Mom, I'm scared, come pick me up! Students speak out.

Transcription

[Talia]

This is our legacy as a discipline. Not personally, but our field created nuclear weapons, created nuclear energy. Those technologies continue to affect the society we live in. And there's such a rich history of our discipline taking responsibility for these technologies that we've created. So I think making sure that we continue continue that really fully and rigorously is a great thing. So I'm glad that that was a part of this conference.

[Shelly (Host)]

Welcome to another episode of my nuclear life. I'm shelley Lesher. This episode drops in your feed outside of our normal schedule because it's a follow up to our last episode about the US. Nuclear Posture Review with Steve Fetter.

[Shelly (Host)]

Let me explain.

[Shelly (Host)]

I attended a nuclear physics conference in New Orleans at the end of October 2022. The kickoff evening of the conference included four Plenary speakers who spoke of nuclear threat and mitigation. Bethany Goldblum from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab spoke about the Nuclear Science and Security Consortium, a multi-institutional initiative established by the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, to train the next generation of nuclear security experts. Steve Fetter spoke about nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war. You can hear some of this information in our conversation. In the previous episode, I mentioned Alan Robock from Rutgers spoke about the global famine which would happen after nuclear war. Yes, it was depressing, and I think the talk that most people at the conference remembered. And finally, Frank von Hippel discussed the way physicists can help end nuclear proliferation. Daniel Puentes is a nuclear physics graduate student at Michigan State University and is running audio in these discussions. He's also involved in the conversation. He is part of another podcast, The PSI Files, where he speaks to graduate students at Michigan State University about their research. It was his idea to ask students at the conference to react to the Plenary session. This is the results.

[Jordan]

My name is Jordan Corey, and I'm currently a senior at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey.

[Shelly (Host)]

Wonderful. Thank you. Did you attend the four seminars on Thursday about nuclear nonproliferation?

[Jordan]

Yeah, I was there for all of them.

[Shelly (Host)]

Was this new information for you, or had you known a little bit about nuclear nonproliferation before?

[Jordan]

I've known a little bit before. I've worked under a little bit and I've taken a really cool class with one of the professors at my school, Alex Wellerstein. And in that work especially, I was very interested in the Nuclear Posture Review and how that has changed throughout administrations and has affected nonproliferation and other things globally. It's been very cool to read about and kind of research.

[Shelly (Host)]

What parts have you researched in the past in this area?

[Jordan]

Most of my research, I did the end of my course. I wrote a ten page research paper on how different changes in the NPR have affected the United States stance globally and how the response has been back with that. So specifically a lot of it with like Iran and changing how we were not really having a deal with them again under Trump that we did have under Obama and how that could lead to proliferation there and also relations with China and how that could affect the number of nukes they have and the situation in North Korea as well.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay, so you came in with quite a lot of knowledge on the something.

[Jordan]

I've been very interested in a while. I actually the reason I started studying nuclear physics is because I was very interested in nuclear policy first.

[Shelly (Host)]

Wow.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay.

[Shelly (Host)]

If you were interested in nuclear policy first, why go down the nuclear physics road and not the nuclear policy road?

[Jordan]

I just love physics a lot. I'm definitely a very science person, and I think just because you're doing the physics doesn't mean you can't also be involved in the policy because they are connected at the end of the day, because it's the physics that's making these things possible that the policy then has to regulate.

[Shelly (Host)]

You took a class that was primarily like a policy class. It wasn't a physics class.

[Jordan]

Right.

[Shelly (Host)]

Was it different than seeing or hearing talks by physicist talking policy as opposed to policy people talking policy?

[Jordan]

Yeah, it was definitely a little bit different, especially because I feel like from the physics side, maybe a lot of physicists feel somewhat of a personal responsibility towards doing this, especially when you're working in the field. If something you do could be somewhat responsible for nuclear weapons or just anything in general in that field, it's like you feel like you owe it to help keep the world safe and try and keep nuclear weapons contained and not spread around.

[Shelly (Host)]

Is that a burden, do you think? Do you think that you'd feel that burden if you went into nuclear?

[Jordan]

I feel like it's a little bit of a burden, but maybe more of a responsibility because it's just something you should do because it is the right thing to do, and it's not necessarily too much of a hard thing to do.

[Daniel]

We're stewards of this planet and being so it's really everybody's responsibility to help prevent the use of these existential weapons from being used on our neighbors. It's something that, especially as a nuclear physicist, we are privileged to have this technical knowledge. And I agree with you that really resonate with this idea of personal responsibility to help in making sure the world continues to be a better place.

[Jordan]

Yeah. And I feel like it's also sometimes physicists maybe have a better understanding of what happens after a bomb would be dropped. A lot of people might not recognize that it won't just affect where it happens, but it's going to affect everywhere. It would affect you no matter where you are.

