DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 5. DECLASSIFICATION of ATOMIC ENERGY INFORMATION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 5. DECLASSIFICATION of ATOMIC ENERGY INFORMATION Chapter 5. DECLASSIFICATION OF ATOMIC-ENERGY INFORMATION INTRODUCTION Classification of “atomic-energy information” [Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data (RD and FDR)] was described in the previous chapter. Before classification and declassification principles are discussed, it is useful to review the history of declassification of atomic-energy information. This history is particularly important because within the Manhattan Project all atomic- energy information was “born classified,” and it was only when declassification of some of this information was considered, near and shortly after the end of World War II (WWII), that much thought was given to the principles of either classification or declassification of atomic-energy information. However, when the first declassification principles were established, they were developed by some of the top scientists working on the Manhattan Project. The initial declassification policies even required the approval of President Truman! This chapter discusses, in three separate sections, declassification of atomic-energy information. Those sections cover declassification in the Manhattan Project, declassification under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, and declassification under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Historical aspects are broadly covered with respect to the Manhattan Project and the early years of the atomic Energy Commission (AEC) because much of that information is in documents not readily available to most persons. A final section to this chapter describes some major document- declassification review programs carried out since 1954 that concerned RD and FRD. DECLASSIFICATION IN THE MANHATTAN PROJECT The first “declassification” of atomic-energy information occurred when a uranium atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.* The second declassification occurred when the plutonium bomb * When an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, that event indicated that an atomic bomb would work. From the standpoint of protecting information about a breakthrough in a technology, the knowledge that something can be done may be as important as a description of how it can be done. Also, analysis of debris from the event would reveal that the bomb was made from uranium-235. In that regard, it is interesting to note the following remarks by Gen. L. R. Groves at a hearing before a House of Representatives committee in October 1945: “The big secret was really something that we could not keep quiet, and that was the fact that the thing [atomic bomb] went off. That told more to the world and to the physicists and the scientists of the world than any other thing that could be told to them. It was something that we did not know until we had spend almost $2,000,000,000 and had worked about three years. We did not know whether it would go off or not, and that is the thing that really told them more than anything else that could be told” (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Military Affairs, “Atomic Energy,” Hearings on H.R. 4280, An Act for the Development and Control of Atomic Energy, Oct. 9 and 18, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Sess., 1945, Testimony of Gen. L. R. Groves at p. 12). L. Szilard expressed a similar opinion at those same hearings when he stated that half of the scientific secrets with respect to the atomic bomb were disclosed when the bomb was used and half of the remaining secrets were disclosed in the Smyth Report. His opinion was that the only secrets left were engineering “know-how” (idem, pp. 80, 92). 104 was dropped on Nagasaki (the event revealed that plutonium could be used as the fissile material in a nuclear weapon). The third declassification occurred when the Smyth Report1 was published. The Smyth Report was a general account of all the U.S. work related to the development of atomic energy as directed toward the production of atomic bombs during WWII. To guide the preparation of the Smyth Report, General L. R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, directed that a set of “classification rules” be prepared. Those rules were developed by R. C. Tolman, one of General Groves’ scientific advisors, and H. D. Smyth, a scientist on the project and the author of the Smyth Report. The classification rules were approved by J. B. Conant, Chairman of the National Defense Research Committee and another of General Groves’ scientific advisors.2 Presumably, those classification rules also required the final approval of General Groves.* To be included in the Smyth Report, information had to satisfy at least one requirement in each of three categories established by Smyth and Tolman:3 I. (A) That it is important to a reasonable understanding of what had been done on the project as a whole or (B) That it is of true scientific interest and likely to be truly helpful to scientific workers in this country and II. (A) That it is already known generally by competent scientists or (B) That it can be deduced or guessed by competent scientists from what is already known, combined with the knowledge that the project was in the overall successful or III. (A) That it has no real bearing on the production of atomic bombs or (B) That it could be discovered by a small group (15, of whom not over 5 would be senior men) of competent scientists working in a well-equipped college lab in a year’s time or less. Information concerning actual construction of an atomic bomb was excluded from the report.