilliant production design and Ludwig Göransson's gripping score, and show their undying love to the great state of New Mexico! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Robert Oppenheimer prosegue la sua attività di docente all'Università di Princeton. Ma in questo periodo iniziano le polemiche sulla sua attività presunta attività politica, vicina al Partito comunista. Dal 1947 al 1952 il fisico guidò il Comitato generale di consulenza della Commissione per l'energia atomica degli Stati Uniti, spendendosi perché si arrivasse a un'intesa internazionale per la non proliferazione degli armamenti nucleari. Questa attività "pacifista" lo mise nel mirino del senatore Joseph McCarthy, ideatore di una caccia alle streghe finalizzata a epurare gli Stati Uniti dallo spettro del comunismo. Basandosi su vecchie carte dell'Fbi che documentavano le simpatie del fisico per gli ambienti antifascisti, la commissione di indagine accusò lo scienziato di essere comunista e di aver passato segreti sulla bomba ai sovietici. Nel 1954 al fisico fu vietato l'accesso alla Atomic Energy Commission "per ragioni di sicurezza nazionale". La comunità scientifica allora insorse, riuscendo, nel giro di pochi mesi, a farlo confermare nell'incarico di direttore dell'Institute for Advanced Studies di Princeton, che mantenne fino alla morte, avvenuta nel 1967 a causa di un tumore alla gola.Giampiero Gramaglia insegna Giornalismo all'Università di Roma La sapienza. E' stato Direttoredell'ANSA, oltre che corrispondente per l'agenzia da Washington.- Il giovane scienziato e l'intellettuale impegnato. Il Progetto Manhattan, l'organizzatore e il manager (Prima parte)- Le polemiche nell'America maccarthista e la riabilitazione kennedyana (Seconda parte)A cura di Francesco De Leo. Montaggio di Silvio Farina.https://storiainpodcast.focus.it - Canale Eventi e luoghi------------Storia in Podcast di Focus si può ascoltare anche su Spotify http://bit.ly/VoceDellaStoria ed Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/it/podcast/la-voce-della-storia/id1511551427.Siamo in tutte le edicole... ma anche qui:- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FocusStoria/- Gruppo Facebook Focus Storia Wars: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FocuStoriaWars/ (per appassionati di storia militare)- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/focusitvideo- Twitter: https://twitter.com/focusstoria- Sito: https://www.focus.it/cultura

In this speech from 1945, Robert Oppenheimer speaks about the development and use of the atomic bomb. He also talks about atomic weapons as “evil things” and the ethical application of science and scientific discovery. He also expressed his hope that the atomic bomb would never be used again, the peaceful use of nuclear technologies, and nuclear deterrence. The physicist known as “the father of the atomic bomb” served as the first director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory beginning in 1943. The first atomic bomb test in New Mexico was on July 16, 1945, and on August 6, 1945, Little Boy was detonated above Hiroshima. After WWII, he became chief adviser to the newly-created Atomic Energy Commission. The speech was delivered at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. It is presented courtesy of the American Philosophical Society Library. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer film made a huge $174 million internationally on its opening weekend. The three-hour biopic of the so-called “father of the atomic bomb” dives into the personal and professional relationships of J. Robert Oppenheimer. It's centered around the 1945 Trinity test in the Jornada del Muerto desert of New Mexico and the development of the Manhattan Project that led up to it; and second the 1954 Atomic Energy Commission hearing that led to Oppenheimer's security clearance being withdrawn.On this episode, we welcome Greg Mello, Executive Director of the Los Alamos Study Group, to talk about the film, the hidden history of the U.S. nuclear program, and the terrifying reality that the U.S. government continues to develop these weapons today, threatening the very survival of the planet.Find the Los Alamos Study Group at lasg.org.Support the show

Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer is an IMAX®-shot epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it. The film stars Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer and Emily Blunt as his wife, biologist and botanist Katherine “Kitty” Oppenheimer. Oscar® winner Matt Damon portrays General Leslie Groves Jr., director of the Manhattan Project, and Robert Downey, Jr. plays Lewis Strauss, a founding commissioner of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Academy Award® nominee Florence Pugh plays psychiatrist Jean Tatlock, Benny Safdie plays theoretical physicist Edward Teller, Michael Angarano plays Robert Serber and Josh Hartnett plays pioneering American nuclear scientist Ernest Lawrence. The cast includes Dane DeHaan (Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets), Dylan Arnold (Halloween franchise), David Krumholtz (The Ballad of Buster Scruggs), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story) and Matthew Modine (The Dark Knight Rises). The film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and the late Martin J. Sherwin. The film is produced by Emma Thomas, Atlas Entertainment's Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan. #oppenheimer #christopernolan #atomicbomb #florencepugh #cillianmurphy #imax --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theuponfurtherreview/message

