|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 6, 2007 10:10:49 GMT -4
I must say what a great idea it is to use radioactive waste as a weapon, there can't be any ill effects from such a thing. It's good clean U-258, and friends. Your riding a bit low to the ground there, are you sure you aren't smuggling in extra neutrons, like 20 say. 238U is also Natural Uranium, not specifically Waste products, Lead is also a common Nuclear Waste Product of Uranium, and so are many many other Elements and Isotopes, some are Stable and some are not. Yes I seem to have made a typo, I meant U-238. The friends I was referring to are what I'm seeing as I read more and more of this stuff. An example,
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 6, 2007 10:37:23 GMT -4
Well I think I can see where He's coming from, It's quite simple to understand that the so called experts are usually full of crap.
Like the experts who design and build the Boeing and Airbus airliners that safely carry passengers across the world's oceans? Like the experts who perform delicate neurosurgery, or repair deformed faces, or teach injured people how to walk again? Like the experts who designed and built the telescopes, on the ground and in space, that peer in wavelengths from X-rays to microwaves back in time and help us learn about the origins of the cosmos? How about the experts who designed and built the engine for the truck you drive, or dug and built the Channel tunnel? Have you trusted your life to them?
That to know the truth of things you can't rely on authority because they hold themselves above the truth.
Authority in science and engineering is earned exactly by not holding oneself above the truth. In my line of work, if I held myself above the truth, I'd get a new job title: "Unemployed". But you seem to have no problem with rocky holding himself above the truth in any variety of fields. Why is that?
That's why this is such an interesting little forum as the majority here hold the opinion that all truth stems from authority
Outright falsehood, and rejected.
Let's consider the example of rocky's magic dust; the regulars here proposed a number of experiments; rocky declined to do any of them, and despite having no practical experience in the matter, simply asserted his "common sense" to be an unimpeachable authority. We gave him methods to test his claims; he simply asserted the truth stemmed from his own personal authority as a non-expert.
Or let's consider his approach to radiation arguments. His entire support for his claim is to reject the authority of every engineer and scientist, in every nation on Earth, who designs or operates spacecraft in or through the Van Allen belts. He similarly rejects the very existence of the South Atlantic Anomaly, denying the authority of every scientist and student who ever studied it with ground-, balloon-, aircraft, or sounding rocket-borne instruments. His approach was a pure negative appeal to authority, and he reflexively ignored or waved away every example and citation given to him.
Of course, he has no problem accepting, without research, virtually every claim made on a conspiracist website as gospel truth.
So we can dispense the silly claim that we're the ones who believe "truth stems from authority".
and dissenters are a pack of HB Psychotic conspiracy nut jobs.
I'm not a psychologist, so I try to avoid diagnosing people. But to me, "dissent" implies an informed process. What exactly am I supposed to think when someone comes here, tells me things that I know from personal experience (including education, training, and work) are sheer nonsense, claims all the world's scientists and engineers in a range of fields are lying, and without any evidence claims I am lying and a paid "disinformation agent"?
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 6, 2007 10:55:08 GMT -4
U-238 can undergo Beta Decay (1 neutron Emits an Electron (beta particle) and some neutrinos and becomes a Proton, mass stays the same(ish) but atomic number increases by 1)
So you could have 2 beta decays through Np and Pu then an Alpha decay back to 236U
Net result would be relative quantaties of 238Np 238Pu and I'm quite suprised to see 236U in relation to the decay times
(although I know that a dual beta decay from U238 is not the usual decay series, it has a half l,ife of some ridiculous amount of years 4,400,000,000 with an alpha and to beta decays to U234 for another 20000 halflife and then so on)
the chances are that these product are a remnant from the enrichment and fuel seperation process, Pu in any form is a major Toxicity hazard (I think it is the most toxic of all the elements)
236U is spontaneous fission (or near as damnit) which would also produce other decay products as well.
** Edit, Have found out that a Beta Decay of 238, will occur after interaction of neutrons within certain energy ranges, the neutron is captured then a neutron is rapidly re-emitted leaving (at a slightly lower energy level), Beta decay of the usually stable 238 nucleus occurs within 20s which then follows the decay series highlighted above through to spontaneous fission of U236,
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 6, 2007 10:58:36 GMT -4
Regarding DU, I would also agree that radioactivity from U-238 is really not much of a concern; it has a half-life of several billion years.
