EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
Popular content
Today's Top News
Greenpeace: Fukushima Disaster Caused by Japan's Nuclear Authorities, Not Tsunami
A new report released today by Greenpeace argues it was neither the 7.1 magnitude earthquake nor the raging tsunami that followed which deserve the real blame for the nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Diachi power plant last year. Rather, according to 'The Lessons of Fukushima', the real disaster was caused by hubris, greed, and the fact that repeated warnings over the unsafe nature of the nuclear plant were 'downplayed and ignored'.
Litate village, 40km northwest of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Radiation levels found by the Greenpeace monitoring team are far above internationally recommended limits. (Christian Aslund / Greenpeace) “While triggered by the tragic March 11th earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima disaster was ultimately caused by the Japanese authorities choosing to ignore risks, and make business a higher priority than safety,” said Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner. “This report shows that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe, and that governments are quick to approve reactors, but remain ill-equipped to deal with problems and protect people from nuclear disasters. This has not changed since the Fukushima disaster, and that is why millions of people continue to be exposed to nuclear risks.”
The report was written by Dr. David Boilley, a nuclear physicist with the French independent radiation laboratory ACRO; Dr. David McNeill, Japan correspondent for The Chronicle of Higher Education; and Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with Fairewinds Associates. It was peer reviewed by Dr. Helmut Hirsch, an expert in nuclear safety.
“This disaster was predictable and predicted, but happened because of the age-old story of cutting corners to protect profits over people,” said Kazue Suzuki Greenpeace Japan Nuclear Campaigner. “The authorities are already recklessly pushing to restart reactors without learning anything from the Fukushima disaster and the people will once again be forced to pay the price of their government’s mistakes.”
“People should not be forced to live with the myth of nuclear safety and under the shadow of a nuclear disaster waiting to happen,” said Vande Putte. “Nuclear power must be phased out and replaced with smart investments in energy efficiency and renewable power. This approach will create millions of sustainable jobs, improve energy independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and will also ensure people will never again suffer radioactive fallout from a preventable disaster.“
Jan Baranek, writing at the Greenpeace blog, says:
... The first crucial lesson [of the report] is that “nuclear safety” cannot be created. While the nuclear industry wants us to believe that the chance of a major reactor accident is one in million, the real frequency has been one meltdown every decade, on average. Fukushima also showed how quickly the multiple barriers that we were assured would prevent a large release of radioactivity failed. In Japan, all the barriers collapsed during the first day, and a hydrogen blast allowed radiation to directly escape to open air.
The second lesson is that the institutions that we have trusted to protect people from nuclear risks also failed completely.
***
You can view the full Greenpeace report here:
***
Another Fukushima report is being released this week by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation. The report reveals the fears confronted by the Japanese government immediately following the tsunami devastation at the nuclear power plant. Officials were aware of the inevitable "devil's chain reaction" while telling the public that it was under control.
LA Times reports:
The six-month investigation was conducted by a private policy group called the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation. It involved 30 independent researchers, academics, lawyers and journalists.[...]
Then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan's administration as well as nuclear regulators and the Tokyo Electric Power Co., the utility that runs Fukushima, have been chided for what critics say was their haphazard response to the crisis and for failing to keep the public informed of the dangers.
At one point, the Rebuild Japan report claims, advisors to Kan began referring to a worst-case scenario that would not only force the evacuation of tens of millions of Tokyo residents, but could cause widespread environmental damage across Japan. But at the same time Kan's staff continued to assure the Japanese public and the international community that the situation was under control.
When the nuclear plant was struck by a wall of water after an earthquake hit northeastern Japan on the afternoon of March 11, Kan ordered workers to remain at the devastated facility, fearing that thousands of spent fuel rods stored at a damaged reactor would melt and spew radiation following a hydrogen explosion at an adjacent reactor, the report said. [...]
***
Likewise, Europe is ill-prepared for a nuclear incident akin to Fukushima, according to Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire (IRSN) in a report this week, highlighting a systemic danger in nuclear power plants worldwide.