The last Christopher Nolan film, Oppenheimer, drops in theaters this weekend.  So let's talk about it! TODAY'S SPONSOR: Birddogs Go to birddogs.com/CHANDLER or enter promo code CHANDLER for a free Yeti style tumbler with your order. That's birddogs.com/CHANDLER or promo code CHANDLER for a free Yeti style tumbler.  You won't want to take your birddogs off I promise you. Listen to The Nolan Variations or American Prometheus for FREE and get a 30 day trial of Audible at http://www.audibletrial.com/seanchandler   ***AFFLIATE LINK*** Official Universal Write Up "Written and Directed by: ​Christopher Nolan Produced by:​ Emma Thomas, Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer is an IMAX®-shot epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it.  The film stars Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer and Emily Blunt as his wife, biologist and botanist Katherine “Kitty” Oppenheimer. Oscar® winner Matt Damon portrays General Leslie Groves Jr., director of the Manhattan Project, and Robert Downey, Jr. plays Lewis Strauss, a founding commissioner of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.    Academy Award® nominee Florence Pugh plays psychiatrist Jean Tatlock, Benny Safdie plays theoretical physicist Edward Teller, Michael Angarano plays Robert Serber and Josh Hartnett plays pioneering American nuclear scientist Ernest Lawrence.   Oppenheimer also stars Oscar® winner Rami Malek and reunites Nolan with eight-time Oscar® nominated actor, writer and filmmaker Kenneth Branagh.    The cast includes Dane DeHaan (Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets), Dylan Arnold (Halloween franchise), David Krumholtz (The Ballad of Buster Scruggs), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story) and Matthew Modine (The Dark Knight Rises).    The film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and the late Martin J. Sherwin. The film is produced by Emma Thomas, Atlas Entertainment's Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan.    Oppenheimer is filmed in a combination of IMAX® 65mm and 65mm large-format film photography including, for the first time ever, sections in IMAX® black and white analogue photography.    Nolan's films, including Tenet, Dunkirk, Interstellar, Inception and The Dark Knight trilogy, have earned more than $5 billion at the global box office and have been awarded 11 Oscars and 36 nominations, including two Best Picture nominations." FIND ME ONLINE INSTAGRAM @seantalksabout TWITTER   @kirkneverdied FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/seanchandlertalksabout Patreon https://www.patreon.com/seanchandler FIND THE SEAN CHANDLER PODCAST: ITUNES: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-chandler-podcast/id1498677542 SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/3xv87P7IlCwccth177rnM6 GOOGLE PODCASTS: https://play.google.com/music/m/Ivxlw3mprfqlvs2cb3yk3dxxkc4?t=The_Sean_Chandler_Podcast STITCHER: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-sean-chandler-podcast PODBEAN: https://seanchandler.podbean.com My Merch Store https://www.teepublic.com/stores/sean-chandler-talks-about?ref_id=5518&ref_type=aff Check out the complete list of gear I use for creating my YouTube videos here:  https://kit.co/SeanChandler/my-youtube-equipment See a list of my posters (and where to get them) here: https://kit.co/SeanChandler/my-movie-posters See a list of my Funko Pops here: https://kit.co/SeanChandler/my-funko-pop-collection Fan Mail can be sent to:  Sean M. Chandler PO Box 1042  Hutto, TX 78634 VIDEO SUMMARY This video contains Sean Chandler Talks About's Oppenheimer Out of the Theater Reaction /// Oppenheimer movie review /// Oppenheimer review /// Oppenheimer reaction /// Oppenheimer review AFFLIATE DISCLAIMER I may earn a small commission for my endorsement, recommendation, testimonial, and/or link to any products or services from this video.

On this day in 1955, a ceremony commemorating the first sale of atomic electricity was held at a power plant in West Milton, New York. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sunak and the media', The RTE financial scandal and Russia in Turmoil / with Steve Richards At the end of the show a listener question from Ian Mount Steve Richards Presents: Rock'n'Roll Politics Edinburgh Festival Aug 13-26 https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/steve-richards-presents-rock-n-roll-politics  Recommendations: Stuart Oppenheimer Trailer Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer is an IMAX®-shot epic thriller that thrusts audiences into the pulse-pounding paradox of the enigmatic man who must risk destroying the world in order to save it. The film stars Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer and Emily Blunt as his wife, biologist and botanist Katherine “Kitty” Oppenheimer. Oscar® winner Matt Damon portrays General Leslie Groves Jr., director of the Manhattan Project, and Robert Downey, Jr. plays Lewis Strauss, a founding commissioner of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYPbbksJxIg  Steve Ben Elton: The Great Railway Disaster The railways are in crisis, from mass cancellations to soaring prices. Comedian Ben Elton embarks on a northern rail misadventure. Is rail privatisation a failed experiment? https://www.channel4.com/programmes/ben-elton-the-great-railway-disaster  Eamonn (Un)Well This docuseries takes a deep dive into the lucrative wellness industry, which touts health and healing. But do the products live up to the promises? https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81044208 

