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.
Division Spotlight
Materials Science & Technology
The objectives of MSTD are: promote the advancement of materials science in Nuclear Science Technology; support the multidisciplines which constitute it; encourage research by providing a forum for the presentation, exchange, and documentation of relevant information; promote the interaction and communication among its members; and recognize and reward its members for significant contributions to the field of materials science in nuclear technology.
Meeting Spotlight
ANS Student Conference 2025
April 3–5, 2025
Albuquerque, NM|The University of New Mexico
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Feb 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
February 2025
Latest News
Colin Judge: Testing structural materials in Idaho’s newest hot cell facility
Idaho National Laboratory’s newest facility—the Sample Preparation Laboratory (SPL)—sits across the road from the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF), which started operating in 1975. SPL will host the first new hot cells at INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) in 50 years, giving INL researchers and partners new flexibility to test the structural properties of irradiated materials fresh from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) or from a partner’s facility.
Materials meant to withstand extreme conditions in fission or fusion power plants must be tested under similar conditions and pushed past their breaking points so performance and limitations can be understood and improved. Once irradiated, materials samples can be cut down to size in SPL and packaged for testing in other facilities at INL or other national laboratories, commercial labs, or universities. But they can also be subjected to extreme thermal or corrosive conditions and mechanical testing right in SPL, explains Colin Judge, who, as INL’s division director for nuclear materials performance, oversees SPL and other facilities at the MFC.
SPL won’t go “hot” until January 2026, but Judge spoke with NN staff writer Susan Gallier about its capabilities as his team was moving instruments into the new facility.
Florent Martinetti, Laurent Donadille, Sabine Delacroix, Catherine Nauraye, Aurélien De Oliveira, Joël Herault, Isabelle Clairand
Nuclear Technology | Volume 168 | Number 3 | December 2009 | Pages 721-727
Proton Therapy | Special Issue on the 11th International Conference on Radiation Shielding and the 15th Topical Meeting of the Radiation Protection and Shielding Division (PART 3) / Radiation Protection | doi.org/10.13182/NT09-A9296
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A Monte Carlo modeling tool was applied at the Institut-Curie Centre de Protonthérapie d'Orsay, France, to simulate the passively scattered beam line used for treatment of ocular melanoma. The primary aim of this study is to validate the model for subsequent calculation of patient doses due to secondary neutrons.The Monte Carlo code MCNPX is used here to model the geometry of the beam line. The beam parameters at the entrance of the ophthalmologic beam line are not well known (beam emittance, lateral distribution, and energy spread). Hence, to accurately implement the beam source in the model, we need to calculate and measure these parameters in the first step of this study. Then, we perform comparisons between calculated and measured proton absorbed dose profiles under various scattering conditions.Comparisons between calculated and measured depth versus dose profiles show discrepancies <0.6 mm (range) and <1.1 mm (beam size and penumbra) for the lateral dose profiles. Hence, calculated relative dose profiles are considered to be correctly described by the Monte Carlo model. Some improvements are still needed to reproduce absolute dose profiles. This study should lead to the use of the numerical model for radiation protection applications.
