Optimization Strategies for Bayesian Source Localization Algorithms

A soil sampling program is the most direct means of determining the types, concentration/activity, and distribution of radionuclides within and around nuclear facilities. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), for example, has had a soil surveillance program since the early 1970s and the purpose of this paper was to 1) evaluate this 20+ year data set to determine if there are any statistical differences in radionuclides (3H, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, 241Am, 90Sr, totU) and radioactivity (gross a, ß, and γ), as a function of air emissions and fugitive dust, in surface soils (0–5 cm depth) collected from LANL, perimeter (PM) and background (BG) sites, and 2) determine if radionuclide concentrations are increasing or decreasing over time. Also, the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) and the corresponding risk of excess cancer fatalities (RECF) to a PM community were estimated. Based on the long‐term average, nine out of the ten radionuclide parameters measured in LANL soils (n=12) were significantly (p<0.05) higher in concentration than BG (n=6). Perimeter soils (n=10), on the other hand, showed less differences with only four out of the ten parameters being statistically higher in concentration than BG. Most radionuclides in LANL and PM areas, with the exception of 238Pu in soils from PM, significantly decrease in concentration over time, so that by 1996 most radionuclides were approaching values similar to BG. The maximum net positive TEDE (i.e., the TEDE + two sigma for each radioisotope minus background and then only the positive doses summed) for a resident living around the PM of LANL, as modeled by the residual radioactive (RESRAD) code using a residential scenario for soils collected from 1974–1996, 1993–1996, and in 1996 was 2.9 mrem y‐1 (29 μSv y‐1), 2.3 mrem y‐1 (23 μSv y‐1), and 0.8 mrem y‐1 (8 μSv y‐1), respectively. All upper bound TEDEs were far below the International Commission of Radiological Protection permissible dose limit of 100 mrem y‐1 (1000 μSv y‐1) for all pathways, and the highest TEDE corresponds to a RECF of 1.5 × 10‐6—an estimate far below the Environmental Protection Agency guideline of 10‐4.

The authors analyzed the evolution of institutional and facility response to groups of abnormal incidents at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The analysis is divided into three stages: (1) the LANL response to severe accidents from 1994 to 1996, (2) the LANL response to facility-specific clusters of low-consequence incidents from 1997 to 1999, and (3) the ongoing development of and response to a Laboratory-wide trending and analysis program. The first stage is characterized by five severe accidents at LANL--a shooting fatality, a forklift accident, two electrical shock incidents, and an explosion in a nuclear facility. Each accident caused LANL and the Department of Energy (DOE) to launch in-depth investigations. A recurrent theme of the investigations was the failure of LANL and DOE to identify and act on precursor or low-consequence events that preceded the severe accidents. The second stage is characterized by LANL response to precursor or low-consequence incidents over a two-year period. In this stage, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility, the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility, and the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center responded to an increase in low-consequence events by standing down their facilities. During the restart process, each facility collectively analyzed the low-consequence events and developed systemic corrective actions. The third stage is characterized by the development of a Laboratory-wide trending and analysis program, which involves proactive division-level analysis of incidents and development of systemic actions. The authors conclude that, while the stages show an encouraging evolution, the facility standdowns and restarts are overly costly and that the institutional trending and analysis program is underutilized. The authors therefore recommend the implementation of an institutional, mentored program of trending and analysis that identifies clusters of related low-consequence events, analyzes those events, and develops systemic actions to avoid both severe accidents and standdowns.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is working with NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes (NMR) on their efforts to produce Mo-99 from the irradiation of Mo-100 targets. The NMR target consists of an Inconel window that allows the electron beam to penetrate and irradiate a stack of Mo-100 disks. The irradiation process generates large amounts of heat and is cooled using pressurized helium gas flowing at 400 g/s. LANL provides both numerical analysis support and experimental support. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and conjugate heat transfer (CHT) analysis are performed on the NMR target to analyze the helium flow and volumetric heating through the NMR system. In this iteration of numerical analysis, we update the Mo-100 disk thickness to 0.74 mm and the gap between the Inconel window and the first disk to 0.69 mm. Estimates of the heat flux from the electron beams from Monte Carlo N-Particle code (MCNP) analysis were combined with CFD to perform the CHT analysis. The pressure drop through the targets, force applied on the first disk, beam window and target disk temperatures are some of the quantities estimated using the simulations. The pressure drop through the target was estimated as 0.198 MPa, while the force due to venturi effects across the first disk was estimated to be 100 N. The results show maximum window temperatures over 600 °C and peak disk temperatures over 1600 °C. Past work has shown that beyond 650-700 °C, the Inconel window becomes susceptible to yield and rupture. The increased temperature in these results reduces the margin of error possible on beam spot size. The disk temperatures showed a sinusoidal distribution with the 6^th – 8^th disk from each window exhibiting highest disk temperatures. The peak temperature of the stainless steel housing was close to 316 °C and that of the laminations and spacers was approximately 582 °C.