[Shelly (Host)]

Yeah, exactly. Absolutely. Do you find as a young woman in the field, what do you think looking up in the field? So what I mean by that is, how do you feel when you look at the people at the top doing nuclear nonproliferation? Do you feel that things should be changing?

[Jordan]

It's mostly older white men at the top of the field and I think that is going to slowly be changing as younger generations come in. You can see a lot more diversity in the fields. Even just now, if you're looking at the people who are pursuing degrees in these fields or doing internships and things like that, it's already starting to get a lot more diverse. And I think this new diversity in the field will definitely change the mindset and maybe some of the policies that we'll be able to implement or pursue.

[Shelly (Host)]

A little bit as we start infusing this diversity into the field, not just in physics, but in policy and in government. Do you think that it's going to open up a new way of thinking in different ways of policy?

[Jordan]

Yeah, I definitely think so. Because when you have just one group of people in power, they just all have one mindset and especially when they're coming from the same background, from the same place, they're going to be thinking about how it affects them. But as you have more diverse people in power, you get a lot more different backgrounds that will help you maybe see something that we would have never thought of before. And these new people will really help bring these new ideas that can really lead to very good change, I believe.

[Daniel]

And we're kind of seeing that right now, actually, on a global level with the frustration that non nuclear weapon states have seen in the progress towards disarmament by the five nuclear weapon states in the MPT. And typically a lot of these frustrated countries are those located in areas such as the Global South. Those that are not part of the Western dominated field that makes up the nuclear nonpro regime as it currently exists. By bringing in these other stakeholders, I agree will have an influence in how policy is evolving. And it puts the relationships that we have with these countries to the test, because we're either going to meet them to have these honest conversations or it's going to lower the credibility of these Western nations that have made these promises to make some sort of progress towards disarmament.

[Jordan]

Yeah, it must be very different ideas on nuclear weapons if you're from a country that does not have nukes, but you will be affected if they're dropped and you have no control over the relations happening there and you have no control over your own safety in terms of these weapons. So I think bringing a lot of those people into the conversation could really make a change.

[Shelly (Host)]

There are a lot of undergraduate students at this conference, 153 at least, because that's how many have come with the CEU program. And there were a lot of undergraduate students in the Plenary session, but the speakers didn't reflect that age group, not even early career, not even graduate students. They were quite senior. And I'm pretty sure that was done because the quite senior people are the people that are most well known in the field. Obviously, they've been around a long time. Do you think that the younger generations would have responded better to someone who was maybe not quite as well known in the field, but closer to their own age, giving a similar message?

[Jordan]

I think that could really help some people. Because when you have someone so senior, like saying, oh, this is what I've done in the field, and this is how I've helped. It's sometimes hard to understand how you can do that from where you are right now, but if you have someone who's, earlier in their career, you can relate to them on a more personal level. And it almost feels like, wow, I could do that too. And it makes you a little more inspired to feel like you can take that next step and start making progress towards helping non proliferation and being really passionate about these fields and feeling like you belong a little bit.

[Shelly (Host)]

Great. Thank you.

[Shelly (Host)]

Hi.

[Shelly (Host)]

Could you introduce yourself and let us know where you're from?

[Austin]

Yeah. My name is Austin. I'm a grad student at the University of Kentucky. I'm working on the NAB experiment down at Oak Ridge National Lab.

[Shelly (Host)]

What's? The NAB experiment.

[Austin]

So that's a free neutron beta decay experiment. We're trying to measure the correlation between electrons and electron type neutrinos that are emitted during beta decay of free neutrons.

[Shelly (Host)]

Does that have anything to do with nuclear weapons?

[Austin]

Not directly. I wouldn't think it's more of a fundamental symmetry in the scope of testing the standard model, especially.

[Shelly (Host)]

Is that a question? You get asked a lot, though, when you tell people you study nuclear physics.

[Austin]

It's not exactly somebody's not like, wow, do you do work on nuclear weapons? But whenever I start talking about my research, they have to ask, wow, are you actually allowed to tell me that? It's like, well, there's nothing secret about it. I mean, I'm I'm technically a visitor.

[Shelly (Host)]

There, so it is kind of implied that people think you work on bombs.

[Austin]

Yeah, and I think part of that stigma is because of the fact that I work at a national lab. And not just any national lab, but Oak Ridge National Lab especially.

[Shelly (Host)]

Right. So one of the first the lab that produced the uranium for the for the bomb. Did you attend all four of the talks at the Plenary?

[Austin]

I did, yes.

[Shelly (Host)]

What did you know about nuclear non proliferation before attending the the sessions?

[Austin]

I knew that it was an active field. About a year ago, I did hear about the Physics Coalition for I'm sorry, I forgot the whole acronym.