† The Smyth Report was released to the public on August 11, 1945,4 after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). That report was thoroughly reviewed by the major Manhattan Project participants before its release, with the final review by R. C. Tolman and H. D. Smyth.5,6 Final release approval for that report was by President Truman.4 The release was H. C. Urey stated comparable conclusions: “When the [atomic] bomb exploded, the most important fact was known. From that point on, any foreign country could move with confidence, and this is a great advantage; whereas we had to feel our way along on this problem, set up many alternative methods for doing this work, follow many lines of research, many of which were discarded” (U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Atomic Energy, “Atomic Energy,” Hearing Pursuant to S. Res. 179, Part 1, Nov. 27–30, Dec. 3, 1945, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., Testimony of Dr. H. C. Urey, p. 85). * In 1946, General Groves’ recollection was that the classification rules for the Smyth Report were drawn up by him, in consultation with others, including Drs. Bush, Conant, and Tolman. He also stated that those rules were later formally approved by the Secretary of War (Gen. L. R. Groves, in “Atomic Energy Act of 1946,” Hearings Before the Special Committee on Atomic Energy, U.S. Senate, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., on S. 1717, A Bill for the Development and Control of Atomic Energy, Part 4, Feb. 18, 19, and 27, 1946, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 480). † The Smyth Report was prepared and issued for several reasons. One purpose was to provide a record of Manhattan Project activities, giving credit to the appropriate individuals and organizations. Also, it was realized that, once an atomic bomb had been dropped on Japan, there would be much pressure from press and politicians for more information. Persons in the Manhattan Project would be eager to provide information. The Smyth Report would establish the information that could be released and make it easier to preserve secrecy on the remaining classified information. A final reason for issuing the Smyth Report was to provide information to U.S. citizens to help them reach informed decisions concerning atomic energy (R. G. Hewlett and O. E. Anderson, Jr., The New World, 1939/1946, The Pennsylvania University Press, University Park, Pa., 1962, pp. 400, 407; L. R. Groves, Now it Can Be Told, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1962, pp. 348-350; V. C. Jones, Manhattann: The Army and the Atomic Bomb, United States Army in World War II, Special Studies, Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 556-562. 105 also previously approved by the British, through J. Chadwick, Chief of the British Scientific Group assigned to the Manhattan Project.*,† Comprehensive guidelines for declassifying atomic-energy information were established shortly after the end of WWII. In early November 1945, General Groves asked R. C. Tolman to draft a declassification policy for the Manhattan Project. Dr. Tolman assembled a seven-member committee (all scientists), which consisted of R. F. Bacher, A. H. Compton, E. O. Lawrence, J. R. Oppenheimer, F. H. Spedding, H. C. Urey, and himself.7,‡ All members except A. H. Compton attended the Committee on Declassification’s first meeting, held at Pasadena, California, on November 13-14, 1945. The Committee’s first report to General Groves was dated Nov. 17, 1945.8 The Committee on Declassification, also known as the Tolman Committee, stated the following as its general philosophy: In accordance with your [Gen. Groves’s] directive the Committee has considered the effect of release of information both on the national welfare and on the national security. In the interest of national welfare it might seem that nearly all information should be released at once. In the interest of national security a superficial consideration of the problem might lead to the conclusion that very little information should be released. It is not the conviction of the Committee that the concealment of scientific information can in any long term contribute to the national security of the United States. It is recognized that at the present time it may be inevitable that the policy of the Government will be to conceal certain information in the interest of national security.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WINTER 2013 - Volume 60, Number 4 the Air Force Historical Foundation Founded on May 27, 1953 by Gen Carl A
    WINTER 2013 - Volume 60, Number 4 WWW.AFHISTORICALFOUNDATION.ORG The Air Force Historical Foundation Founded on May 27, 1953 by Gen Carl A. “Tooey” Spaatz MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS and other air power pioneers, the Air Force Historical All members receive our exciting and informative Foundation (AFHF) is a nonprofi t tax exempt organization. Air Power History Journal, either electronically or It is dedicated to the preservation, perpetuation and on paper, covering: all aspects of aerospace history appropriate publication of the history and traditions of American aviation, with emphasis on the U.S. Air Force, its • Chronicles the great campaigns and predecessor organizations, and the men and women whose the great leaders lives and dreams were devoted to fl ight. The Foundation • Eyewitness accounts and historical articles serves all components of the United States Air Force— Active, Reserve and Air National Guard. • In depth resources to museums and activities, to keep members connected to the latest and AFHF strives to make available to the public and greatest events. today’s government planners and decision makers information that is relevant and informative about Preserve the legacy, stay connected: all aspects of air and space power. By doing so, the • Membership helps preserve the legacy of current Foundation hopes to assure the nation profi ts from past and future US air force personnel. experiences as it helps keep the U.S. Air Force the most modern and effective military force in the world. • Provides reliable and accurate accounts of historical events. The Foundation’s four primary activities include a quarterly journal Air Power History, a book program, a • Establish connections between generations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • From Atomic Energy for Military Purposes
