The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: does a picture say more than a thousand words?  (Read 86656 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #150 on: 25/05/2012 21:02:09 »
For those of you wondering about MOX.

It's a blend of uranium and plutonium. You inhale plutonium, you probably will die. Hold it and it's okay, eat it and ? It's not very okay, but you have a fair chance, inhale it and it gets into your bloodstreams through your lungs.

""MOX" refers to "mixed oxide nuclear fuel." The fuel consists of two types of oxygen-containing compounds able to undergo nuclear fission reactions — specifically, uranium oxide blended with a small amount of plutonium oxide.

Whereas low-enriched uranium remains the primary fuel burned in nuclear reactors worldwide, MOX came into use in the 1980s as a way of disposing of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. There are some 260 tonnes of military plutonium in world stockpiles which, if they weren't used as fuel, would have to be disposed of as nuclear waste.

Another attraction of MOX lies in the fact that plutonium is much more "fissile" than low-enriched uranium: Its atomic nuclei undergo fission — split into smaller parts, releasing heat — with more ease. One kilogram of Pu-239, an isotope of plutonium, can produce sufficient heat to generate nearly 10 million kilowatt-hours of electricity.

One facility where purely-uranium fuel gets reprocessed to become MOX is the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Reactor Unit 3 burns MOX fuel made of 94 percent uranium and 6 percent plutonium.

MOX fuel rods in a spent fuel pool at Fukushima are causing grave concern. The latest chapter in a catastrophic chain of events since the power plant was damaged by Friday's massive 9.0 earthquake, workers are unable to keep the MOX rods in the spent fuel pool sufficiently cool, and if they start to burn, plutonium, an especially dangerous radioactive substance, will be released into the environment."

And plutonium is extremely flammable in a moist environment as I understands it.

"In addition to causing cancer, passing on mutations to the next generation and its potential applications in the development of nuclear weapons, plutonium is also highly flammable. If stored in a moist environment, it will react with water in the air to form hydrides on its metallic surface, which can even ignite at room temperature. Plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances known to humanity, and must be kept under the strictest of controls for the safety of all. The EPA's website also contains information on the dangers of plutonium, emphasising the danger of inhaling plutonium dust."

From What is MOX.

What makes plutonium 239 dangerous is its life length. It emits heavy alpha particles that although, doesn't penetrate skin, if ingested or/and especially breathed in, will accumulate specifically in bone, liver, bone marrow, where it stays as I understands it. Emitting heavy particles destroying and mutating the cells greatly increasing the risk of lung cancer, liver cancer and bone sarcoma. Deposited in bone marrow it will destroy the blood formation which takes place there, Many of the blood cells that populate the arteries and veins are born and mature within the bone marrow which also are the origin of our stem cells, you know, those that can create about anything your body needs. Plutonium enter surface water from accidental releases and disposal of radioactive wastes. Soil becomes contaminated through fallout. Plutonium moves slowly downwards in the soil, into the groundwater. So it travels as 'dust' in the air, falls down on the ground to enter the groundwater.

Plants don't seem to take up very much plutonium so it don't seem to build up in concentration through the food chain from grass to cow to us or, as in even longer chains. But the 'dust' will kill, it's only a question of time.

Plutonium.
« Last Edit: 25/05/2012 21:09:30 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #151 on: 25/05/2012 22:36:05 »
Ready for some background?

If you're like me you kind of assumed that it would be similar to Chernobyl in that they would cover it up. But they can't, the only thing they can do is pour water over it. And that water takes with it plutonium, into the ocean, and up in the air. Not only Japan will get a increase in cancer. Depending on streams and winds we all might get a dose. I'm starting to rethink the way I looked at the waste problem. I never dreamed that it could spread so easily as it seems to have done. America has been hit by plutonium for?

"Iodine, cesium, strontium, plutonium, uranium, and a host of other fission products have been coming directly from Japan to the west coast for thirteen months.

Maybe you have heard about sick seals, polar bears, tainted fish, mutations in dandelions and fruits and vegetables, possibly even animals already, and seaweed. In fact the kelp from Corona del Mar contained 40,000,000 bcq/kg of radioactive iodine, as reported in Scientific American several weeks ago.

If you don’t know your becquerels, its a lot. That’s what your pacific fish feed on. And that was only ONE isotope reported. There were up to 1600 different isotopes that have been floating around in our air, pouring out of the reactors, and steaming out of the ground, every second of every day, for 13 months.

And there has been silence from our mainstream media, for which the depths of depravity are so severe I will devote an entire article just to the “why” at a future time.

But back to the research: reports in the past week indicate the pollen in southern California is radioactive now too, and it is flying around, and if you live there and go outside, you are breathing it in.  And so are your children.

Along with fission products blowing over from Japan. And radiation in your drinking water. And in your rain. And in the fish you are eating. And your vegetables. And the milk supply. And its happening every second, of every day. For 13 months. Are you starting to see a problem here?" according to 'Fukushima Is Falling Apart: Are You Ready ...'