Bloomberg reports:
“If the same accident had occurred in the heart of Europe where there is no ocean, it would have been much, much worse.”
“There are doubts about the ability of some European countries to manage this type of situation,” Jacques Repussard, director of the Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire, or IRSN, said at a press conference in Paris today. “It’s extremely problematic. We need to progress in crisis management in many regions.”
Some European countries lack sufficient atomic crisis centers while health authorities across the region don’t agree on what instructions to give local populations in case of accidents, he said. “There isn’t enough coordination.” [...]
IRSN calculations indicate the amount of radioactive iodine released at Fukushima was one-tenth that at Chernobyl and the amount of cesium was one-third. Most of the contamination at Fukushima was dispersed over the ocean.
“If the same accident had occurred in the heart of Europe where there is no ocean, it would have been much, much worse,” Didier Champion, head of the team that followed the Japanese crisis at the IRSN, said at the press conference.
###
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
92 Comments so far
Show AllDU ammunition and bombs have also been used at military firing and bomb ranges in the Unites States... It is all over the world now, wherever the wind may take it. Gulf War Vets suffering from what is termed "PTSD", are actualy suffering from radiaton poisoning... Google,,, gulf war vets du poisoning)
I never read DU has been banned however, more than 25 countries now use it, Do you have info about DU finally being outlawed? Our Navy won't allow it on their ships... Our nuclear industry sells the depleted uranium to any and all instead of safely storing it. "Safely" is an oxymoron of course.
The ammo is relatively harmless to handle until it is fired or exploded.. When burned the smoke is filled with trillions of invisible, gaseous isotopes of deadly redioactive poison and it blows in the wind.
DU has a half life of (*4.5 billion*) years... The planet Earth will be polluted with it when our sun becomes a red giant and burns up it's solar system in about 5 billion years.
'I never read DU has been banned however, more than 25 countries now use it, Do you have info about DU finally being outlawed? Our Navy won't allow it on their ships... Our nuclear industry sells the depleted uranium to any and all instead of safely storing it. "Safely" is an oxymoron of course.
'The ammo is relatively harmless to handle until it is fired or exploded.. When burned the smoke is filled with trillions of invisible, gaseous isotopes of deadly redioactive poison and it blows in the wind.'
It depends on what you mean by "handle". If you're talking about "working" (as in cutting, drilling, drawing, rolling, beating), DU ammunition (an alloy of DU and titanium) is certainly NOT relatively harmless. Unlike plutonium, whose inhalation toxicity is mostly due to its being an alpha-emitter, uranium is both a radiotoxin and a biological toxin when inhaled.
John
I think you have misunderstood the toxicity of natural or depleted uranium. Because ot the half-lives of the three isotopes being so long the toxicology of it shows that its damage to the body is the consequence ot its being a heavy metal poison to the kidneys, rather than its ionizing radiations. Depleted uranium (U-238) being the longest-lived of the 3 isotopes (4.5 billion years) is less hazardous radiologically than natural uranium and therefor it is even more properly considered to be a chemical toxin. Safety controls are based upon that chemical hazard. It is similar to the heavy metal lead in this respect so the issue in warfare is how much of it is released in a form which can enter the body and reach the kidneys in units of mass, without regard to its radioactivity which is a trivial hazard in comparison. Its chemical behavior, when used as a component of a weapon, is relevant when compring it to the traditional lead.that it replaces.
Of course, as usual, WayneWR would point to the "trillions of invisible, gaseous isotopes of deadly redioactive (sic) poison and it blows in the wind" that are released by depleted Uranium weaponry. That is his typical misunderstanding of everything that is radioactive, paying no regard to its half-life.
You wrote about me,,, > (“ That is his typical misunderstanding of everything that is radioactive, paying no regard to its half-life."). . end rf quote.
You say that I ignored the half life of DU? __ You liar... I clearly did write about the half life of DU... I did not go into any total detail about scientific or medical specifications of DU in my reply to another.
It was just a brief friendly conversation with another here and you two obtuse,, disruptive,, clowns,, show up,, and start your usual crap, lies and attacks... And then you have the gall to cry and moan about being insulted... You truly are pitiful.
