Sunniva recommends: Pandora's Promise

I'll make this short and sweet: I finally watched the documentary Pandora's Promise, where filmmaker Robert Stone profile energy experts and environmentalists who once were strongly against nuclear energy, but now embrace it. 

You should watch it too, that's all I can say.

Watch it.
And Robert Stone, you get three hearts: <3<3<3

The entire thing is on Netflix.

When can we say that a nuclear power plant is safe?

Today is a beautiful Tuesday here in Oslo, and I just have to say a little bit about the safety of a nuclear power plant! I want to share an excerpt of a text written by someone that knows more about this particular theme than I do - Gianni Petrangeli, who has written the textbook Nuclear Safety (I have highlighted some of the points):

"Is it possible to conclude that a nuclear power plant is safe and, if it is, what are the conditions which make this conclusion possible?
The answer to the first question is: 'Yes, it is possible'. 

The conditions for such a conclusion to be valid are:

1. the plant has been built within a legal framework that provides for the regulation of nuclear activities and for the clear assignment of safety responsibilities
2. the plant site has been chosen by a competent organization, following the stringent safety and radiation protection criteria internationally available
3. the plant has been conceived, designed and built following the best internationally available criteria and standards important for safety and for radiation protection (with all financial means necessary to obtain an excellent result)
4. the  whole process has been submitted to the surveillance of an independent control body, capable (as far as possible) of foreseeing the possible technical licensing problems before it's too late to solve them
5. everyone involved in the construction, the control and the operation of the plant are permeated by a genuine safety culture
6. everyone involved have been trained to the best professional standards with continuing professional development schemes
7. operation is performed in connection with national and international organizations which have the aim of collecting and disseminating operating experience thoroughly and quickly
8. the plant is operated within an industrial system with a sufficient reserve of electric power 
9. working conditions for plant operators are conducive to solving problems, and the psychological atmosphere in the plant is marked by alacrity and by serenity at the same time"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When all of these nine criteria are met (I shortened some of them, so in the original text they are more comprehensive), then you can claim that a nuclear power plant is safe.

Was Chernobyl "safe"? NO, NOT AT ALL! I know for sure that Chernobyl broke the conditions, and definitely could not be concluded to be a "safe" plant.

Was Fukushima "safe"? To be honest, I'm actually not 100% sure of how well Fukushima met these 9 criteria...
The thing about the Fukushima accident was that it was caused by a "freak event" - a natural disaster that magnitude is very hard to foresee, since you can't foresee everything. If you could, none would have died from the earth quake and tsunami that hit Japan on the 11th of March 2011, but yet they did - but if you argue that since this natural disaster did happen, and therefore nuclear power isn't safe, you're really also arguing that Japan is an unsafe country to live in...
It's not like they din't foresee tsunamis on the coast of Japan, but they didn't expect them to be as big. So what if they had foreseen a 14 meter tsunami, and they were protected against that, but then a 15 meter tsunami hit them instead? Nothing is ever (100%) safe, and at some point you have to say this is as safe as it gets. Remember: it's always a piece of cake to say after something's happened that they should have done it differently...! 
But was Fukushima as safe as it gets? Maybe not. Maybe the plant site (point 2) wasn't 100% ideal, maybe the plant didn't have sufficient reserve of electric power (point 8). Can we then conclude that nuclear power isn't safe at all? No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a fabulous, sunny day everyone! I'm going to get Alexandra in kindergarden very soon, and then we're going to get our nails done #motherdaughtertime <3

AGR

Happy birthday, Alexandra Grønstad Rose! Today you're turning 6, and I just can't believe how time flies. It really feels strange that you're already the oldest one in kindergarden, and in a couple of months you're starting school... I love you to Proxima Centauri and back <3

----------------------------------------------------------------

But then there's something funny. So AGR are Alexandra's initials, but it just hit me that AGR is also a type of nuclear reactor: the Adcanced Gas cooled Reactor. So, me, Sunniva Rose, nuclear physicist, gave my daughter a name which is an acronym for the type of nuclear reactors they have in Britain.

O.

M.

G.

!

- my beautiful girl -

Fuel on a Friday - 10 Facts

I can’t believe it’s Friday already. 