    Atomic Energy for Military Purposes The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb Under the Auspices of the United States Government (The Smyth Report) By Henry De Wolf Smyth Published 1945 CHAPTER XII: THE WORK ON THE ATOMIC BOMB THE OBJECTIVE 12.1. The entire purpose of the work described in the preceding chapters was to explore the possibility of creating atomic bombs and to produce the concentrated fissionable materials which would be required in such bombs. In the present chapter, the last stage of the work will be described - the development at Los Alamos of the atomic bomb itself. As in other parts of the project, there are two phases to be considered: the organization, and the scientific and technical work itself. The organization will be described briefly; the remainder of the chapter will be devoted to the scientific and technical problems. Security considerations prevent a discussion of many of the most important phases of this work. HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION 12.2. The project reorganization that occurred at the beginning of 1942, and the subsequent gradual transfer of the work from OSRD auspices to the Manhattan District have been described in Chapter V. It will be recalled that the responsibilities of the Metallurgical Laboratory at Chicago originally included a preliminary study of the physics of the atomic bomb. Some such studies were made in 1941; and early in 1942 G. Breit got various laboratories (see Chapter VI, paragraph 6.38) started on the experimental study of problems that had to be solved before progress could be made on bomb design.
    [Show full text]
  • Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics
    Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics Series Editors Neil Ashby William Brantley Michael Fowler Michael Inglis Elena Sassi Helmy S. Sherif Heinz Klose For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8917 Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics (ULNP) publishes authoritative texts covering topics throughout pure and applied physics. Each title in the series is suitable as a basis for undergraduate instruction, typically containing practice problems, worked examples, chapter summaries, and suggestions for further reading. ULNP titles must provide at least one of the following: • An exceptionally clear and concise treatment of a standard undergraduate subject. • A solid undergraduate-level introduction to a graduate, advanced, or non-stan- dard subject. • A novel perspective or an unusual approach to teaching a subject. ULNP especially encourages new, original, and idiosyncratic approaches to physics teaching at the undergraduate level. The purpose of ULNP is to provide intriguing, absorbing books that will continue to be the reader’s preferred reference throughout their academic career. Series Editors Neil Ashby Professor, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA William Brantley Professor, Furman University, Greenville, SC, USA Michael Fowler Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Michael Inglis Professor, SUNY Suffolk County Community College, Selden, NY, USA Elena Sassi Professor, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Helmy Sherif Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Bruce Cameron Reed The History and Science of the Manhattan Project 123 Bruce Cameron Reed Department of Physics Alma College Alma, MI USA ISSN 2192-4791 ISSN 2192-4805 (electronic) ISBN 978-3-642-40296-8 ISBN 978-3-642-40297-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-40297-5 Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2013946925 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Energy for Military Purposes (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1945), Pp.98,143
    REFERENCE 19 H. D. SMYTH, ATOMIC ENERGY FOR MILITARY PURPOSES (PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1945), PP.98,143. Atomic Energy for Military Purposes The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspwes of the United States Government, 1940-l 945 By HENRY DEWOLF SMITH CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS PRINCETON UNIVERSITY CONSULTANT, MANHATT.4N DISTRICT, U.S. ENGINEERS Written at the request of MAJ. GEN. L. R. GROVES, U.S.-~. PRINCETON PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 1945 Copyright, 1945, by H. D. Smyth Reprociuctio~ in whoie 6 in p& authorized and permitted Printed in the United States of America , by Maple Press, York, Pennsylvania CHAPTER QI. T’E METALLURGICAL PROJECT AT CHICAGO IN 7942 INTRODUCTION 6.1, As has been made clear in Chapters IV and V, the infor- mation accumulated by the end of 1941 as to the possibility of producing an atomic bomb was such as to warrant expansion of the work, and this expansion called for an administrative reor- ganization. It was generally accepted that there was a very high probability that an atomic bomb of enormous destructive power could be made, either from concentrated U-235 or from the new element plutonium. It was proposed, therefore, to institute an intensive experimental and theoretical program including work both on isotope separation and on the chain-reaction problems. It was hoped that this program would establish definitely whether or not U-235 could be separated in significant quantities from U-238, either by electromagnetic or statistical methods; whether or not a chain reaction could be established with natural uranium or its compounds and could be made to yield relatively large quantities of plutonium; and whether or not the plutonium so produced could be separated from the parent material, uranium.
