Can't Vouch for the Veracity, but it's Interesting

UPDATES BELOW.

Stumbled across this on the YouTubes yesterday:

I had hoped he's spend more time on the early history of "the Site" coming here, rather than slipping into the salaciousness surrounding the SL-1 accident. I've read a lot about what happened there, and though this guy criticizes the investigators for not delving into the reasons why this happened -- he admits we'll never know, since the three guys died. Speculation does nothing, particularly this far removed from the event.

He does list his sources in a link below the video, so kudos for that. Helps me feel the accuracy of this doc is better than most, as I've read (and own) some of the material he's citing.

But also included in the "about" on the video: "This videos covers two fairly different periods of history in and around Idaho Falls - there isn't necessarily a direct [sic] link between the two events, but I still wanted to include the entire gamut of a history that I found pretty enthralling. "

Eyeroll.

I did learn something, though. I'd always thought it was Highway 26 they had to put in once the "site" was selected. Turns out it was indeed Highway 20, as is said in the video.

Note the route west of Idaho Falls in this 1948 map shows a road, but marks it as "impassible." And that is true, because even with the road, there are times it's dicey getting through that stretch.

Also, he glosses over a lot of detail. It's helpful to add that the SL-1 was a US Army project. He could also have gone into the "anything goes" of the early Atomic Era, but the accident is the thing that people tend to want to focus on the most.

The comments on YouTube devolve into the "Mormon town, ew gross." To that I say: Whatever. I'm sure the local Mormon snobbery you experienced exists, but I'm also sure you're exaggerating its impact and are just echo chambering the haters rather than seeing it extensively from personal experience. Crossing cultures is a two-way street, and many of those critics seem to forget that.

UPDATES.

Chapter 16 of Susan Stacy's "Proving the Principle," one of the references cited in the linked video, contains this information, concerning the aftermath of the SL-1 accident:

"For low-power critical facilities, including the ones at the [National Reactor Testing Station] NRTS, the [Atomic Energy Commission] AEC ordered that all operating and shut-down procedures be written in detail. Joen Hensheid, supervisor of the ETR Critical Facility, recalled:

The SL-1 accident was a big watershed point. Up until then, our detailed  procedures weren't much, but we were able to get a lot done in a short amount of time. After SL-1, the reactor [I worked with] was shut down, and we had many, many reviews of procedures. Some reactors at the Site went two years before starting up again. There were committees, and everyone was reviewing procedures and developing formalized sign-offs. It turned into a totally new way of doing business with reactors. Procedural documents that originally had been two pages long were expanded into thick books, and all activity became rigidly prescribed . . . those years of committee meetings with no experiments were hard on everyone."

That says a lot. Yes, there was regret that the "go-go" era was over, but there were clearly many lessons learned from SL-1, but it seems the only thing people want to discuss in connection with the accident is the possible love triangle angle, which can't be substantiated. Leaving the soul-searching out does the average YouTube documentarian looking foolish, going after only the salacious or enthralling. Sure, committee meetings are boring. But the result is worth mentioning.