I cannot speak to the heavy metal toxicity, as I don't know much about that. But that's the chronic health threat I'd take seriously, not the relatively negligible amounts of radiation emitted by U-238. (Also, I don't know what amounts of other substances are in a DU round, so I can't comment on how much of a health threat they might be.)
Interesting fact: About five thousand tons of U-238 are released into the atmosphere every year by coal-fired power plants, and this rate is increasing. Clearly, whatever the threat to health posed by DU to those directly exposed to dust from the rounds, the global health threat does not lie there.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 6, 2007 10:59:30 GMT -4
Great post. I think it's really important to go down the middle and not have your mind set from anything less than a proven fact. Most of these conundrums stem from incomplete evidence, classified documents, missing data. As Nomuse said he relies on the Trust and Verify method of determining fact from fiction and believes that NASA in that regard has earned his trust. My trust link must have been severed.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 6, 2007 11:14:15 GMT -4
In my experience, not all people agree on what's a proven fact. An example is evolution. That it takes place is a proven fact. However, there are those that don't see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 6, 2007 11:23:21 GMT -4
In my experience, not all people agree on what's a proven fact. An example is evolution. That it takes place is a proven fact. However, there are those that don't see it that way. You're approaching the abyss of religion, please step away from the edge.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 6, 2007 13:20:17 GMT -4
Pu in any form is a major Toxicity hazard (I think it is the most toxic of all the elements)
Not true. The major hazard from plutonium is respirated particles in a narrow size range around 10 microns, which can become lodged in the lungs and cause cancer. Plutonium outside your body has no toxic effects and is not readily absorbed through the skin. Of course, Pu-238 is radioactive (T1/2 = 87.7 y), but the alpha emissions are stopped by the skin. (Neutrons from spontaneous fission are another hazard, but brief exposures do not pose a significant risk.)
Ingested (i.e., swallowed) plutonium is hazardous, but not nearly so much as many non-radioactive substances. In terms of ingested toxicity, it's bad to eat or drink, but pretty far down the list.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 6, 2007 13:50:08 GMT -4
Great post. I think it's really important to go down the middle and not have your mind set from anything less than a proven fact. If you are referring to my post #33, what I'm trying to do is separate what I know (from direct education/training/work experience) from what I don't know, and avoid making proclamations outside my areas of expertise. That doesn't mean I don't believe there are "proven facts" outside my area, of course! Nor does it mean I don't believe there are lots of "probable facts" on which there is a consensus of experts, but are not as solid as the absolute fact that saying "He's got a no-hitter going!" will automatically cause a pitcher to give up a hit right away. rocky, on the other hand, simply refuses to acknowledge some "proven facts". For example, the South Atlantic Anomaly - which is routinely transited by crews aboard the ISS and Shuttle - is a proven fact, and countless investigators (including students) from countries around the world have studied it for decades. But since this is inconvenient for his belief that the Van Allen belts must have been lethal to any lunar travellers, he has to deny either that it exists or that ISS and Shuttle fly through it. He has chosen the former, claiming - despite information provided to the contrary - that only governments can investigate it and only with satellites. In other words, he has to invent "facts" which aren't to prop up his rejection of facts which are! Frankly, I wouldn't have been surprised to see him claim that the International Space Station doesn't exist. Most of these conundrums stem from incomplete evidence, classified documents, missing data. Perhaps, but when it comes to Apollo there is very complete evidence, very few classified aspects (primarily Chapel Bell), and most claims of "missing" data stem from lazy research and poor understanding of how such programs work. As Nomuse said he relies on the Trust and Verify method of determining fact from fiction and believes that NASA in that regard has earned his trust. My trust link must have been severed.On the other hand, I have direct experience with NASA personnel, including Apollo-era astronauts and engineers. I have directly relevant education, training, and experience in many aspects of spaceflight. NASA is a big bureaucracy and doesn't get my trust automatically. But I have been able to establish to my own informed satisfaction that NASA's version of the Apollo record is correct. In any case, I won't talk about Apollo any more in this subforum. Suffice it to say that I have already rejected rocky's appeal to general claims of conspiracy to deny Apollo, and have already explained why i this thread and others.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 6, 2007 14:23:18 GMT -4