    [Show full text]
  • April 10, 1965 NATURE ATOM
    No. 49so April 10, 1965 NATURE 123 Since, quite apart from financial considerations, there world picture. Written from the British perspective _all;d must be some relation between the output of different largely from documents only in GDvernment files, Bnta~n categories of trained manpower and national needs and and Atomic Energy 1939-1945 brings to light many _n~w opportunities, it would seem wise to proceed circumspectly and, in some ways, extraordinary facts about British with university expansion pending the enquiry into the activities in the early 1940's. For one who has investigated this early history from reasons for the shortage of candidates in science and documents available in the United States, the most technology and the institution of appropriate measures to important revelation in Mrs. GDwing's book is the extent deal with the situation which themselves may well require of British accomplishment before the summer of 1941. time to take effect. There are some suggestive passages in I knew that the optimistic conclusions of the Maud this connexion in the recent presidential report of Dr. Report in the summer of 1941 had sparked the first real Caryl Haskins to the Carnegie Institution of Washington effort to investigate the possibilities of an atomic weapon (see Nature, 206, I, 1965), and while some attention to in the United States; but I had never imagined that the the content of university courses, to transfer between physical principles on which that Report was based were courses, and perhaps to more flexibility in the subjects understood by some scientists in Britain as early as February 1940.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Sciences Forum (PSF) Established at the History of Science Society (HSS) by Catherine Westfall
    HistoryNEWSLETTER Physics A FORUM OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICALof SOCIETY • VOLUME XII • NO. 1 • FALL 2012 News of the Forum: Physical Sciences Forum (PSF) established at the History of Science Society (HSS) By Catherine Westfall The Physical Sciences Forum (PSF) was recently formed as part of the History of Science Society. The general aim of the PSF is to further scholarship in the history of the physical sciences as broadly understood, including but not limited to: physics; earth, space, and atmospheric science; astronomy; and materials science. It will help forge a more coherent community for those with a core specialty in these sub-fields with a particular emphasis on developing the connections linking these sub-fields and exploring their resonance with wider scholarship. The PSF met for the first time at the November 2012 HSS meeting in San Diego. Several FHP members were instru- mental in seeing the PSF come to life. Catherine Westfall, who was elected chair, and Don Howard helped organize the group, and Peter Pesic was an enthusiastic attendee who helped spread the word about the new group. Westfall appointed a steering committee that includes two other FHP friends—the head of AIP’s Center for the History of Physics, Greg Good, and University of Minnesota graduate student Joe Martin, who presented a paper at the Pais Prize session at the 2012 April meeting and organized a panel session at the 2013 March meeting. At the meeting those assembled laid out three plans for 2013, and identified committees to implement each plan. Greg Good is spearheading the effort for an annual meet- ing, the first to be held in spring 2013, that will provide an Physical Sciences Forum Chair Catherine Westfall.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evil We Were Interested in Pushing Out
    To the Trustees: The article contained in this number of the Confi- dential Monthly Report was written by George V. Gray of our staff and is of such unusual interest that I am sure all the Trustees will want to read it carefully. Whether the release of atomic energy in the long run will result in good or evil for the race, no one can now say; but whatever the consequences, the Foundation and its related boards cannot escape their share of the responsibility, indirect as it may be. The atomic bomb is the result of influences which, for the most part uninten- tionally and unwittingly, we helped to set in motion, because we were interested in pushing out the boundaries of knowledge, It is a tragic irony that when men have been most successful in the pursuit of truth, they have most endangered the possi- bility of human life on this planet. The towering question which faces the world now is whether the new energies can be controlled. It is, I know, the hope of all of us that the Foundation may be able to make some contribution, however slight, to this end. Raymond B. Fosdick CONTENTS THE ATOMIC BOMB AND THE ROCKEFELLER BOARDS Former Fellows Who Worked on the Bomb . 1 "Fortune Favors the Prepared Mind". ... 2 Tools That Pioneered the Job .5 Activities at Columbia and Princeton . 6 Discoveries at California 8 The Giant Magnet Goes into Action ... .10 The Metallurgical Laboratory 13 The Los Alamos Laboratory . .16 Medical Aspects 17 A Jiist of the Former Fellows 20 THE ATOMIC BOMB AND THE ROCKEFELLER BOARDS Many agencies - universities, industrial corporations, and other civilian organizations and individuals - shared in the vast teamwork which produced the atomic bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb” Is a Short History of the Origins and Develop- Ment of the American Atomic Bomb Program During World War H