Does technological progress automatically translate into higher wages, better standards of living, and widely shared prosperity? Or is it necessary to steer the development of technological improvement to ensure the benefits don't accrue only to the few? In a new book, two well-known economists argue the latter. I'm joined in this episode by one of the authors, Simon Johnson.Simon is the Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT. He and Daron Acemoglu are authors of the new book Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. Simon is also co-author with Jonathan Gruber of 2019's Jump-Starting America, now out in a new paperback.In This Episode* Is America too optimistic about technology? (1:24)* Ensuring progress is widely shared (11:10)* What about Big Tech? (15:22)* Can we really nudge transformational technology? (19:54)* Evaluating the Biden administration's science policy (24:14)Below is an edited transcript of our conversationIs America too optimistic about technology? James Pethokoukis: Let me start with a sentence or two from the prologue: “People understand that not everything promised by Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or even Steve Jobs will likely come to pass. But, as a world, we have become infused by their techno-optimism. Everyone everywhere should innovate as much as they can, figure out what works, and iron out the rough edges later.” Later, you write that that we are living in a “blindly optimistic” age.But rather, I see a lot of pessimism about AI. A very high percentage of people want an AI pause. People are very down on the concept of autonomous driving. They're very worried that these new technologies will only make climate change worse. We don't seem techno-optimistic to me. we certainly don't see it in our media. First of all, let me start out with, why do you think we're techno-optimistic right now, outside of Silicon Valley?Simon Johnson: Well, Silicon Valley is a very influential culture, as you know, nationally and internationally. So I think there's a deep-running techno-optimistic trend, Jim. But I also think you put your finger on something very important, which is since we finished the book and turned in the final version in November, I think the advance of ChatGPT and some of our increased awareness that this is not science fiction — this is actual, this is real, and the people who are developing this stuff have no idea how it works, for example—I wouldn't call it pessimism, but I think there's a moment of hesitation and concern. So good, let's have the discussion now about what we're inventing, and why, and could we put it on a better path?When I think about the past periods where it seemed like there was a lot of tech progress that was reflected in our economic statistics, whether it's productivity growth or economic growth more broadly, those were also periods where we saw very rapid wage growth people think very fondly about. I would love to have a repeat of 1995-2000. If we had technologies that could manage that kind of impact on the economy, what would be the downside? It seems like that would be great.I would love a repeat of the Henry Ford experience, actually, Jim. Henry Ford, as you know, automated the manufacturing of cars. We went from producing tens of thousands of cars in the US to, 30 years later, producing millions of cars because of Ford's automation. But at the same time Ford and all the people around him — a lot of entrepreneurs, of course, working with Ford and rivals to Ford — they created a lot of new jobs, new tasks. And that's the key balance. When you automate, when you have a big phase of automation, and we did have another one during World War II and after World War II. We also created a lot of new tasks, new jobs. Demand for labor was very strong. And I think that it's that balance we need. A lot of the concerns, the justified concerns about AI you were mentioning a moment ago, are about losing jobs very quickly and faster than we can create other tasks, jobs, demand for labor in other, non-automating parts of the economy.Your book is a book of deep economic history. It's the kind of book I absolutely love. I wonder if you could just give us a bit of a flavor of the history of what's interesting in this book about those two subjects and how they interact.We tried to go back as far as possible in economic and human history, recorded history, to understand technological transformations. Big ones. And it turns out you can go back about 1000 years with quite reliable information. There are some things you can say about earlier periods, a little bit more speculative to be honest. But 1000 years is a very interesting time period, Jim, because as you know, that's pretty much the rise of Europe timeframe. A thousand years ago, Europe was a nothing place on the edge of a not very important part of one continent. And through a series of technological transformations, which took a long time to get going — and that's part of the medieval story that we explore — [there was] a huge amount of innovativeness in those societies. But it did not translate into shared prosperity, and it was a very stop-start. I'm talking about over the period of centuries.Then, eventually, we get this Industrial Revolution, which is initially in Britain, in England, but it's also shared fairly quickly around northwest Europe: individual entrepreneurship, private capital, private ownership, markets as a dominating part of how you organize that economy. And eventually, not immediately, but eventually that becomes the basis for shared prosperity. And of course, that becomes the basis for American society. And the Americans by the 1850s to 1880s, depending how you want to cut it, have actually figured out industrial technology and boosted the demand for labor more than the Europeans ever imagined. Then the Americans are in the lead, and we had a very good 20th century combining private capital, private innovation with some (I would say) selective public interventions where a private initiative didn't work. And this actually carried a lot of countries, including countries in that European tradition, through to around 1980. Since 1980, it's become much more bumpy. We've had a widening of income inequality and much more questioning of the economic and political model.Going back into the history: Oftentimes people treat the period before the steam engine and the loom as periods of no innovation. But there was. It just didn't have the impact, and it wasn't sustained. But we were doing things as a society before the Industrial Revolution. There was progress.There was technological progress, technological change. Absolutely.The compass, the printing press, gunpowder — these are advances.Right. The Europeans, of course, were sort of the magpies of the world at that point. A lot of those innovations began in China. Some of them began in the Arab world. But the Europeans got their hands on them and used them, sometimes for military purposes. They figured out civilian uses as well. But they were very innovative. Some people got rich in those societies, but only a very few people, mostly the kings and their hangers-on and the church. Broad-shared prosperity did not come through because it was mostly forced labor. People did not own their labor. There was some private property, but there wasn't individual rights of the kind that we regard as absolutely central to prosperity in the United States, because they are central to prosperity and because they're in the Constitution for a reason, because it was coming out of feudalism and the remains of that feudal system that our ancestors in the United States were escaping from. So they said, “Let's enumerate those rights and make sure we don't lose them.” That's coming out of 800 years of hard-learned history, I would say, at that point. And that's one reason why, not at the moment of independence but within 50 to 70 years, the American economy was really clicking and innovating and breaking through on multiple technologies and sharing prosperity in a way that nobody had ever seen before in the world.Before that period in the 1800s, the problem was not the occasional good idea that changed something or made somebody rich; it was having sustained progress, sustained prosperity that eventually spread out wide among the people.Absolutely. And I think it was a question of who benefited and who was empowered and who could go on and invent the next things. Joel Mokyr, who's an economic historian at Northwestern, one of our favorite authors, has written about the sort of revolution of tinkerers. And that's actually my family history. My family, as far back as we can go, was carpenters out of Chesterfield in the north of England. They made screws for a hundred years starting in the mid-19th century in Sheffield. They would employ a couple of people at any one time. Maybe no more than eight, maybe as few as two. They probably initially polished blades of knives and eventually ended up making specialized screws. But very, very small scale. There was not a lot of formal education in the family or among the workforce, but it was all kind of relationships with other manufacturers. It was being plugged into that community. Alfred Marshall talked about these clusters and cities of regional entrepreneurship. That's exactly where I'm from. So, yes, I think that was a really key breakthrough: having the institutions, the politics, and the social pressure that could sustain that kind of economic initiative.In the middle of the Industrial Revolution, late 1800s, what were the changes that we saw that made sure the gains from this economic progress were widely shared?If we're talking about the United States, of course, the key moment is the mechanization of agriculture, particularly across the West. So people left their farms in Nebraska or somewhere and moved to Chicago to work for McCormick, making the reapers that allowed more people to leave their farms. So you needed a couple of things in that. One was, of course, better sanitation and basic infrastructure in the big cities. Chicago grew from nothing to be one of the largest cities in the world in period of about a decade and a half. That requires infrastructure that comes from local government. And then there's the key piece, Jim, which is education. There was what's known as a “high school movement.” Again, very local. I don't think the national government knew much about it until it was upon them. [It was] pushing to educate more people in basic literacy and numeracy and to be better workers. At the same time, we did have from the national government, of course particularly in the context of the Civil War, the land grant universities, of which MIT is very proudly one of by the way — one of the only two that became private for various reasons. But we were initially founded to support the manufacturing arts in Massachusetts. That was a state initiative, but it was made possible by a funding arrangement, a land swap, actually, with the federal government.Ensuring progress is widely sharedThe kind of interventions which you've already mentioned — education and infrastructure — these seem like very non-controversial, public-good kinds of things. How do those kinds of interventions translate into the 2020s and 2030s in advanced countries, including the United States? Do we have need to do something different than those?Well, I think we should do those, particularly education, better and more and update it really quickly. I think people are going to agree on that in principle; there may be argument about how exactly you do that. I do think there are three things that should be on the table for potential serious discussion and even potential bipartisan agreement. The first is what Jaron Lanier calls “data dignity,” which is basically [that] you and I should own the data that we produce. This is an extension of private property rights from the right of the political spectrum. The left would probably have other terminology for it. But what's basically happening, and the value that's being created in these large language models, is those models are taking data that they find for free — actually, it's not really free, but it's not well protected on the internet, digital data — and they're using that to train these very large models. And it's that training process that's generating, already and will train even more, huge value and potential monopoly power for incumbents there. So Jaron's point is, that's not right. Let's have a proper organization and recognition of proper rights, and you can pay for it. And then it also gives consumers the ability to bargain potentially with these large monopolies to get developers some technologies rather than other technologies.The second thing is surveillance. I think everyone on the right and the left should be very uncomfortable with where we are on surveillance, Jim, where we've slipped into already on surveillance, and also where AI is going to take us. Shoshana Zuboff has a great book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism on exactly this, going through where we are in the workplace and where we are in in our society. And then of course there's China and what they're doing in terms of surveillance, which I'm sure we're not going to do. In fact, I think the next division of the world may be between the low-surveillance or safeguarded-surveillance places, which I hope will include the US, and the high-surveillance places, which will be pretty much authoritarian places, I would suggest. That's a really different approach to the technology of how you interact with workers, citizens, everybody in all their various roles in life.The third one we're probably not going to agree on right away, but I do want us to have some serious discussion about it, is corporate taxation. Kim Clausing from UCLA, a former senior Treasury person, points out that we do have a graduated corporate tax system in the US but bigger companies pay less. Smaller companies' effective tax rate is higher than bigger companies because they move their profits around the globe. That's not fair and that's not right. And she proposes that we tax mega profits above $10 billion, for example, at a higher rate than