In my experience, not all people agree on what's a proven fact. An example is evolution. That it takes place is a proven fact. However, there are those that don't see it that way. You're approaching the abyss of religion, please step away from the edge. Evolution is not religion. Regardless of religion, evolution is still fact. Moving along, Sts60 makes good points.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 6, 2007 14:38:23 GMT -4
Pu in any form is a major Toxicity hazard (I think it is the most toxic of all the elements)Not true. The major hazard from plutonium is respirated particles in a narrow size range around 10 microns, which can become lodged in the lungs and cause cancer. Plutonium outside your body has no toxic effects and is not readily absorbed through the skin. Of course, Pu-238 is radioactive (T1/2 = 87.7 y), but the alpha emissions are stopped by the skin. (Neutrons from spontaneous fission are another hazard, but brief exposures do not pose a significant risk.) Ingested (i.e., swallowed) plutonium is hazardous, but not nearly so much as many non-radioactive substances. In terms of ingested toxicity, it's bad to eat or drink, but pretty far down the list. thanks for that, I remembered that unreacted Pu particles from fissile material where V harmful to the Body outside of purely radiological issues, I assumed it was due to relative toxicity, never even thought in terms of particle size and respiration *strokes beard in a thoughtful contemplative way not a sarky BS way*
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 6, 2007 15:26:39 GMT -4
It's why the fuel used in isotope generators is a special oxide form. It has a very high melting point - an additional defense against dispersal in the event of reentry - and tends to break into chunks rather than fine particles if the heat source impacts the ground. The PuO2 particles won't get into the lung if they're too big - somewhat over 10 microns - and won't stay in the lung if they're too small - say less than 3 microns, IIRC. PuO2 is also rather insoluble, so if ingested it is passed through the body, lessening the danger from chemical toxicity as well as radiotoxicity.
Back in the '60s, generators were designed to burn up and disperse the plutonium fuel, which was in metal form, high in the atmosphere in the form of very fine particles. This happened with the launch failure of a Transit satellite, and in fact the burnup and dispersal predictions were confirmed with an intensive air and ground sampling campaign. Although this approach was valid given the small quantity of fuel compared to the vastness of the atmosphere - far less than the proverbial "drop in the bucket" - the policy was changed to intact containment, and new fuel forms and heat sources were designed. (The Apollo 13 ALSEP RTG heat source demonstrated this, surviving reentry and being buried deep in the Marianas Trench.) The current heat source design is quite robust.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Jul 6, 2007 18:14:51 GMT -4
The Apollo 13 ALSEP RTG heat source demonstrated this, surviving reentry and being buried deep in the Marianas Trench
Well well, you learn something new every day. Too bad it wasn't designed for that environment, or Apollo might have assisted in oceanography instead...
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 6, 2007 21:14:07 GMT -4
This is where the science fraud comes in . You don't have to be Einstein to figure out that using concentrated nuclear waste as a projectile which is known to turn to insoluble micron sized particles is not a great idea. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6247401.stmThe last sentence of the quote says it all, The US and Britain have no trouble finding some willing scientific mouthpiece to back their use of DU weapons. Such is the overwhelming charm to them of the Crispy Critter effect of these weapons that the poisoning of their own troops and civilians for generations is whitewashed.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 6, 2007 21:43:33 GMT -4
war is an ugly act, regardless on the scale on which it is waged.
Should ICE (Internal combustion engine) fuel be changed, emptying 200 litres of fuel from a military vehicle into soil can cause catastrophic effects to the local eco system, and a biological health risk.
what would happen if we changed the fuel to ethanol (a natural product from plants anaerobic respiration) still pretty damn devastating when spilled locally and the production of CO2 to power from combustion is relatively higher than petroleum product IIRC.
The localised effect of leaving a corpse on the ground causes significant health risk and soil damage . would that mean we have to consider the killing of opposing troops an unacceptable act (not talking in a general sociological humanist view but as an act carried out in a time of conflict when all other measures have failed)
|
|