I doubt it will kill us off, but some of us are going to be very sick puppy's sometime in the future. And what it will do to pregnancies I don't know? But it will get into the fetus bloodstream as a guess through the mother.

Nuclear power?

We better reconsider the problems here. It's not only the accidents.



By Shirley Birney

" It is easy to blame Russia's mismanagement when facts are obscured on the twenty nuclear accidents which have caused significant radioactive fallout. Fourteen of the nuclear accidents were not related to Russia:

Fukushima: Japan – scale 7
Chalk River – Canada -5
Windscale UK – (2 RA fallouts scale 4 and 5)
Simi Valley USA 5-6
TMI USA 5
Idaho Falls USA (2 RA fallouts - scale 4 and 4)
Monroe USA 4
Lucens Switzerland 4-5
Saint-Laurent France 4
Buenos Aires Argentina 4
Tokaimura Japan 4
Jaslovske Bohunice Czech Republic 4

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz Germany (and publishing this month in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal) have calculated that a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) — some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.

And that previously the occurrence of INES 7 major accidents and the risks of radioactive contamination have been underestimated.

“"Germany's exit from the nuclear energy program will reduce the national risk of radioactive contamination. However, an even stronger reduction would result if Germany's neighbours were to switch off their reactors," says Jos Lelieveld. "Not only do we need an in-depth and public analysis of the actual risks of nuclear accidents. In light of our findings I believe an internationally coordinated phasing out of nuclear energy should also be considered," adds the atmospheric chemist.”

http://www.mpg.de/5809418/reactor_accidents"

But it's the waste problem that's even worse. We can dismantle unsafe power plants, although it will cost us enormous sums to do it, but, that will only add to the problem of where to store all that radioactive waste. But still, I don't think we have a real choice here. We will have to do something about it.

I'm not solely speaking about plutonium 239 when I speak about radioactive waste, it's just that it 'survives' for a very long time and so become one of our longest existing problems, and it's a man made problem, not a natural. But there are all kind of wastes associated with nuclear reactors, all of them dangerous. Have a look.


nuclear-waste by National Geographic.

So, wastes produced in the reactor core, in radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a bi-product of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. And then we come to the environmentalism of it.

A critical survey by Benjamin K. Sovacool
Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power:

But the most and worst radiation comes from the spent fuel rods, about 99% as I understands it. After the uranium has been used up in the new rods the remaining mixture in a fuel rod will have split into various isotopes of almost all of the transition metals in the periodic table of elements.

"Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind," Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, told Al Jazeera. 
« Last Edit: 25/05/2012 22:43:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #152 on: 25/05/2012 22:47:55 »
Now, we've had discussions about mutations on TNS before, haven't we :)

You better read this one too.  Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #153 on: 25/05/2012 23:22:59 »
Against this reasoning one can find Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection.

So what about radiation?

Well, didn't find that much, but it seems as if low doses of radiation can be handled by cells.

"low-doses induce adaptive protection against DNA damage and its accumulation in tissue, mainly from endogenous, i.e. ‘‘spontaneous’’ sources, and that these can counterbalance radiation effects. The net risk of cancer becomes lower than predicted by the LNT-hypothesis, or even negative with more benefit than damage to the low-dose exposed system." Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation.

So what conclusions can you draw? Depends on the dosage of radiation, doesn't it?
The next step should be to find what dosages/concentrations of Alpha particles that one then should consider harmful?

And that one seems pretty tricky as it also must have to do with whom you are, your age, overall health etc.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #154 on: 26/05/2012 01:20:34 »
This seems a very difficult field to master as there are so many conflicting ideas about it?

One need to differ between different radiations.

"During the decay of plutonium, three types of radiation are released: Alpha, beta & gamma (radiation). Alpha particles can travel only a short distance & cannot travel through human skin (but they can be inhaled or ingested). Beta particles can penetrate human skin, but they cannot go all the way through the body. Gamma radiation can go all the way through the body.”  It is noteworthy that these radioactive particles, some with a half-time of 24.000 years or more can be re-activated into the air or water during forest-fires or tsunamis, making them dangerous for future generations. "

And that point is worth noticing, once plutonium gets into the natural cycle from groundwater to water streams, to air to rain, to earth to groundwater again, it will keep on doing this for at least ten half cycles before becoming 'harmless', that's 240 000 years.

Then there is the question if it was the MOX core that exploded in reactor 3?
steam-explosion theory.

Well, I hope there are people measuring the alpha radiation and keeping good journals over it locally. We can then start to assemble statistics over future cancer related cases comparing it to the local radiation to gain some real practical knowledge, which sounds slightly morbid, but still necessary. The Alpha radiation is already here in any case, both in Europe as well as in the States so we better use it for something 'positive', relatively speaking now.