This week has just gone by so fast. It started with Alexandra still being sick on Monday, and then on Tuesday I went to Stavanger, and spent around 50 hours there - giving two talks, and talking to so many interesting people. (I think I’ll have to write about some of my thoughts about the Norwegian oil industry - just not right now.) Yesterday I got home, and the evening was spent with Anders; we shared a bottle of wine, he worked on his code and I scanned all my receipts from the trip, and sorted them into the right folders (not fun doing, but it feels GREAT when you’re done, especially when you realise you’ve spent roughly 9000NOK on travelling, that you of course want, and will get, back ;)). Then we made the working your ass off thai chili, and around that time I got a migraine…:/ 

However, today is Friday, and luckily I woke up this morning feeling great again - hopefully there'll be many months before I get another migraine attack!

So Friday is luckily NOT equal to migraine, but it IS equal to FACTS! It's finally time for ten Friday Facts about Fuel - nuclear fuel, of course:

1. the fuel in a nuclear power plant is placed inside the reactor core. Mostly all the fuel soaked in water because water is great for cooling the fuel, which is the same as removing the heat - which is exactly what we want; we want water to be heated so that we can produce steam and thus generate electricity with a turbine <3
2. we often call it "burning" the fuel, but it's no real burning going on - the fuel is the place where the fission chain reaction happens (the energy from nuclear power comes from fission of nuclei inside the fuel :) ), so when I talk about (nuclear) fuel I mean material where there’s a chain reaction going on.
3. nuclear fuel is made out of slightly radioactive elements; it can either be uranium, plutonium, or thorium
4. a small part of the fuel has to be fissile; meaning it has to have a really big chance of splitting if it's hit by a neutron. The fissile material can be either uranium-233, uranium-235, or plutonium-239
5. thorium is NOT fissile, so thorium must be mixed with something that is. This means that in thorium based fuels it is actually not the nuclei of the thorium atoms itself that fissions - thorium is first transformed into uranium-233, and then this uranium nucleus is the one that fissions and releases energy :D
6. the fissile part of the fuel is typically just 5% of the total of the fuel. The rest of the fuel (so, the majority of the fuel, really) is either thorium-232 or uranium-238.
7. the "flame" in nuclear fuel is the neutron. There is of course no real flame, and there is also no burning (see point number 2.), but I think that calling the neutron "the flame" is a nice analogy, since the neutron is what makes the nucleus fission and then release all the energy <3
8. the most common nuclear fuel is called UOX, which is for uranium oxide, meaning that it’s not pure metallic uranium (uranium as an element is a metal), but uranium and oxygen ( the oxides are used rather than the metals themselves because the oxide melting point is much higher than that of the metal and because it cannot actually burn, since it's already in the oxidized state.)
9. used fuel can (and should, in my opinion!) be recycled, since it has a lot of material that is really useful (actually: typically only half a percent of all the fuel fissions during the years it's in the reactor, so if you throw away all that's left after a couple of years, you throw away A LOT of resources). If you recycle these materials - which can be uranium-235 that just hasn't fissioned yet, or plutonium-239 that has been made during the time the fuel was in the reactor - you have to mix them with fresh fissile material, and when you do this the fuel is called MOX. MOX is short for Mixed Oxides :D
10. if you get really got at recycling, and you have the kind of reactors that are optimized for this type of MOX fuel (see point number 9.), you can actually end up getting 200 times more energy from the fuel than you normally get today!

- my fuel when I got to Stavanger airport yesterday: Chablis and Cæsar salad - as I started going through all the receipts (a lot!) rom just two days travelling -

Happy Birthday!

I almost forgot, but today, the 2nd December, marks the 73 year anniversary of the world's first man-made nuclear reactor :) (Yes, you read that right; there have been nature-made nuclear reactors here on earth <3).
In 1942, man achieved the first self-sustaining chain reaction, and thereby initiated the controlled release of nuclear energy.

On the picture below, you even see the ax man - or the Safety Control Rod Axe Man (SCRAM), and even today it's called scramming the reactor when you shut it down:

Starting the day with some fusion

This day started with fusion: at 07:55 I was at NRK, to be a guest at P13, Tidenes Morgen, to talk about fusion. Right after this I spent an hour on the phone, talking to a journalist in Vårt Land, about fusion (and what is sacred to me, and what I ask for forgiveness for, and such). The reason for this was, not surprisingly, the new fusion reactor in Germany - the Stellarator called Wendelstein 7-X, where they want to recreate what happens at the sun; you know, let tiny nuclei melt together to form heavier nuclei and energy at the same time (sort of the  holy grail of nuclear physics/energy).