we tax smaller profits to give the big companies that are very successful, very profitable an incentive to make themselves smaller. The reason I like Kim's proposal is I want competition, not just between companies directly in terms of what they're offering, but also between business models and mental models. And I think what we're getting too much from Microsoft and Google and the others who are likely to become the big players is machine intelligence, as they call it, which basically means replacing people as much as possible. We argue for machine usefulness, which is also, by the way, a strong tradition in computer science — it's not the ascendant tradition or ascendant idea right now — that is, focusing technology on making humans more effective. Like this Zoom call is making us more effective. We didn't have to get ourselves in the same room. We are able to leverage our time. We're able to organize our lives differently.Find those kinds of opportunities, particularly for lower-income workers. We are not getting that right now because we lack competition, I think, in the development of these models. Jim, too much. You joked at the beginning that the Silicon Valley is the only optimist. Maybe that's true, but they're the optimists that matter because they're the ones who control the development of the technology. Almost all those strings are in their hands right now, and you need to give them an incentive to give up some of that. I'm sure we can agree on the fact that having the government break things up, or the courts, is going to be a big mess and not where we want to go.What about Big Tech?Does it suggest caution, as far as worrying about corporate size or breaking up these companies, that these big advances, which could revolutionize the economy, are coming from the very companies you're worried about and are interested in breaking up? Doesn't it argue that they're kind of doing something right, if that's the source of this great innovation, which may be one of the biggest innovations of our life?Yes, potentially. We're trying to be modest and we're trying to be careful here, Jim. We're saying if you make these really big profits, you pay the higher tax rate. And then you have a conversation with your shareholders about, do we really need to be so big? When Standard Oil was broken up before World War I, it was broken into 25 or 26 pieces, Rockefeller became richer. That created value for shareholders. More competition was also good, I think we can say safely at this distance, it was good for consumers. Competition for consumers is something I think we should always attempt to pursue, but competition in mental models, competition for ideas, getting more plurality of ideas out there in the tech sphere. I think that's really important, Jim. While I believe this can be — and we wrote the book in part because we believe it is — a very big moment in sort of technological choices that we humans have made and will continue to make. This is a big one. But if it's all in the hands of a few people, we're less likely to get better outcomes than if it's in the hands of hundreds of people or thousands of people. More competition for ideas, more competition to develop ways to make machines and algorithms useful to people. That's our focus.You have OpenAI, a company which was invested in by Microsoft, and Google/Alphabet is working on their version. And I think now you have Facebook and Amazon devoting more resources. Elon Musk is talking about creating his own version. Plus you have a lot of companies taking those models and doing things with them. It seems like there's a lot of things going on a lot of ferment. It doesn't to me seem like this kind of staid business environment where you have one or two companies doing something. It seems like a fairly vibrant innovation ecology right now.Of course, if you're right, Jim, then nobody is going to make mega excess profits, and then we don't have to worry about the tax rate proposal that I made. My proposal, or Kim's proposal, would have bite only if there are a couple of very big winners that make hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not a computer scientist, I'm an economist, but it seems…Right, but it seems like those mega profits might be competed away, so I'd be careful about right now breaking up Google into eight Googlettes.Fine. I'm not trying to break them up. I'm saying give them a tax system so they confront that incentive and they can discuss it with their shareholders. The people who follow this closely, my computer science colleagues at MIT, for example, feel that Microsoft and OpenAI are in the lead by some distance. Google, which is working very closely with Anthropic, which broke away from OpenAI, is probably a either a close second or a slightly distant second. It's sort of like Manchester City versus the rest of the Premier League right now. But the others you mentioned, Facebook, Amazon, are some years behind. And years are a big deal here. Elon Musk, of course, proposed a pause in AI development and then suggested he get to launch his own AI business — I suppose to take advantage of the pause.That's a little suspicious.There's not going to be a pause. And there's not going to be a pause in part because we know that China is developing AI capabilities. While I am not arguing for confrontation with China over this or other things necessarily, we do have to be cognizant that there's a major national security dimension to this technology. And it is not in the interest of the United States to fall behind anyone. And I'm sure the Chinese are having the same discussion. That's going to keep us going pretty much full speed. And I think is also the case that many corporate executives can see this is a potential winner-take-all. And on the applications, the thinking there is that we're going to be talking very soon about a sort of supply chain where you have these fundamental large language model, the [General-Purpose Technology] type at the bottom, and then people can build applications on top of them. Which would make a lot of sense, right? You can focus on healthcare, you can focus on finance, but you'll be choosing between, right now it looks like, one or two of the large language models. Which does suggest really big upstream profits for those fundamental suppliers, just like how Microsoft has been making money since the mid-1980s, really.Can we really nudge transformational technology?With an important technology which will evolve in directions we can't predict, can we really nudge it with a little bit of tax policy, equalizing capital labor rates? Can we really nudge it in the kind of direction that we might want? If generative AI or machine learning more broadly is as significant as some people say, including folks at MIT and Stanford, I just wonder if we're really operating at the margins here. That the technology is going to be what the technology is. And maybe you make sure we can retrain people, and we can change education, and maybe we need to worry a bit about taxing this profit away if you're worried about corporate power. But as far as how the technology interacts with the workplace and the tasks people do, can we really influence it that much?I think that's the big question of the day, Jim. Absolutely. This is a book, not a policy memo, because we feel that the bigger issue is to have the discussion. To confront the question, as you pose it, and to discuss, what do we as a society want? How do we develop the technology that we need? Are we solving the problems that we really want to solve? Historically, of course, we didn't have many of those conversations. But we weren't as rich then as we are now. Hopefully we're more aware of our history now and more aware of the impact of these choice points. And so it's exactly to have that discussion and to say, if this is as big as people say, how are we going to move it in various directions?I like, as you know, to propose specific policy. I do think, particularly in Washington, it's the specifics that people want to seize. “What do we mean by surveillance? What do we mean by s safeguards over surveillance? How could you operationalize protections against excessive surveillance? By whom? By employers, by the police, by companies from whom you buy stuff? From your local government?” That conversation still needs to be had. And it's a very big, broad conversation. So let's have it quickly, because the technology is moving very quickly.What does the more recent history of concerns about technology, what lessons should we draw? I think of, I think of nuclear technology, which there are lots of concerns and we pass lots of rules. We basically paused that technology. And now we're sitting here in the, you know, in the 2020s worried about climate change. That, to me, is a recent powerful example of the dangers of trying to slow a technology, delay a technology that may evolve in ways you don't understand, but also can solve problems that we don't understand. It's, to me, are the history of least in the United States of technology over the past half century has been one of being overly cautious, not pedal to the metal gungho, you know, you know, let's, let's just keep going as fast as possible.As I think you may remember, Jim, I'm a big advocate for more science spending and more innovation in some fundamental sense across the whole economy because I think that generates prosperity and jobs. In my previous book, Jump-Starting America, we went through the nuclear history, as you flag. And I think the key thing there is at the beginning of that industry, right after World War II, there was over-optimism on the part of the engineers. The Atomic Energy Commission chair famously promised free electricity, and there was very little discussion about safety. And people who raised the issues of safety were kind of shunted to one side with the result that Three Mile Island a little bit and Chernobyl a lot was a big shock to public consciousness about the technology. I'm in favor of more innovation…I wonder if we've overlearned that lesson, you know? I think we may have overlearned it.Yes. I think that's quite possibly right. And we are not calling for an end to innovation on AI just because somebody made a movie in which AI takes over the world. Not at all. What we're saying is there are choices and you can either go more towards replacing people, that's automation, and more towards new task creation, that's machine usefulness. And that's not a new thing. That's a very old, thousand-year or maybe longer tension we've had in the history of innovations and how we manage them. And we have an opportunity now, because we're a more conscious, aware, and richer society, to try and pull ourselves through various means — and it might not be tax policy, I'll grant you that, but through various means — towards what we want. And I think what we want is more good jobs. We always want more good jobs, Jim. And we always want to produce useful things. We don't want just to replace people for the sake of replacement.Evaluating the Biden administration's science policySince you brought it up, I'm going to take the opportunity to ask you a final question about some of your other work about trying to create technology hubs across America. It seems like those ideas have to some degree made their way into policy during the Biden administration. What do you think of its efforts on trying to spend more on R&D and trying to spread that spending across America and trying to make sure it's not just Austin and Boston and New York and San Francisco and LA as areas of great innovation?In the Chips and Science Act, there's two parts: chips and science. The part that we are really advocating for is the science part. And it's exactly what you said, Jim, which is you spend more on science, spread it around the country. There are a lot of people in this country who are innovative, want to be innovative. There are some really good resources, private sector, but also public sector, public-sector universities, for example, in almost every state where you could have more innovation in some basic knowledge-creation sense. And that can become commercialized, that can become private initiative, that can generate jobs. That's what we are supporting. And I think the Science Act absolutely did internalize that. In part, because people learned some hard lessons during COVID, for example.The CHIPS Act is not what we were advocating for. And that's going to be really interesting to see how that plays out. That's more, I would say, conventional, somewhat old-fashioned industrial policy: Pick a sector, back a sector, invest in the sector from the public sector perspective. Chips are of course a really important sector, and the discussion of AI is absolutely part about that. And of course we're also worried, in part because of COVID but also because of the rise of China, about the security of supply chains, including chips that are produced in, let's say, parts of Asia. I think there are some grounds for that. There's also some issues, how much does it cost to build a state-of-the-art fab and operate it in the US versus Taiwan or South Korea, or even China for that matter? Those issues need to be confronted and measured. I think it's good that we're having a go. I'm a big believer in more science, more science spending, more responsible deployment of it and more discussion of how to do that. The chips industrial policy, we'll see. I hope something like this works. It would be quite interesting to pursue further, but we have had some bumps in those roads before. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Our resident humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson reminds us that, in 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission revoked Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer's security clearance. And thst in restoring it posthumously 68 years later, the federal government attempts to atone for its own black mark by removing the black mark on Oppenheimer's record. Stream the show from www.tfic.tech or subscribe to the show on the podcast app of your choice. Additional audio courtesy of PlenilunePictures. Universal Pictures and YouTube.

