does a picture say more than a thousand words?

  • 284 Replies
  • 87780 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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,
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 ..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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..

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
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?"

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
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."
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
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.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #180 on: 28/05/2012 17:35:42 »
You just need to consider Chernobyl.

'Reverting back' here, just means. "Get Out Of There"
But what about when we have no "Out Of There" left to go too?
=

Earth is getting smaller, each day.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2012 17:37:24 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #181 on: 28/05/2012 18:04:45 »
Then there is another, more subtle but terribly important effect, that I would refer to as 'human nature'. We don't really want it to be as dangerous as some suspects, do we :) . Take a look at Heart disease and depression are likely to claim more lives than radiation after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, experts say.

Do they still state that?

And what about ignoring Russian science on the subject? The nation that is likely to have the most hot spots in the world, as I suspect, inside its (former USSR) territory or in its close vicinity, including us in Sweden, as well as the other Nordic Countries, as we share some borders over the Baltic sea?

What about it?
Is only western science 'scientific'?
Don't think so.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #182 on: 28/05/2012 18:30:32 »
And now to what I find most frustrating. The idea that anyone 'knows it all'. You will find the same phenomena in each generation. They all have their 'gurus' that they will refer too as 'scientifically impossible to question'. And when you insist on doing it a lot of huffing and puffing will commence. Nobody knows it all and we would all do well in trying to remember that. That would put a immediate end to most 'sects', of whatever kind, out there.

So what is the proper response to a problem as Fukushima?
Get the information..

As long as it can be validated it will be relevant, and if it is statistics instead of hypothesis, so much better. And use common sense when finding validating hard. A minimalistic approach to danger is to be preferred when it comes to what is unknown, or questionable. Especially if it is other peoples life you are gambling with.

Would you say that this is what we do, gambling on safe nuclear designs?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #183 on: 28/05/2012 20:43:45 »
So, has Tepco lied?

Yes.

Has the Japanese government lied?

Depends on if you think that holding in the truth is lying?

If you asked me if a road is safe and I say 'as for last week it was' knowing that it has changed since that.
Would that consist of lying? Or if refusing to answer, would that consist of lying?

I don't know, well I do know, but that's, that's my personal opinion :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #184 on: 28/05/2012 21:06:30 »
Then there is one more thing. How much MOX is there in those fuel rods?

the used up fuel rods will contain plutonium. The unused will either contain MOX, which is a mix of uranium, weapon grade plutonium, and plutonium from other nuclear facility's waste. Or they will contain enriched uranium which is made from ;

"Uranium found in nature consists largely of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. The production of energy in nuclear reactors is from the 'fission' or splitting of the U-235 atoms, a process which releases energy in the form of heat. U-235 is the main fissile isotope of uranium.

Natural uranium contains 0.7% of the U-235 isotope. The remaining 99.3% is mostly the U-238 isotope which does not contribute directly to the fission process (though it does so indirectly by the formation of fissile isotopes of plutonium).  Isotope separation is a physical process to concentrate (‘enrich’) one isotope relative to others. Most reactors are Light Water Reactors (of two types - PWR and BWR) and require uranium to be enriched from 0.7% to 3% to 5% U-235 in their fuel.

Uranium-235 and U-238 are chemically identical, but differ in their physical properties, notably their mass. The nucleus of the U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons, giving an atomic mass of 235 units. The U-238 nucleus also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons - three more than U-235, and therefore has a mass of 238 units. The difference in mass between U-235 and U-238 allows the isotopes to be separated and makes it possible to increase or "enrich" the percentage of U-235. All present enrichment processes, directly or indirectly, make use of this small mass difference.

Some reactors, for example the Canadian-designed Candu and the British Magnox reactors, use natural uranium as their fuel.  (For comparison, uranium used for nuclear weapons would have to be enriched in plants specially designed to produce at least 90% U-235.) Enrichment processes require uranium to be in a gaseous form at relatively low temperature, hence uranium oxide from the mine is converted to uranium hexafluoride in a preliminary process, at a separate conversion plant. "

So you can see that there is a difference between the Chernobyl 'fuel' and what Fukushima used.
And Tepco lied to us, and to the Japanese government before the catastrophe according to workers/whistle blowers there. Isn't it strange that it takes a catastrophe for a human to start telling the truth? I find it strange at least.

