Talk:SEFOR

Town name

It's Strickler, not Stickler. See this USGS map: [1] Slicing 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This article bites

In my opinion, the article is not correct in one important aspect: The main objective of the SEFOR project was to prove the efficiency of the DOPPLER EFFECT as an fast inherent safety maechanism.not the thermal core expansion effect. Oxide fuel was a new fuel at that time and could not rely on the thermal expansion of the fuel as the metal fuel did, which was in use at that time. The DOPPLER EFFECT was believed to replace the effect of thermal fuel expansion: The main objective of the SEFOR project was - as mentioned above - to prove and to demonstrate this effect. This goal was achieved extremely successfully.

217.233.254.209 13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Gerhard Heusener, gheusener@yahoo.com

• Thanks for the input, I'll try and incorporate that into the article. --The_stuart 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article, in its original form, reads as anti-nuclear propaganda. Note, for instance, this passage that appears to be pointing out some sort of whitewashing effort on the part of the consortium:

"You would get more radiation from the operation of your television set than if you lived next door to the SEFOR site!" and even "Nuclear plants do not pollute the air or water..."

Well it would appear that both of these statements are in fact true.

As far as the article notes, it seems the program was a complete success and operated with a perfect safety record. The "significant" problems noted seem to me to be nothing of the sort. The mass spec was offline? Big deal! Power went out during a storm? So does mine... and let's be sure we note that this was not a generating station.

It's worth pointing out that passive thermal control, apparently pioneered in SEFOR, is now the main reason that there is so much interest in the pebble bed reactor design.

Maury 13:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked The stuart for sources on the pamphlets, but he never responded. Slicing 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Maury. This was clearly written by someone with a chip on their shoulder with respect to nuclear power. There are many things hinted at that, if stated up front, would be quickly yanked as POV. Also, the reason why the stated "significant" problems were important was not at all obvious. :P

unknownkadath 17:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually guys, it was not my intention to write this with any bias. My main refrence came from an article in the Fayettville Free Press that alerted me to the exsitents of the plant owned by my university. The obvious liberal bias of the free press must have carried over. However, the site is a pretty big mess that needs cleaning and no one seems to have the money or inclination to do it, that much is true. --The_stuart 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's see - it 'operated with a perfect safety record' - yet it requires $22 million (to start) for cleanup? Seems something significant is missing from this article.

And... 'nuclear does not pollute' is 'in fact a true statement'? What planet is it true on? Nonukes (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• The "Atomic Pork" article
• Document from DOE archive (1MB PDF) — specifically the Introduction and Appendix A.1

I'd add the PDF to the article myself, but I'm not sure of the proper citation format to use for it. Slicing 19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another factoid on SEFOR can be found on page 12 of this PDF —Slicing (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of nuclear reactors

SEFOR should be added to the list of nuclear reactors, but I'm not sure where to place it. Any suggestions? —Slicing (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Stuck it in research reactors section --The_stuart 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But you put it in the "Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, Idaho" which is not where it is. Perhaps we should list it under "University of Arkansas"? How far from the campus is it? —Slicing (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article still strikes me as POV. Although it was billed as being "the western world's most significant nuclear power research project" with the mission of producing more usable nuclear fuel than it consumed, the technology that the reactor was testing was almost entirely rejected. Almost entirely rejected? India and China are both building FBRs, Japan expects to have Monju back online in 2008, Korea is investing in an FBR design although they have no customer for it yet.

There are many other not so obvious bits of politics. We can (and IMO should) report relevant politics on controversial matters, but we must also identify political material as such. There's a political movement that seeks to discredit all nuclear technology, and this article still reports much of their propaganda as fact.

Another example is the suggestion of premature closure. The original planned closure date was March 1972. The actual date was January 1972. These dates (both from the source named in the article) give a very different picture to that given by the article as it stands: The actual reason for the the reactor being shut down after such a short period is not publicly known. Officially, it is because the reactor was so successful that the project was finished in 1972, well ahead of the estimated 1977 completion date. This estimated date appears to be the date given in a refused application for additional funding to use the reactor for further research. Such an application and refusal is not unusual in any research program. The claim that the actual reason for the reactor being shut down is not publicly known is at best unsupported speculation.

But personally, purely on the evidence in the article and its only quoted source, I'd call it a lie.

I don't know a lot about SECOR, and have a strong personal pro-nuclear POV, so I'm not jumping in to fix it immediately, or even tagging it POV. But these seem glaringly obvious to me. I'll see what I can turn up in the way of information. Andrewa 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another little detail: The site is contaminated with residual radiation, liquid sodium,....

Liquid sodium? Really? Andrewa 16:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the site is kept at a balmy 208 °F at all times ;-)

But seriously, I agree that there are definitely still some POV issues with the article. Besides that heavily anti-nuclear "Atomic Pork" article, the only other sources I was able to dig up are linked above in the "More sources" section. The DOE document provides an after-the-fact account of a small part of the goings on at SEFOR, but that's all I could find. —Slicing (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Refactor

I've had a long think about it, and an attempt at a refactor, leaving quite a lot out. What remains is entirely from the previous article and its references. Andrewa 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting

I'd like to reformat this entry to be more readable and allow future expansion. This will involve breaking the entry into:

Introduction

Design and Construction

 need for full scale reactor; site selection

Operation

 findings of experiments

Decommissioning

 why the site was shut down; removal of fuel and coolant; transfer to UofA

Legacy

 SEFOR effects on later reactors; UofA plans; Harmon Road landfill?; ongoing cleanup plans

Notes

References

External Links

Most of these sections will be very short and verbatim from the current entry. Breaking up the current entry should allow for easier edits as new information is added and more appropriate placement of illustrations. In particular the drawn out, on-again/off again cleanup plans are not being followed up on and the current format of the entry is confusing.

I have no technical interest in this subject or ability to cite sources other than those freely available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I edit wikipedia (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)