1) A lively in-person interview detailing Jim's background from music to nuclear law 2) The history of the Atomic Energy Commission and Jim's transition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3) The importance of building relationships, learning the industry, and the role of law in the nuclear landscape 4) Major law-related moments in nuclear to keep an eye on as they develop

In the late 1950s the US Atomic Energy Commission initiated Operation Plowshare, which was a research project designed to find peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, championed the first big project of Operation Plowshare which was to blast a deep sea harbor near Cape Thompson, Alaska, by detonating a series of nuclear bombs simultaneously. This proposal was known as Project Chariot. What the proponents of this plan insisted was that it was safe and would bring economic prosperity to Alaska. Edward Teller and his staff toured the state promoting the plan and stating over and over that these nuclear explosions would not cause any lasting harm to Northwest Alaska, specifically not to the people of Point Hope who lived just 30 miles  from the planned harbor. If Project Chariot were to have been carried out it could have resulted in radiation exposure equivalent  to up to 675 Chernobyl disasters. In his 1994  Book The Firecracker Boys Fairbanks author Dan O'Neill documents in riveting detail how the Atomic Energy Commission misled the Alaskan public, and how a group of concerned scientists and most importantly the Inupiat people of Point Hope themselves successfully fought back the US Government from conducting an atomic experiment that would have resulted in lasting nuclear devastation to our great state.