Of course: before any of this, the sun rose, it was a beautiful morning, and I could see and feel the energy from fusion from our nearest star <3 To me, every day is fusion day :)

The rest of the day has been spent on my article... I started the seminar with a great talk/discussion with Sunniva Supervisor, and then the rest of the day has actually been quite good. There's still a lot of work to do, but I'm positive :) Now I just have to make my self a deadline for the different parts remaining to be done in this article, and then I just have to keep those deadlines, and then I'm done - and can continue with article number three and four, and then the actual thesis, and then I'm done. Easy :P

--------------------------------------------------

I must say: I love <3 getting your snaps - cool assignments, workout and chemistry, preparing for talks about colliding dark matter - love love love it! I really want to answer all of you, so let me say I'm so sorry if I don't manage!

Now it's nighty night here at Soria Moria; tomorrow I'm going to work A LOT (at least 7 hours, according to my plan form Monday) on the article. Sleep tight everyone!

TEDxBergen: Nuclear weapons and thorium and stuff

Finally, the video from the TEDxBergen conference is now on-line!

The subject of my talk was Could nuclear weapons save the planet? , and you can watch the entire thing here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Since I talked about how to dress as a female scientist in my last blogpost, I just have to show you a close-up of the shoes I wore. These shoes from Nelly ended up as my "statement" for this talk - which I felt that I needed, since the rest of the outfit was quite simple; just tight jeans, a loose shirt, and my hair in a bun (not the tightest, but not very messy either):

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the really great thing about this trip to Bergen (almost a month ago already!) - besides being allowed to give my third TEDx talk - was that Anders came and spent the weekend with me <3 There's nothing like sharing experiences like this with the one you love, and having Anders in the audience made me feel so much better and more secure than if I had been there all by myself... He was a great supprt!

 

perfect evening: I was dead tired after  a long day -  I do get really stressed before I'm giving a talk like this. We were thinking about either go to the after party with the rest of the people from the conference, or maybe go out in Bergen... But instead we stayed in the hotel; we took a looong bath (where we drank two bottles of Prosecco), before we ordered pizza to the room, ate it in bed and watched several episodes of the Big Bang Theory. It was just perfect <3

 

Upset and annoyed

 

Today I was part of the "panel of scientists" on Abels Tårn - the radio show that airs on Friday mornings at NRK P2 (this particular show will not air until December; probably December 4th). This time was sort of a "special edition", where the audience were all high school students (and their teachers), and all the questions were from these students.

So far, so good: GREAT FUN! (For the first time, I was on the show together with Anders - that didn't make it any less fun <3 )

After the show, one teacher came up to me (at least I think tha's what she was), and told me she had two questions. 

Great, I thought...

But  they weren't questions, they were more like "questions":

The first one was if a Molten Salt Reactor will release less radioactivity during normal operation than today's reactors, and the second one I'm not sure if she ever asked; except she was asking me about all these Germans that had written stuff in German, and I said (several times - at first I was polite) that I don't speak German, so, no, I have not read these things (but I should, according to her). She was laughing in my face when I said that there are no radioactive releases during normal operation of reactors even today (and of course not in the future), and just told me I was wrong (and said that if I just read these German things I would know that I was wrong...). Still I didn't just leave (that would be rude), I tried to talk about radiation doses and limits - it wasn't very successful.

This teacher pretended to have questions, but was not interested in listening to what I said, and just went on and on and on about new German titles that I should (have) read. It was annoying and rude, and I'm still kind of upset, actually :/

 

all photos: Yngve Vogt

Maybe the worst part is that this teacher (if that's what she was) was stealing time from the students that had several questions for me, and that I would really have wanted to talk to - not to tell them so much about nuclear physics, but about science, and research, and all the amazing possibilities...

BTW: Thank you so much to the student who just wanted to tell me that she really enjoyed my TEDxOslo talk <3 The talk from LeRosey, last year, is HERE, and the one from Bergen, a couple of weeks ago will come very soon (stay tuned).

PS: It's TOTALLY OK to disagree with my view on nuclear power, but please don't pretend to ask me questions when you have no intensions of listening to what I say, and not respect me as a scientist. I try very hard not to pretend to be an "expert" on stuff taht I'm not working on, so don't pretend that I know nothing about my own f*****g field of science. Thank you <3 

PPS: Besides the behavior of this teacher, it was a great day, and I had a lot of fun being part of Abels Tårn today!

Nuclear force, nuclear power...