[Shelly (Host)]

No, I I forget the whole acronym, too.

[Daniel]

Daniel knows the Physicist Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction.

[Shelly (Host)]

And so it was an interest of yours since hearing about that.

[Austin]

Yeah, I heard that there was an advocacy group specifically made up of physicists that advocate and educate congressional leaders on this topic to make positive change. And that happened to coincide with the time I was making my way through Richard Rhodes book on making the atomic bomb. It's a bit of a tome, but I found it to be a very interesting read.

[Shelly (Host)]

Richard Rhodes is a friend of the podcast.

[Austin]

Oh, really?

[Shelly (Host)]

Yes, he is. So were you excited to see then? I mean, excited is kind of the wrong word, but were you looking forward to the plenary that addressed some of the issues that was in line with what the coalition was discussing?

[Austin]

Yeah, I mean excited perhaps in a morbid sense, but I was certainly glad to see that it was a high priority for really the division of nuclear physics to make this well known for physicists at large. Of course, I think recent world events from this year have also very much turned people's heads towards that overall. Yeah, it reassured me a little bit.

[Shelly (Host)]

Was there anything that surprised you about the talks while you attended them or after you attended them?

[Austin]

I was a little surprised by the third talk.

[Shelly (Host)]

The third talk was the famine talk.

[Austin]

Yes.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay.

[Austin]

Not really by the content itself, I don't think it's very hard to grasp that, you know, all out nuclear war would have very devastating ecological effects. But to me it felt like it was not left on any kind of a high note at all. Well, in the sense that it was, hey, here's this problem that's it, it felt like it was more lacking in the department of hey, here's these things that we're doing about it right now. Maybe that was just my perception. I guess. One other thing that did surprise me, but in a positive way was seeing the past advocacy from people and congressional leaders. You make this a pressing issue and it is not hard to get a lot of people convinced that this is in their best interests. I mean, it is a very in your face existential threat. So it's not that difficult to really get a lot of people behind this cause once it is at least in front of their face.

[Shelly (Host)]

Do you think the famine talk could have been better suited if there was a strong call to action at the end?

[Austin]

I think so. I'm not about to say that they should have made it more positive because there's no sugar coating.

[Shelly (Host)]

You can make nuclear famine. Yes, there's no need, but perhaps now this is what you can do. Not necessarily go plant the Victory Garden, but this is how you can make.

[Austin]

A change or if anything, more of a segue into not Steve but Frank's talk at the very end. Again, I think that could have also very well happened, but I just maybe tuned parts out.

[Shelly (Host)]

It was very hard to listen to that talk. I think I agree with you that also it's one thing to read that would happen and it's another thing to hear someone tell you and show you the numbers and show you the plots and show you the graphics. I mean, it was a lot to watch.

[Daniel]

And I think maybe it was crafted in a way that when they were considering and they talked a little bit about this, of how they would share this information with different individuals that have an influence in our policy, I felt like that talk was still crafted in that manner when it was given to all of the participants in the plenary. I think if they had focused a little more about how they used this data to influence the way that policies are shaped, I think that probably would have been a little more inspirational. Rather than showing all of the data, I think that could have just been a reference per se.

[Austin]

Perhaps he did do a little bit of that show and tell of, hey, this is all doom and gloom, but clearly this tactic of putting it in people's faces works because we've been able to make progress in the past. Because there were a few times, I think, when he had called out some of the previous acts from individual countries or groups of countries that followed from their discussions with congressional leaders. Still, there was certainly something optimistic missing from it.

[Shelly (Host)]

Do you think that using tactics that were used in the past with Congressmen, do you think the results are going to be the same or do you think we have to change the way that we speak about nuclear weapons? Is doom and gloom really going to work again, do you think?

[Austin]

I think that we have to tread carefully with that. If we go into it with a narrative of pointing too many fingers at other people, that could create resentment, especially within our own country. If we really go into it, just to use an example, if we go into it, say, pointing fingers at former President Donald Trump and say, wow, look how close he would have been the person to do it, that sort of thing. If we go in just pointing fingers, I feel like that's going to generate resentment and probably add friction to getting these things moving forward.

[Daniel]

And I think that kind of perspective is fresh to hear, especially from this next generation of physicists that are going to be joining in the effort to help make sure that these existential weapons aren't used. I feel like when we move from a thought of competition to more of something of cooperation and working together to accomplish the goal that we're setting out for ourselves, it can actually become more of a reality. We did something similar right with whenever the hole in the ozone was discovered. We had come together to an agreement to not produce these harmful chemicals and the problem actually is now not something that we have to worry about so much. And I feel like we can do something similar when we get rid of this competitive edge that has really plagued the way that policy has been unfortunately going.

