The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback
Just Chat!
does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
7
8
[
9
]
10
11
...
15
Go Down
does a picture say more than a thousand words?
284 Replies
136713 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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 ..
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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..
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
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
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #175 on:
27/05/2012 23:58:21 »
I can add this
""
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/043/33043484.pdf
"There exists no widely accepted definition for the concept of a 'hot particle'. It is often used in the meaning that the particle is highly active; sometimes it is used for particles having high specific activity. Khitrov et at. (1994) have suggested the following definition: a hot particle is a particle with any radionuclide or composition with size up to 50 - 80 ^m and activity over 4 Bq. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1999) states that "hot particles are considered to be > 10 \im but < 3000 |um in any dimension. Hot particles smaller than 10 (xm may be treated as general contamination...". Radioactive particles originating from atmospheric nuclear tests are historically referred to as hot particles. This concept was later attributed to fuel fragments originating from the Chernobyl accident."
"In the present thesis, nuclear fuel particles are studied from the perspective of their characteristics, atmospheric transport and possible skin doses. These particles, often referred to as 'hot' particles, can be released into the environment, as has happened in past years, through human activities, incidents and accidents, such as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986. Nuclear fuel particles with a diameter of tens of micrometers, referred to here as large particles, may be hundreds of kilobecquerels in activity and even an individual particle may present a quantifiable health hazard.""
And that is a discussion about what should be seen as constituting 'hot dust' as i understands it.
Chernobyl had this to say.
"Problem of Hot Particles," from Yablokov & Nesterenko's, "Chernobyl, Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"
1.4.2. Problem of “Hot Particles” (pg. 21) A fundamental complexity in estimating the levels of Chernobyl radioactive contamination is the problem of so-called “hot particles” or “Chernobyl dust.” When the reactor exploded,it expelled not only gases and aerosols (the products of splitting of U (Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, etc.),but also particles of U fuel melted together with other radionuclides - firm hot particles. Near the Chernobyl NPP, heavy large particles of U and Pu dropped out.
Areas of Hungary, Germany, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, and other European countries saw hot particles with an average size of about 15 μm. Their activity mostly was deter mined to be (UNSCEAR,2000) Zr-95 (half-life 35.1 days), La-140 (1.68 days), and Ce-144 (284 days).
Some hot particles included beta-emitting radionuclides such as Ru-103 and Ru-106 (39.3 and 368 days, respectively) and Ba-140 (12.7 days). Particles with volatile elements that included I-131, Te132, Cs-137, and Sb-126 (12.4 days) spread over thousands of kilometers. “Liquid hot particles” were formed when radionuclides became concentrated in raindrops: Radioactivity of individual hot particles reached 10 kBq.
When absorbed into the body (with water, food, or inhaled air), such particles generate high doses of radiation even if an individual is in areas of low contamination. Fine particles (smaller than 1 μm) easily penetrate the lungs, whereas larger ones (20–40 μm) are concentrated primarily in the upper respiratory system (Khruch et al., 1988; Ivanov et al., 1990; IAEA, 1994). Studies concerning the peculiarities of the formation and disintegration of hot particles, their properties, and their impact on the health of humans and other living organisms are meager and totally inadequate.
From III Introduction, (p. 221): “Hot” particles have disintegrated much more rapidly than expected, leading to unpredictable secondary emissions from some radionuclides. Sr-90 and Am-241 are moving through the food chains much faster than predicted because they are so water soluble (Konoplya, 2006; Konoplya et al., 2006; and many others). Chernobyl radioactive contamination has adversely affected all biological as well as nonliving components of the environment: the atmosphere, surface and ground waters, and soil.
From Ch. 9 (Introduction, p. 237): With the catastrophe’s initial atmospheric radiotoxins powerful irradiation caused by “hot particles,”the soil and plants surfaces became contaminated and a cycle of absorption and release of radioisotopes from soil to plants and back again was put into motion (Figure 9.1).
... and finally, (p. 92):
5.5. Respiratory System Diseases There is a marked increase in respiratory system morbidity everywhere in the territories contaminated by Chernobyl fallout. Respiratory system diseases, which include those of the nasal cavity, throat, trachea, bronchial tubes,and lungs, were among the first apparent consequences of the irradiation and ranged from nose bleeds and tickling in the throat to lungcancer.
Hot particles, or “Chernobyl dust,”consist of particles containing radionuclides derived from nuclear fuel melted together with particles from metal construction, soil, etc. (see Chapter 1 for details). These persist for long periods in pulmonary tissue because of the low solubility of uranium oxides. In the first days after the catastrophe, respiratory problems in the mouth, throat, and trachea in adults were basically linked to the aseous–aerosol for ms of radionuclides.