One thing that is kind of funny is that in Norwegian the word for "nuclear force" and "nuclear power" is the same - "kjernekraft".
It's the same word that describes the force that holds the atomic nucleus together and the way of producing power by splitting atoms. So in Norwegian you just can't be against kjernekraft, because it makes no sense: If you're against kjernekraft you're against atomic nuclei, and basically more or less everything, since there is nothing bigger than elementary particles - there wouldn't even be bigger particles like protons or neutrons, since they are made up from quarks that need kjernekraft to exist...

(PS: Of course I'm not really that pedantic - I do understand what people mean when they say they're against kjernekraft. But as I've said earlier, I actually don't understand how it is possible to worry about climate change, and not be pro nuclear, so I guess in a way I'll still say it makes little sense to be against kjernekraft ;) )

 

no flowers, no sun, no sunset without kjernekraft...

#thinkaboutthat
#tenklittpådet

Force on a Friday

Hi there, Friday!

Last week there were no FACTS on FRIDAY, but this week we're back on track again :D Today I think it's time to talk about the force - the nuclear force: 10 facts about the nuclear force, here you go!

1. the nuclear force is the force that holds, or binds, a nucleus (of an atom) together, even though all the protons in it are being pushed apart by another force - the protons are like extremely strong magnets with the same pole; they repel each other
2. without the nuclear force, there wouldn't be any nuclei; without nuclei there wouldn't be atoms, and without atoms there wouldn't be molecules; without the nuclear force there would be no life - no nothing, really, and you couldn't exist...!
3. it is the strongest of the four fundamental forces, and it's really strong (the three others are electromagnetic force, gravity, and weak force); for example it is 137 times stronger than the elctromagnetic force, and compared to gravity, it is a 1000 million million million million million million (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000) times stronger!
4. the nuclear force has a very short range - meaning that it only works when a particle "touches" a nucleus; or, in other words: if you get 0.000000000000001 meters from the center of a nucleus, you can't feel it anymore. This distance is called femtometer
5. when you fission a heavy nucleus, you release some of the force that holds this nucleus together, and since it is so strong, you get soooo much energy from fission
6. "strong force" is another word for the nuclear force (in Norwegian: "sterk kjernekraft")
7. when you fuse two light nuclei (make a new nucleus by putting two nuclei together), you also release some of the nuclear force - and therefore you can get energy from fusion, like the sun does it :)
8. it was after Chadwick discovered that there were neutrons (with no electric charge) inside the nucleus, in 1932, that the physicists discovered the nuclear force - neutrons don't feel the elctromagnetic force, like protons (or electrons, that have electric charge) do, and therefore it had to be something else that was holding the nucleus together...
9. the nuclear force doesn't really care if a particle has a charge or not; the force between two protons, two neutrons, or a proton and a neutron are nearly the same <3
10. we still don't understand everything about the nuclear force, even though has been worked on for eight decades...

Don't forget about "Question of the month" next week; I already have some very nice questions, but please, ask more!

Ok, I think that's it for now - I have to go back to my figures and my tables, and then there is the weekly nuclear physics group meeting... Bon weekend, and may the force be with you <3

Fission on a Friday - 10 facts

It’s been a long time since I did a “10 facts” blog post (last one was about heavy water) - too long, I think, so it’s about time I do it again now ;)

I can’t promise there’ll one every week (I’ve tried those every week kind of blog posts before, and there’s always some reason - like my PhD work - why it’s difficult to see it through ), but it would have been fun if 10 facts could be like a Friday thing. Anyway, we’ll see how it goes, but today is Fission Friday; here are ten facts about fission:

1. fission is when a (heavy) nucleus splits into two (lighter) nuclei
2. an example of fission is when uranium-235 is hit by one neutron and becomes barium-144, krypton-90, and 2 free neutrons (same number of particles before and after fission: 1+235 = 144+90+2 = 236 :D)
3. the light nuclei (like barium and krypton) are called fission products
4. fission can be induced, which means that it happens because a neutron hits the nucleus (like in the picture) - a little bit like the neutron is a knife that cuts the nucleus into two pieces <3
5. fission can be spontaneous, which means it just happens - no neutron or other particle hitting the nucleus - the nucleus just suddenly splits
6. fission is my favourite decay mode (I think) <3<3<3
7. a nucleus that will fission when it’s hit by a neutron is called (a) fissile (nucleus)
8. the energy that is released in fission (when one nucleus splits) is 200 mega electron volts - which is the same as if 50 million carbon atoms burns and produces CO2 (yes, 1 versus 50 million to get the same amount of energy!)
9. most of the energy released in fission comes from kineticc energy of the fission products - which is energy from motion of the fission products (they are moving fast away from each other)
10. I think the energy release in fission is really really fascinating

If you think it's a good idea to do more "10 facts" blog posts, please tell me what you what you want to read about <3

 

Ok, I gotta run now, to catch my flight back to Oslo - since I've been giving a talk about motivation for science in Bodø today. If you follow me on Snapchat (sunnivarose), you can see the super cool LEGO rose i got after the talk (the talk was for First Lego League, so it was 100% right to get a rose made out of LEGO :D).

