ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Feb 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
January 2026
Latest News
Fusion energy: Progress, partnerships, and the path to deployment
Over the past decade, fusion energy has moved decisively from scientific aspiration toward a credible pathway to a new energy technology. Thanks to long-term federal support, we have significantly advanced our fundamental understanding of plasma physics—the behavior of the superheated gases at the heart of fusion devices. This knowledge will enable the creation and control of fusion fuel under conditions required for future power plants. Our progress is exemplified by breakthroughs at the National Ignition Facility and the Joint European Torus.
J. A. Blink, G. P. Lasche
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 4 | Number 2 | September 1983 | Pages 1146-1151
Environment and Safety | doi.org/10.13182/FST83-A23013
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Five steels (PCA, HT-9, thermally stabilized 2.25 Cr-1 Mo, Nb stabilized 2.25 Cr-1 Mo, and 2.25 Cr-1 V) are compared as a function of time from the viewpoints of activation, afterheat, inhalation biological hazard potential (BHP), ingestion BHP, and feasibility of disposal by shallow land burial. An additional case uses the 2.25 Cr-1 V steel with a liquid metal wall (LMW) protective shield between the neutron source and the wall. (This geometry is feasible for inertial confinement fusion reactors.) The PCA steel is the worst choice and the LMW protected 2.25 Cr-1 V is the best choice by substantial margins from all five viewpoints. The HT-9 and two versions of 2.25 Cr-1 Mo are roughly the same at intermediate values. The 2.25 Cr-1 V has about the same afterheat as those three steels, but its waste disposal feasibility is considerably better. Under NRC's proposed low level waste disposal rule (10CFR61), only the 2.25 Cr-1 V could be considered low level waste suitable for shallow land burial.