During this initial period I- 131, Ru-106, and Ce-144 had the most serious impact on the respiratory system (IAEA, 1992; Chuchalin et al., 1998; Kut’kov et al.,1993; Tereshenko et al., 2004). Further damage to the respiratory system was caused by hot particles and external irradiation, and was also a consequence of changes in the immune and hormonal systems. The smallest hot particles, up to 5 μm, easily reached the deepest parts of lungs, while larger particles were trapped in the upper respiratory tract (Khrushch et al., 1988; Ivanov et al., 1990; IAEA, 1994). Bronchopulmonary morbidity increased quickly among liquidators in the contaminated territories (Kogan, 1998; rovotvorov and Romashov, 1997; Trakhtenberg and Chissov,2001; Yakushin and Smirnova, 2002; Tseloval’nykova et al., 2003;and others).
Liquidators,whose health was supervised more carefully than that of the general population, developed marked restrictive lung disease due to a functional decrease in lung elasticity (Kuznetsova et al., 2004). Chernobyl dust was found in liquidators’ bronchial tubes, bronchioles, and alveoli for many years. The syndrome of “acute inhalation depression of the upper respiratory system” presents as a combination of a rhinitis, tickling in the throat, dry cough, and difficulty breathing (Chuchalin et al., 1993; Kut’kov, 1998; Romanova, 1998; Chykyna et al., 2001;and others).
Since this is terminology directly from the industry, it's a good bet this is a solid read on Gundersen's intended definition/usage. "
«
Last Edit: 28/05/2012 00:25:23 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #176 on:
28/05/2012 15:55:41 »
Now, getting back to the molten salt reactors. I'm not sure I understand how those proposing it look at the decay of waste. I've been discussing this topic with a rather nice guy, but he seem to take some things for granted, or else it's me missing out? I need to read a lot more to find what I really think about this molten sand design. But as always, I'm mixing apples with oranges here, discussing one design at the same time we have another going to smithereens in Fukushima. Now, what will happen if those fuel rods blows? As in getting converted to dust... Well, as Alex points out.
"Yoron, please Google "plutonium decay chain". Lasting 240,000 years doesn't mean anything until you know what happens during those tears. Pu doesn't continuously emit particles -- no radioactive element does.
Pu decays in about 15 steps to stable Lead. That means 15 particles (Alpha, Beta...) are emitted in total over 240,000 years. On average, that's 240,000/15 = 16,000 years between particles. So you'd need 16,000 Pu atoms to average 1 particle per year, or 500 trillion Pu atoms to get 1 particle per second, or 1 Becquerel. Your body's Potassium produces 4400 Becquerel.
You'd need to have about 4 milligrams of Pu ingested to equal just the natural Potassium decay in your body.
For Beta (electron) decay, use this nice tool...
www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/iso.html
Click on the O20 box for instance, and see how it decays because it has too many neutrons."
So? Are that Japanese diplomat exaggerating the issue saying it will be a world wide catastrophe?
I don't know, although I would prefer it Alex way, I doubt he is, But I need much more information to decide here. In the mean time I can offer this on the issue of what should be considered dangerous, as well as what 'mass/size' of particles one should worry about.
"one must bear in mind that the Radium dial painters of the 1920s and 1930s all suffered radium induced cancers at the site of deposition of the internalised radium, commonly, the jaw. It must also be borne in mind that Robley Evan’s identified by observation that while the contaminated young women manifestly suffered various radium related disablity, below a certain level of total intake, none suffered radium induced cancers. Above that level, many did. Not all did.
The study turned out ( due to the intervention of war and the subsequent need to know for weapons related purposes. One could add as an aid to nuclear industry.) to be secret and whole of life – the women were secretly monitored until their deaths. The study thus ended in 1990s.) Radium is not plutonium. Both though are toxic chemically, and both are alpha emitters. Radium is endemic in the environment due to the decay of uranium. Plutonium is a transuranic – bigger than uranium and produced artificially. (though there is more to that, I’ll not go into Africa here.)
In terms of the radiological effects of plutonium vs radium weight for weight, the variables are 1. rate of radioactivity per unit mass of hot particle, 2. energy of the emitted alpha particle in MeV. In that comparison there is nothing unique about plutonium. Radiologically, its the alpha radiation emitted that is of interest. A comparion of Pu and Ra will follow the paper below. This argument is important. Understanding both points of view is a must so that one may decide on some logical basis what threats are being unleashed by nuclear industry.
Will a single “bullet” kill or is the concept of the allowable lifetime dose valid? Perhaps both concepts are imperfect. One the one hand, given the presence of radium in everyone from birth, well, we live passed the age of 5. On the other, As Pecher showed in 1942, a very small internal dose of Strontium 89 to a patient delivered a massive dose to local target tissue when converted into exteranl whole body X ray equivalent. And there is the record of the variable outcomes of the Radium Dial Painters. This debate is not a new one.
I’d rather not have any plutonium or cesium or any other fission fuel or fission product or transuranic thank you. Anyway, on with the expert response circa 1975." And if you want to read the rest of this guys wondering, much the same as me there, you have to go to
The Hot Particle Problem – long but worth the effort. (Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog)
And then there is what I asked Alex.
"You know Alex. I never though I would need to dive into this so deep. But your molten sand reactor interests me, and yeah I am checking up on the 233U in the neptunium series. But it takes time, and I also have other things on my mind, as Fukushima. And I'd take that seriously, as seems a lot of other experts on that subject. Would you call your view on that matter a majority view Alex?