Anyway, if they lied about that? Then I don't know what to think about how many fuel rods there will be that contain MOX either? According to what I've found out only reactor three was certified for using MOX.

But?
And, as a byside:

Sweden do not use MOX but yet we found us forced by OKG AB to accept such, 850 kg of it.

  ---- G r e e d ---

"Swedish christmas present for Sellafield

The approval gives OKG AB the opportunity to return 850 kilos of plutonium recovered at the Sellafield Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP). According to the contracts between OKG AB and British Nuclear Fuel Ltd (BNFL) the Swedish plutonium will be converted in to MOX fuel in the Sellafield MOX plant (SMP).

The licence is limited and does not mean a changed policy for treatment of Swedish nuclear waste.

Unplanned stoppages

The Swedish plutonium is a product of spent nuclear fuel sent to Sellafield by OKG AB between 1975 and 1982. In the 1980’s the Swedish government subsequently reversed its spent fuel policy of reprocessing in favour of the direct disposal of its spent nuclear fuel. According to the English environmental organisation CORE, BNFL was alarmed by the Swedish plans in 1996 to have its spent fuel returned to Sweden unreprocessed. BNFL promptly reprocessed all the fuel in 1997, well in advance of its scheduled reprocessing date.

Anyway it will probably take some time before the Swedish MOX-fuel will be shipped to Oskashamn. Despite BNFL’ s best efforts to get SMP into full production in order to meet customer delivery targets, unplanned stoppages have contributed to the plant’s slow commissioning progress. Early statements by BNFL indicated delivery of the first assemblies in January 2003. But when Bellona inspected the plant last week, the first MOX-fuel assemblies was expected in april 2003. SMP was commissioned in December 2001.

Switzerland first

It is still uncertain when the plant will start the production of the Swedish MOX assemblies. The first assemblies are to be sent to Switzerland. Two weeks ago the SMP was forced to a halt because of problems with the constructions of a fuel pin. Still smarting from the negative publicity surrounding the return shipment of rejected MOX-fuel from Japan to Sellafield this summer, BNFL is planning to ship the new MOX to Europe with reduced levels of safety and security for the dangerous cargo. Instead of using their MOX carriers, Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, BNFL are planning to ship MOX to Europe with Atlantic Osprey, a ship bought second-hand by BNFL in 2001 from the German shipping firm Adler & Sohne.

The Atlantic Osprey has few of the safety/security features attributed to BNFL’s MOX carriers. No naval cannon or other armament has been added and unlike the Pacific ships the Atlantic Osprey will travel unescorted around the British coast to Europe. The Atlantic Osprey must rely on a single engine, and has no double hull.

Bellona visit

The Bellona foundation inspected the Sellafield MOX plant last week. Bellona also had meetings with BNFL staff, and discussed different ways of cleaning out Technetium-99 (Tc-99) from the discharges. The British environmental minister Michael Meacher have instructed the Environmental Agency to find out if it is possible to put a moratorium on the Tc-99 discharges.

Bellona also visited the tanks where BNFL store vast amounts of Tc-99 contaminated liquid waste. The tanks was constructed in 1951 and was once part of the secret British weapons programme. Today there are about 2000 cubic metres of radioactive liquid waste in the tanks, containing about 200 Terrabecquereles of Tc-99." From Sweden approves limited MOX use.

Anyone else than me feeling tired here.

I have kids, you have kids, we know that MOX is a material we don't want to get spread around. We know that we don't want to have a accident with it either (remember 'moist environment' anyone?). And we don't want it sunk to the bottom..

Sure, in the end it's the 'individuals responsibility' right?
I'm responsible, because in a market policy it is 'always' the customer that decides :)

What BS.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2012 21:43:56 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #185 on: 29/05/2012 10:27:57 »
Just got this from Alex.

And it sounds no good.  Nobody can afford that when it comes to nuclear power plants. If the companies managing them can't make a profit without, then I think it's time for the government to take over the plant.

Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant.
Japan Nuclear Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Reports, Accidents.

So, how is it with other countries nuclear 'oversights'?
==

Eh, that is assuming a 'state' having a integrity of course.
Without integrity, neither a state, nor a man, has anything.