BTW, ~rf~ Inston~, you (*misspelled*) five (5) words there… The words (of,,, comparing ,,, therefore,,, it's,,, and radio logically)… Five (sic)s to my one (sic), which you so ‘thoughtfully’ pointed out for others to see.
But; this site is not a spelling bee, but you have brought up my typos on two comments on this thread… I have proved you lied about me and Thomas Jefferson, notice the difference ~rf~ inston~? __ I do.
Listen up sonny… I was working on stopping the military from testing DU ammo in Hawaii with nurse Linda Faye Kroll when you two jerks were learning how to use a flush toilet without peeing on your fingers.
Another BTW.. When a DU bunker buster bomb is exploded, trillions of gaseous isotopes of DU are emitted into the air. or atmosphere... There are an estimated 5 billion specks of deadly poison in a cup full of DU.
It has taken you 11 months ~rf inston~, but you have finally done it,,, I really cannot stand the sight of your screen name, which in essence is you... But,,, it is a free country still so blabber on.
I was very disappointed to see that Common Dreams allowed you to return here RFinston… One obtuse nuker shill is plenty.
What is released (although they will also attack you for this) is small particles, that are readily taken into the body and into other organisms, by virtue of their small size. These criminals understand well enough that starting from the description 'particle' one reaches valid results, thus they must obfuscate and insult, which makes the scientifically less educated look for 'scientific' words to describe what is happening. Use the word particle, without shame, and specify that sizes on the orders of tens to ten thousands of angstroms are to be encountered - thus extreme biological activity (small particles have much greater biological activity for the same mass than larger particles, because of their larger surface area). With these particle sizes, between a few thousand and a few trillion atoms will constitute any given particle. I'd gladly work you through the math (no calculus needed), so that you can properly discredit these clowns to their intended audiences.
Your expertise is greatly appreciated. Please walk us through the math, but keep a separate copy of your posts since the pro-nuke trolls will flag themselves and get the whole leg removed! We are up against a dasterdly PR firm hired to spam us with half-truths, and keep th public in the dark about the real dangers, imho.
TJ
Particles:
Definition of a particle:
A particle is a typically solid phase mass, that has a maximum dimension that is usually no more than ten times the length of its minimum dimension. For an object to be considered a particle, its maximum dimension must usually be less than 2.5mm (0.1''). Finally, objects that are considered particles are usually chemically homogenous, i.e. We usually don't consider small manufactured components, such as surface mount resistors and capacitors, as particles. We might consider the dust that is produced by crushing such components to be constituted of particles, though. [end definition]
As our concern here is with ionizing radiation, we are to some extent concerned with the number of atoms on the outer surface – alpha and beta particles can be absorbed within a sufficiently large particle, if they are emitted from well within a particle, whereas the probability of being so absorbed is much lower for Gamma particles.
A second reason why we would be concerned with surface area is that many of the radio-active contaminants (e.g. Uranium) are metallic, and usually enter the biological system once they are soluble' this requires chemical reaction (e.g. to form soluble salts or other biologically active compounds, e.g. UO2), and such reaction rates typically increase with external surface area.
A concern related to area is friability, i.e. how readily handling creates new particles.
In the exercise below, we will consider plutonium particles, and we will estimate how many atoms are on the surface of the particle.
Particles generally have one of three structure types: crystalline, polycrystalline and amorphous. Crystals are regular structures, where atoms fall consistently into the same spacing pattern; mineral crystals are crystalline. Ceramics and metals are usually polycrystalline; polycrystalline materials consist of crystal fragments that do not line up, i.e. each crystal fragment in the particle is internally regular, but not parallel to other fragments. Amorphous materials have no long-range regularity, although a given irregularity might occur very commonly in a particle; a common amorphous material is glass (amorphous silicon dioxide).