[Shelly (Host)]

You are so much more optimistic, but I've got decades on you. Sure you'll get there.

[Daniel]

It'll take a lot for me to get real cynical.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did you feel a call to action after the Plenary? Do you want to use your knowledge to help end nuclear proliferation or to help kind of reduce our stockpile?

[Austin]

I did feel a bit of a call to action. One of the first things I did was I actually went and talked to some of the speakers. I shared some of my thoughts, some of how I got into this, and one of the things I shared with them was how I tend to see myself as a rather passive activist in the sense that I can have lots of thoughts for some kind of background motivation for making these changes. The difficult part for me is to make that next step to making change, either locally or beyond. So I had thoughts of, what can I do? Say, for example, in the Knoxville area to park?

[Shelly (Host)]

That's a tough crowd.

[Austin]

Again, I think that depends on how you frame it.

[Daniel]

But you know what? Step one is just having the conversation, opening those lines of dialogue, and having people just thinking about it and giving them the perspective that they can also have an influence and an impact in helping shape what comes for the future. We write our own stories.

[Shelly (Host)]

Do you have some sort of plan of making the next step? So you talk about kind of being in the background and having kind of a passion for it. It's a big step to take that into an action.

[Austin]

Yeah, a lot of my passion lies in just education on the subject.

[Jordan]

Really.

[Austin]

Okay, very much. Again, I found the story of the development of the atomic bomb to be very compelling and very interesting, and so I will talk people's leg off about it. And being in the Oak Ridge area, I really just eat up that history as well. If I were to do anything, at least it's just to continue telling people about this, like, hey, here's how it was, here's how it is, here's what we can do about it.

[Shelly (Host)]

But that's great, too, because people need to know.

[Austin]

Yeah. Step one is at least knowing what the problem is.

[Shelly (Host)]

Exactly.

[Austin]

Changing it from some abstract threat that just looms in the background to something that's tangible is certainly a step in the right direction, I would think.

[Shelly (Host)]

Absolutely.

[Shelly (Host)]

Michael, could you introduce yourself and let.

[Shelly (Host)]

Us know where you're from?

[Michael]

My name is Michael Godosic, and I'm a physics math double major at Stevens Institute of Technology.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did you attend all four of the Plenaries on Thursday?

[Michael]

I did, yeah.

[Shelly (Host)]

What kind of background did you have on these issues before you attended the talks?

[Michael]

I've written a few primers with Alex. Wellerstein, about different nuclear postures.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay. So you had some background before you got here on these topics?

[Michael]

A little bit, yeah.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did the talks add much to your knowledge?

[Michael]

It was interesting to hear different expert opinions. It was definitely more opinion based because these are people who have been in the field for a long time and can speak to what they're used to as opposed to reading papers and reading documents. This was a much more lively version of history, in my opinion, and a lot more current than what I'm used to.

[Shelly (Host)]

So you're used to reading primary sources and not really people's interpretations of them.

[Michael]

Correct. My job was to more or less summarize and sometimes give opinion on just primary sources. It could be declassified DoD documents from 30, 40 years ago. It could be more recent nuclear posture reviews that I've read from the Obama administration.

[Daniel]

Did the talks that you attended on Thursday change any sort of way that you had felt about the current state of nuclear weapons in our global society at today's day and age right now? Was there anything that surprised you about what was spoken about?

[Michael]

It was refreshing to hear expert opinions on the Ukraine conflict. They spoke a lot about the differences between responses that other countries might have to even limited use and how they don't think it's very likely that that will happen. It was very refreshing. I had heard that from several different articles and even speaking with Alex in the past few weeks. But it was good to hear that that's still kind of the consensus and not just Alex's opinion, even though his is very good most of the time.

[Shelly (Host)]

So what was it like then? Instead of reading what was happening in the world or reading these sources from 50, 60 years ago, to actually have someone in front of you presenting the material?

[Michael]

Oh, it was incredible. It was it was so much fun to see. There was one speaker who met Fidel Castro, and he spoke about just his experiences with that and how he met him once and then his second time meeting him, he brought him and his son baseball cabs, and he showed us pictures of them shaking hands. And this was Castro in his old age, not prime Fidel Castro, but it was really interesting. He was just talking about it and he was like, oh, yeah, my experience is meeting the leader of Cuba. It was a totally different version of history than I would ever expect to hear or read in a book.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did you think that was something that physicists do?

[Michael]

Not at all. That was nowhere near what I thought my career path could potentially take me.

[Shelly (Host)]

Does that then encourage you to pursue physics and perhaps go in that direction?

[Michael]

I've always been very policy oriented. I started off college with a physics major and a polysign miner, and I really wanted to do international political science. Schedule wise, that didn't work out, but I still took a few of the classes, which was fun. I don't know, I've always had a mind towards that. I've definitely gotten more technical and more research oriented recently, but I could definitely see myself in the future wanting to influence policy more and more.