« Last Edit: 29/05/2012 10:45:42 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #186 on: 30/05/2012 22:01:41 »
So, how is it to live there?
Near Fukushima?

"It was an email from an old friend that led me to the irradiated sunflower fields of Fukushima. I had not heard from Reiko-san since 2003, when I left my post as the Guardian's Tokyo correspondent. Before that, the magazine editor had been the source of many astute comments about social trends in Japan. In April, she contacted me out of the blue. I was pleased at first, then worried.

Reiko's message began in traditional Japanese style with a reference to the season and her state of mind. The eloquence was typical. The tone unusually disturbing: "It is spring time now in Tokyo and the cherry blossoms are in bloom. In my small terrace garden, the plants – tulips, roses and strawberries – are telling me that a new season has arrived. But somehow, they make me sad because I know that they are not the same as last year. They are all contaminated."

Reiko went on to describe how everything had changed in the wake of the nuclear accident in Fukushima the previous month. Daily life felt like science fiction. She always wore a mask and carried an umbrella to protect against black rain. Every conversation was about the state of the reactors. In the supermarket, where she used to shop for fresh produce, she now looked for cooked food – "the older, the safer now". She expressed fears for her son, anger at the government and deep distrust of the reassuring voices she was hearing in the traditional media. "We are misinformed. We are misinformed," she repeated. "Our problem is in society. We have to fight against it. And it seems as hard as the fight against those reactors." "

From Fukushima disaster: it's not over yet 
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #187 on: 30/05/2012 22:19:04 »
This is not Europe, it's Japan.
Where can they go?

And is that acceptable, to lose land for centuries, or longer?
Even if it will be shown that we can live with a higher radiative background I doubt anyone to want to live in Fukushima, or Chernobyl. Those that do live in similar neighborhood have their kids dead-born or severly genetically damaged. I gave a link in the beginning, as I reopened the question of Fukushima, why not read it if you missed it.. Here it is, again.

Instead of defending those outmoded expressions from a cold war, why not ask yourself if you are prepared to live like that. And then ask yourself how we can make sure that no one ever will need too again.

Then we come to the weak radiation theory in where it can be seen as benevolent at times as well as the idea is that we can stand a lot more radioactivity than what we allow. I don't think so myself, we are adapted to Earth in a geological perspective, from the very beginning of life. And to assume that we can adapt over decades or even centuries lie a heavy weigh over those shoulders, thinking that.

Prove it, and not on mice.
We have had some few laboratories.

The link above is one of them, the other is Chernobyl and there we have the study made by Russian that I linked too. We could count in the atom bombs and the Japanese victims of the same, but that's not this type of slow radioactivity from waste etc. And now we have a new laboratory, with new unwilling participants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #188 on: 30/05/2012 22:44:33 »
"The village of Muslymova, just outside the 50 km zone was particularly contaminated, but it was never evacuated. Muslyumova lies 45 km north west of Chelyabinsk city and has 4,000 inhabitants. The village had no wells and until recent years depended on the river Techa, for drinking water.

The villagers of Muslyumova grew increasingly ill following contamination of their water. The number of birth defects and cancer deaths soared, but the authorities refused to take remedial measures. Statistics show that gene-mutations in the villages just outside the evacuated zone were 15 times the average for the Russian Federation. The local authorities attributed the high level of birth defects among newborns and the high mortality rates to a low standard of living."

(Anyone meet this argument in western science? Russias low standard of living? I've seen it several times when it comes to criticizing the Russian study of Chernobyl.)


"A report on the health of the people living on the banks of the Techa River was published in 1991, which showed that the incidence of leukemia increased by 41% since 1950. From 1980 to 1990, all cancers in this population rose by 21% and all diseases of the circulatory system rose by 31%. These figures are probably gross under-estimations, because local physicians were instructed to limit the number of death certificates they issued with diagnosis of cancer and other radiation-related illnesses. According to Gulfarida Galimova, a local doctor who has been keeping records in lieu of official statistics, the average life span for women in Muslyumovo in 1993 was 47, compared to the country average of 72. The average life span of Muslyumovo men was 45 compared to 69 for the entire country.

