ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 369 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 787
L
Member
Mr. B
What is the RaA, B, C, D, etc. you are refering to in the following quote?
[q]U decay products including the isotopes U235, U238, Radium A, RaB, RaC, RaD, RaE, RaF, RaG [lead], Ionium, Polonium and probably the Actinium series too.[/q]

LarryC

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 20
T
Member
There was an interesting program on BBC TV about Chernobyl and how the dangers of nuclear power may be overstated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Larry, I'm not sure if today's scientists use the same terms for the natural decay isotopes as "old gits" like me, but here goes!
Uranium 235 & 238 naturally decay by different routes, but eventually arrive at;
uranium > ionium > radium.

Radium decays in a sequence of isotopes.
RaA is radon: 226-4[ ie helium, the alpha particle ] > mass 222 approx + energy.
Then decay proceeds >
RaB, isotope of lead>
RaC, isotope of bismuth>
RaD, isotope of lead>
RaE, isotope of bismuth>
RaF, Mme Curie's polonium>
RaG, lead, inactive, mass 206>

Each decay releases either/ and / or alpha particles, beta rays, gamma rays + heat. The decay product falls into a group 2 places lower in the periodic table for release of an alpha particle. For a beta ray release change, the decay product rises one place higher in the periodic table than the parent substance.

In an ore, these isotopes will exist in proportion to their respective half-lives, so we get them all.
Thorium and Actinium ores will exhibit similar series of isotopes, in proportion, except that the final, inactive, lead isotopes will be ThD mass 208 and AcD mass 207 respectively. I very much doubt that Thorium ores can be found completely free of Uranium, and in any case Uranium and Thorium both produce radioactive lead and bismuth isotopes. These cannot be separated chemically of course- only a centrifuge can do that.

OOOOOPS! We know what you can make with centrifuges!

No, Doofy, not milkshakes.

Alan


Wood work but can't!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 1
C
C-H Offline
Member
Gosh Alan, how dare you come here and see the big picture? ;-)

You are probably right about the fuel for the reactor. Uranium mines easily become nasty places (look at those in the former Soviet Union) and I don't doubt that thorium mines will be equally nasty.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Regular readers of this atomic diatribe on putting the world's electrical supplies to rights might be interested, [yawn], in another cunning device:
The PMSR aka the Paper Moderated Slow Reactor. These are not novel machines - they can be found humming away in most Gummint Departments like the FBI or the British Child Support Agency. Characterised by frenzied, almost apoplectic activity which belies the total lack of any measureable results, the PMSR will swallow vast amounts of taxes and employ hordes of faceless Public Servants. A PMSR immediately disproves Newton's Third Law, for within it any action produces an immediate and opposite inertia of....absolutely nothing! Such is the fine balance of this " nothing-inertia" reaction that it nullifies the initial action to a nicety, accompanied by an "emanation" - a flurry of low velocity 'particles'. These 'particles' are vital to the machine, for without them the balance between initial action and the nothing-inertia-fication is lost. On casual examination these particles look for all the world like sheets of white A4 paper with senseless writing on them, and a closer look under the electron microscope confirms that is axactly what they are- hence the name of the device. The inexhaustible and boundless energy being input and subsequently emanating from a PMSR cannot as yet be tapped into to generate power. Many eminent scientists have tried and failed, but the closest yet was the guy who created a near critical-mass pile of the 'particles', took them home and used them to fuel his furnace.

Alan


Wood work but can't!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,443
Likes: 3
Member
Paul,
Quote
The problem I see is that so many of the people who are opposed to nuclear power (however it's pronounced! ) are just riding on the media hype and misinformation. That media coverage doesn't help when almost any incident at a nuclear pwoer plant is blown out of proportion. A harmless steam leak (which probably happens hundreds of times a day at conventional stations and goes unreported) becomes "Nuclear accident narrowly averted" on the six o'clock news.

Some of these people also seem totally unwilling to face the facts and accept that we (society as a whole) either need to reduce the amount of power we use or find ways to keep up with the demand.

I've heard complaints about the windfarm which is located a few miles away from me. Yet when questioned, those same people are horrified at the suggestion that they reduce their electrical consumption but are equally opposed to nuclear power, coal/oil/gas power, or almost anything else. Do they think we can just snap our fingers and "magic up" extra power out of thin air?

Given the choice between living with a nuclear station or a coal-fired station in my backyard, I know which one I'd choose.
I'd choose this as the best post in this thread.
The fact of the media getting on the band-wagon for a story, doesn't help things.
If there was a debate tomorrow on nuclear power without the media's bias, I'm sure things would be different.
Strange thing is, people only watch TV channels that comply with their views, if something is said that they don't like, they switch over.
Just like the Internet, people only surf sites that they like.
Back to the topic Paul,
I'd sooner have a Nuclear Reactor in my back-yard rather than a Coal Fired plant, any day.
Coal and any other such plants more or less run un-regulated, yet everyone is scared about the small chance of a reactor fault.
BTW RODALCO, that isn't an offer to supply Auckland's power from my back-yard either, Stacey would throttle me. [Linked Image]


{Message edited for a typo}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 07-26-2006).]

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Who came last?


Wood work but can't!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Google Chernobyl.

Select the 'wikipedia' page.

Scroll down. Eventually you will find a charming map of Europe. It shows the Caesium-137 fallout from the Chernobyl disaster. Equivalent to over 250 Hiroshima atom bombs, plastered all over Europe so everyone gets a fair share.

Still feel safe, do you?

Nothing to worry about, it's just media hysteria.

Alan


Wood work but can't!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
As Dixie Lee Ray (former director of the Atomic Energy Commission, and early "siant" to the "green" movement) pointed out:

-Even the shoddiest reactors release far less radiation than the natural "background" radiation we're all exposed to;

-Numerous places on this planet have local, natural sources of 'extreme' radion exposure- which seem not to have a bad effect on natural life; and,

-Most any coal-fired plant releases far more radiation than any commercial reactor (coal contains minute amounts of radioactive elements).

Of course, these statements of hers quickly caused the enviros to remove her from their "favourite scientist" list. Amazing!

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Reno; I have to stuff several large humble pies into my mouth, along with my best hat, all at once!

In the c.100 years period 1937-2040, worldwide coal-burning powerstations will have released 800,000 tons of Uranium, of which 6000 tons is fissionable U235, and 2 million tons of Thorium into the environment.

Not only that, but the fissionable U235 dumped in the average ash, as a waste product, actually contains more energy than the original coal!

Alan


Wood work but can't!
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5