Leona Woods Marshall Libby

Dr. Leona Woods Libby (1919–1986) was a physicist who played a vital role in the Manhattan Project and the early development of nuclear science in the United States. At just 23 years old, she was the only woman present when the world’s first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1, went critical in 1942. Her work — particularly her design of the boron trifluoride neutron counter — was essential in confirming that a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction had occurred.

Born in La Grange, Illinois, Libby showed remarkable academic promise from a young age. She attended Lyons Township High School and graduated in 1934 at just 14 years old. She then entered the University of Chicago, where she earned a B.S. in Chemistry by 19 and completed her Ph.D. in physical chemistry just three years later. She was quickly recruited to join Enrico Fermi’s team at the university’s Metallurgical Laboratory, where she became a key figure in reactor physics and instrumentation.

After the initial CP-1 experiment, Libby relocated with Fermi’s team to help oversee reactor development at Hanford. There, she contributed to resolving the unexpected xenon poisoning that threatened the B Reactor’s operation. Despite being pregnant during her work at Hanford, she concealed it under loose clothing to remain on the job — highlighting the barriers women scientists faced even at the height of wartime urgency.

Following the war, Libby held fellowships at the University of Chicago’s Institute for Nuclear Studies, Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, and Brookhaven National Laboratory. She later held academic positions at New York University, the University of Colorado, and UCLA, where she expanded her research into climate science, environmental studies, food irradiation, and engineering. Over her lifetime, she published more than 200 scientific papers and several books.

Libby remained a staunch defender of her work on the Manhattan Project, arguing that the bomb had shortened the war and prevented even greater loss of life. She was also a public advocate for nuclear energy and scientific responsibility.

Awards & Recognition

Named one of Mademoiselle magazine’s “Women of the Year” in 1946 for her contributions to nuclear science
Honored posthumously for her contributions to the Manhattan Project and early reactor development
One of the few women prominently recognized in historical accounts of CP-1 and Hanford’s B Reactor

Sources

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History (Atomic Heritage Foundation), “Leona Marshall Libby”
National Park Service, “Leona Woods Marshall Libby”
National Women’s History Museum, “Leona Libby”

Published by Nucleation Capital in Brilliant thinkers, History Timeline, History-making, Nuclear innovation, Radiation & LNT Rules, Scientific debate, Women in Nuclear, WOMEN IN NUCLEAR GRID

August 10, 2021

FT editors urge nuclear adoption to avert ‘hell on earth’

Anyone who read the IPCC's Sixth Assessment's Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, found it very disturbing. The editors of the Financial Times editors used the moment to publish an editorial entitled Time is running short to avert 'hell on earth.'

Editors don't mince words. They made it clear that what is at stake is the question of whether or not humanity will take the actions now that will ensure that the earth remains livable. The reported concensus of 234 international scientists is stark enough: disruptive weather events, droughts, heatwaves, forest fires and a hotter world are already locked in for decades or more and will continue to even get worse as more emissions are added. However, if we heed the recommendations of the IPCC's most optimistic scenario and effect "immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions" in emissions, we have a small chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.6 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures, rather than allowing them to mushroom higher, leaving room for a tragically degraded but habitable earth.

As frightening as this prospect may seem, this is not the time to throw up our hands, according to the editors. Rather this is the time that global leaders' resolve must focus on taking every option and available route possible to achieve net zero and achieve agreement at COP26 summit in Glasgow in November on dramagic goals. Which means that Boris Johnson and other world leaders must resist political pressure from those who still doubt and question the severity of climate change. This is, by now, a no-brainer.

But the editors proceed into bold and even downright courageous territory, where few intellectual leaders dare to tred. They emphasize that, while there are economic gains and returns to be gotten through the investment in innovation that are necessary for the path to net zero, we need to recognize that actually cutting carbon-intensity of nearly all of mankinds' activities will cause some real pain and not always be cost-effective. Furthermore, they write:

The IPCC report also should prompt environmental campaigners to abandon some traditional prejudices, particularly against nuclear power. Smaller nuclear plants deserve investment for the role they could play in generating carbon-free electricity.

They go on to proclaim: "attitudes . . . need rethinking," not just about nuclear power but also about geo-engineering, which is the use of various methods to temporarily keep the planet from being warmed by injecting some artificial means of atmospheric solar intervention that prevents the sun's rays from heating up the free GHGs in the atmosphere. These are brave pronouncements, since they run counter to the ideology of most progressive-minded environmentalists, and they really don't like it when people do that.

Read the FT's editorial, Time is running short to avert 'hell on earth,' published August 10, 2021. (Click the cartoon insert to see an image of the FT's editorial.)

Published by Nucleation Capital in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, LINKS, Solving climate

August 9, 2021

IPCC’s Landmark Report: Climate Change is Well Underway

Climate Change is well underway and many of the physical changes observed globally have baked in forces that will create increasingly worsening conditions for decades or centuries to come. This is among many findings reported by the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report's Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
More than 200 scientist-authors reviewed, aggregated and then distilled down the findings from 14,000 peer-reviewed papers to produce the most comprehensive report on the physical state of the planet in the IPCC's 30-year history, clocking in at 13 distinct chapters totally 1,300 pages. These pages and each line of findings were then reviewed, vetted and approved by the scientific representatives of 195 nations, which itself reflects stunning concensus among nations about how bad things are—even if agreement about what to do about the problem is harder to come by.
The briefest of summaries issued in conjunction with the full report is the Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers, which has 14 top-level statements synthesized from the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which is itself 39 pages long. The SPM provides a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human-induced climate change.

IPCC reports can be very difficult to read because they cover a range of findings that are reported as either statements of fact or which, because of the difficulty of ascertaining truth with respect to many findings, are thus notated with an assessed level of confidence using pre-set calibration language. Nevertheless, the number 1 finding is:

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.

Read the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report's Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, released August 9, 2021.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, History Timeline, LINKS

December 3, 2015

Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change

James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley co-authored an article entitled Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change, that was published by The Guardian during the Paris COP. In it, they argue that "to solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them."

Each of these venerable climate scientists has reknown expertise in an area of climate science and none are associated even loosely with the nuclear industry. Yet, perhaps by virtue of their ability to crunch the numbers, calculate quantities and evaluate trend lines, they see the writing on the wall. By any measure, they could have titled this article "The Other Inconvenient Truth: We need nuclear power."

It is a rare thing and for that reason, almost shocking, that four such respected scientists would put their names to a call for a particular solution, because scientists too often consider themselves mere interpreters of data. In this case, their interpretations of the data compelled these scientists to step out of their comfort zone to clarify what the data calls for: the bigger clean energy guns nuclear power provides.

This article inspired a legion of pronuclear activists. Until this time, almost no one was out there pounding the pavement in support of nuclear energy. But the fact that the same scientist who opened the nation's eyes to the threat posed by carbon emissions back in 1986, whose testimony to a Congressional committee effectively initated the process by which the United Nations launched the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called for politicians to recognize nuclear's critical role, made a major shift in the dynamics for nuclear power.

At the same time, many environmental groups, finding this message just too inconvenient, tragically opted simply to discard this guidance. Many, contrary to their avowed assertion that they care to address climate change, have even continued working to prematurely shutter existing nuclear and allow natural gas to mushroom instead.

“To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.

The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking. Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity’s options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors."

Please read the full article published more than five years ago in The Guardian, Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change, by Drs. James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley, published December 3, 2015.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear innovation