Exercise on crystalline Plutonium particles:
In this exercise, we will make an erroneous simplifying assumption; based on this assumption, our results will be wrong by a consistent factor, but the assumption will greatly simplify the math without losing the relevant understanding that the exercise provides. Our erroneous assumption is to assume that the basic crystal structure of Plutonium is a simple cubic (SCC), rather than a monoclinic cell. I'd be happy to include a proper calculation later, but this lesson is directed at a lay audience, and one must start somewhere.
Consider cubes of Plutonium. The smallest cube is eight atoms (2x2x2); we will add an extra layer of atoms so that we have 27 atoms; try to draw and/or build a model of this.
As our Pu particles in this example are cubes (we will not consider other shapes in this exercise), we will assume for simplicity's sake that the faces oof our large cubes are parallel of the constitutive smaller cubes (try to make a large cube that doesn't have this property. i.e. with the faces of the constitutive rotated relative to the large cube – the faces of the larger cube will be jagged).
Example 1: Go back to your drawing or model of the 8 atom (2x2x2) cube. What is its surface area? The edge length (nearest neighbour separation) is known as 'a'. For Plutonium, if one assumes a SCC crystal structure, one needs a=2.72e-10m=2.72 Angstrom=1.07e-8 in. The notion AeB means A x 10^B. This simple cubic structure side length suggests that the crystal cell in the web page below involves 16 atoms; each cell in my example (i.e. each volume element) contains one atom (each corner contributes one eighth of an atom to each cell, as that corner must usually contribute an eighth of an atom to each other cell to which it contributes).
http://www.webelements.com/plutonium/crystal_structure.html
What is the surface area of the cube? Each face has an area that is A_f=a^2=7.40e-20m^2=1.14e-16in^2. Thus the total surface area of the cube is A=6A_f=44.4e-20m^2=6.84e-16in^2.
The volume of the particle (cube) is V=a^3=20.1e-30m^3=1.23e-24in^3.
The mass of the particle is m=8x239u/(6.022e23u/g)=3.18e-21g=1.12e-22 ounce. The number 6.022e23 u/g is Avogrado's number; 6.022e23 is the number of molecules in a mol.
The density of the particle is Rho=3.18e-21g/20.1e-30m^3=158.2metric ton/m^3, or eight times bigger than bulk Plutonium. (Can you see why?)
If all your particles are 2x2x2 atom cubes, every atom is on an outer surface, so we have 1g of Pu on outer surfaces per 1g of Pu.
Example 2: Reexamine your drawing or model of the 3x3x3 (27) atom cube. The edge length is 2a (in general, if the edge consists of n atoms, its side length is (n-1)a ).
The surface area of each face is A_f=(2a)^2=4a^2=29.6e-20m^2, and the surface area of the particle is is A=6A_f=177.6e-20m^2.
The volume of the particle is V=(2a)^3=8a^3=161e-30m^3.
The mass of the particle is m=27x239u/(6.022e23u/g)=1.07e-20g.
The density of the particle is Rho=m/V=66.5 metric ton/m^3, or 3.3 times larger than bulk Plutonium.
If all the particles are 3x3x3 atom cubes, we have 26 atoms out of 27 on outer surfaces, or 96.3%.
Generalization: Let's take an nxnxn cube. The edge length is (n-1)a, therefore the surface area is A=6a^2 (n-1)^2; the volume is V=a^3 (n-1)^3.
The mass is n^3 x 239u / (6.022e23u/g).
The density is (239 u n^3)/(6.022e23u/g x a^3 x (n-1)^3).
Notice that as n becomes large, the particle density tends toward the bulk density, namely 19.82g/cm^3.
Now we need to count the number of atoms on the outer surface. If we count the number of atoms on each face, and add the face totals together, we get Ns=6n^2; notice that in doing so, we count each edge atom twice, except the corner atoms, which we count three times. If we subtract from that total each edge, get Ns=6n^2-12n. Notice that we subtracted each corner three times, so now we haven't counted them at all. Correcting, we get Ns=6n^2-12n+8 atoms on the outer surface.
Homework: Find 1. The area, 2. the volume, 3. the mass, 4. the density, and 5. the portion of atoms on particle surfaces, of a nxnxn cubic particle of Pu, for n=4 to 10.