Date: April 11, 2022 (Season 4, Episode 12: 55 min. & 40 sec. long).  Click here for the Utah Dept. of Culture and Community Engagement version of this Speak Your Piece episode. Are you interested in other episodes of Speak Your Piece? Click Here.  This episode was co-produced by Brad Westwood and Chelsey Zamir. This SYP episode is an interview with Mary Dickson, a Downwinder and thyroid cancer survivor, with SYP host Brad Westwood. The episode details Dickson's personal history and her research regarding the implications of America's nuclear testing. This captivating and devastating story outlines the historical intersections between Utah, the Intermountain West, and the US's nuclear government testing, mostly done at the Nevada Test Site (300 miles from SLC), during and after America's Cold War (1947-1991). Dickson explains the historical context of the western USA during the era of the Cold War. A nation on edge due to the “Red Scare,” the USA rushed to win a nuclear arms race after Russia announced it has the technology necessary to build its own nuclear capabilities. Wanting to build a nuclear arsenal in response, the USA sought out a permanent bomb test site, finally landing on Utah's neighbor, Nevada (the Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range), where the Nevada Test Site would come to be. Starting in 1951-1962, nearly 100 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, some of these bombs even more powerful than the bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Health claims from the surrounding population started to pile up including miscarriages and other largely unexplained ailments. In an attempt to tamper down concerns, the US government released a statement: these blasts aren't harmful and, in fact, so safe that people were encouraged to watch the blasts. Behind the scenes, the actual story was kept a secret for nearly forty years. Overall, throughout the eleven years of testing, as Dickson noted, about 160 million Americans suffered the consequences, knowingly or unknowingly becoming Downwinders, what Dickson defines as one who has been exposed, and/or lived downwind from the nuclear tests and became ill from the radiation.Dickson concludes that many people today still do not fully understand the fallout from America's nuclear testing. The knowledge of how widespread the exposure really was is still not widely known. After her own connection as a Downwinder, Dickson started interviewing and befriending many other Downwinders. She's also worked with many community members to advocate for the passage of the US congress bill that will expand Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (bills S.2798 and H.R.5338). After several years of advocacy work, Dickson compiled a series of monologues that consisted of interviews from fellow Downwinders and meeting minutes from the Atomic Energy Commission into a playwright titled “Exposed” which was picked up by Plan B Theater Company and continues as stage readings to this day.Bio: Mary Dickson is a former KUED TV creative director (now retired) and is the host of Contact with Mary Dickson on PBS Utah. She is an award-winning writer and playwright for “Exposed,” and is an internationally recognized advocate for survivors of nuclear weapon testing.Do you have a question? Write askahistorian@utah.gov