At least we will get good statistics from it, telling us what the costs of this kind of accidents can be. And you need to consider the loss of working hours and the cost of hospitalizing for a society to see what the real costs are, now ignoring the loss of quality of life.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #155 on: 26/05/2012 03:01:41 »
The we have the more short lived substances as Cesium-137 and Strontium. "If C-137 gets into the air from a reactor core breach, it could reach Tokyo in a matter of hours, and possibly USA within 36 hours. C-137 has a half-time of 30 years." Which then mean applying a similar formula of half life that it will be toxic to all life for somewhere around two to three centuries. Strontium has a half life of 28 years so it should come out about the same.

"Iodine-131 may give a higher initial dose, but its short halflife of 8 days ensures that it will soon be gone. Besides its persistence and high activity, cesium-137 has the further insidious property of being mistaken for potassium by living organisms and taken up as part of the fluid electrolytes. This means that it is passed on up the food chain and reconcentrated from the environment by that process. . . Cesium's danger as an environmental hazard, damaging when ingested, is made worse by it's mimicing of potassium's chemical properties. This ensures that cesium as a contaminant will be ingested, because potassium is needed by all living things. . .Strontium-90 mimics the properties of calcium and is taken up by living organisms and made a part of their electrolytes as well as deposited in bones. As a part of the bones, it is not subsequently excreted like cesium-137 would be. It has the potential for causing cancer or damaging the rapidly reproducing bone marrow cells." From Physics.org.
'
I better point out that Iodine-131 targets the thyroid, leaving both young children and elderly at high risk for thyroid cancer.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #156 on: 26/05/2012 03:23:56 »
So, do this mean I don't trust nuclear power?
Yep, it does.

But, there are reactor types that are better. But the one the military once wanted was the ones that could produce weapon grade plutonium, so that is what we got today, which we now bitterly regret as a guess. There were, and are, alternatives that didn't do this. and according to what I read didn't produce radioactive waste with half lengths of  24000 years, as The Molten Salt Reactor Family.  China who is in dire need of new cleaner energy sources believes in the thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor. and I think they thought long and hard before deciding to choose.

So, to summarize it. I think that what we have today in form of nuclear power are ticking time bombs, all that I know of at least. But I won't say the same for this design, although I can't say what other deficients it might hide in its design, or waste products, as I haven't really studied it.
« Last Edit: 26/05/2012 15:12:56 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #157 on: 26/05/2012 14:26:34 »
Can't help but wonder here. Will those mutations introduced be defined to each persons body solely or will they be able to rearrange genes? By that i mean introduce mutations in sperm and eggs that follow you and your offspring into the future. The natural background radiation of Earth has raised, just as our man made portion of CO2 has. Sort of telling isn't it? Two of the really bad choices we could make, not that we understood the implications of CO2 then, but when it comes to radiation? Some did know, or at least suspected that radiation could become a problem.

So, is it a problem?  I do expect you who read it to have a mind of your own, using it.

Shows us that greed and fear seldom should make the choices for you, better to give it some time and think it through, but, that doesn't fit our life style. We're geared to making money, get a family and/or offspring and then die. And to do it, as we are a male dominated society, we guys run around in mazes most of our life, having little time to contemplate what we really would have liked to do if we really had had a chance to think about it.

Money and greed runs society, with the help of organized religion, that promise you that even though you didn't come out a winner 'here', you can still do it 'there'. The only thing we have controlling greed is the 'state' and its bureaucracy, and that hangs on what type of government one have, as well as if corruption is accepted or not. All states have corruption though, in a western society it may not be money per se, but 'services rendered & exchanged' etc. But that will still be a way to 'get ahead', and 'win' in the competition for money and power, as well as fair maidens :)

It sux.
There should be something more to life.

Anyone heard about those evil Somalia pirates looting and taking hostages?

Well, that, sux too. But as always there are mitigating circumstances, some of them quite blatant, being us from the rich side of life targeting their livelihood, and even future lives. Wonder what America would do if other countries would do the same at them? Do take a look, and you will see why I write about it.

And you girls want the same life as us guys right?
Because that's 'progress' :)
==

==

And No, to lay our fears to rest.

I don't expect this kind of airborne nuclear waste to be able to introduce mutations to sperm and eggs. They target specific places in the body, none of them those, and the radiation is very short range in its effects. But what about the long time elevated 'natural background radiation' we added too? That's where I feel more unsure.
« Last Edit: 26/05/2012 15:13:38 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #158 on: 27/05/2012 05:53:08 »
Bear with me now, my mind is rambling all around here, and I'm not sure at all. It's easy when you restrict yourself, and mostly that is a demand for doing science. Defining your 'system'.

But there is something more, that I find quite unpleasant, that I'm starting to wonder about.
Nuclear power plants plutonium?
As that is their main 'waste product'.

"Many people may not realize that every nuclear power plant -- as a normal part of the fissioning process -- produces plutonium. Plutonium and/or highly-enriched uranium are essential ingredients of nuclear bombs.