Plot each of these items (1-5) versus n (2-10), a. by hand, and b. by software (Openoffice calc, Corel Quattro Pro, MS Excel, or GNU Octave and GNUPlot); ask by Wednesday for help with any of the software.
For 10g of Pu, consisting of equally sized small cubes, how many mol of atoms do you expect on the surface in each case (n=2-10)? 1 mol of atoms = 6.022e23 atoms (see Avogrado's number).
For future lessons, if you are still interested, I will make use of LaTeX typesetting software (free), so if you use MS Windows, get MikTeX, including the epstopdf package. The next lesson will be next Sunday, and will involve similar exercises for Uranium and other materials; I might include a calculation using the actual Plutonium crystal structure. The lesson after that will start to consider radio-active decay. Please announce on this page a venue (more recent article) for the next lesson, by Wednesday, otherwise if comments are closed before then, I will select a related venue at random on common dreams, or not post a next lesson.
Summary: 1. Notice that reaction rates of and Alpha and Beta emission rates from particles is generally proportional to the number of atoms on the surface of the particle, and thus proportional to the particle surface area.
2. When the (geometric) average particle size is smaller, for the same mass of particles, the area and thus reaction and emission rates go up. If the particle is dissolved (i.e. the constitutive atoms are dissociated from each other) in the body, then each emission must be absorbed, and the chemical reaction rate is not limited by surface.
With this rudimentary knowledge we can all now build flux capacitors for our Delorean Time Machines and transport ourselves back to a carefree time before crude fission devices like nuclear power plants and their waste fouled our Atmosphere, Ocean and Land with their persistent leakage and inevitable catastrophic accidents into the Jet Stream.
Your summary says it best: Small objects have a greater surface area per mass than large ones do. Setting aside the specific mathematics at the atomic level for a minute (which is beyond the capacity of most readers, including myself) , I have a few generalized questions for you:
1. So your calculations are regarding pure Pu atoms and the geometry they assume at the time of the time of the accident if they stay intact riding on the "vector particle", correct?
2. So would it be correct to say that the finer the Pu molecule the more hazardous it is to lung tissue?
3. Would it also be correct to say that the likelihood of the assembly of a more hazardous super-fine molecule of Pu would increase with the intensity of the blast?
Suffice to say, that our interest in this realm, of which you are clearly a master of, is in the area of particle retention in lung tissue of the most vulnerable members of our society: infants born or conceived when the fallout was the worst during 3/11 since their cells divide faster than adults, hence more opportunity for mutation. Plutonium fallout was recorded by civilians in Guam and Japan and found to be about double the CPM's of the West Coast of North America. All these civilian readings differ completely from the mild Gov/Tepco readings footnoted to have been taken from the recording instrument held from half a meter to one meter off the ground.
So my Last question is thus:
What size particle coated with 52 percent 239Pu atoms (The percentage at refueling) is likely to be inhaled by an infant whose cilia is not sufficiently developed where it cannot expel the said particle? Lets say the particle is comprised of a jagged cement dust molecule at it's center consistent with the kind uranium miners inhale and can not cough out and it was born in the detonation (supersonic shock wave) from the MOX Fuel in Fukushima Unit Three.
My background is Aviation and I witnessed live on NHK World the large color evidence of a supersonic shock wave emanating off the roof of reactor building Number Three prior to the mushroom cloud going up to 4000 feet in about two seconds time. This was Fairewinds Associates view as well, that this couldn't have been only a deflagragation explosion from hydrogen alone, but had to have been a detonation, possibly nuclear. Plutonium fuel pellets fragments were found miles away, so it's safe to assume the outer secondary containment structure cement dust particles got coated with 239Pu from either the reactor itself exploding, as the NRC thought at the time, or the SFP which Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen believed.
Thanks in advance for you Lay-Answer, Evilman.