Seriah hosts an all-star round table (Chris Ernst, Saxon/Super Inframan, Barbara Fisher, and Greg Bishop) to answer patreons' questions. Topics include trends in paranormal witnesses' reports, origins of different phenomena, co-creation, rains of frogs, Whitley Streiber, mental perceptions of the unknown, witness forgetfulness, Donald Hoffman, a personal experience with a proto-shadow person, Carl Jung, archetypes, the universe as information theory, UFO materials, dark matter, apports, the effects of the internet on folklore, an AI cryptid, Loab, a personal experience of lights in the woods, the Fae/Fairy folk, folklore vs ETH, hypnotic regression and its dangers, Jenny Randles, Barbara's personal experience with memory manipulation, value of eyewitness testimony in the legal system, Brendan Dassey, the West Memphis three, the brain and memory, NDE life review, Cherylee Black, hell, karma, the Hindu belief in humans as splinters of God, a personal experience with a Pima Native American sheriff, earliest paranormal experiences, kundalini, a personal encounter with an unknown entity, personal experiences with haunted objects, a strange vision, a bizarre UFO encounter, family tales, a bizarre old-time encounter with an “angel”, a prankster and an apparition, memories of growing up with followers of an Indian holy man, a bizarre Ouija board experience, Paul Weston and Glastonbury, a creepy disappearance of a dog, a ball lightning encounter, a personal experience with “blobby” apparitions, mundane explanations and meaning, Animism, William S. Burroughs, synchronicities, a weird divination experience, David Metcalfe, Kiki Dombrowski, good and bad streaks of experiences, structured craft UFOs, “Trinity” by Jacques Vallee and Paola Leopizzi Harris, Atomic Energy Commission, Adam Gorightly, Twin Peaks, Ivan T. Sanderson, fireballs emerging from water, Fin Handley, Saint Teresa, VR recreations of paranormal experiences, and much more! This is weird conversation at its best!

Seriah hosts an all-star round table (Chris Ernst, Saxon/Super Inframan, Barbara Fisher, and Greg Bishop) to answer patreons' questions. Topics include trends in paranormal witnesses' reports, origins of different phenomena, co-creation, rains of frogs, Whitley Streiber, mental perceptions of the unknown, witness forgetfulness, Donald Hoffman, a personal experience with a proto-shadow person, Carl Jung, archetypes, the universe as information theory, UFO materials, dark matter, apports, the effects of the internet on folklore, an AI cryptid, Loab, a personal experience of lights in the woods, the Fae/Fairy folk, folklore vs ETH, hypnotic regression and its dangers, Jenny Randles, Barbara's personal experience with memory manipulation, value of eyewitness testimony in the legal system, Brendan Dassey, the West Memphis three, the brain and memory, NDE life review, Cherylee Black, hell, karma, the Hindu belief in humans as splinters of God, a personal experience with a Pima Native American sheriff, earliest paranormal experiences, kundalini, a personal encounter with an unknown entity, personal experiences with haunted objects, a strange vision, a bizarre UFO encounter, family tales, a bizarre old-time encounter with an “angel”, a prankster and an apparition, memories of growing up with followers of an Indian holy man, a bizarre Ouija board experience, Paul Weston and Glastonbury, a creepy disappearance of a dog, a ball lightning encounter, a personal experience with “blobby” apparitions, mundane explanations and meaning, Animism, William S. Burroughs, synchronicities, a weird divination experience, David Metcalfe, Kiki Dombrowski, good and bad streaks of experiences, structured craft UFOs, “Trinity” by Jacques Vallee and Paola Leopizzi Harris, Atomic Energy Commission, Adam Gorightly, Twin Peaks, Ivan T. Sanderson, fireballs emerging from water, Fin Handley, Saint Teresa, VR recreations of paranormal experiences, and much more! This is weird conversation at its best! - Recap by Vincent Treewell of The Weird Part Podcast Outro Music is Whirring World by Psyche Corporation Download

As a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) Iran must declare its nuclear facilities and open them to inspection on demand. It has been doing that regarding many installations but tried to hide an additional four, one of which has since been levelled and sanitized. The IAEA insists on inspecting the other three adamant denial of “any undeclared nuclear materials and activities in Iran” by the country's Atomic Energy Commission head in Vienna last week – while pointedly speaking in the present tense. What can and should be done about the undeclared sites, and would this issue derail the prolonged talks about a renewed deal between Iran, and essentially the rest of the world? Panel: - Jonathan Hessen, Host. - Amir Oren, Editor at Large, Host of Watchmen Talk and Powers in Play. - Col. (Ret.) Dr. Eran Lerman, Co-host TV7 Middle East Review, Powers-in-Play Panelist, JISS VP and Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. - Dr. Menahem Merhavy, Research Fellow, Truman Institute, Hebrew University.. Articles on the topic: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/israeli-nuclear-chief-iran-clearly-pursuing-bombs/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/lapid-israels-atomic-program-an-invisible-dome/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/israel-time-to-pass-on-jcpoa/ You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Europa Stands: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/82926/ TV7 Powers in Play: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/84954/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ Jerusalem Prays: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/135790/ TV7's Times Observer: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/97531/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ Those who wish can send prayer requests to TV7 Israel News in the following ways: Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Email: israelnews@tv7.fi Please be sure to mention your first name and country of residence. Any attached videos should not exceed 20 seconds in duration. #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

Dr. Anil Kakodkar—the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India, Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre from 1996–2000 and recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honour —walks us through the evolution of India's nuclear program. We discuss the early days of the program, technical choices in reactor design, the task and potential advantages of developing economies in obtaining high technology like nuclear, the importance of education, and India's ultimate goal of developing thorium technology to make use of the country's natural abundance of the element.