Every year the thousand-megawatt Callaway reactor in Missouri, for example, produces an estimated 293 kilograms of plutonium 1. -- enough plutonium every year to make forty nuclear bombs (each containing about 7.3 kilograms [16 pounds] of mixed isotopes of plutonium per bomb). If the nuclear power reactor continues operating for a total of 30 years, it will have produced enough plutonium for at least 1200 bombs."

Forget about the bombs, that's not the problem.
Somalia is, and all other places where unscrupulous, really tremendously stupid, people may have dumped 'nuclear waste'.

What abut cancer, is it on the raise? And what types if so?

"Global rates of cancer could rise 50 percent to 15 million new cases a year by 2020, but one-third can be cured and another third prevented by curbing infections and through lifestyle changes, experts said on Thursday. Once considered a largely "Western" disease, cancer now affects and kills more people in the developing world than in industrialized nations. In many countries it accounts for more than a quarter of all deaths.

But according to the World Cancer Report, with existing knowledge it is possible to prevent at least one third of the 10 million cancer cases that occur each year throughout the world. "By 2020 there will be a 50 percent increase in the number of people diagnosed with cancer unless steps are taken now," said Dr. Bernard Stewart, a co-editor of report. "The overall message is that we can prevent a third of cancers, we can probably cure a third of cancers, and for the remainder we can certainly do something for quality of life if pain management is adequate," he told a news conference. "

Tobacco huh? Your choice of food :)
Well, ah, eh, if we ingest (and inhale) plutonium I would definitely deem it a 'change of foods'.

There were a lot of more smokers twenty years ago, at least in our western society's. And in those others? Maybe not, but still? Statistics is a very tricky game, in that even though you might easily spot a 'trend' to prove why that trend exist becomes a puzzle where a lot of the pieces you choose are questionable by others.

That's why that uncomfortable Russian report from Chernobyl also seems questionable to some, although personally I'm pretty sure they are on to something, more correct than what we are given by asking those thinking they have the 'clearer picture of the dangers of nuclear waste'.

Here's a rather typical answer, as in a accepted peer reviewed standard way of telling you off :)
And no, it's in no way uninformed. Just one eyed.

    Could you explain what you mean by "all fission fuel cycle with reprocessing / recycle"?
    The wastes we have have must be safely stored for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of thousand years as I understands it?.

Yor_on,

Actually you DO NOT have to store waste for thousands of years IF you reprocess / recycle.

The reason for the storage time of many thousands of years is that some of the waste products -
the actinides like Plutonium - have very long half lives. Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,000 years;
hence the long storage time. However, Plutonium-239 is good as a reactor FUEL. You don't have to store the Plutonium-239 - you can use it as FUEL in a reactor. In the reactor, the Plutonium-239 will fission and turn into short lived fission products - the longest lived of which is Cesium-137 with a half life of 30 years.

Sweden should get France, or Britain, or Japan to reprocess their spent fuel so it can be recycled.

When you reprocess / recycle spent nuclear fuel - you don't have any more "many thousand year
disposal problem". ALL those long lived isotopes can be burned and turned into short lived problems
in the appropriate reactors - like Argonne's Integral Fast Reactor; the IFR:
=

Sounds good doesn't it?
So let's take a look.

"While reading through a back issue of "Discovery" magazine, April 94, I came across an short article concerning the Integral Fast Reactor as a promising "new" technology. What ever became of this technology?"

"Replies: I will answer this question by referring you to a web site and by repeating a question-and-answer session from a previous ask-a-scientist response. The web site is http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/ifr.html, the "unofficial IFR home page," which can tell you what happened to the project and give a little background on the reactor design itself. The question-and-answer session I will duplicate here just because the inrformation is easily at hand.

Is the IFR considered renewable?

It isn't renewable in the sense that you can plant seeds in the ground and grow nuclear fuel from them. However, as a "breeder" reactor, it does make plutonium 239, which can be used as nuclear fuel, from uranium 238, which cannot be used as a nuclear fuel.

Can it recycle its wastes?

Just the plutonium and heavier elements. Some wastes, such as fission products, need to be removed and disposed of. However, this is a tremendous advantage over conventional nuclear power plants, as the components of the spent fuel that are the most hazardous over the long term are used as fuel, converting them into less hazardous materials and getting energy from them is the process.

Can IFR wastes be used in nuclear weapons?

The IFR recycles all the elements it makes that can be used in nuclear weapons, so they don't go into the waste stream.

What is usually used?

Nuclear weapons require "fissile" nuclei, which split apart, releasing energy and neutrons when contacted with slow-moving neutrons. Thge three "fissile" nuclei that I know of are uranium-235, uranium-233, and plutonium-239. Uranium-235 is obtained by painstakingly purifying ("enriching") it from natural uranium which is about 0.71% uranium-235. Uranium-233 is made from thorium-232 by bombarding it with neutrons. Plutonium 239 is made by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons. This happens in nuclear reactors, because most of the uranium in nuclear fuel is uranium 238.

If not, could it be processed to be usable for weapons?

