A boy and his homemade nuclear reactor

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

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I spent several days trying to verify this. Harper's did reluctantly admit to having published it. However a search of government records, newspaper accounts, etc did not corroborate the story. There were roughly similar incidences that were some proximate in time and geography. From my research it appears something did happen but it was not nearly as good a story as the version presented above.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@carbideprocessors.com says...

Well, rather extensive articles have been printed about the story in the last decade. One in particular was in Reader's Digest within the past few years. It did have photos of newspaper articles about the lad as I recall. If you are really interested in checking further, perhaps the Digest would be a place to start.
-- Dennis
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I really like the story. It is a great story. I just tried to follow it up with EPA records, Atomic Energy records, Detroit Free Press, etc. I didn't have much luck. I couldn't find the town. I did find one incident that was somewhat similar. It may have been a boy scout running the business painting radium dials.
Neither the state or the federal EPA have any record that matches his very well. Some stories say that the names and site were changed to protect the people involved but that is illegal.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/michigan/mic_p3.html
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/rad_cont_sites.html Bear Lake Radiation Site, Michigan In 1994 EPA Region 5 and the Michigan Department of Public Health discovered a home in Bear Lake, Michigan, that was heavily contaminated with radium as the result of a home business that repaired and repainted radium aircraft dials.
In 1995, under an emergency, time-critical removal action, EPA relocated the family an attempted to decontaminate their possessions, home , and land. The possessions could not be decontaminated and were disposed of as radioactive waste. The home was demolished and the debris and large volumes of soil from the property were also disposed of as radioactive waste.
Commerce Township, MI is 228 miles away.
I can't find any "golf manor" in Michigan.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in

I found it on the Detroit Free Press site with no trouble. Click on Archives, then select 1995 for the year and type in David Hahn. You get:
EPA CLEANS OUT TEEN'S RADIOACTIVE LAB July 1, 1995 •• 424 words •• ID: 9501240819 A Clinton Township teenager had been experimenting in his garden-shed laboratory for four years before the Environmental Protection Agency hauled away 39 barrels of low-level radioactive material this week.. It took three days and $50,000 for EPA workers in protective suits to empty the shed, in his mother's Pinto Drive backyard in Commerce Township, of the containers. . David Hahn, 18, who lives on Cooper Drive in Clinton Township, has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
If you want to read more you have to buy it.
I found the town on Microsoft Streets and Trips with no trouble. I even found the street.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twenty Years After Chernobyl
Thursday, April 13, 2006 By Steven Milloy
April 26 marks the 20th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Anti-nuclear activists are still trying to turn Chernobyl into a bigger disaster than it really was.
Although the Number Four nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded just before dawn on April 26, 1986, Soviet secrecy prevented the world from learning about the accident for days. Once details began to emerge, however, the anti-nuclear scare machine swung into action.
Three days after the accident Greenpeace "scientists" predicted the accident would cause 10,000 people to get cancer over a 20-year period within a 625-mile radius of the plant. Greenpeace also estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 people in Sweden would develop cancer over a 30-year period from the radioactive fallout.
At the same time, Helen Caldicott, president emeritus of the anti-nuclear Physicians for Social Responsibility, predicted the accident would cause almost 300,000 cancers in 5 to 50 years and cause almost 1 million people either to be rendered sterile or mentally retarded, or to develop radiation sickness, menstrual problems and other health problems.
University of California-Berkeley medical physicist and nuclear power critic Dr. John Gofman made the most dire forecast. He predicted at an American Chemical Society meeting that the Chernobyl accident would cause 1 million cancers worldwide, half of them fatal.
But the reality of the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident seems to be quite different than predicted by the anti-nuke crowd.
As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths were attributed to radiation from the accident - that's according to a report, entitled "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts," produced by an international team of 100 scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations. Almost all of those 50 deaths were rescue workers who were highly exposed to radiation and died within months of the accident.
So far, there have been about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children. But except for nine deaths, all of those with thyroid cancer have recovered, according to the report.
Despite the UN report, the anti-nuclear mob hasn't given up on Chernobyl scaremongering.
According to a March 25 report in The Guardian (UK), Greenpeace and others are set to issue a report around the 20th anniversary of the accident claiming that at least 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the accident.
Ukraine's government appears to be on board with the casualty inflation game, perhaps looking for more international aid for the economically-struggling former Soviet republic.
The Guardian article quoted the deputy head of the Ukraine National Commission for Radiation Protection as touting the 500,000-deaths figure. A spokesman for the Ukraine government's Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine told The Guardian, "We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the [UN] data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago."
Putting aside the anti-nuclear movement's track record of making wild claims and predictions in order advance its political agenda, I put more credence in the UN's estimates because it squares with what we know about real-life exposures to high levels of radiation.
Among the more than 86,000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts that ended World War II, for example, "only" about 500 or so "extra" cancers have occurred since 1950. Exposure to high-levels of radiation does increase cancer risk, but only slightly.
There is no doubt that Chernobyl was a disaster, but it was not one of mythical proportions.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - the U.S. nuclear plant that accidentally released a small amount radiation in 1979 - are examples of how the anti-nuclear lobby takes every available opportunity to scare the public about nuclear power.
But no one was harmed by the incident at Three Mile Island. The Chernobyl accident can be chalked up to deficiencies in its Soviet-era design and operation. Neither reflect poorly on the track record of safety demonstrated by nuclear power plants designed, built and operated in countries like the U.S., U.K., France and Japan.
It's quite ironic that while Greenpeace squawks about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to avert the much-dreaded global warming, the group continues spreading fear about greenhouse gas-free nuclear power plants - the only practical alternative to burning fossil fuels for producing electricity.
Apparently, Greenpeace's solution to our energy problems is simply to turn the lights off - for good.
-
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...>
<...> > while Greenpeace squawks
Got a chip on your shoulder?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard Henry wrote:

Steve's pasted article states (in part): But no one was harmed by the incident at Three Mile Island.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so04mangano This article states (in part): Pennsylvania Health Commissioner Gordon MacLeod publicly stated that downwind from the plant the number of babies born with hypothyroidism jumped from nine in the nine months before the accident to 20 in the nine months after. MacLeod reasoned that the thyroid gland was affected by the large amount of thyroid-seeking iodine 131 released from the plant. He also emphasized the increase in deaths of infants within a 10-mile radius, as did Ernest Sternglass, a University of Pittsburgh physicist. In the six months after the accident, 31 infants living within 10 miles of the plant died, more than double the 14 deaths during the same six-month period the previous year.
--
Volunteer your idle computer time for cancer research
http//www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:10:57 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ken

What are the long-term stats? Were those two years' stats within the range of say, 10 or 20 year statistics? Or was the year after an anomaly which would truly point the finger at TMI rads?
-- Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive. --Elbert Hubbard
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It also states
"A settlement of a lawsuit over economic losses from the accident created the Three Mile Island Public Health Fund to commission and underwrite research exploring radiation-cancer links near the plant. In 1990-1991, a team of researchers from Columbia University, supported by the fund, published two articles on cancer rates before and after the accident in the population living within 10 miles of the plant. Using hospital records, the group found that newly diagnosed cancer cases rose 64 percent, from 1,722 in the period 1975-1979, to 2,831 in 1981-1985. Substantial increases occurred in the number of cases of leukemia, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and in all cancers in persons under age 25. [1]

radiation dose levels and cancer risk. <<
The researchers, led by epidemiologist Maureen Hatch, assigned an estimated dose to each of 69 portions of the 10-mile radius around the plant. The highest assigned levels were north/northwest of the plant, where the plume initially drifted on the morning of March 28, 1979. No consideration was given to wind direction thereafter. The north/ northeast areas were generally assigned the lowest dose. The articles declared that increases in local cancer rates were unlikely to be explained by radiation, and that "such a pattern might reflect the impact of accident stress on cancer progression," although no reliable measure of stress was included in the article."
"The only other reports offering new data on disease rates near Three Mile Island were the work of a team from the University of Pittsburgh, published in 2000 and 2003. [4] This group, also aided by the Three Mile Island Public Health Fund, looked at death rates after the accident, abandoning the "before v. after" approach used by Hatch and Wing. The researchers found no link between radiation and death rates (all causes, heart disease, and various cancers) among 32,000 persons living within five miles of the plant in 1979. As Hatch had done, they assigned the area north/northeast of the plant as the lowest dose area, but for most disease categories, this area had the highest mortality rate."
So this says that the area that received the LOWEST dose has the highest death rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island
"No identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred (a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident ... is approximately one."), "
http://www.uic.com.au/nip48.htm
"There were no injuries or adverse health effects from the accident. "
http://www.answers.com/topic/three-mile-island
http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/tmi/faq.html
"No one died as a result of the TMI-2 accident. The accident caused concerns about the possibility of radiation-induced health effects, principally cancer, in the area surrounding the plant. Because of those concerns, the Pennsylvania Department of Health maintained for 18 years a registry of more than 30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state's registry was discontinued in June 1997 without any evidence of unusual health trends."
"The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year."
However: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/FS-163-97.html http://yarchive.net/nuke/coal_radiation.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids 385680&dopt«stract http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb2/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id –0481
So I would MUCH rather have a nuke plant next door than a Coal plant.
--
Steve Williams

