By Lake Dodson
“Congratulations! Your abstract, More Power, Less Nukes: How Thorium Energy Could Decrease the Current Threat Level of Nuclear Warfare has been accepted for the joint annual meeting of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management and the European Safeguards Research and Development Association! The meeting will be held at the Austria Center Vienna, across from the Office of the United Nations.”
I was shocked. I’m 22 years old and I have no professional background in the atomic science field. I have yet to graduate from college, yet I’d been invited to attend a prestigious nuclear energy conference. I could hardly contain my excitement. What would it be like to be such a young presenter? My mind was electric with thoughts of who I would meet and the opportunities I would find.
I immediately began to sculpt my paper and presentation by barricading myself inside the classrooms of my university late into the night. I covered the blackboards with notes, checklists, and facts because I wanted to ensure that every word, sentence, and PowerPoint would count. I collected over 30 sources for a 10-page research paper, citing data from acclaimed CERN physicists, Danish nuclear engineers, thesis dissertations out of the University of Mumbai, and everything in between. I consulted my professors whenever possible and secured funding from my university for travel expenses.
After a month of straight 12-hour days, I submitted everything the day before the deadline. I color-coordinated my suits for each day, packed well in advance, and could not sleep on the plane from America to Austria because it all felt so unreal.
At the meeting, I had 15 minutes to present my work. There were flaws I overlooked. Scientists representing national laboratories and the nuclear programs of their countries questioned me extensively, pointing to holes in my science. Apparently I had completely overlooked the formation of Uranium as the final step of the energy excretion process of Thorium and also failed to recognize Thorium’s Swedish origins. I realized I was not only the youngest in the room but also the least educated.
Unlike my university classes, where I learn something new about subjects I’m familiar with, every topic discussed at the conference was completely new to me. While listening intensely to the lectures I was surprised that each one came across with slightly hostile undertones.
Presenters came from two opposing camps in nuclear science: the technical side and the policy side. The degree of polarity between these two factions varied from person to person but the gap existed between everyone in some capacity.
One very telling instance of the divide between policy and technical perspectives was a diatribe by one presenter on the meaning of Monte Carlo Physics, the science of particle transport. According to him, a technical scientist, the explanation was necessary because “there are always some policy people in the audience that have no clue what is going on.”
I am on the policy side, interested in how nuclear energy interacts with regulatory laws and how that might affect diplomatic relations on a national or global scale. I observed in my research how Thorium Energy would affect the international relations of India, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Other presenters from Japan, Ghana, Indonesia, and other nations also discussed how changes in nuclear science could impact the political landscape. The technical side of nuclear science is indeed foreign to me. But the lecture felt condescending.
While “policy people” and “technical people” joke with one another about their areas of expertise, they disagree strongly about who should receive funding and to what ends. I recognize that infighting is not unique to the nuclear sphere. At first I found it funny, but as the conference went along, I wondered how much this divide was impacting progress on both energy solutions and peacekeeping goals.
To the hardworking and knowledgeable “technical person,” a policy person is uneducated in atomic science with an elementary understanding at best and only a basic understanding of the nuclear energy cycle at worst. To the technical side, the policy side cherry-picks the facts to assist in furthering policy decisions. After all, it was the policy people who persuaded political leaders to engage in the one-upmanship of the Cold War, forever associating nuclear energy with nuclear weapons.
While the technical side innovates and improves, the policy side seems to care only about the monikers of success and the dollars of benefactors. Policy people may know how to open the checkbooks of world governments for nuclear science, but what good is that if it only advances the ability of humanity to destroy itself?
To the social and organized “policy person,” the technical experts typically do not have a firm grasp of advanced nuclear science. While the policy side deals with the realities of securing funding and leveraging public support, the technical side seems to care more about furthering their own knowledge and refuses to acknowledge the “irrational” or “poorly educated” people who think that anything with the word “nuclear” in it is dangerous and not viable. Researcher Monica Gattinger points to this phenomenon as nuclear cognitive dissonance.
Neither side is without its own fair points and faulty thinking about which side is more valid or integral to advancing nuclear science. But I believe the competition was never the point.
One thing we all agreed on is that nuclear science needs to better integrate these two sides, and this can only be done by involving more young people. This idea was supplemented by Erin Connolly’s presentation when she pointed out that 90% of Monitoring and Verification workers in the nuclear field are over 30 and 25% over 55.
I learned more about nuclear science at the meeting than I had ever imagined. I witnessed demonstrations of the most mind-blowing technologies, like virtual reality headsets used to detect radiation in real time and the imaging of weapons-grade Plutonium metal using an organic glass-based system. I met the most influential people in the nuclear scientific sphere. And I began to envision a new culture of bright international nuclear scientists of all ages.
Nuclear science is the opposite of a low-skill, entry-level job. It may take decades for me to acclimate myself to the constant advancements and the expansive knowledge amassed by those who came before me. But someone like me needs to ask the stupid questions.
Lake Dodson is a rising senior and Political Science major at the University of Mississippi. He believes that through a better understanding of atomic sciences, a greener and richer future could be achieved using the power of nuclear energies. Lake plans to study Nuclear Materials Science and International Diplomacy at Kyung-Hee University in Seoul, South Korea.
