I assume you will continue to re-frame your question until you find an angle where you can claim you are right.
that's you projecting,....
Again from a citation in your post.
But by the end of the decade, advances in conventional aircraft and engine design outmoded the atom-powered B-36 and the public became concerned about the dangers of a nuclear reactor flying overhead.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-powered-aircraft/
exactly my conclusion,....
the Scientific American article is from 2008,...
the article includes numerous links to substantiate all the claims of the author,...
not a single one of which references any source contemporary to the ANP (1946-1961) which substantiates your claims that there was concern about reactors falling out of the sky,....
there is a gem in there though if you look for facts as opposed to conjectural supposition,....
the only link in that full article that was worth much was the actual ANP link,...
which is a great link if you survive your eyes glazing over due to the wretched legion of dull engineering speak,...
if you read the ANP link you will find this:
"Convair's successful flight program with the B-36 carrying a flight test reactor (July 1955 - March 1957)" showed that the "aircraft normally would pose no threat, even if flying low. The principal concerns would be: (a) accidents which cause the release of fission products from the reactors, and (b) the dosage from exposure to leakage radioactivity (in the direct cycle concept).[14]
It was decided that the risks caused by radiation were no greater than the risks that had been incurred during the development of steam and electric power, the airplane, the automobile, or the rocket.[15]"
the above was written in 1960,...
which is what would have been part of the information presented to JFK, and is why "safety" is not part of the decision to cancel the ANP,...
the ANP was not cancelled (in any degree) because of concerns of nuclear material falling on people's heads,...
the ANP was cancelled because it was a failure, it was OBE,...
your "safety" tidbits are fictions, written by people who:
...... speculate that "safety" had to be part of the equation because they believe "safety" vis a vis anything nuclear (nuclear is bad, inherently unsafe and never worth the risk) as a de facto sempiternal premise,...
they make it up, they put in their printed conjectures and it becomes "bible" because it is written,....
written by good, moral people, who care,...
you know my type:
"there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right",...I do not have to win, you just have to show me I am wrong,...show me one citation between 1946 and 1961 (that's the definition of contemporary) where the ANP was cancelled in some small degree because the risk from nuclear material falling on people's heads was outside the bounds of acceptable safety,....there is not one,...the risk was acceptable, if the risk is acceptable, it is safe,...