Foredrag i morgen

God mandag alle :)

Ny uke betyr nye muligheter, og denne uken betyr det også mulighet for gratis frokost og foredrag i morgen, klokken 0900 på Kristine Bonnevies hus (biologibygningen på Blindern). Der skal jeg holde et uformelt frokostforedrag om kjernekraft og litt thorium, og muligheter og utfordringer og kanskje noen myter - KJEMPEKOS hvis akkurat DU vil komme!

(LINK til Facebook-eventen her <3)

-----------------------------------------------

Ellers sitter jeg i skrivende stund fremedeles i sengen; har drukket dagens første kopp kaffe og jobbet med gammadetektorene mine. Har beveget meg noen museskritt fremover, men føler meg frustrert og litt dum :/ Mål for dagen er at de j@*$% detektorne skal være helt ferdigkalibrert før jeg forlater kontoret i kveld *fingerscrossed*.

Jeg er mer fraværende på bloggen enn det jeg liker om dagen (pga konferansen vi har på Blindern neste uke, der jeg SKAL presentere resultater av analysen) - men jeg snapper en god del, så følg meg gjerne på snap på sunnivarose!

Ok, da tror jeg jeg skal sprette ut av sengen, bevege meg inn på kjøkkenet og lage meg en kopp til med kaffe, og så gå på badet og sminke meg - er vel på tide å komme seg avgårde til Universitetet nå...? ;)

Favourite Reactor

Ok, so my absolute favourite nuclear reactor is....

...the SUN! Of course.

And I simply LOVE that because of the fantastic nuclear fusion reactor, just about 8 light minutes (149 600 000 km) away, I can wear open toe stilettoes as my lecture shoes - as I did today <3 <3 <3 (Love these shoes too, btw; aren't they pretty?)

Anyway: I think it's so funny that solar power really is nuclear power, since the sun is a gigantic nuclear power plant (or continuously exploding atomic bomb...:P), that gets its energy by fusion of really light nuclei, like hydrogen and helium.

It's soooo cool that you get an energy release when light nuclei fuse to form a heavier one; as always it's because mass and energy are really the same (Einstein again), and the two light nuclei weigh more (when you add them up) than the heavier nucleus you get after they fuse. The "lost" mass has been converted to energy :D

-----------------------------------------------------

Ok, now I have to run, to get to an interview - I just had to say hi and tell you about my favourite reactor.

Do you have a favourite (nuclear) reactor?

-S

10 facts about heavy water

So yesterday I was interviewed by the newspaper Dagbladet about heavy water (since they´ve made this new show about the Norwegian heavy water and how they bombed the factory during world war 2 - love the show, btw :D ), and I was thinking It´s really long since I´ve had a "10 facts" blogpost, and I think this is the perfect occasion! I therefore give you 10 facts about heavy water <3 <3 <3

1. Heavy water is heavy - around 10% heavier than light water (as a nuclear physicist working with reactors I actually call normal water for light water :V)
2. Heavy water is chemically called D2O, instead of H2O (normal/light water)
3. The D in D2O is for deuteron
4. A deuteron is a heavy version of hydrogen (an isotope of hydrogen), and it´s heavier because it has a neutron in its nucleus in addition to the proton (normal hydrogen has only that one proton in its nucleus) - thus a deuteron is twice as heavy as a hydrogen
5. Heavy water can be used as a moderator (something that slows down the speed neutrons) in a nuclear reactor (this is what the Germans wanted it for during WW2)
6. If you use heavy water in a reactor you can run it on natural uranium - you don´t have to enrich the uranium (like the Americans were doing in the Manhattan project)
7. Heavy water doesn´t "eat" neutrons, like light water does - which is why we love <3 it
8. Germany wanted to make plutonium - and it´s a really good idea to do this in a reactor with heavy water and natural uranium
9. Norway doesn´t produce heavy water anymore, but we use it in our two research reactors, in Kjeller and Halden :D
10. India are researching reactors using heavy water and thorium - which is really cool!