TJ
1. The geometry I assumed was a deliberately erroneous (for the sake of simplification) geometry; if someone actually tries the problems (they are rather simple - grade 6 students could do them - just the volumes and surface areas of cubes), I'd gladly do the proper geometry (think of what I posted as a warmup exercise). The correct geometry is a bit different (though the broad conclusions don't change much), and doesn't change too much, once the particle is back to room temperature (the crystal structure of plutonium changes when it is heated to about 150C; Iron's changes at a higher temperature). I still hope that you will attempt the problems - I'm here to answer the basic questions.
2. Yes, in terms of alpha radiation (most of the gamma radiation will pass through the victims). Also, recall that the plutonium is friable, so the alpha emission dose rate goes up with time (the US gov't alleges that the lungs eventually expel the Pu, so even taking them at their word...), the stuff is very harmful; I grew up with the "one atom can kill you" notion, which isn't exactly correct (courtesy of Rocky Flats fuckups, we have an average of ten Pu atoms in our bladders) - but not too far off either - why the hell does your society have so many cancers given its life expectancy? I have a GP relative who tells me that based on her experience, cancers are grossly underdetected in North America.
3.Perhaps, but for Plutonium at least, given its friability, you are going to end up with very fine particles in your lungs in any case, from where they'll end up in your blood stream (and your gov't alleges that your kidneys will eventually remove the Pu into your urine - problem: biological half-life of plutonium is 200 years - so good luck with that).
As to the cement (do you mean concrete?) particle, the plutonium will largely break loose, and your government will like to claim that the lungs will expel the smaller Pu particles (good luck with that when air cannot get through... if the passage is blocked by the particle...) Any plutonium particle that makes it to North America is probably of sufficiently low density to be readily carried in the wind, and as I don't have a good knowledge of the transport of particulate matter in wind, I cannot comment too much. What I will say is that concrete has lower density (about 8 times) than plutonium, so a concrete particle may well have better luck making it to North America (the jet stream, etc) than straight plutonium, which might well put infants at greater risk.
Take four readings; one e.g. one meter above the ground, one at the ground (note/write down the window covering on your GM counter), then have someone hold e.g. a cardboard box over the place in the air where you did your air reading, and spray (bottle spray) some non-contaminated water downward, to wash alpha emitters out of the air; measure with and without a cardboard cover over the washed down soil (two squeezes of the bottle trigger should be sufficient).
The first measurement is the combined radiation in the air from contaminants in the air plus gamma radiation from the soil - this allows you to correlate with gov't data, and infer in future meltdowns what their measurements mean. The second is the combined radiation from the soil plus gamma radiation from the air, and allows you to correlate with activists' measurements, and infer what their measurements mean. The third is gamma radiation of the combined (1 meter of air plus soil), and the fourth is the combined gamma and non-gamma radiation. Knowing your instrument, the time after the accident and a bit about the probable contaminants, you can then do best-fitting to the contaminants (another lesson, which would require two to three lessons on radiation and nuclear reactors first - again no calculus, and most of the particles are two-atom molecules, so very simple - plutonium is mainly part of the initial ejection/explosion released material, if they cool the reactors down).
A slightly improved protocol would include washing, then covering, waiting three days, removing the cover and measuring again (that way you can estimate the change in emissions, and have further data to fit with), and to measure over the new cover (what is the accumulation?).
'John,
'I think you have misunderstood the toxicity of natural or depleted uranium. Because ot the half-lives of the three isotopes being so long the toxicology of it shows that its damage to the body is the consequence ot its being a heavy metal poison to the kidneys, rather than its ionizing radiations. Depleted uranium (U-238) being the longest-lived of the 3 isotopes (4.5 billion years) is less hazardous radiologically than natural uranium and therefor it is even more properly considered to be a chemical toxin. Safety controls are based upon that chemical hazard. It is similar to the heavy metal lead in this respect so the issue in warfare is how much of it is released in a form which can enter the body and reach the kidneys in units of mass, without regard to its radioactivity which is a trivial hazard in comparison. Its chemical behavior, when used as a component of a weapon, is relevant when compring it to the traditional lead.that it replaces.'