Chelyabinsk regional hospitals were not allowed to treat the villagers and they were sent to the Ural Centre for Radiation Medicine. The medical data of the UCRM was classified until 1990. Records of the UCRM chart the decline in health of 28,000 people along the Techa and all of them are classed as seriously irradiated. Since the 1960s, these people have been examined regularly by public health officials.

According to the head of the UCRM clinical department the rate of leukemia has doubled in the last two decades. Skin cancers have quadrupled over the last 33 years. The total number of people suffering from cancer has risen by 21%. The number of people suffering from vascular diseases has risen 31%. Birth defects have increased by 25%. Kosenko carried out a small epidemiological study of 100 people selected at random. From this group 96% had at least five chronic diseases (heart diseases, high blood pressure, arthritis and asthma), 30% had as many as ten chronic conditions.

Local doctors estimate that half the men and women at child bearing age are sterile."

And?
Low living standards is it?
Remind me of getting a better wage.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #189 on: 30/05/2012 22:56:34 »
Is it strange that people doubt those 'experts' telling them that they don't have to 'worry'?
I am worried, I told my kids to worry too. I'm no expert on this but it is clear to me that some real big money is involved in this type of energy, like ? Couldn't find a answer on the net, not even for a single Country?

Isn't that strange.

Makes you wonder, if you have a estimate validated by sources, feel free to tell me.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #190 on: 31/05/2012 00:22:50 »
Okay I have some leads now, but?

Anyway, let's get back to my first question.
That is... Are we sane?

I don't know, we're very territorial animals, as well as easy to manipulate. Maybe one is needed for the other? We seems to like weapons, don't we? Like the b o m b World Spending On Nuclear Weapons Surpasses $1 Trillion Per Decade. 

Is that sane? Considering that using just one of them will be ... Be my guest The Nuclear Seduction. It's a gas..

So what about those costs for a nuclear facility? I still don't now how much that has been invested, as well what it has cost to clean up after accidents, failures, waste, etc. But I can offer this. New Nuclear Reactors Would Be Too Risky. From 2010.. As well as 10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy from 2008. From the Center for American Progress.

Against it we have the World Nuclear Association Information. World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power.. from 2011.   I don't use  IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and WHO (World Health Organization) here to get my costs. Why?

Well, I'm looking for unbiased sources firstly.

And they are both interrelated through a agreement.

"In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry."

And when it comes to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) its own charter says.

"[t]he Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose"
==

So, okay, how can I say that the sources I use don't have a bias?
I can't :) It's just that I prefer private persons investigating, before using what cooperations and organizations tell me. But yeah, they probably have a bias too. To live is to get them, don't you agree? If you have better sources than this..? And I'm sure there are better sources, somewhere? There always is :) But we have to do with what we have.
==

You can turn it around if you like, then I'm using clearly biased sources, but avoiding those 'in the shades' that one otherwise easily might expect 'objective', not knowing about that agreement, and charter of intent.

Can you see my point?
« Last Edit: 31/05/2012 01:02:28 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #191 on: 31/05/2012 00:50:43 »
One reason more for worrying about MOX.

"According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), this plutonium-uranium fuel mixture is far more dangerous than typical enriched uranium -- a single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium."

But hey, we 'need plutonium' don't we?
Well, those of us not living in Mayak, Chernobyl, Fukushima, or anyway near a waste facility.
Because it's a deterrent to war :)
Eh..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #193 on: 01/06/2012 21:32:32 »
How is it with the 'State' honesty?
Is a democratic state answerable to its citizens? Is it acceptable with a political change after a state been found to lie, or should there also be a individual responsibility from those partaking in covering ups and lying?

I think it should, having a individual legal responsibility to not lie those politicians, and other servants of the state, would be forced to reconsider not only their jobs, but also legal procedures taken against them, as prison sentences.

The democratic state is a servant of the people, is that not so?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #194 on: 06/06/2012 09:23:32 »
I don't know, we're very territorial animals, as well as easy to manipulate. Maybe one is needed for the other? We seems to like weapons, don't we? Like the b o m b World Spending On Nuclear Weapons Surpasses $1 Trillion Per Decade.

