User:Johnfos/sandbox

• During the Cold War nuclear secrets were stolen straight from Los Alamos

Some nuclear power advocates argue that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent fuel. However, the Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future said that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose, given cost considerations and the risk of nuclear proliferation". A deep geological repository is favored.

Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle. In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is performed routinely in Europe, Russia and Japan.

In 2016, economist Mark Cooper said that in America nuclear power is unable to compete today and unlikely to compete in the future. Nuclear supporters would like to have a long debate about the limitations of alternatives. The reality is that alternatives, such as renewable energy, are growing rapidly and have many advantages. Prudent policymakers should support their commercialization, given the many failed promises of nuclear power. The biggest mistake that policymakers could make is to encourage the search for yet another nuclear holy grail.

• Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas, Social Studies of Science 32 (2), 297-319, 2002, with E Woodhouse, D Hess, S Breyman.
• Captives of controversy: The myth of the neutral social researcher in contemporary scientific controversies, Science, Technology & Human Values 15 (4), 474-494, 142, 1990, with P Scott, E Richards.
• Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis, Journal of Information Ethics 3 (2), 36-47, 1994.
• Repression, backfire, and the theory of transformative events, Mobilization: An International Quarterly 11 (2), 249-267, 2006, with D Hess.
• Gene Sharp's theory of power, Journal of Peace Research, 213-222, 72, 1989.
• The critique of science becomes academic, Science, technology & human values 18 (2), 247-259, 1993.
• Repetition strain injury in Australia: medical knowledge, social movement, and de facto partisanship, Social Problems 39 (3), 219-237, 65, 1992, with G Bammer.
• Scientific fraud and the power structure of science, Prometheus 10 (1), 83-98, 62, 1992.
• Sticking a needle into science: the case of polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS, Social Studies of Science 26 (2), 245-276, 1996.
• The arguments about RSI: an examination, Community Health Studies, 12 (3), 348-58, 1988, with G Bammer.
• Making censorship backfire, Counterpoise, 7, (3), 5-15, 2003, with SC Jansen
• Nonviolence and communication, Journal of Peace Research 40 (2), 213-232, 2003, with W Varney.
• Against intellectual property, Philosophy and Social Action 21, 7-22, 1995.
• Random selection of citizens for technological decision making, Science and Public Policy 29 (2), 105-113, 2002, with L Carson.
• The selective usefulness of game theory, Social studies of science, 8 (1), 85-110, 1978.