Thanks for the info! It's my understanding that the toxicity of soluble uranium compunds is mainly chemical, and that insoluble uranium compounds (like UO2 and U3O8 or "yellowcake") are mainly radiotoxic. You may want to check:
http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2001331/tr2001331.html
for an interesting discussion of the above. But there's another point that should be made. The activity of DU is often said to be significantly less than that of natural uranium. Now the NRC defines DU as uranium containing less than 0.711% of U-235. But what about the other fractions (U-238 and U-234)? The specific activity of DU must depend on the method of isotope separation, of which there are many. You probably recall the Calutron that used a mass spectroscope approach. During the Manhatten Project,. the Calutron competed with gaseous diffusion, the latter winning out. In principal, the Calutron should have been able to isolate pure U-235, leaving the DU with no 235, but with the 234/238 ratio of natural uranium.
I get 685 Ci/g for natural uranium (0.7204% U-235), and 677 Ci/g for DU with 0.2% U-235 Using the Calutron).
John
When I wrote "handle" when writing about DU "ammunition" ~Mr.Iannetta~, I was referring to (*handling*) the ammunition,,, such as loading DU ammo in AC-130 Spectre aircraft, or an A-10 Warthog aircraft, or putting DU shells in a tank or a Bradley fighting vehicle.... Do you understand now Mr. Iannetta? Who cares if you do or don't? Not me.
And don't pretend to try to give me lessons on the subject of DU ammunition. Btw Johnny, weapons loaders or those handling DU ammunition or bombs, do not inhale the ammunition or bombs... The main danger of DU ammo, as I explained, is the airborne microscopic DU particles, which are emitted when DU ammo burns and is inhlaled by anyone.
Your reply to me is senseless yakking and serves zero purpose. It was designed as an attempt by you, to hopefully show others that I was not correct with what I posted. Thank you once again for displaying your flawed character ~Iannetta~, I appreciate it.
~John Iannetta wrote,,, > (" WayneWR wrote:
'I never read DU has been banned however, more than 25 countries now use it, Do you have info about DU finally being outlawed? Our Navy won't allow it on their ships... Our nuclear industry sells the depleted uranium to any and all instead of safely storing it. "Safely" is an oxymoron of course.
'The ammo is relatively harmless to handle until it is fired or exploded.. When burned the smoke is filled with trillions of invisible, gaseous isotopes of deadly redioactive poison and it blows in the wind.'
It depends on what you mean by "handle". If you're talking about "working" (as in cutting, drilling, drawing, rolling, beating), DU ammunition (an alloy of DU and titanium) is certainly NOT relatively harmless. Unlike plutonium, whose inhalation toxicity is mostly due to its being an alpha-emitter, uranium is both a radiotoxin and a biological toxin when inhaled.
John
Thought you may wish to read what you had already written Johnny.
I doubt that will change many minds here, but it is a fact whether you like it or not.
Returning to Shill Threat Level Yellow.
But 'alert'-away if you must, ctrl-z.
Who, pray tell, has so mistreated you? And who did in R F'n Inston?
They are here for one specific purpose and it is clearly obvious. They have no respect for honesty.
Skimming comments and reacting happens to everyone, especially when someone uses nasty tone from the get-go or starts making assumptions about you based on what you did not say. That's when the conversation becomes nothing more than mud-slinging.
How is nit picking details disrupting threads? The group here does plenty of nit picking on details themselves, is that disrupting threads or being dishonest?
That is clearly self evident and obvious on this thread and if you cannot see it I cannot help you with your question.
To paraphrase a worn message,
'progressive is as progressive does'
You're delusional, if you ALSO think anybody would merely believe your word, about having a clue what is OBJECTIVELY scientifically true.
Your extremely selective recall of only a very small subset of details, encircles your lying intent -- like a noose.
Particularly, when the Kentucky windage sets in, at gail-force levels -- which oh so surprisingly -- directly benefits the interests, cover-ups, and rapacious abandon of both the PTB and nukster boosterism.
Is it merely a coincidence, that so many equally factual and scientific details escape from your grasp, that beneficially favor health and financial protections for the masses, whom are too often unknowingly suffering and dying, in ever greater numbers ?