So, why is the USA spending $60 Billion a year on weapons that are completely useless, or otherwise are designed to never be used?  And the expenditures are INCREASING   [xx(]

And, all being done in a period when the USA is completely unable to balance the budget.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2012 09:25:29 by CliffordK »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #195 on: 23/07/2012 03:25:18 »
My view Clifford?

Why is China going for molten salt reactors? They do seem safer, as far as I understand it, but what more do they do, as new 'fuel/waste'?

"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. "

 "Tread softly, wearing a big stick" seems to be the motto for today,  just as it was yesterday, and the day before. There seem no end to the aspirants wanting to shoulder that nuclear burden. Still, I suspect this kind of attitude is inbuilt in us, visible even in the most civilized of society's. And one has to remember that USA has a lot of foreign interests to defend, after all, they are 'the' Super-Power.. No joke there, just as Rom once was.

=

As for Fukushima..

The Guardian has a recent piece.

The Fukushima nuclear plant's slow recovery offers lessons to the US.

The comments are interesting too.
==

Sorry, had to correct myself regarding Chinas planned thorium plants (molten salt reactors)..
It's not plutonium but you can still make a bomb from it, if you own the plant.
Still, it's the waste problem I find really troublesome.
« Last Edit: 23/07/2012 04:37:01 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #196 on: 23/07/2012 05:18:38 »
The problem with those molten sand reactors is still the waste as it seems to me. We've had the bomb a long time now, humanely seen :) long at least, but the waste products coming from a Thorium reactor seems even worse when looking at how long they will be with us?

"Putative waste benefits – such as the impressive claims made by former Nasa scientist Kirk Sorensen, one of thorium’s staunchest advocates – have the potential to be outweighed by a proliferating number of MSRs. There are already 442 traditional reactors already in operation globally, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The by-products of thousands of smaller, ostensibly less wasteful reactors would soon add up.

Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a ‘dishonest fantasy’ perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos. 



This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).

Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste. "

I don't know. If we want to keep the standard of living raising for the whole earths population, at the same time we want to keep the hierarchy's and power structures we already have? And those feeding from the top most certainly want to stay :) And then naturally also include everyones freedom to get as many children they want? It becomes a strange picture to me. More people on a impoverished earth, losing its natural resources and diversity by the hour, with around 10 percent of the population 'owning' around 70-90 percent of the natural resources directly or indirectly?

I think it sounds as a recipe for war.

Money has worked for the longest time, but we need something more.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #197 on: 23/07/2012 16:03:44 »
Still, I like the Thorium concept so much more than the reactors we use today. A added advantage seems to be that we can burn down the nuclear waste we already have into deposits that , theoretically, 'only' will be (extremely) dangerous for 300 years. Let's see, assuming a generation to be twenty five years that leaves us twelve generations. But then you have it, we will all make those reactors won't we :), if they work..

So let's ass_u_me, making an ass out of both me and you as they say :) that we get a thousand reactors in the end? or maybe two thousand? As oil and coal becomes too expensive, both economically and environmentally, with methane gas as our new 'dark horse', a waiting environmental disaster for profit. That as nobody see that methane released as it gets released from the exploiting. And as most states don't really seem to care, or wanting to understand about it, for diverse reasons which I won't go into now, as they differ from Country to Country, but they all go back to one thing as a guess, profit (and greed).

We really seem the same, don't we. Where is the human progress? The mechanical is there, and the electronic, but us that use this new freedom of choice? Ah well, never mind :)

Two thousand reactors spread over the planet, all producing very dangerous waste for at least three hundred years. And as the waste add up under those three hundred years? How much will it become? And we haven't found any safe storage for the waste we already have, that is if you're not dreaming. Practically nobody can proof a 'safe geological storage' although sooner or later we probably will try for something, as we don't want it visible scaring us :) But I would say that it being visible is the safest storage, never mind the dangers.

But I really like the idea of burning down the waste we already have.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #198 on: 23/07/2012 16:27:00 »
Also it might be a deterrent to war :)
Who, in his right mind, want to attack a waste facility? And considering winds, ground water etc, poison a whole planet. On the other hand, are we a sane species?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #199 on: 16/10/2012 21:08:04 »
Hm, is this one sane?

And the other hilarious :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."