At present, multi-satellite geolocation systems based on the TDOA are actively used to localization of radio emission sources in satellite communication systems operating via relay satellites without on-board processing. In General, information about the location of the radio emission sources is contained in the difference of the inclined range from the multiple fixed points with known coordinates. Such points of space in the classical geolocation system are two or more relay satellites in geostationary orbit. It is not always possible to have two or more satellites retransmitting the same signal. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a mathematical model for geolocation using a single relay satellite. Single-satellite geolocation is based on the use of Doppler, TDOA, or phase direction finding methods. With this approach, it is desirable that a single satellite has the ability to move in a controlled manner, either in altitude or at different speeds relative to its standing point. Moving the satellite along the equator in position and along the meridian in height allows you to calculate several orthogonal bases of estimates of the inclined range to the radio source. In this case, the determination of coordinates is based on the increment of the distance of the object's signal runs between the end points of each base. This provides the construction of position lines (hyperballs), the intersection of which is the source location. If the movement of the satellite along the equator and the meridian is performed with a change in speed, then geolocation is based on measurements of several orthogonal components of the Doppler frequency shift of the radio source signals. The base will be called two, four or more pairwise taken orbital positions of the satellite at points with fixed coordinates; S x y z1 1 1 1( , , ) S x y z2 2 2 2( , , ); S x y z2 2 2 2( , , ) S x y z3 3 3 3( , , ); etc. in all possible combinations. An arbitrary inclined base formed in the spacecraft orbit has an extension of Бп (x2  x1)2  (y2  y1)2  (z2  z1)2 . Differential range Дд = Дн2 – Дн1. To geolocate the M-object, you must: 1. Measure the difranges between M over two or more different shifted Дн bases at multiple satellite drift positions – Дд1, Дд2, ..., Дд4, etc. 2. Calculate the parameters al, bl, cl of each l-th hyperbolic surface of the section of the conic equations of the geometric location of the points of position M with the measured Дд1, Дд2, ..., Дд4 and the known Дн. Construct a common point of intersection of several such hyperbolic surfaces of the cross-section of the conic equations of the geometric location of the points of the position of the object M(x, y, z). The resulting vector of linear coordinates M(x, y, z) of the object must be converted from geocentric to geographical coordinates of the spherical coordinate system of the object M (longitude, latitude, Position-vector).

Los Alamos National Laboratory has recently obtained a Spot robot from Boston Dynamics to evaluate its suitability for work in and around laboratory facilities. Spot is a highly mobile quadruped robot capable of up to 90 minutes of operation. It can be outfitted with payloads up to 35 lbs. and supports both Boston Dynamics developed equipment, third party payloads, or custom developed payloads. One existing Boston Dynamics attachment is a robot arm that allows the robot to directly interact with its environment, open doors, turn valves, etc.

