04/06/2022
For our science spotlight, we asked professor Alex Wellerstein some interesting questions regarding the history of nuclear weapons & his professions!
- Question: What made you interested in studying science history, specifically nuclear history?
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: I first started studying American history in college because it was amazing to me how much there was that I didn’t know, and how important understanding that history seemed to make understanding the United States. (Originally I thought I wanted to be an English major, but after a class of that, I realized it wasn’t for me.) I stumbled across the history of science serendipitously, through a campus job I started my freshman year. In that job, I ended up reading a lot of articles about the history of science, and thought it was pretty interesting — I always liked science, but I was never any good at it, and this was a way to look at science in a totally new way. One of the many topics I got interested in regarding the history of science was the history of the atomic bomb, and I wrote an undergraduate thesis about the connections between my university (UC Berkeley) and nuclear weapons. A few years later, when I decided to get a PhD, I found that I really enjoyed every paper I wrote about nuclear weapons, and took that as a sign that this was what I should be spending my time doing! It has been over 15 years since then and I’ve never really looked back. If nuclear weapons ever bore me, I might move on to something else — there are lots of interesting things in the history of science and technology — but so far that hasn’t happened.
- Question: What fascinates you most about nuclear armageddon and other extinction-level events of that nature?
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: There’s an absurdity to nuclear war that permeates all discussions of it, an absurdity that is something amusing, and sometimes just awful. Amusing: In order to learn about potable water sources after a nuclear war, the US actually tested what happened to beer and sodas if you nuked them, and even did taste tests (beer gets a little stale when exposed to radiation, so they recommend that, after a nuclear war, beer companies should test their stock before putting it back on the market). Awful: American governmental employees working on plans that, by their own estimations, would kill hundreds of millions of people — how can that be anything other than darkly absurd? Nuclear war pushes everything to extremes, and that makes it for me always interesting in an intellectual sense.
- Question: What are some of your favorite sections from your book, Restricted Data?
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: It’s hard to choose favorites; there just a lot in there that I love. There is a section on a private company that essentially tried to commercialize the H-bomb technology as a fusion reactor in the late 1960s/early 1970s that I find really interesting and sometimes darkly funny — at one point, the government threatened to declare their fusion reactor to be legally a nuclear weapon, as a means of trying to discourage them from working on it. I am also quite fond of several sections that are about college students and anti-war activists who decided in the 1970s, for different reasons, that the best way to attack nuclear secrecy was to try to draw, and sometimes publish, their own nuclear weapon designs. And it was taken as a point of pride if you sort of got in trouble with the government for them — because then they felt like they’d done a good job! There’s something very specifically American about that situation, it feels to me. Generally speaking, I like situations where the conflicting requirements of secrecy, security, and freedom of speech/research end up creating cultural “monsters,” like a truck driver who became famous for trying to draw the most detailed diagrams ever of the first atomic bombs used in World War II.
- Question: What was your experience like with NUKEMAP and how did you come to make it?
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: I created NUKEMAP over the course of a weekend in 2012, while I was a postdoctoral fellow working at the American Institute of Physics, near Washington, DC. At the time I had just started blogging and was constantly thinking about “content.” NUKEMAP was the latest version of some code I had been playing with for many years, which I had been using to help me visualize the effects of nuclear weapons based on declassified government equations. I put it on the Internet and it got much more popular than I expected, so I had a real incentive to keep improving and updating it, and to think really seriously about what this kind of tool could do for helping improve public understanding of nuclear weapons.
- Question: What do you enjoy most about your profession (historian, author, programmer, professor)?
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: There are two things I really love about my job. One is that I have a lot of autonomy: I mostly get to spend my time how I want to spend it, thinking about things I think are interesting, working on projects I think are fun and cool. For me that is pretty hard to beat. The other is that I get to teach. While there are aspects of teaching that can be a chore (cough cough grading cough cough), most of the time it is pretty fun: I get to geek out about stuff I find interesting to a bunch of other people who (sometimes) end up geeking out about it as well. It is hard for me to imagine another job that lets me indulge in both of these things I enjoy so much, so I am pretty grateful to have it, especially since professorships like this are pretty rare!
- Question: Given that the world is moving towards a more green future, what specific part in the nuclear industry can we improve on? (i.e pushing for MSRs, having a new form of reactor, etc.)
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: I think the biggest challenge that the nuclear industry is going to have is about gaining the trust of the average citizen. It is not as big of a challenge today as it was 30 years ago; the polls show Americans are about evenly split on the issue of nuclear power, rather than being decidedly against it. But you need well more than a simple majority if it is going to work out. That trust is not going to be built on the basis of technical arguments about the safety of reactors, it is going to be built on people thinking that the nuclear industry is not just about making a buck (and cutting corners in the process). The biggest problem that pro-nuclear advocates have right now, in my experience, is essentially dismissing any skeptical or uncertain views on the subject as just being uninformed. Even if it was as simple as that (and I’m not sure it is), that approach doesn’t gain you converts.
- Question: What's your favorite type of reactor and why?
- Professor Alex Wellerstein: My favorite type of reactor is a well-regulated reactor! I know, that’s not the answer anyone
wants to hear. But I think it’s important to emphasize that whatever the technological choices are made, how they exist within a social framework is going to determine whether they gain acceptance, trust, and ultimately are operated safely. I think attention to these kinds of issues is probably more important in the long-run than any particular reactor design. Even the dreaded RBMKs could be run safely — if you set up a system that prioritizes running them that way. (Of course, there are more and less inherently safe/dangerous designs.) I am aware that regulation increases the costs, and lowers the profit margins, of power plants, but I think that if we are going to adopt them for climate change reasons, we might need to find ways to subsidize them, or make fossil fuel users pay for the long-term costs of climate change, which would have the same effect. Separate from all of that, I do agree that some of the newer designs that are more inherently safe and recycle their own fuel as they operate are very appealing on a technical level.