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
Education, Training & Workforce Development
The Education, Training & Workforce Development Division provides communication among the academic, industrial, and governmental communities through the exchange of views and information on matters related to education, training and workforce development in nuclear and radiological science, engineering, and technology. Industry leaders, education and training professionals, and interested students work together through Society-sponsored meetings and publications, to enrich their professional development, to educate the general public, and to advance nuclear and radiological science and engineering.
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
Apr 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
May 2025
Nuclear Technology
April 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
General Kenneth Nichols and the Manhattan Project
Nichols
The Oak Ridger has published the latest in a series of articles about General Kenneth D. Nichols, the Manhattan Project, and the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. The series has been produced by Nichols’ grandniece Barbara Rogers Scollin and Oak Ridge (Tenn.) city historian David Ray Smith. Gen. Nichols (1907–2000) was the district engineer for the Manhattan Engineer District during the Manhattan Project.
As Smith and Scollin explain, Nichols “had supervision of the research and development connected with, and the design, construction, and operation of, all plants required to produce plutonium-239 and uranium-235, including the construction of the towns of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Richland, Washington. The responsibility of his position was massive as he oversaw a workforce of both military and civilian personnel of approximately 125,000; his Oak Ridge office became the center of the wartime atomic energy’s activities.”
A. Pérez-Andújar, W. D. Newhauser, P. M. DeLuca, Jr.
Nuclear Technology | Volume 168 | Number 3 | December 2009 | Pages 728-735
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-A9297
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Proton therapy offers low integral dose and good tumor comformality in many deep-seated tumors. However, secondary particles generated during proton therapy, such as neutrons, are a concern, especially for passive scattering systems. In this type of system, the proton beam interacts with several components of the treatment nozzle that lie along the delivery path and can produce secondary neutrons. Neutron production along the beam's central axis in a double scattering passive system was examined using Monte Carlo simulations. Neutron fluence and energy distribution were determined downstream of the nozzle's major components at different radial distances from the central axis. In addition, the neutron absorbed dose per primary proton around the nozzle was investigated. Neutron fluence was highest immediately downstream of the range modulator wheel (RMW) but decreased as distance from the RMW increased. The nozzle's final collimator and snout also contributed to the production of high-energy neutrons. In fact, for the smallest treatment volume simulated, the neutron absorbed dose per proton at isocenter increased by a factor of 20 due to the snout presence when compared with a nozzle without a snout. The presented results can be used to design more effective local shielding components inside the treatment nozzle as well as to better understand the treatment room shielding requirements.