[Shelly (Host)]

There's actually a future here for you then.

[Michael]

I sure hope so. I think that'd be really cool.

[Daniel]

Why do you think it's so important to have talks like this at these kind of divisional unit meetings where physicists come together to learn about the different areas of nuclear physics?

[Michael]

It's really important to understand the implications of the work you do. And it's very difficult to completely separate the nuclear physics research from the political posturing and nuclear proliferation proliferation still exists, and I don't think there's much physicists can specifically do any more to limit that. It's more up to the policymakers. But I think it's important that everyone who's making those decisions is informed on what is happening. They don't have many questions about the morality of things.

[Daniel]

And plus, whenever you go up to somebody randomly on the street and you tell them, oh, you do nuclear physics, usually that's one of the topics they're going to ask you about.

[Michael]

It's either, do you work at a reactor or do you build bombs? And it's unfortunate because nuclear is so much more than that, especially today. Obviously, most of the research is medical energy in a bunch of different fields, and weapons were never even on my mind when I started getting into this field. But it's definitely people who aren't in the field will immediately think that because it's been on the public's mind.

[Shelly (Host)]

Well, thank you, Michael. I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference.

[Michael]

Thank you guys very much.

[Shelly (Host)]

Thank you for joining us. Could you let us know who you are and where you're from, what you do?

[Michelle]

Hi, I am Michelle Li. I use she her pronouns. I am from Seoul, South Korea. But I am now currently a second year graduate student at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

[Shelly (Host)]

What sort of nuclear physics do you study?

[Michelle]

I studied nuclear astrophysics, specifically reaction rates in white Dwarf models and within type one A supernova.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay, that's very specific.

[Michelle]

I only hesitated because I've only started research a couple of months ago, so it's hard for me to say exactly what I do and if I'm going to be permanently doing that for my thesis project, say that then she just did. I did.

[Shelly (Host)]

True.

[Daniel]

We'll just include that.

[Michelle]

It was quite meta, wasn't it?

[Shelly (Host)]

It was. Is this the first DNP that you've attended in person?

[Michelle]

Yes.

[Shelly (Host)]

How is it how is it to finally be at a conference and see people?

[Michelle]

It is quite amazing. The first time I attended DNP was virtually in 2020. It was supposed to happen in New Orleans, and I was an undergrad. I was a senior back then, and I did my little CEU thing, and it was really sad because I was just in a zoom room with my poster up on a screen and people came in and asked me questions, which was great, but there was zero interaction between any of the other undergrads, no other CEU events. So I felt like I didn't get the full conference experience. I was fortunate enough to ask my advisor if I could just show up to this conference even if I didn't have anything to present. And I am so glad I had the confidence to do that because this is very exciting. There are so many different fields, far more than I imagined there to be. So many specific topics, specific reactions. People spend their lives on studying, and I probably will end up exactly in the same boat. But I thought I was just like, why am I doing this? But it turns out everyone else is too. So it's like, okay, we're like a community together, focusing on our little niches. So it's very exciting.

[Shelly (Host)]

It is pretty cool to to realize that, you know, you kind of find your people, you think you're this outlier, and then suddenly you come to a community with all the outliers.

[Michelle]

Yeah.

[Daniel]

Every time I attend a conference, it reminds me of just how much I enjoy nuclear physics. Coming together with other people and hearing about the incredible work that's happening.

[Michelle]

Would you say you enjoy all the subfields of nuclear physics?

[Daniel]

I think they all have their interesting facets that really contribute to our understanding of the nucleus itself. I do love to hear about how, whether it's an undergraduate student or a graduate student that is just getting involved in this field that has existed now for decades and seeing them get looped into it and finding their passion in the research that they are doing. And I think that is the thing that attracts me to coming and visiting these different talks.

[Michelle]

That's fair. Yeah.

[Shelly (Host)]

Were you here for the workshops, or was the first thing you attended the Plenary?

[Michelle]

Yes, that was the first thing.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay, so your first in person conference. You come, you meet all the weird nuclear physicists, but the first talk you attend is about nuclear weapons. How was that as an introduction to kind of the conference in the community?

[Michelle]

Well, so for my senior thesis, the work I presented in the previous DMPA attended was on nuclear forensics, actually.

[Shelly (Host)]

Okay.

[Michelle]

So I was sort of aware of nonproliferationation. I took a couple of classes in my undergrad, and I was fairly interested. So it was interesting to see what I perceive as professionals, what their stance and what their take is. It wasn't far off from what I believed and what I believe they would say as well. So it was nothing too surprising. But they. Were very sad, the numbers and the statistics they offered, especially just given the current political climate globally, it hit a bit too close to home, I would say.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did you expect to experience this sort of emotions coming to a physics conference?

