Tag Archives: Oak Ridge

US military deaths in Afghanistan at 2,070

As of Wednesday, April 17, 2013, at least 2,070 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to an Associated Press count.

The AP count is three less than the Defense Department‘s tally, last updated Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT.

At least 1,716 military service members have died in Afghanistan as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers.

Outside of Afghanistan, the department reports at least 119 more members of the U.S. military died in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those, 11 were the result of hostile action.

The AP count of total OEF casualties outside of Afghanistan is four more than the department’s tally.

The Defense Department also counts three military civilian deaths.

Since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, 18,418 U.S. service members have been wounded in hostile action, according to the Defense Department.

___

The latest identifications reported by the military:

— Two soldiers died April 9 in Pachir Wa Agam District, Nangarhar province; they were assigned to the 1st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, 104th Aviation Regiment, 28th Combat Aviation Brigade, 28th Infantry Division, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa.; killed were: Chief Warrant Officer Matthew P. Ruffner, 34, of Harrisburg, Pa., and Chief Warrant Officer Jarett M. Yoder, 26, of Mohnton, Pa.

— Three soldiers died April 6 in Kandahar of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit in Zabul with a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device; they were assigned to the 5th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armor Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.; killed were: Staff Sgt. Christopher M. Ward, 24, of Oak Ridge, Tenn., Spc. Wilbel A. Robles-Santa, 25, of Juncos, Puerto Rico, and Spc. Delfin M. Santos Jr., 24, of San Jose, Calif.

— Capt. James Michael Steel, 29, of Tampa, Fla., died April 3 in the crash of an F-16 near Bagram Air Field; assigned to the 77th Fighter Squadron, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

___

From: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/national/~3/IDhPuGZL_Hg/

Could This Be the Future of Nuclear Power?

By Maxx Chatsko, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

Let’s start off with a quiz. Name at least one element that fuels nuclear reactors. I don’t normally trust strangers over the Internet, but I’m fairly confident that you were able to identify uranium as the correct answer. Now, name an element that you think is most likely to be the driving force behind the industry in 2050 and beyond. Chances are you went chalk and named uranium again.

No one can blame you for that, but you may want to consider the potential of thorium. After being developed side by side with traditional uranium reactors shortly after World War 2, thorium reactors fell into the dustbin of history despite sporting several key advantages. Thorium is cheaper, more abundant, and safer to use than uranium and received heightened attention after the Fukushima accident several years ago. Now, several macro trends have a growing list of companies and governments across the globe resurrecting the technology. Is it time to prepare your portfolio for a thorium future?

History is a winner’s game
American nuclear physicist Dr. Alvin Weinberg made major contributions to nuclear technology — from the Manhattan Project to reactor architecture — over his 18 year tenure as Research Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. What began in the 1950s as an attempt to construct a nuclear-powered long-range aircraft (The Aircraft Reactor Experiment) led to Weinberg’s lifelong dedication to molten salt reactors, or MSRs. Why haven’t you heard of this technology? The MSR Program at Oak Ridge succumbed to political pressures in the early 1970s and was all but forgotten. Losers rarely become the authors of history.

That doesn’t mean the technology didn’t work. It was even considered competitive with early light water reactors, or LWRs, which are now the industry standard. One theory as to why the program was cancelled is that thorium reactors could not be used for weapons production, which was an important concern of politicians during the Cold War. Of course, today this attribute would be emphatically filed under the “advantages” column.

While Cold War fears were certainly a nail in the coffin, Dr. H.G. MacPherson, who worked on the project with Weinberg, outlined a more complete history of the MSR Program (link opens PDF) for Nuclear Science and Engineering in 1985. And while I’m a big fan of nerding-out on technical and scientific papers, The Motley Fool doesn’t keep me around to explain the intricate details behind thorium reactors. For a more thorough examination of the element and technology, I would direct you to the World Nuclear Association’s page on thorium.

Behold, the power of Thor
The leading design for a thorium MSR is the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR. What’s so great about it? These types of reactors are capable of operating at atmospheric pressure, which essentially makes them meltdown proof. Imagine that. Such reactors would ease fears about the accidental release of radioactive material and could save hundreds of millions of dollars on the construction …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

How Gals Helped Nuke Japan Without Knowing It

By Neal Colgrass Only here could “hillbilly girls” outpace PhD’s in a contest to enrich uranium. Dubbed “Site X” during World War II, the atomic research facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn., was secretly building the A-bomb. It also hired many young women without telling them about the Manhattan Project, according to a new… …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Great Finds