------------------------------------------------

This is a picture of me, wearing a kimono, writing about heavy water in my living room:

Debatten på lørdag - Norsk sakprosafestival

våknet opp til en helt fantastisk nydelig Oslo-dag på lørdag <3

jeg følte egentlig aldri jeg fikk noe svar på hvorfor kjernekraft visstnok er "ett livsfarlight sätt at värma vatten"

God onsdag, og tusen takk til alle som kom og hørte på/deltok/støttet under debatten om Kraften som splitter under Norsk sakprosafestival på lørdag! 

Jeg har fått mange spørsmål om hvordan det gikk, da. Jeg syns selv det gikk ganske bra (jeg er veldig lite vant til å delta i debatter), selv om jeg fikk ganske mye kortere taletid enn Åsa Moberg – kanskje fordi en del av poenget rett og slett var å promotere hennes bok. Hun kom med en del rene faktafeil, så jeg er veldig spent på å ta fatt på boken hennes – med rød penn ;)

--------------------------------------------

Vi startet med hvert vårt ti minutters innlegg, og denne gangen laget jeg et (delvis) manus. Dette er det manuset jeg satt med. Jeg snakket litt vekk fra det på slutten, så dette er ikke hele innlegget mitt direkte gjengitt, men jeg tenkte det kanskje er flere som syns det er interessant å lese:

Jeg har nok i løpet av de siste tre årene blitt sett på som en tilhenger av kjernekraft, men jeg har egentlig aldri offentlig sagt hva jeg syns om temaet. Jeg har kommet med tall, fakta, vitenskapsbasert kunnskap om temaet; for jeg er forsker, og det er også det jeg skal være her i dag. Hva jeg syns, eller føler, er irrelevant.

Jeg, i motsetning til Åsa, forstår det jeg skriver om og det vi diskuterer (denne setningen la jeg til fordi Åsa i sin innledning sa at : ”jeg forstår jo ikke det jeg skriver om”…!)

Jeg er ikke aktivist eller lobbyist. Jeg forholder meg til fakta, og tallenes tale gjør at jeg, hvis jeg skal være ærlig, og det etterstreber jeg jo absolutt å være, faktisk ikke kan fatte og begripe at man kan være opptatt av miljø(vern) – redd for global oppvarming, og å ikke  være tilhenger av kjernekraft. Når det er sagt så mener jeg ikke at kjernekraft er uten problemer. There´s no such thing as a free lunch, ikke for vindmøller eller vannkraft – ei heller for denne vannkokingen på gigaskala ;) Riskoen for at noe skal skje – feks en ulykke – vil aldri kunne bli null. Dette gjelder selvsagt for alt, om det er kjernekraft eller vannkraft (og konsekvensene av feks en demning som brister i Kina, kan bli enorme), eller sannsynligheten for å bli alvorlig skadet eller dø når du beveger deg ute i trafikken. Så vi gjør alle, hele tiden, ”risikoanalyser”. Kjernekraft er den aller sikreste måten å produsere energi på. I “dødsfall per terrawattime produsert energi” er det ingenting som er sikrere enn kjernekraft – hvis du altså ser på alle dødsfall i en livsløpsanalyse, fra gruvedrift på uran til bygging av kraftverk til ulykker…!

Så hva om det går galt? Vi har jo sett at ulykker skjer. Før jeg sier noe om konsekvensene av en (alvorlig) ulykke må jeg bare gjøre en ting veldig klart: Et kjernkraftverk kan ALDRI eksplodere som en atombombe – sånn i tilfellet noen lurte på det. Sannsynligeheten for at akkurat dét skal skjer ér null, fordi det er fysisk umulig; som i “hvis det skulle skjedd så ville du bryte med fysikkens lover”, og det kan vi jo ikke J.

Konsekvenser av en ulykke handler ikke om stråling – selv om det er det det fokuseres på .

 

Så vil jeg si noe om stråling – dette mystiske, skumle…som vi blant annet bruker til å drepe kreftceller med. Det som skremmer her har å gjøre med biofysikk, og de biologiske effekter av ioniserende stråling, eller radioaktivitet.

Tsjernobyl. Historiens mest ironiske ulykke. Hendelsen som startet som en sikkerhetstest! 

Google “chernobyl images”, eller noe sånt, og du får mange skremmende bilder – men er det da nødvendigvis sånn at de stygge bildene du får, av feks syke mennesker med misdannelser, er pga stråling fra Tsjernobylulykken? Svaret er selvsagt nei. Alle negative ting som har skjedd i Ukraina, Hviterussland og Russland etter ulykken I 1986 er ikke pga utslipp fra Tsjernobyl.