The actual waste from IFR would be useless for making weapons. However, IFR fuel must be removed periodically to be reprocessed, to take out the waste materials that interfere with the nuclear reaction. (IFR consumes much more of the fuel before these wastes cause a problem than conventional reactors can.) This spent fuel could, in principle, be further processed to isolate the fissile materials that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

Richard Barrans Jr., Ph.D. .
==
(took away some of the Q not specific to the subject at hand here) From
DOE office of scientists.
 
What was that? "However, as a "breeder" reactor, it does make plutonium 239, which can be used as nuclear fuel, from uranium 238, which cannot be used as a nuclear fuel."

So we would 'hit it' with 'MOX' instead right, (well, only pure plutonium in this case as I understands it as it is a 'breeder') from those other nuclear power plants. And then it would 'eat it up' and in the mean time produce nuclear waste consisting amongst others of, eh? Plutonium?

Does that really sound that different from what Fukushima did, to you? It doesn't to me at least. They used other nuclear plants plutonium, mixed with uranium, to feed their reactor 3, which exploded. It can only be a question of what quantities it can eat, the ratio of plutonium produced as waste relative the rate it got feed. And no, it doesn't exist any more.

So?

How many barrels of plutonium, or , nuclear waste, has gone missing, officially?
« Last Edit: 27/05/2012 07:50:55 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #159 on: 27/05/2012 06:05:35 »
You have to be really, really, stupid to miss the importance of this question.
Or incredibly 'one eyed' bordering on ??

Plutonium in peace.
Plutonium in war.

Two different things. The military and those powers that be wanted one type of reactor once, not that long ago. As a result the design more or less got copied all over the world, even though there are differences all I'm aware of produce plutonium as their 'waste'.

But in a peace, what do you do with the so hotly wanted 'waste'?
That's what we see now.

I would like to get the guys thinking this scheme up behind bars as 'enemies to humanity'. Or rather 'enemies to life'. Because that is what the 240 000 years recycling of alpha particles will do to us. And they must have known what alpha particles was and might do, if not directly in the beginning then after some decade.

How long has homo sapiens been around?
Well "Around 250000 years ago Homo erectus disappears from the fossil record."

Ahh, and now we have a similar time period for plutonium.
The hitchhikers guide couldn't have done it any better than this.

If I'm right, which I don't want to be,
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #160 on: 27/05/2012 06:19:25 »
We better have a 'infinite world' because that seems to be the assumption underlying all those idiots actions, from CO2 to Nuclear Waste. The former USSR dumped theirs everywhere, and in the oceans. Around Arctic there should be , or will be, several 'hot spots'.

And we are the new 'care takers' are we?
Sure you wanna rent us?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #161 on: 27/05/2012 06:24:25 »
We are definitely going to have a increase in cancer, Fukushima ignored for this. And so the question becomes, give me a example of nuclear, working practically, facility that won't produce this sh1t. By working practically I just mean that we need to have tested some proto-type and seen it work.

And do you have a answer to what to do with the 'waste' you will produce, even if the life cycles 'only' is some hundreds of years? You better have because I have a surprise for you.

Earth isn't infinite.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #162 on: 27/05/2012 06:42:39 »
Which brings me back to my last and very pragmatical point. And this is the question of where the limit of survival for our species, as we are now, goes.

Assume that for bearing a kid and taking care of it, and also be able to give it a rudimentary education, there will be a 'mini living span'. Because that is how I look at it.

Where does it go?

Well, I would say it depends on what level of education you want that school to present. In our modern society, if you go for some higher education, I would expect you to be around 25- 30 when coming out. And we need your teachers alive too, don't you agree?

And that's it. 25 + ? 15? maybe, as a shortest life span. It's a complicated society today, it's not Victorian. The level of knowledge you need to do something complicated never ends actually, but that was as true in Victorian times :)

But I would guess our limit goes around a lifespan of forty years of age, for keeping the knowledge we have.

And that's the pragmatical pain limit for taking care of what we have as I suspect. Maybe not exploring new borders, but at least being able to handle all those nuclear power plants we probably are going to build, as the resources are 'limit less' :) as well as all other advanced technology we may need.

Anything under that and we will disappear, at least as we are today.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #163 on: 27/05/2012 07:24:16 »
So what do I feel looking at us?

I want the best for my kids, and yours. I want us to have peace, using atom bombs would be a incredibly stupid thing, and those believing that they can't live in peace without them I would like to to give another planet if I could. Because I don't really feel I need that kind of people around me, their mindset reminds me of homicidal maniacs or sociopaths (formerly psychopaths).'

And you don't want those inside your living space.
=

So you better take a look at yourself, as I do, and ask what you want out of life.
Because that's the only way we're going to change, it's not politics doing changes, it's people.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #164 on: 27/05/2012 09:41:36 »
So what about those Thorium plants that China, and possibly Japan, want to build?
China's Thorium Reactor and Japan's targets 10 MW thorium miniFuji for 2016. 