Colossus is designed to meet a growing need for survival analysis software capable of analyzing tens of millions of rows of radiation epidemiological data. Colossus is an R package devised to offer scalable survival analysis for the Million Person Study. The total and relative rate equations available in Colossus are outlined in this article, which are used in conjunction with Cox proportional hazards, Poisson, and Fine-Grey regression models. Following a comparison with existing software, validation with epidemiological cohort data is described. Exposure data and specific causes of death among workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory and U.S. nuclear power plants were analyzed by Colossus and 32-bit Epicure and compared with published results. Colossus results agreed with the results of existing software and previous publications.

Purpose:The Bayesian estimation algorithm improves the precision of bolus tracking perfusion imaging. However, this algorithm cannot directly calculate Tmax, the time scale widely used to identify ischemic penumbra, because Tmax is a non-physiological, artificial index that reflects the tracer arrival delay (TD) and other parameters. We calculated Tmax from the TD and mean transit time (MTT) obtained by the Bayesian algorithm and determined its accuracy in comparison with Tmax obtained by singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithms.Methods:The TD and MTT maps were generated by the Bayesian algorithm applied to digital phantoms with time-concentration curves that reflected a range of values for various perfusion metrics using a global arterial input function. Tmax was calculated from the TD and MTT using constants obtained by a linear least-squares fit to Tmax obtained from the two SVD algorithms that showed the best benchmarks in a previous study. Correlations between the Tmax values obtained by the Bayesian and SVD methods were examined.Results:The Bayesian algorithm yielded accurate TD and MTT values relative to the true values of the digital phantom. Tmax calculated from the TD and MTT values with the least-squares fit constants showed excellent correlation (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.99) and agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99) with Tmax obtained from SVD algorithms.Conclusions:Quantitative analyses of Tmax values calculated from Bayesian-estimation algorithm-derived TD and MTT from a digital phantom correlated and agreed well with Tmax values determined using SVD algorithms.

The Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) is proposing to provide analytical chemistry (AC) and materials characterization (MC) capabilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) by using a combination of existing space in two existing buildings: the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB) and the Plutonium Facility, Building 4 (PF-4) in TA-55. This represents a change from decisions made by DOE as informed by previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and DOE requirements, NNSA is preparing a Supplement Analysis (SA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The focus of this analysis is on determining whether the proposal to provide AC and MC laboratory capabilities in existing space in RLUOB and PF-4 rather than building a new nuclear facility (NF) is a substantial change that is relevant to environmental concerns or whether new circumstance or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts are significant. The end result of the analysis is a determination whether the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Environmental Impact Statement (CMRR EIS) should be supplemented, a new EIS should be prepared, or no further NEPA analysis is necessary. This report provides data for incorporation into the Supplement Analysis being written by Leidos, Inc. under contract to NNSA. Responding to the data call requires several areas of expertise. Los Alamos subject matter experts estimate equipments lists, facility modifications, waste quantities, labor needs and radiological doses. Los Alamos NEPA experts assist Leidos in compiling existing data from the LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) and CMRR EIS for public and other impacts. Bounding conditions are used to determine NEPA estimates.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is one of two design laboratories in the United States Department of Energy (DOE) weapons complex, with over 60 years of experience in handling hazardous and radioactive materials. Actinide research and development are performed in two nuclear facilities. The Plutonium Facility has been in operation since 1978, and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Facility was built in 1952. The Nuclear Materials Technology (NMT) Division is responsible for operating both facilities in a safe and environmentally sound manner. At these NMT Division nuclear facilities, the primary hazards that are associated with chemicals and radioactive materials are well controlled, with minimal risk to the workforce and the public. Most workforce injuries are physical or ergonomic in nature. In an effort to increase safety awareness and to decrease accidents and incidents, a program focusing on identifying and eliminating unsafe behaviors was initiated. This process is named ATOMICS (for Allowing Timely Observations Measures Increased Commitment to Safety). Workers are trained on how to conduct safety observations of one another and given guidance on specific behaviors to note. Observations are structured to have minimal impact on the workload and are shared by the entire workforce. This program has effectively decreased an already low accident rate and will make long-term sustainability possible. The behavior-based safety process engages the workforce in the implementation and utilization of their own safety initative. The process is based on the simple act of having workers observe other workers and provide feedback on safe and at-risk behaviors. Observations typically take 10 to 15 minutes. Observations are strictly conducted under the conditions that no names are used and no blame is placed. A prospective observer takes 2 days of training on how to perform observations. To date, this behavioral safety program has been effective in further reducing the low accident/injury rate for the division. Most of the division’s workforce has taken observer training, and about half of those trained perform approximately 2500 observations per year on work conducted in NMT Division nuclear facilities.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations data for CY 2011 mostly fell within the 2008 SWEIS projections. Operation levels for four LANL facilities exceeded the 2008 SWEIS capability projections – Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), Solid Radioactive and Chemical Waste (SRCW), Materials Science Laboratory (MSL) and Radiochemistry Facilities. However, none of these capability increases caused exceedances in waste generation, radioactive air emissions, or NPDES discharge. Several facilities exceeded the SWEIS levels for waste generation quantities; however, all were one-time, non-routine events that do not reflect the day-to-day operations of the Laboratory. In addition, total site-wide waste generation quantities were below SWEIS projections for all waste types, reflecting the overall levels of operations at both the Key and Non-Key Facilities. Although gas and electricity consumption have remained within the 2008 SWEIS limits for utilities, water consumption exceeded the 2008 SWEIS projections by 10 million gallons in CY 2011.