[Michelle]

No, I didn't. Well, I noticed after those talks on the first day just the tension between different groups and competitive groups. And then if these facilities work on the same exact project, looking for the same exact data and reactions, then they have this sort of tension between them when they give talks and who they give credit to, et cetera. But other than that, I did not expect the entire conference to come together and so emotionally charged, I guess, when they gave their talk. Yeah.

[Daniel]

I think you come to this kind of conversation from an interesting perspective, especially because of the fact that you were born in South Korea. And it's a different perspective that you bring to the table when you hear about what the United States'role has been when it comes to nuclear weapons, how that policy has evolved as a function of time. And did your identity as a South Korean citizen inform how you felt during some of these planaries?

[Michelle]

It didn't change the way I believed or approached, I guess, the information I was given. I was always personally a little bit jaded as someone who had North Korea right above, geographically above us, this threat of war being a constant thing. Although a lot of people have been desensitized by the whole climate, there have been current events that have brought about that anxiety all over again. And I guess I wasn't surprised by the sheer amount of involvement the US. Had or the amount of effort they put in to deter nuclear warfare and weapons. But it did not make me necessarily happy or did not make me feel safer in any way, shape or form.

[Shelly (Host)]

So, living in South Korea, did you feel, as you say, safer knowing that the United States covered you under the nuclear umbrella?

[Michelle]

No, I guess purely because I knew sort of the sheer magnitude of destruction nuclear weapons can cause. And if one thing blows up and a cascade effect happens of other countries being involved, then it just means destruction of the world. So I did not necessarily feel safe, safer, I guess, with the presence of the US. But I guess some people might disagree because the assured mutual destruction does prevent North Korea from just attacking us if they were to do it.

[Daniel]

I wanted to get a feel for what you felt once you went to the sessions. Did it make you feel motivated to do work in the nuclear nonproliferation space? Did you feel any sort of call to action after attending these?

[Michelle]

It definitely brought me back to my senior year and my project because I looked at basically the gamma ray signatures of elements that are abundant in urban environments. Had they been enriched by neutrons from thermonuclear weapons. So I studied a bit of that, and that made me realize how useful that work could be had I kept doing it. And I was actually at a point in my research journey where I was feeling a little bit of burnout early in my grad school years just because of classes and everything. So I was thinking of different ways I could motivate myself and thinking of different ways I could apply what I am doing right now, for example, into real life in a more tangible manner. I might not be able to directly apply my research, my current research, but I could apply my past research and expand upon that. And it definitely motivated me to maybe consider work in nonproliferation and nuclear forensics in the future.

[Shelly (Host)]

Well, you can definitely use the skill set that you are learning. I hope so in the future.

[Daniel]

And I really do believe that it's so important to have these kinds of plenaries at these kinds of conferences because it helps keep those that are so ingrained in this academic research afloat with what's going on in the world and how we leave a lasting impact in what's happening.

[Michelle]

I totally agree. Yeah. I feel like we can often just be buried in our own work and not realize that there are other things going on in the real world that we could actually contribute to in a non negligible manner.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did you find yourself talking to your peers about the plenary afterwards?

[Michelle]

We did. It wasn't an extensive conversation, unfortunately. That was really sad. There was some discussion on is there anything we could do? And most of my peers realized that maybe it has to do with involvement in policy. And none of us really had any knowledge of what it takes to contribute in policy. The physicist coalition of something I forget. But that organization definitely helped bring awareness to what we could do as grad students.

[Shelly (Host)]

Do you think it would help to have more information about what you could do as scientists?

[Michelle]

Absolutely. Yeah. That would gather more support.

[Daniel]

So right now we're grad students, we're still considered early career researchers. But the importance of mentoring, not just in nuclear physics, but as well as nuclear nonproliferation goes, can have a really large impact in helping future students feel like they can use this physics degree to then help make the world a better place. Essentially. What role can APS, in your opinion, help to ensure that mentoring is taking place with students that have interest in policy? And what do you think would be something that would be interesting idea, if you have any.

[Michelle]

I think the first time I ever was aware of technologies or facilities that work towards nonproliferation was through a nonproliferation class I took in my nuclear engineering department and undergrad, and that definitely opened my eyes to a lot of different things that I, as a nuclear physicist, could do. There was like a 20 person class. And had that class been available to a larger group of students, I feel like that could also increase support if they decreased the technological aspect of the class and more of the conceptual o. These are the things that exist that we can push for, to detect, I don't know, smuggled, radioactive radio supplies, et cetera. So I feel like if those classes were offered just anywhere to anyone in a college setting, I don't know if this already exists, but it doesn't. Cool, awesome, novel ideas.