And what about responsibility for what one present as safe. Where does it end? Someone sold the design to Tepco, Does it end with Tepco buying it? Tepco probably sold it (the idea of safe nuclear power) to the Japanese state. Does it now end with the Japanese state being responsible? And the state sold it too their citizens so to speak. So would you then say that it ends with the individual?
Wouldn't be true would it? We all want to trust each other, life is a game of trust where we choose who we will trust, or sometimes gets it chosen for us, Somehow this catastrophe will get people killed, real people with families that will get hurt. Where is the responsibility for that Alex? The more you know, and the more you push for something, the more responsibility you take upon your own shoulders, in Japan they have this idea that if you save someones life (like someone suicidal), you also gain a responsibility for seeing to his future happiness. Can you see the logic behind that?"
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #177 on:
28/05/2012 17:01:38 »
Some random voices on the net.
"Here's a video showing damage to the reactors from last Spring. Done by Japanese Defense Forces, flying in a helicopter. Pretty good footage showing massive destruction at the plant.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/crane-fell-plutonium-containing-spent-fuel-rods-crushing-them
The professor interviewed here confirms the crane for moving the fuel "has dropped in." (Professor Naoto Sekimura of Tokyo University) From the video — it is possible the fuel rods have been damaged and radioactive material has been released … and that likelihood cannot be denied. The caption says the crane likely crushed spent fuel rods at SPF#3. If the diagrams are done right, why on earth would they have designed it so the SPF's are right next to the reactors? Dumb and dumber!
Then the video goes to Reactor #4 where it is clear the wall from top to bottom has collapsed on one side of the reactor. It appears the crane has also fallen here. It would be the large green object lying on the lower right side of the frame at about 2:10 – 2:13 in the video. The narrator states the lid "has been opened" as Reactor #4 was being inspected at the time of the accident. (Supposedly there was no fuel inside this reactor.)
The way this is worded (paragraph above) begs the question whether or not there really was fuel in #4. The narrator discusses the hydrogen explosion. If no fuel in the reactor, then the hydrogen explosion originated in SPF #4. So apparently #4 had no fuel in it, but if so the hydrogen explosion came from SPF #4. If this occurred and the crane also fell at #3, could both hydrogen explosions be linked to the cranes having crushed the fuel? And could these hydrogen explosions occur if there was water in SPF #3 or SPF #4?
The other possibility is there really was fuel in #4 and an explosion blew the lid off (or skewed it so that it's open). But that's not what they have been telling us, so far. " from HoTaters April 13, 2012.
By now we know that the Japanese deem unit 4 as the 'king pin' of them all.
"Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4—with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground—collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375).
I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods. I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:
In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident. The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.
Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel). It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet."
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #178 on:
28/05/2012 17:13:53 »
So, we have two scenarios here. One that I will call 'short term' now bearing in mind that , let's say three hundred years in no way is short term for a human. Defining a generation as twenty five years 300 comes out as twelve generations into the future, that all will be crippled as i understands it, by the radioactive dust.
Who will pay for that
What insurance company can afford it? For those of you translating it into profits, greed, and the holy grail, money..
As for the other stuff, that Alex point out not to be that specifically worrisome? I don't know, will this be the only accident then? What about all those 'old' Russian, secret or not, Waste dumps. What about under the oceans. what about the plutonium particles under the grass, even after you cleaned it up? It costs too much to transport all that earth away as I read somewhere
I can go on, but I won't. And maybe Alex still will be correct in this, I'm not sure in the same way that I'm not sure what it will do to our natural background radiation. It's a terribly complicated field.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65498
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 177 times
(Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #179 on:
28/05/2012 17:25:09 »
So what about that natural back ground radiation?
Does it have a impact on our genes?
"Studies at lower doses are currently being conducted as new tools become available to both deliver the radiation and study the response of cells and molecules. This research has resulted in some very interesting results, suggesting that low doses of ionizing radiation with matter triggers many biological responses that were not predicted from past experience. These results include bystander effects, changes in the spectrum of gene activation, adaptive responses, and genomic instability. All these are discussed further in the following cited review papers.
Morgan, W.F. (2003). Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: I. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vitro. Radiation Research 159:567-580.
Morgan, W.F. (2003). Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: II. Radiation-Induced genomic instability and bystander effects In vivo- Clastogenic factors and transgenerational effects. Radiation Research 159:581-596.
Redpath, J.L., Lu, Q., Lao, X., Molloi, S., and Elmore, E. (2003) Low doses of diagnostic energy X-rays protect against neoplastic transformation In vitro. International Journal of Radiation. Biology. 79(4):235-240."
Well, what do you think?
Myself I think we are adapted to this Earth. And that we are adapted through 'geological' time scales. What we do introducing 'man made', extremely fast changes as compared to a geological process, is to ruin the clock work. I don't think we are prepared for handling very fast changes, as long as those changes don't revert back in a relatively short time. That is, I do expect defense mechanisms but I do not expect us to be 'instantly adaptive' if you can see how I think there.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
7
8
[
9
]
10
11
...
15
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...