My special guest is Raymond Szymanski to discuss his knowledge of alien visitation to military installations including the Wright-Patterson where he worked for many years. Get his book 50 Shades of Greys on Amazon.     -- Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Insider Investigation Reveals Exciting New Evidence and Theories -- Nick Pope, UK Ministry of Defense UFO Project, 1991 – 1994, Author of Encounter in Rendlesham Forest, excitedly states: “Fifty Shades of Greys is a fun and informative book that is part UFO exposé and part travel guide. Written in a gonzo style, Raymond Szymanski tours the world, researching iconic UFO sightings and meeting a colorful cast of witnesses, experts and enthusiasts along the way. The author's four-decade career as an Engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (where many believe crashed alien spaceships are stored), and his exciting new evidence will doubtless start a few conspiracy theories.” For the very first time, an executive-level Wright-Patterson Air Force Base scientist takes you on a dangerous personal search for evidence of alien visitation inside the legendary, super-secret Department of Defense installation and beyond. Unconvinced by third-person stories rewarmed in “shadow-government-conspiracy UFO books”, Raymond Szymanski presents compelling, first-person UFO research adventures and discoveries - balanced between the very serious and sometimes not-so-serious misadventures. Raymond researched many Department of Defense scientific mysteries in his distinguished career. Now armed with insider information, he's researching the most polarizing scientific mystery-of-the-century: “Do we have Aliens?” During this life-changing journey he discovers and examines evidence of alien visitation and strong hints that, contrary to widely published reports, Air Force senior scientists may not be unanimously laughing off UFOs after all. Join Raymond's exciting, thought provoking adventures: - In the United Kingdom's UFO-infested Rendlesham Forest; - With Travis Walton at the secretive Walton abduction site in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest; - And inside the Holy Grail itself, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. An alien visitation investigation, cloaked in mystery, wrapped in an adventure story, illustrated by more than one hundred never-before-published photographs, will be enjoyed by adventurists, enthusiasts, researchers, and conspiracy theorists alike.   Wanna get creeped out? Follow our new podcast 'Paranormal Fears' on any podcast app or Apple Podcasts.   Visit our home on the web: https://www.mysteriousradio.com Follow us on Instagram @mysteriousradio Like us on Facebook Facebook.com/mysteriousradio Check Out Mysterious Radio! (copy the link to share with your friends and family via text   Area 51military installation, Nevada, United StatesPrint Cite Share Feedback Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaLast Updated: Article HistoryU-2 Area 51, secret U.S. Air Force military installation located at Groom Lake in southern Nevada. It is administered by Edwards Air Force Base in southern California. The installation has been the focus of numerous conspiracies involving extraterrestrial life, though its only confirmed use is as a flight testing facility. Area 51 conspiracy theories: Aliens in the United States?See all videos for this article For years there was speculation about the installation, especially amid growing reports of UFO sightings in the vicinity. The site became known as Area 51, which was its designation on maps of the Atomic Energy Commission. Conspiracy theories gained support in the late 1980s, when a man alleging to have worked at the installation claimed that the government was examining recovered alien spacecraft.

Several European nations have called on Russia to immediately halt its attack on the nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Russian troops shelled it this afternoon - starting a fire. There have been conflicting reports about whether the fire compromised equipment at the plan. The UN's atomic watchdog urged Russian forces to stop attacking warning of "severe danger" if the reactors were hit. Professor Tatsu-jiro Suzuki is a nuclear power expert from Nagasaki University, and a former Vice Chairman of Japan's Atomic Energy Commission.

Karen Silkwood, an employee of the Kerr-McGee plutonium processing plant, was killed in a car crash on her way to deliver important documents to a newspaper reporter in 1974. Silkwood was a union activist concerned about health and safety issues at the plant, and her death at age twenty-eight was considered by many to be highly suspicious. Was it Kerr-McGee's revenge on a troublesome whistle-blower? Or was it part of a much larger conspiracy reaching from the Atomic Energy Commission to the FBI and the CIA? Richard Rashke leads us through the myriad of charges and countercharges, theories and facts, and reaches conclusions based solely on the evidence in hand. Originally published in 1981, his book offers a vivid, edgy picture of the tensions that racked this country in the 1970s. However, the volume is not only an important historical document. Complex, fascinating characters populate this compelling insider's view of the nuclear industry. The issues it explores―whistle-blowers, worker safety, the environment, and nuclear vulnerability―have not lost relevance today, twenty-six years after Silkwood's white Honda Civic was found trapped in a concrete culvert near Oklahoma City. For this second edition, Rashke has added a Preface and three short chapters that explore what has been learned about Silkwood since the book's original publication, explain what happened to the various actors in the drama, and discuss the long-term effects of the events around Silkwood's death.

Listen as Dr. Dean discusses news from 9/7-9/8/21 including an independent canvassing of Maricopa county releasing results, more Biden blunders, another insane teacher, and more! Then, we discuss another proven conspiracy that took place in the 1950's by the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Dept of Energy).  Buy XRP on Uphold appShow your support on Venmo @PTDean86Follow on TikTok @PTDean86 or PTPatriot86 or email ptpatriot86@gmail.comFollow DTwizzle on telegram at https://t.me/DTwizzleShare your own message with Buzzsprout!https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=1416301