[Shelly (Host)]

I mean, there are some classes that exist, but they're very kind of hit or miss, and it's just one professor will have a passion to do something.

[Michelle]

That is exactly how it happens.

[Shelly (Host)]

And then you usually find exactly that there's a group of students. You know, this is the class that all the students want to take because it's novel, and the professor is usually pretty passionate about the class, which then, of course, makes it exciting for students to take.

[Daniel]

And, you know, I think that would be a really interesting education priority that the APS can recommend to different institutions to have more educational opportunities for different universities to provide courses on that nexus between technology and policy. Some institutions are starting to do that, such as Michigan State as well as University of California, Berkeley. But I think when a professional society actually makes that call to action to different universities, it creates another level of prioritization that could take place in these academic institutions.

[Michelle]

Yeah, and making that class open to not just major requirement like students, but to the entire university definitely could raise awareness overall. It's important for physicists to know and have the knowledge and skill to work and push those things. It's important for them to know, but it's also important to just raise public awareness in general.

[Shelly (Host)]

Thank you for joining us. Could you let us know who you are and where you're from? Sure.

[Talia]

I'm Talia Weiss. I am a grad student in physics at Yale University. I'm focused on neutrino physics there, and I'm originally from right near Chicago.

[Shelly (Host)]

Did you have a background in nuclear nonproliferation before attending these Plenary sessions?

[Talia]

Yeah, so I'm sort of on the side of physics research, quite interested in nuclear policy specifically. I run an event series at Yale that focuses on nuclear issues as well as other emerging technology issues that intersect with physics and global affairs and then work on the Pugwash network that was referenced during one of the presentations the other day. Non proliferation. But perhaps even more than that, arms control is a topic I'm interested in.

[Shelly (Host)]

Is this something that you're interested in pursuing as a career in the future?

[Talia]

Yeah, it is. What I know is that I want my career to involve physics but also involve policy and hopefully specifically nuclear policy. So I could see a few different routes that go more towards the physics side or more towards the policy side, but I want to keep both of those components.

[Shelly (Host)]

How did you feel seeing a session dedicated to nuclear policy at a nuclear physics conference?

[Talia]

I loved it. I think this is our legacy as a discipline, not personally, but our field created nuclear weapons, created nuclear energy, and those technologies continue to affect the society we live in. There's such a rich history of our discipline taking responsibility for these technologies that we've created. So I think making sure that we continue that fully and rigorously is a great thing. So I'm glad that that was a part of this conference.

[Shelly (Host)]

Do you think we should continue as a society, as the division of nuclear physics? We should continue to have these conversations at our yearly event?

[Talia]

I do. It's interesting at the moment, at least from talking to people at this program, many people were surprised by various core points in these presentations, which I think suggests that there is maybe as a community, we need to get up to speed a little more with some of the policy questions surrounding nuclear physics. But I think once we do, and we're getting there already just from this session, it would be great to be debating the questions involved at meetings like this, to be coming up with policy proposals at meetings like this as part of what we do in the division of nuclear physics.

[Shelly (Host)]

I love that dream, actually.

[Talia]

It is my dream.

[Michelle]

I love it.

[Daniel]

I think a really cool little project that could arise from that is possibly having and this has been done with similar conferences in the past where members that attend the Plenaries can then come together as contributing authors and draft a white paper. I think that could be one interesting project that we can pursue.

[Talia]

Yeah, I love that idea. During the talks at this conference, there were some examples given of times when physicists wrote a particularly important paper or oftentimes like an article in a public forum that had an impact. And I think we should be working towards that.

[Shelly (Host)]

With your knowledge base already, did you learn anything from the talks? Because I'm guessing you have heard some of the speakers in the past.

[Talia]

I have heard some of them in the past. I'm part of the Physicist Coalition on Nuclear Threat Reduction, and some of these speakers, in addition to others, give really great talks at their webinars regularly. But I think what I was really looking for and got to learn was some more sort of specifics about what physicists have done in the past that has worked, what challenges they have run into when trying to affect nuclear policy. What are the lessons for today? For example, something new that I learned is that there was a paper on missile defense or an article published in Scientific American in the believe it was that had an impact on both the public and policymakers perception of missile defense. In particular, it showed it's super easy to fool missile defense. And this was something that it's pretty clear to physicists, but others might not realize. There are a few other examples given, like that of times when physicists made well placed choices, either talking privately to a politician or doing something more publicly that made a difference. So I love seeing those examples so that we can now think about what's the best strategy to use in different cases.

[Daniel]

And even more recently, that same coalition that you had mentioned just published a paper on the challenges of ballistic missile defense right now for our current 21st century policy regime stays relevant. It was relevant 40 years ago, and it's still relevant today.