Fakta er at under 100 mennesker døde som en direkte konsekvens av ulykken – hovedsakelig brannfolk som ble sendt inn for å slukke brannen på kraftverket. Videre har man beregnet at ulykken kan komme til å gi mellom 4-6000 ekstra kreftdødsfall, men dette er også usikkert, og kan faktisk være et for høyt estimat.

De aller fleste, både i gamle Sovjet, og ellers i Europa (feks Norge, som omtales som å ha blitt “hardt rammet”), har fått veldig lave stråledoser – så lave at det er helt umulig å se om de har noen negativ effekt eller ikke. Men hva betyr det egentlig at vi har fått lave doser? Jo, i Norge har man feks beregnet hva gjennomsnittsnordmannen vil få som dose fra Tsjernobyl totalt over 50 år etter ulykken. Denne dosen er ¼ av den stråledosen du får på en langdistanse flytur. Altså, da jeg var I Japan I vår fikk jeg pga flyturen en stråledose som var 4 ganger større enn det jeg vil få totalt pga Tsjernobyl. Dette er ikke for å skremme folk fra å fly, men for å få et perspektiv på hva disse dosene egentlig betyr – jeg regner med ingen her vurdere å ikke fly fordi man får en liten ekstra stråledeose?

Stråling er veldig naturlig – vi er feks radioaktive selv, og du får faktisk en ekstra stråledose ved å dele seng med noen kontra å sove alene – og vi blir utsatt for radioaktivitet fra bakken, og fra verdensrommet.

Kraften som splitter - TIPS!

I morgen skal jeg delta i samtale/debatt om kjernekraft på Norsk sakprosafestival! Det begynner klokken 16, og er i Amalie Skram-salen i Litteraturhuset (i Oslo):

Hvilken risiko løper vi med kjernekraftverk?

Hvordan kan vi redusere risikoen ved den globale oppvarmingen uten atomkraft?

Åsa Morberg, en av Sveriges mest kjente kjernekraftmotstandere, er aktuell med boken Ett ekstremt dyrt och livsfarligt sätt att värma vatten. Hun var med på å starte Folkkampanjen mot Kärnkraft och Kärnvapen i Sverige før folkeavstemniingen om kjernekraft i 1980.

På Norsk sakprosafestival møter hun Sunniva Rose (...)

Trodde du striden om kjernekraft var over? Hør argumentene. 

Så det skal jeg altså i morgen - ganske spent og litt skremt (føler meg litt liten, kanskje :P ). Veldig hyggelig hvis noen vil komme og se på, da! Vi skal starte med hvert vårt 10-minutters innlegg, så det er det jeg sitter og forbereder i dag, så blir det samtale/debatt mellom oss etterpå - forhåpentligvis blir det hyggelig, da <3

Sjekk og så Norsk sakprosafestival sin FB-side, for det er masse spennende som skjer i morgen, altså :-D

Kjernefysikkhistorie - første sovjetiske bombetest

I dag er det et ikke så hyggelig 65-årsjubileum... 

Den 29. august 1949 gjennomførte Sovjetunionen sin aller første atomprøvesprengning: i det som i dag er Kazakhstan sprengte de bomben med det klingende navnet "RDS-1". RDS-1 liknet på "Fat Man" - bomben som USA detonerte over Nagasaki i 1945; altså en plutoniumsbombe med 22 kilotonn TNT sprengkraft. 

Prøvesprengningen førte til at USA videre utviklet et kraftigere våpen, nemlig det som kalles termonukleære våpen eller hydrogenbombe - altså fusjonsvåpen (dette er også atomvåpen, men kraftigere enn de som feks ble brukt under krigen - som var fisjonsvåpen). Den første hydrogenbomben ble testet i 1952, mens Sovjetunionen testet sin første fusjonsbombe i 1953.

 (Bildene har jeg lånt fra Physics Today)

Fusion

Hei strålende!  I går var vi ute og nøt de deilige strålene som kommer fra den fine hydrogenbomben der oppe på himmelen, som bare står der og eksploderer.  Tenk at solen har et sånn varme og trykk at hydrogen og helium og sånn bare smelter sammen, og frigjør kjernekraft; og det bare fortsetter og fortsetter og fortsetter (ikke evig, da, men lenge nok ;) ). Hadde vært veldig gøy hvis vi fikk til kontrollert fusjon her på jorden óg (det er bare bittelitt vanskelig å prøve å få til sånt varme og trykk som det er på ildkulen der oppe, her nede), da, men enn så lenge så er det nok fisjon av tunge atomkjerner som er kjernekraftveien å gå...