Well, it's BS that they don't produce the raw material to a atomic bomb. But it's true, if you by that mean that they don't produce Plutonium? So what do they produce as a waste product?

uranium-233.

"The radioactive waste from the thorium reactor contains vastly less long-lived radioactive material than that from conventional reactors. In particular, plutonium is completely absent absent from the thorium reactor's waste. While the radioactivity during the first few days is likely to be similar to that in conventional reactors, there is at least a ten-fold reduction of radioactivity in the waste products after 100 years, and a 10,000 fold reduction after 500 years. From a waste storage point of view, this is a significant advantage."

In the thorium fuel cycle, the waste products are:

§ 71.2% Irradiated thorium oxide
§ 12% Fission products
§ 16.8% Uranium-233

Sounds good?
Well yeah, but?

Uranium 233 at the Hanford Nuclear site.

And

"Thorium is generally accepted as proliferation resistant compared to U-Pu cycles. The problem with plutonium is that it can be chemically separated from the waste and perhaps used in bombs. It is publicly known that even reactor-grade plutonium can be made into a bomb if done carefully. By avoiding plutonium altogether, thorium cycles are superior in this regard. Besides avoiding plutonium, Thorium has additional self-protection from the hard gamma rays emitted due to U-232 as discussed above. This makes stealing Thorium based fuels more challenging. Also, the heat from these gammas makes weapon fabrication difficult, as it is hard to keep the weapon pit from melting due to its own heat.

The one hypothetical proliferation concern with Thorium fuel though, is that the Protactinium can be chemically separated shortly after it is produced and removed from the neutron flux (the path to U-233 is Th-232 -> Th-233 -> Pa-233 -> U-233). Then, it will decay directly to pure U-233. By this challenging route, one could obtain weapons material. But Pa-233 has a 27 day half-life, so once the waste is safe for a few times this, weapons are out of the question. So concerns over people stealing spent fuel are eliminated by Th, but the possibility of the owner of a Th-U reactor obtaining bomb material is not. "

A half life of 160 000 years? times what? 3-10?
Which then would give a absolute cycle of 4.5 - 16 million years?
So does uranium 233 emits alpha particles?

Yep.
And Gamma.

"Unlike Pu239, U232 emits more gamma over time, and becomes more dangerous. This makes any handling of U232, and by extension any waste material from the thorium fuel cycle, virtually impossible to handle. To put it into perspective for the reader, a critical mass of plutonium waste product can be handled with a standard glove box, whereas a critical mass of U233 (approximately 5 kilograms) would contain enough U232 content (approximately 1%), that after 10 years, lead shielding of 17 meters in thickness would be required for handling. Without this lead shielding, any human being within approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of U232 would suffer lethal exposure within 5 minutes.

Furthermore, because a critical mass of U233 would be so easily detectable, the bomb making facilities would have to be constructed several miles below the surface of the earth. U232’s gamma emissions also have a destructive effect on electronics. So, although it is technically possible to construct a bomb from U233 waste material generated by the thorium fuel cycle, it is exponentially more difficult, dangerous and expensive than using Pu239." from Fuel Characteristics Thorium.

So?

Well, it's no dream came true is it?
It's seems safer from a maintenance point of view but, what the he*..
It still gives us radioactive waste that won't disappear.

But still better than what we have going now.

I need to look at this a lot more. For example, what about the Irradiated thorium oxide? What radiation levels, half time etc. as well as all kinds of other aspects, some that I probably won't know until later.

And we still have Alpha, as well as Gamma, radiation to consider.

What is thorium nuclear fuel?
Thorium: Is It the Better Nuclear Fuel?
Fuel Characteristics.

So let me come back to this, when I have had some time to assimilate the ideas behind it. For now I'm not that happy with it. You can make bombs, which I would prefer not to be possible. It emits both Alpha and Gamma radiation, and uranium233 seems extremely long lived.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #165 on: 27/05/2012 10:02:55 »
For those of you really wanting to take a dive into this.
The decay chain of 233U itself is in the neptunium series.
And you may want to consult Radioactivity Fundamentals. ... Before that dive.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #166 on: 27/05/2012 16:26:46 »
Tell me one thing.

Who are the real 'terrorists' here? Those hypothetical one, or those responsible for the Alpha radiation we see today? To 'hunt down' hypothetical ones costs? ? At the same time as we allow our environments to become so fouled that we ..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #167 on: 27/05/2012 17:00:35 »
Why the he* should I find this a viable alternative to Plutonium?
As I read it it's no alternative at all? It may be safer in the nuclear plant, and so 'hide them', away from public scrutiny but the waste problem in form of Alpha and Gamma radiation seems even worse to me, what am I missing here?

Are you thinking of A-bombs? Don't be stupid, someone wanting to kill of this planet all they need to do is to use vaporized U232, and some suicide bombers, strategically placed. As well as the exact same can be done with Plutonium. But hopefully us humans are not  t h a t  stupid, or if we are? Why hasn't it been done yet? It's no secret at all, but you seem to be trying to act as if there is only 'one way' of accomplishing a 'nuclear terrorist goal'.