CARTOGAM – a portable gamma camera for remote localisation of radioactive sources in nuclear facilities

Since 1993, Los Alamos National Laboratory has been developing World Wide Web (WWW) applications to facilitate access to vast quantities of information critical to the successful operation of a nuclear weapons facility. Explorer is a Web based tool that integrates full text search and retrieval technology, custom user interfaces, user friendly navigation tools, extremely large document collections, and data collection and workflow applications. Explorer's first major thrust was to enable quick access to regulatory and policy information used by Department of Energy facilities throughout the country. Today, Explorer users can easily search document collections containing millions of pages of information, scattered across Web sites around the country. Over fifteen large applications containing multiple collections are searchable through Explorer, and the subject areas range from DOE regulations to quality management related resources to technology transfer opportunities. Explorer has succeeded because it provides quick and easy access to stored data across the Web; it saves time and reduces costs in comparison with traditional information distribution, access, and retrieval methods.

We present a study of the environments of extended radio sources in the Australia Telescope Low Brightness Survey (ATLBS). The radio sources were selected from the Extended Source Sample (ATLBS-ESS), which is a well defined sample containing the most extended of radio sources in the ATLBS sky survey regions. The environments were analyzed using 4-m CTIO Blanco telescope observations carried out for ATLBS fields in the SDSS ${\rm r}^{\prime}$ band. We have estimated the properties of the environments using smoothed density maps derived from galaxy catalogs constructed using these optical imaging data. The angular distribution of galaxy density relative to the axes of the radio sources has been quantified by defining anisotropy parameters that are estimated using a new method presented here. Examining the anisotropy parameters for a sub-sample of extended double radio sources that includes all sources with pronounced asymmetry in lobe extents, we find good evidence for environmental anisotropy being the dominant cause for lobe asymmetry in that higher galaxy density occurs almost always on the side of the shorter lobe, and this validates the usefulness of the method proposed and adopted here. The environmental anisotropy parameters have been used to examine and compare the environments of FRI and FRII radio sources in two redshift regimes ($z<0.5$ and $z>0.5$). Wide-angle tail sources and Head-tail sources lie in the most overdense environments. The Head-tail source environments (for the HT sources in our sample) display dipolar anisotropy in that higher galaxy density appears to lie in the direction of the tails. Excluding the Head-tail and Wide-angle tail sources, subsamples of FRI and FRII sources from the ATLBS survey appear to lie in similar moderately overdense environments, with no evidence for redshift evolution in the regimes studied herein.

Authors