Not to mention the insane pursuit of a totally un-sustainable energy policy, where the Earth, and all LIFE are held hostage to rapacious usurpation and 'profit at any cost' ?
==========================
Don't get me wrong, I do include you as one of the many billions of victims of nukster boosterism.
I could care less if you are arrogantly ignorant, deeply repressed, and in oblivious DENIAL -- or well paid -- as either way, you are intrinsically part of what everyone else either becomes increasingly more conscious of, or we all shall perish from.
There is no triangulating or middle ground -- when our collective survival is at stake.
And I'm not in the least advocating fear-mongering.
Physics and statistics bear this out, that IF there is any at all chance for something to occur -- eventually over time -- it is certain it will happen sometime.
Nuclear bombs, power plants, waste storage, are ALL MAD == Mutually Assuring our common Destruction.
==========================
For those really knowing what's going on, and depending of what side you are allied with (conscious or not) -- I can not but ask why do you even bother to change your kid's diapers, or save for their college funds -- as if you sincerely have plans for a future anything like what you present here ?
Sure, we all take care of our kids the best we can and for some, it is not enough.
Perhaps you have none, and couldn't care less about anything.
There is no "away," from these problems, there is not enough water in all of the oceans to dilute this enough, there is no longer ANY safe or healthy place to stand. There is no food, air, or water guaranteed to be clean, as who can you trust these days, to ONLY provide you million year old snow melt (if you're really rich) ?
==========================
Sure, of many billions, far too many are clueless, habituated, addicted, and easily convinced by the most superficial and implausible of regurgitated lies and propaganda, just as they are of American Exceptionalism (a re-framed version of The American Dream).
It is quite hard to believe that someone as articulate and salient as you, could also be so clueless -- so you see -- the costume face you project, carries with itself a rip cord of it's own unveiling.
Hopefully, you will inevitably realize that it is your job to pull that cord, as your own humanity calls for justice and truth, all the way down to the level of your DNA.
Perhaps, if you choose not to, your DNA (plus various irradiating items) will remind you of your Karmic stake it all of this ?
I flagged 2 comments, about a month ago, one by "Thomas Jefferson" which included photographs which is clearly contrary to the stated comment policy and one which used what I considered to be abusive a language which also violates the policy. As a consequence the talkback editor blocked MY access to offer comments.
Though I have requested an explanation for this action, none has been forthcoming from the staff of Common Dreams.
It appears that because I have vigorously questionned the views of several of you that the staff has cut off my ability to participate.
I want to thank those who defended my right to be here. Maybe we will meet again when the staff at Common Dreams comes to its senses and shows its concern for there to be a free and open discussion of controversial issues.
Roland Finston
PS I expect to be blocked again so do not be surprised that I will be unable to respond to any of your replies. Thanks again for your support.
Those rays do not destroy internal body cells, inluding blood cells and cannot cause the cells to become cancerous... Got it... All radiologists medical doctors who state otherwise are wrong.
Have you applied for a Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry? You should with that new found scientific knowledge and information. Very impressive, astounding!
"""A new report released today by Greenpeace argues it was neither the 7.1 magnitude earthquake nor the raging tsunami that followed which deserve the real blame for the nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Diachi power plant last year. Rather, according to 'The Lessons of Fukushima', the real disaster was caused by hubris, greed, and the fact that repeated warnings over the unsafe nature of the nuclear plant were 'downplayed and ignored'."""
So instead of yammering away with all this goobledegook that makes our brains go into warp drive with ...formulas...are you kidding me? and arguments about half lifes is more like half assed...You cannot outlive a nuke ax.
So can we go back to a discussion about the greedy bastards of GE who sold this country faulty things to tinker toy their nuke plant and then had the audacity to force the Japanese into covering the corps(e) asses?
As discussed about the eventual use of nuke bombs, simple physics and statistics (High School level), inform us that ANYTHING (like this) that has a non-zero chance of ever happening, will certainly occur sometime, in the future.
but WHY ?
but HOW much will it cost us ?