And that, seems to be to stop them from... M a k i n g   t h e   b o m b.

Really?

What are we going to do?
Look for microscopic dust.
Alpha Geiger meters perhaps :)
Sh*

"Over the first couple years after U-233 containing U-232 is processed, Th-228 builds up to a nearly constant level, balanced by its own decay. During this time the gamma emissions build up and then stabilize. Thus over a few years a fabricated mass of U-233 can build up significant gamma emissions. A 10 kg sphere of weapons grade U-233 (5 ppm U-232) could be expected to reach 11 millirem/hr at 1 meter after 1 month, 0.11 rem/hr after 1 year, and 0.20 rem/hr after 2 years. Glove-box handling of such components, as is typical of weapons assembly and disassembly work, would quickly create worker safety problems. An annual 5 rem exposure limit would be exceeded with less than 25 hours of assembly work if 2-year old U-233 were used. Even 1 month old material would require limiting assembly duties to less than 10 hours per week.

In a fully assembled weapon exposures would be reduced by absorption by the tamper, case, and other materials. In a modern light weight design this absorption would be unlikely to achieve more than a factor of 10 attenuation, making exposure to weapons assembled two years previously an occupational safety problem. The beryllium reflectors used in light weight weapons would also add to the background neutron level due to the Be-9 + gamma -> Be-8 + neutron reaction. The U-232 gammas also provide a distinctive signature that can be used to detect and track the weapons from a distance. The heavy tampers used in less sophisticated weapon designs can provide much high levels of attenuation - a factor of 100 or even 1000.

With deliberately denatured grades of U-233 produced by a thorium fuel cycle (0.5 - 1.0% U-232), very high gamma exposures would result. A 10 kg sphere of this material could be expected to reach 11 rem/hr at 1 meter after 1 month, 110 rem/hr after 1 year, and 200 rem/hr after 2 years. Handling and fabrication of such material would have to done remotely (this also true of fuel element fabrication) In an assembled weapon, even if a factor of 1000 attenuation is assumed, close contact of no more than 25 hours/year with such a weapon would be possible and remain within safety standards. This makes the diversion of such material for weapons use extremely undesirable.

The short half-life of U-232 also gives it very high alpha activity. Denatured U-233 containing 1% U-232 content has three times the alpha activity of weapon-grade plutonium, and a correspondingly higher radiotoxicity. This high alpha activity also gives rise to an even more serious neutron emission problem than the gamma/beryllium reaction mentioned above. Alpha particles interact with light element contaminants in the fissile material to produce neutrons. This process is a much less prolific generator of neutrons in uranium metal than the spontaneous fission of the Pu-240 contaminant in plutonium though.

To minimize this problem the presence of light elements (especially, beryllium, boron, fluorine, and lithium) must be kept low. This is not really a problem for U-233 used in implosion systems since the neutron background problem is smaller than that of plutonium. For gun-type bombs the required purity level for these elements is on the order of 1 part per million. Although achieving such purity is not a trivial task, it is certainly achievable with standard chemical purification techniques. The ability of the semiconductor industry to prepare silicon in bulk with a purity of better than one part per billion raises the possibility of virtually eliminating neutron emissions by sufficient purification.

U-233 has a spontaneous fission rate of 0.47 fissions/sec-kg. U-232 has a spontaneous fission rate of 720 fissions-sec/kg.

Despite the gamma and neutron emission drawbacks, U-233 is otherwise an excellent primary fissile material. It has a much smaller critical mass than U-235, and its nuclear characteristics are similar to plutonium. The U.S. conducted its first test of a U-233 bomb core in Teapot MET in 1957 and has conducted quite a number of bomb tests using this isotope, although the purpose of these tests is not clear. India is believed to have produced U-233 as part of its weapons research and development, and officially includes U-233 breeding as part of its nuclear power program. Its specific activity (not counting U-232 contamination) is 9.636 milliCi/g, giving it an alpha activity (and radiotoxicity) about 15% of plutonium. A 1% U-232 content would raise this to 212 milliCi/g. "

From Section 6.0 Nuclear Materials from nuclear weapons archive.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2012 17:10:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #168 on: 27/05/2012 17:39:53 »
We have two substances here,  Uranium 233 with a half life of 160 000 years which comes out to about four million years. We do expect ourselves to handle big numbers here, don't we :) The Victorian Empire builders can lay themselves down and roll over in shame..

Here we 'instant star makers' and long range planners come, again :)
Reminds me a lot of the 'Jules Verne solutions' some want to believe possible for eliminating CO2..
You know,  with the 'lone ranger' coming into town (read Earth), and saves the day (read our future), well, sort of?

