Closing Remarks

By David Kenneth Smith, 13 October 2022

Rare in this hectic world we live, is the opportunity to literally have the last word. At the end of these deliberations, I find it a welcome circumstance to have such a chance.

So the question is, how does one take the measure of a conference like NuFor 2022? There are the obvious metrics: the quality of the technical programme, the insights of the experts and panelists, the smart interventions from the participants, the logistics of the meeting and whether the conference met its goal as transom for students and younger investigators to cross and engage in the vital nuclear forensics enterprise. There is no doubt of these outcomes.

After a long career in nuclear security to include nuclear forensics, I would take the advantage of my chronological seniority to add another assessment. As was said this week, unlike our siblings in the world of nuclear nonproliferation and arms control, our nuclear forensics planet is small. Nuclear forensics is a community of practitioners. My observation was to witness how we rejoined this week as scientists, nuclear security officers, law enforcement officials, professors, graduate students, students and pupils to use the common language of science to advance the cause of making our families, our cities, our nations and our alliances that much more secure. The energy we brought to this reunion may be due to a shared relief to have simply survived COVID’s isolations or may well have to with the news from eastern Europe the past fortnight that raises matters nuclear from only an institutional priority to the real ingredients of weapons of war. 

What we witnessed this week was an endorsement of this community. The hard work, the innovation and the discovery shown bright. Technical outcomes were shared, friendships were renewed, new collaborations borne and existing collaborations cemented. We owe all this to Roy Awbery, Karen Kennedy, Chris Brook and their team at AWE, the colleagues at NNL, as well as the fabulous Claire Garland at the Institute of Physics. Thank you.

In an assessment of NuFor 2022, there is a real danger of using the names of this week’s contributors. Not that those names are not worthy of full acknowledgement, but the hazard is that time does not allow everyone who so distinguished the conference to be recognized.  I will abstract.

On Tuesday, we heard of the opportunity of a career in radiochemistry that has led to domestic and international collaborations in plutonium science and a retrospective of plutonium production on the Hanford Reservation. From Vienna, the IAEA spoke to the very real threat of 3928 incidents of nuclear and radioactive material out of regulatory control and the thirst of Member States to accordingly prevent and respond. AWE leadership spoke to it essential collaboration across the UK government and the United States to ensure the UK’s nuclear deterrent as well as accompanying national class high density science, high performance computing  as well as material science – to include nuclear forensics.  From the civilian sector, NNL has a vital mission include nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security accompanying future carbon zero energy production for all of the United Kingdom.

An expert panel took on the challenging topics of whether human capacity and funding is in place to sustain nuclear forensics.  Lab to lab collaborations are essential.  Not all nuclear forensics is created equal and developing states must be encouraged, but not on a proficiency basis.  How confident are we in nuclear forensics findings and what are the uncertainties with a limited number of actual cases? It’s not just instruments; it’s nuclear forensics subject matter experts.  Words matter in our field and it might be time for a nuclear forensics lexicon.  Who can testify in a nuclear forensics case?

On Wednesday NuFor 2022 was a forum to the strength of our science and links to response. Radiochronometry is an essential tool for nuclear forensics with considerations for the radiochemical behavior of the parents and daughters so involved.  Nuclear forensics yields insights to the volatility of thorium in uranium casting. Concordance and discordance of radiochronmeters has a place in the science of signatures. Taggants – if selected judiciously – can be introduced in pre-irradiated fissile fuels using perturbed isotopes as an indelible nuclear forensics marker. A receipe for thoria extraction from monazite; “bake a cake, build a bomb”. How low tech gamma “spectral flavor of the month” provides a glue to keep nuclear forensics together in the time of a global pandemic. Novel observation of the crystalline phase of epsilon UO3. The role of law enforcement and response concluded the day. The FBI spoke to the essential investigator – laboratory interface and the need to be crystal clear on laboratory requirements for receipt and analysis of evidence. AWE spoke to their commitment to the Conventional Forensics Analysis Capability (CFAC) where the sweep of a nuclear forensics examination can be undertaken by police forensics examiners.  We concluded with the need for robust exhibit handling, receipt and registration accompanying this examination.

On Thursday were inspired by technical presentations of analytical science and radiation detection as nuclear forensics workhorses. As at prior meetings, the University of Bristol provided further accomplishments on high resolution aerial gamma mapping to improve localization and dose estimates as part of nuclear forensics categorization.  Other research in active and passive performance of portable detectors with adjudication of classifiers allows for sensitive in-situ detection of uranium-235.

The radiation detector centric posters were welcome.

In the end, perhaps the best endorsement of the week came from the youngest of our audience – the school pupils who noted NuFor 2022 was both “motivational” and “inspirational”. Proper job and aptly said.

Be safe, be well colleagues and friends, and see you at NuFor 2023!!