"Ken Davey" < snipped-for-privacy@spammotel.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:19:05 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@carbideprocessors.com wrote:

It must be true - the CSM freaked: http://csmonitor.com/2004/0316/p16s03-bogn.html
And, for those who eschew googlegroups, here's the original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Also, to "president": Do not click the broken reply link at the bottom of the post - click the show options link at the top, then click _that_ reply link - that way, it quotes context. Then, trim as needed and bottom-post. Thanks.
Cheers! Rich
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thought for a moment I was going to find a picture of your son crouching over his homebrew reactor :-D.
Chris
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lol! that was a good one chris, ignoramus' recent "electric or science toy kits that are decent" post. lol. ignormaus... "hey guys, i gathered up a bunch or really cool stuff and made a nuclear reactor kit for my son."
b.w.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ignoramus12615 wrote:

See http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ignoramus12615 wrote:

Based on the articles details, this guy never had a chance. Wrong materials and insufficient knowledge. But like a stupid rat he could collect enough material to poison himself.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. The article says: "Ignoring safety, David mixed his radium and americium with beryllium and aluminum, all of which he wrapped in aluminum foil, forming a makeshift reactor core. He surrounded this radioactive ball with a blanket of small foil-wrapped cubes of thorium ash and uranium powder, tenuously held together with duct tape."
A container of random radioactive stuff (while possibly dangerous) is no more a "nuclear reactor" than a cardboard box filled with random mechanical and electrical parts is a CNC machine. To produce a nuclear chain reaction, you need to have a critical mass of some pretty specific stuff, coupled with a proper design. Anything less, and all you have is a pile of (possibly) radioactive crap.
Vaughn
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Granted, calling the mess a "reactor core" is loverly for inciting "OH MY GOD!" reactions, since it isnt' even close - but John Q. Public isn't likely to make it past "nuclear" without starting to cringe and whine about there needing to be a law. The Detroit Free Press/Detroit News has *LONG* been known by those familiar with them for trying to get *EXACTLY* that sort of reaction. (no pun intended)
HOWEVER...
His goal with this "core" wasn't either a chain reaction *OR* fission - He was attempting (in a rather clever fashion, no less) to use the thing to irradiate, and thereby "hop up", his thorium and low-grade uranium for later use as a fissionable when he actually started on the "let's see if we can make a scale model nuclear reactor" part of his project.
If you take the time to read through the article completely, you'll find that David was never successful in constructing a working reactor with functional nuclear fuel. He was "busted" before he even made an attempt in that direction. However, he was *EXTREMELY* successful at putting together most of what he would have needed had he been able to continue his experiments. Even money says that if he'd been left alone, he would have succeeded quite well, earning that merit badge (and then some) and possibly even making a breakthrough such as will never be made in today's "Oh no! It's nuclear/radioactive! Shut it down, lock it up, bury it deep, and shoot the guy that put it together" environment.
I give the kid LOTS of credit - He set out to achieve a goal, and was doing a damn fine job of making it happen using easily available materials and technology.
--
Don Bruder - snipped-for-privacy@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Bruder wrote:

To me he seems like some sort of fixated dimwit.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

materials
enough
and
foil,
a
tenuously
more a

you
From my reading of the incident, he was not interested in producing a hot chain reaction and knew he did not have a critical mass. He was interested in irradiating some of the material in the reactor to produce U-233 from the thorium and Pu-239 from the U-238, which are themselves radioactive and easier to fission. Hence the "breeder" designation.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's right Don. He was not putting together a nuclear chain reactor, he was putting together a breeder and he succeeded. He was able to change the materials in desired direction, as evidenced by dramatic rise in radiation level as his breeding process went on.
While I applaud his achievement and "social engineering" skills, he made some unforgivable mistakes in containing radiation.
Not my cup of tea, but very admirable.
i
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.