[Talia]

I'm sure physicists are not going to agree on everything related to nuclear policy, and that's okay. But I wonder if there are certain key policies that we could come together on, because enough of the decision can be made on the basis of science, even if there are some political question, more political questions that come into play. And I think missile defense could be one of those because it's so easy to fool missile defense systems. That's a good case where maybe we can try to agree on a policy recommendation broadly, as a large group of.

[Shelly (Host)]

Physicists, do you think it'd be even more powerful if the scientist at weapons labs would also agree on a missile defense policy?

[Talia]

That's something I always wonder about because I know this community of nuclear physicists get recruited to a lot of different places, including to military jobs. And so I think interfacing regularly with people in our community who are in those jobs is important because they're also affecting the course of future events on nuclear policy and other policy. Yeah, and I think there are probably some issues that it's going to be hard to get on the same page with throughout the community, but maybe something like missile defense we could their physicist is working directly on missile defense, so maybe not with all of them. But I did see someone give a talk once that was on how the military tries to verify that their nuclear weapons will work, given that they don't test them anymore, which is its whole own program. So he must have gotten cleared to give a particular version of that talk, essentially to try to recruit people to that. And I think that's an interesting one from my perspective, as someone who thinks we should be working towards deeper cuts of nuclear weapons, where you could argue there's something good about what he's doing because it allows us not to test nuclear weapons, which is a really important part of the international arms control regime. On the other hand, he's furthering our ability to keep large numbers of nuclear weapons in the US. So it's a tricky I mean, people like in our field have to make tricky choices about these things.

[Daniel]

Sometimes there are folks that, for example, work at the International Atomic Energy Agency that could come and talk about some of the work that they do give a life in the day of what an inspector does whenever they visit different complexes around the world. How they contribute to the development of new technologies to help make sure that nuclear material isn't being diverted towards weapons programs. I think that's another area that we can definitely expand upon with these meetings.

[Shelly (Host)]

I mean, I think you just kind of proposed a new Plenary, right? Like, why don't we have people coming from the IAEA and talk about verification? How do we verify that Russia is disarming? How do we observe Iran, how do we see how many weapons North Korea has? How do we do all that?

[Talia]

Yeah, I think that's a great idea as well. I mean, a couple of days ago, we heard from physicists who in some cases went into policy, and in some cases did work that impacted policy. But seeing people who do the technical verification of arms control treaties on the ground is another role of physicists in this space. That would be really useful to hear from. Really useful to hear from them. I also think the IAEA might need to expand a bit soon, we'll see, because if nuclear energy expands to more countries, their job is going to get even harder as nuclear energy may become more popular to combat climate change. So maybe they'll get more funding and we'll be recruiting soon, so it might serve that purpose for them too.

[Shelly (Host)]

You've already done a lot. You have this series, you've worked a lot in Pugwash. So you're very active in this space, in this intersection with policy and the technology of nuclear physics. Where do you see yourself in ten years?

[Talia]

Yeah, I'm going to give you a somewhat vague answer.

[Shelly (Host)]

It's a very kind of long term question.

[Talia]

Yeah, I can see a couple ideas of what I want to do. One is I've seen a number of physicists who have worked in academia as physics researchers as part of their work, either on panels or actually taking leaves of absence for periods of time, have gone and gotten really engaged in policy. And so I could see myself on that path. Some of it depends on specifically what what opportunities I follow immediately out of grad school and where that leads. And then I think another path is expanding some of what I'm working on, for example, with the Pugwash Network, we're engaging a broad group around the world of early career individuals in track II diplomacy. So in diplomacy over nuclear issues, that is among people outside of government, but who are trying to impact policy. So I could see myself continuing to work in that space or in a government space more directly on these issues. I do like being able to be one of the physicists in the room when maybe most people are policymakers, who is trying to provide a physics perspective in addition to trying to engage on the policy issues.

[Shelly (Host)]

I look forward to seeing where you go.

[Talia]

Thank you.

[Daniel]

I know I'm really inspired by just hearing you talk and I can hear the passion that you have towards this kind of area so much.

[Talia]

Thank you. I'm so glad that you all are doing this podcast. It provides a great way for many people, but including physicists like me, to learn more about history of nuclear issues and the current issues. So thank you for what you're doing.

[Shelly (Host)]

Thank you.

[Shelly (Host)]

As always, thank you for listening. And thank you to Daniel, all the young scientists we spoke to, and impact 88.9 FM. To learn more about our podcast, visit us at My Nuclear LIFE.com, ask us a question or send us a comment at My Nuclear Life@protonmail.com or help us out and leave us a review or rating on Apple podcast or wherever you listening. Until next time, I'm Shelly Lesher, and this has been another episode of my nuclear life.