I'm a big advocate of open source but if a nuclear reactor based on an open-source project would be opened close to me, I'd pack up and move as far as I could.

Open source in this context would mean that the design is open for public review, not that random people get commit rights to the design data. An open source project could easier combine energineering efforts by several professional sources than a design created by a single company though.

> I'm a big advocate of open source but if a nuclear reactor based on an open-source project would be opened close to me, I'd pack up and move as far as I could.

I'm also a big Open Source proponent, but that is such an absurd claim; first, where the hell are you going to get enriched Uranium to do any of the testing?

I'm pretty sure even in the depths of DNMs any such listings are a honey pot for Interpol or CIA/FBI or something.

The US sends other Nations into abject poverty via sanctions for trying to have civil use of Nuclear Energy, you think they won't level your entire neighborhood if they even suspected anyone playing with a reactor?

Oddly enough, the NRC/NRA let decommissioned plants store used spent fuel in poorly made casks along the CA coast:

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/07/06/the-safe-transfer-of-s...

I'm sure the people in charge were aware of these problems but what did you expect them to do? Shut it down before anything goes wrong? (didn't happen) Shut everything down after something goes wrong? (did happen) It's not like you can just do `npm update` on your nuclear plant and get the latest version for free.

Looking forward to the GitHub issue about the color of the plant's bike shed.

This.

"Open Source" in this context would be largely meaningless, because there's so few people that contribute at that level.

There is quite a few of them actually. Nuclear engineering a legit field of study.