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
...
6
7
[
8
]
9
10
...
15
Go Down
does a picture say more than a thousand words?
284 Replies
136959 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #140 on:
24/04/2012 21:09:27 »
So we know that there is something brewing right?
No, I don't mean ale. Those weird scientists, I mean, I may be somewhat odd but .. ..
Take a look at this..
Will CERN awaken the Elder Gods?
I just knew there was something strange going on there..
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Hadrian
Naked Science Forum King!
2180
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 1 times
Scallywag
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #141 on:
26/04/2012 12:01:01 »
and yes I counted them 1000 words
Logged
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #142 on:
26/04/2012 14:19:47 »
As good a description of a woman as any I would say.
One thousand words, making one woman, three important
(Ouch, wasn't me, somebody else must have written this..)
=
And his spelling syx !!
«
Last Edit: 26/04/2012 14:35:06 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Karen W.
Moderator
Naked Science Forum GOD!
31888
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 41 times
"come fly with me"
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
«
Reply #143 on:
26/04/2012 21:23:31 »
beauty Marylin.. She certainly was a beauty!
Logged
"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #144 on:
29/04/2012 14:25:29 »
Now, some of you might hate, well maybe not me personally, but at least the sheer chutzpah of someone calling your FaceBook account 'evil' but I think this guy got it right. Read it through first.
In Which Eben Moglen Like, Legit Yells at Me for Having Facebook.
The problem isn't in the idea of connecting services, more in the way they get used, and the way FB 'own' whatever you publish. Nothing is owned by you there, even though they tell you, it's 'yours'
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #145 on:
29/04/2012 14:36:18 »
So how do you circumvent it?
Well you can make fake accounts of course, but it won't matter. You create a structure of sorts, like a network of nodes, by whom you will interact with, and what you do and say anyway. Your name isn't important for that, although after a while it will be fairly easy for anyone having access to that information to track you down.
So, if you go up on social networks, understand one thing. They are not there for you to be a happy consumer. Ah well, in a way they are, but in a dictatorship they will become the strands that fetters you.
==
And what may be worse, the strands that fetters those that trust you as you put them up.
«
Last Edit: 29/04/2012 14:51:59 by yor_on
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #146 on:
29/04/2012 15:00:45 »
Take a look at this example
Ah well..
Luluvise's date-rating site shows where your Facebook data can end up.
Sort of embarrassing funny, but if they get it, what more agencies and sites? And it's 'commercially available' too..
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #147 on:
29/04/2012 15:06:42 »
What you need to see here is that in a statistical research, in where you are guaranteed anonymity, you actually are anonymous. But if the same company constantly sent you requests and also logged from where, or in some way marked your answer with a unique code your answers slowly would start to lose their anonymity. And if everything you do becomes uniquely marked in some way, well forget privacy.
There will be no such thing.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #148 on:
01/05/2012 18:01:02 »
Hopefully this will pluck a smile from you.
Don't know what to make of it but it sure sounds fun.
Especially "No Cyborgs beyond this point." "Human infants taste terrible!" "Chlorine-breathing reptoids out of US Congress!"
A Human IR Vision Experiment..
Enjoy..
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #149 on:
25/05/2012 20:20:27 »
Fukushima..
I don't know what to make of this but you better read it..
As this else may be what some of us may end up with, or even worse?
A reality check.
Read this and make sure to check out the links in a time wise order.
Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen took 5 random soil samples in Tokyo recently, and found that all 5 were so radioactive that they would be considered radioactive waste in the United States, which would have to be specially disposed of at a facility in Texas:
And now this one, but?
I still find it extremely hard to wrap my head around this idea.
But it's certainly much worse than I expected, which ever way I turn it around...
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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
»
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
yor_on
(OP)
Naked Science Forum GOD!
65567
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 #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,
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Print
Pages:
1
...
6
7
[
8
]
9
10
...
15
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...