    f.IOE/MA-0001 -08 ‘9g [ . J vb JMkirlJkhilgUimBA’mmml — .— Q RDlmm UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ,:.. .- ..-. .. -,.,,:. ,.<,.;<. ~-.~,.,.- -<.:,.:-,------—,.--,,p:---—;-.:-- ---:---—---- -..>------------.,._,.... ,/ ._ . ... ,. “ .. .;l, ..,:, ..... ..’, .’< . Copies of this publication are available while supply lasts from the OffIce of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. BOX 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Attention: Information Services Telephone: (423) 576-8401 Also Available: The United States Department of Energy: A Summary History, 1977-1994 @ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper DO13MA-0001 a +~?y I I Tho PROJEOT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY F.G. Gosling History Division Executive Secretariat Management and Administration Department of Energy ]January 1999 edition . DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. I DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. 1 Foreword The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 brought together for the first time in one department most of the Federal Government’s energy programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry A. Wallace's Criticism of America's Atomic Monopoly, 1945
    Henry A. Wallace’s Criticism of America’s Atomic Monopoly, 1945-1948 Henry A. Wallace’s Criticism of America’s Atomic Monopoly, 1945-1948 By Mayako Shimamoto Henry A. Wallace’s Criticism of America’s Atomic Monopoly, 1945-1948 By Mayako Shimamoto This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Mayako Shimamoto All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9951-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9951-2 For Kojiro and Masahiro TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ...................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... x Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One ................................................................................................. 4 Earlier Studies and Position of this Study Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 25 Henry Wallace Meets with the Atomic Scientists Chapter Three ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Memories of Secret City Days1
    MEMORIES OF SECRET CITY DAYS1 William J. (Bill) Wilcox Jr., Oak Ridge City Historian Retired Technical Director for the Oak Ridge Y-12 & K-25 Plants [During the Manhattan Project (from May 25, 1943) a Jr. Chemist, Tennessee Eastman Corp., Y-12 Plant] A Guest Column for the Newspaper Based on the Memoirs Paper, June, 19991 We need to go back to the early days of 1939 for a little background in telling why Oak Ridge came to be in World War II and to appreciate better the remarkable things that were done here. PRELUDE In January of 1939, two brilliant chemists over in Germany proved that if you bombard the heavy ele- ment uranium with neutron radiation, some of the uranium atoms split in two and become entirely different elements of about half the weight of uranium, like barium and lanthanum. And when the atom's nucleus splits, a huge amount of energy is released-10 million times the energy released in chemical reactions we are familiar with, like burning coal and gasoline, or exploding dynamite and TNT. The physicists in those days were working with only microscopic amounts of uranium, but could detect the energy released easily. Nu- clear energy is the energy of the universe-God’s way- the energy of the sun that keeps us warm. On the grand scale, nuclear energy is the most common kind; the chemical energy that we humans know is a rare thing only known on planets such as ours! Now a significant aspect of this finding was that the world in January 1939 was still at peace, so this exciting development was immediately published in a scientific journal read by scientists in every country all over the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Reactor.Pdf
    .-. DISCLAIMER This repofi was.prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privateiy owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. : The FirstReactor @ U.S. Department of Energy %~ Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy T** . and Assistant .%cretary, Management A~f + $a:$;g:::~;.0;0585 @$*6R December 1982 $ This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. ,! Available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Price: Printed Copy A03 Microfiche AOI Codes are used for Pricing all publications. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current issues of the following publications, which are generally available in most Iibraries: Energy Research Abstracts, (ERA); Government Reports Announcements and 1ndex (GRA and 1); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports (STAR); and pub- lication, NTIS-PR-360 available from (NTIS) at the above address.
    [Show full text]