Det var i alle fall en nydelig dag, både for liten og stor;  vi var en hel liten Rose-gjeng på Sognsvann i går: mamma,  meg, Alexandra,  og lillesøster Carina med sine to barn - Andrea og Arian. 

gårsdagens outfit: mørkerosa Converse/denim shorts/løs, hvit singlett/hodeskjerf/stor sekk som rommet alt fra håndklær til rosé-vin

Alexandra og Andrea på t-banen på vei hjem, med dagens andre is ;)

Jeg syns jo det er veldig morsomt at varmen fra solen kommer pga kjernekraft - slik at nesten all energi har opphavet i kjernekraft (solkraft er overført kjernekraft, og bio, vann, vind osv er jo overført solkraft, som altså er overført kjernekraft) ♥

------------------------------------------------------------

Nå er jeg en liten tur innom kontoret; har så smått begynt forberedelsene av semesterets første foredrag, som skal holdes neste uke på Landskonferansen om Fysikkundervisning - gleder meg! 

God sommer og god ikke-spredning

Kjære alle søteste fineste beste lesere: Nå har jeg begynt sommerferien,  og selv om jeg kanskje ikke vil være helt stille de to kommende ukene - da jeg skal være på hytta på Herføl- så kan det godt hende at jeg ikke vil gi noen lyd fra meg heller; og dere et herved advart. Det håper jeg dere vil tåle;  men de fleste av dere skal vel heller ikke sitte og lese blogger de neste ukene, så det skal vel gå veldig bra ;)
Det er altså hytta på Herføl - aka paradis på jord - som gjelder for meg de neste 12 dagene,  og på planen står avslapping,  lek med Alexandra, lesing, vin,  og skriving (har jo noen større prosjekter på gang ;) ). Jeg har to mål: det ene er å komme skikkelig i gang med skriveprosjektet mitt, det andre er å lade batteriene slik at jeg er så nære jeg kan komme 100% klart for høstsemesteret - det kommet til å bli krevende, på mange måter,  og jeg må ta noen, for meg,  litt tøffe valg når jeg kommer til august.
Etter dette blir det tilbake til Oslo,  og den andre halvparten av juli vil bli brukt til mer skriving,  litt jobbing på Blindern,  pakking av leiligheten,  pluss noen mulige turer til Paris og kanskje andre steder ♥♥♥

I tillegg til å ønske dere god sommer ønsker jeg dere også altså god ikke-spredning;  det er nemlig også i dag en dag med kjernefysikk-historie,  for den 1. juli er det nemlig akkurat 46 år siden ikke-spredningsavtalen (treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons - NPT) ble skrevet under for første gang. Avtalen går ut på at man ikke skal spre teknologi/kunnskap for å lage atomvåpen, at man skal jobbe for nedrustning (av atomvåpen), og at man skal bruke kjernefysisk teknologi til fredelige formål :)
Mer om NPT kan finnes på IAEA SINE SIDER.

Kjernefysikkhistorie - verdens første sivile kjernekraftverk (1 dag på etterskudd :P )

Baaah - jeg oppdaget nettopp at jeg har surret med datoer, og dette innlegget skulle selvsagt ha kommet i går; men bedre sent enn aldri...! I går var det nemlig nøyaktig 60 år siden første gang et sivilt kjernekraftverk genererte elektrisitet :D Jeg syns jo det er et litt ekstra stas jubileum, siden man ikke må glemme at det ligger mye militært i historien til det fagfeltet jeg jobber med - og at hele den sivile kjernekraftindustrien startet som et stort militært prosjekt (Manhattan-prosjektet) - da blir jeg glad for den delen av historien der det går over i god og fredelig bruk av teknologien <3

Den 26. juni 1954 begynte altså Obninsk-kjernekraftverket i Russland (da Sovjet ;) ) å produsere strøm, og det fortsatte det med i 48 år, frem til 29. april 2002. Totalt hadde det en effekt på 5 megawatt (elektrisitet) - søte lille kraftverket (for å sammenlikne vil EPR som feks bygges i Finland nå ha en effekt på 1600 megawatt - noe som tilsvarer sånn ca hele strømbehovet for stor-Oslo) <3

Da vil jeg bare ønske alle en superdeilig helg med denne fine lille bildeserien fra IAEA (det internasjonale atomenergibyrået)