Now, that seems a 'low' radiation level if split over those years, but what about inhaling it, and what about that 'natural' background radiation as we assemble more and more of the uranium? Then we have another component in it, called Uranium 232, with a much shorter life length.. Determined 'to '73.6±1.0 years by a method involving isotopic dilution, mass spectrometric analysis etc.'

The shorter the half time, the more lethal the radioactivity as I understands it. So what is the overall life-length of U-232 before we can call it humanly 'safe' to handle?  U-232 and the Proliferation Resistance of U-233 in Spent Fuel.

I don't seem to be able to find out?

But using the standard 3 to 10 times their 'half life' we find its 'toxicity' to be somewhere around 220 years to 750 years, possibly? That's the time for its radioactivity to 'cling of',  purely as a first guess now.

And this one...

You better read it..A Thorium Future?
« Last Edit: 27/05/2012 17:58:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #169 on: 27/05/2012 17:49:47 »
What do you make from it? A one eyed conversation isn't it? Concentrating on stealing 'bomb materials'?

I don't give a sh* about that. Sure, a bomb would be bad, and if it's 'dirty' even worse. But we would see them some time at the chain leading to that bomb, as well as you have to be suicidal to do it in the first place, both as an individual and as the country harboring that individual.

But I'm not talking about that at all, I'm talking about the waste..
Read it again.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2012 18:03:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #170 on: 27/05/2012 18:16:06 »
You see, what I'm actually arguing here is that we humans, when show comes to tell, actually are a sane species.

We better be.
Because if we're not?

Well, you're dead.

It's too easy to do it today, but nobody has, has they?
Suicide bombers use explosives but not fissionable materials. Perhaps some secret agencies did poison by using radioactive materials, as in London recently. But hey, that was a 'government', not a 'terrorist', was it?

Anyone more than me finding this darkly ironic?
Seems our 'terrorists', so far, has behaved better than some governments.
Considering how (relatively) easy it would be to do the same, relative assembling a functioning  b o m b.

So I actually expect us to be  s a n e.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #171 on: 27/05/2012 19:06:16 »
Then, on the other hand. If we now are sane, why don't we do the obvious?
Restrict all births to one per person, which would make a normal traditional family to contain one baby per person.

For whatever time we need to start to fix things up here on Earth.

So, maybe I'm wrong?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #172 on: 27/05/2012 19:51:12 »
Be my guest here. Seems as if we have a reactor 4 in Fukushima that in 'where is spent nuclear fuel which contains Cesium-137 (Cs-137) that is equivalent to 10 times the amount that was released at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Nearly all of the 10,893 spent fuel assemblies at the Fukushima Daiichi plant sit in pools vulnerable to future earthquakes, with roughly 85 times more long-lived radioactivity than released at Chernobyl."

And MOX too perhaps?
Which then gives those 'ten times' a totally new and terrible importance.

And please, forget about Chernobyl comparisons, it's a totally new and sinister ball game when using MOX. I only use Chernobyl to point out that we westerners seems to have lied to ourselves, pretending it wasn't so bad, as that big Russian study shows up in our faces, if now any of those self proclaimed 'experts' takes the time to read it here?

Are we idiots?
What's wrong with us?

"The reactor in Chernobyl used slightly enriched Uranium-235 rods. While the Japanese plant uses a mixture of different fuels (MOX) from weapons grade plutonium and re-processed nuclear waste, partly put into civilian use to prevent proliferation of radioactive materials to terrorists."

As i said, forget about the bomb. If we can't see what this might mean for us, then we're probably gone as a species anyway. You guys defending our nuclear strategy better come through with a solution to the waste if you want us to continue with nuclear energy.

And it's rather urgent now, don't you agree?
As in weeks, maybe months, but not years...






Ambassador Murata writes to UN Secretary General: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No. 4 reactor’   

I don't know what to say here.
Well I do, but I better not..

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #173 on: 27/05/2012 19:58:09 »
G r e e e d..


Thanks, and f* you.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #174 on: 27/05/2012 20:42:51 »
I don't think I want to write any more about this for a while.
I'm not going apologize about what I wrote above though.

Getting so tired wondering about how we can behave as we do.
And whatever I write won't change what will happen anyway.

I don't know what to do here, but we need airlifts to Japan, and, we need some way to contain those pools.
And we don't have the time to discuss it really. Better if we set it into motion today, and argue while we're on our way.

The logistics of it will be a nightmare and will take us quite some time. If it wasn't for my kids, and yours, I would say good riddance to us all. We have to be worse than cockroaches we humans, although without their survivability. That fuc*ng greed and egoism will kill us all in the end, if we can't change.

Can we?

Here's the Russian Ebook about Chenobyl.
If we now fix this it will still be relevant. I promise MOX will disappear from the other nuclear facilities. Although there will be a lot of protests from the 'one eyed' population.

And, it's heavy reading with a lot of different sources.
But you should read it, after all, if you don't, you're a sucker for anyone telling you what to believe.
Remember PT Barnum?

Why not prove him wrong and read it.

Free Ebook; Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #174 on: 27/05/2012 20:42:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums