“Radioactivity. The emission of radiation from atomic nuclei. Nuclear radiation includes alpha and beta particles, gamma rays, X-rays and neutrons.”
Neutrons outside the nucleus. It actually has to be radiating–for example, alpha particles are helium-4 nuclei, but helium isn’t radioactive.
Filed under Chernobyl, International, Physics, Safety
Posted on February 28, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“IEER is dedicated to increasing public involvement in and control over environmental problems through the democratization of science.”
-Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
That’s not what science is about. Science is about facts, not a popularity contest.
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Clueless, Scientific Method
Posted on February 28, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“Plutonium. A man made[1] highly toxic[2] synthetic[3] metallic element with a half-life of 24,400 years[4]. Traces of plutonium occur in uranium ore[5] and it is produced in a nuclear reactor by neutron bombardment of uranium-238. The isotope plutonium-239 readily undergoes fission and is used as a reactor fuel in nuclear power stations[6] and in nuclear weapons[7].
Plutonium is an extremely dangerous substance because of its radioactivity[8] and the fact that when ingested as an oxide or other compound it deposits in the bone and is excreted very slowly[9]. Metallic plutonium is not absorbed by digestive organs. Inhalation of only a few thousandths of a gram may lead to death within a few years[10] and much smaller quantities can cause lung cancer after a latent period of about 20 years[11].
Plutonium should be handled by remote control using extreme caution to avoid the release of dusts to the atmosphere. Plutonium metal is highly reactive[12] and thus must be stored at low temperatures in dry air to avoid corrosion. It was first identified in experiments at the University of California in 1940, and plutonium-239 was isolated a year later. There are 16 isotopes of plutonium, of which only five are produced in significant quantities: plutonium-238.-239,-240,-241,-242.”
1. It is usually artificial, but not always. See #5.
2. About as toxic as caffeine.
3. A tautology. See #1.
4. There are five major isotopes, as they also say. Each one has a different half-life. Plutonium-239 has the 24,400-year half life.
5. It occurs naturally in some uranium ore–that which has been part of a natural reactor.
6. Plutonium-239 can be used as reactor fuel–but so can 240, 241, and 242, which don’t work in bombs. The other three heavier elements are fissile, as well, but predetonate in a bomb–that is, the detonation of a plutonium bomb is so precisely timed that isotopes that split too quickly start their own chain reactions which use up the plutonium before the bomb can go off. This is known as a “fizzle.”
7. Only plutonium-239 can be used in a bomb. See #6.
8. Any isotope with a 24,400-year half life can’t be very radioactive. Plutonium-238 is fairly radioactive, but the others aren’t.
9. Being there doesn’t make it toxic.
10. Which is why several bomb workers in World War II inhaled massive quantities of it and survived.
11. They didn’t get lung cancer, either.
12. So is aluminum. I wonder why they didn’t mention the other “anomalous” property of a particular allotrope of plutonium: it expands on freezing.
Filed under Chernobyl, Health, International, Non Sequitur, Physics, Plutonium, Proliferation, Radiation, Safety
Posted on February 26, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“ALERT! NRC LICENSING BOARD TODAY RULED IN FAVOR OF GRANTING A LICENSE TO THE PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE DUMP ON NATIVE LAND IN UTAH.”
-Indigenous Environmental Network
Which the Goshutes specifically asked for.
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Fuel Cycle, Politics and Regulation, Waste
Posted on February 26, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“Natural background radiation. Low-level radiation from space and from radioisotopes in rock, soil and building materials. It includes emissions from radioactive chemicals which are not man made. These chemicals include uranium, radon, potassium and other trace elements. They are made more hazardous through human activities such as mining and milling, since this makes them more available for uptake in food, air and water.”
No, the substance is made more readily available. The dose itself does not go up.
Filed under Chernobyl, Environment, Fuel Cycle, Health, International, Physics, Radiation, Safety
Posted on February 26, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“In October 1989, the U.S. Senate had assessed that this presence of ferrocyanide could be highly explosive under specific conditions and thus had to be pumped dry to prevent a possible explosion that would send large amounts of radioactive waste into the environment.”
-Inez Austin: Protecting the Public Safety at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
The US Senate now gets to make technical determinations?
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Physics, Politics and Regulation, Proliferation, Safety, Waste
Posted on February 26, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“Low-level radiation. This includes background radiation and man-made radiation from low-level nuclear waste. The International Commission of [sic] Radiological Protection assesses radiation damage on the premise that radiation is always potentially harmful, however small the dose.”
Low-level radiation is radiation below 10,000 millirem, regardless of the source. Why they would choose nuclear waste as the only thing that they think produces artificial low-level radiation and why they think only low-level waste produces low-level radiation is a mystery.
Why 10,000 millirem? 10,000 millirem is the quantity that is known to cause a chance of cancer. There is insufficient data between 2,000 and 10,000 millirem and no data at all under 2,000. The ICRP and every other regulatory and advisory body treats all radiation as carcinogenic because they don’t know where the threshold is. Everybody knows there is one, but nobody knows exactly where it is. In regulatory logic, that means no threshold exists. Don’t ask me why.
Filed under Chernobyl, Health, International, Politics and Regulation, Radiation, Safety
Posted on February 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“Furthermore, by artificially limiting the liability of nuclear operators, the Price-Anderson Act serves as a subsidy to the nuclear industry in terms of foregone insurance premiums.”
-Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition
Insurance–specifically the amount required and the willingness of an insurance company to provide it–is a reflection on the costs to reimburse after the item is lost. These costs can be inflated if, say, there is a public perception that the insured item is dangerous, even if it isn’t. Just as no utility wants to be caught without insurance in case of an accident, no insurance company wants to be caught paying out billions for lawsuits for the next 20 or 30 years. Insurance isn’t dependent on the item but rather on the perception of the item, and has no bearing whatsoever on the item’s intrinsic value. In other words, inherently safe does not mean inherently insurable–inherently not-a-popular-punching-bag-for-ambulance-chasing-lawyers means inherently insurable. Similar arguments have been made in favor of segregation.
Oh, and the Price-Anderson insurance program is a federally-managed fund paid for by operators.
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Economics, Emergency Response, Politics and Regulation, Safety, Security and Terrorism
Posted on February 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“When discussing the distance which different forms of radiation are capable of travelling, it is important to distinguish between radioactive particles and radioactive emitters. Alpha and beta particles travel a very short distance, due to radioactive decay. In contrast minute dust fragments containing alpha, beta and gamma emitters can be transported great distances by wind and water. Sometimes the false impression is given that locations only centimetres away from a radioactive source are isolated from exposure.”
Alpha and beta particles travel a very short distance because their energy is absorbed by whatever they’re traveling through, including air. In a vacuum, they travel forever until they hit something. Objects a short distance away from most radioactive materials do receive a greatly reduced dose. For dust, the distance from the dust to the object is the distance that the radiation travels. A source is a source, of course, of course, and no one can change that by force, of course…
Filed under Chernobyl, Humor, International, Physics, Radiation, Safety
Posted on February 24, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
“As I traveled through the US, UK, and Iraq to cover this story, I was confronted at every turn by the sad and frightening spectre of “discounted casualties,”- people exposed to depleted uranium and other toxic substances, and now tormented by leukemia and a whole array of chronic disorders.”
-The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium
A real scientist takes into account these ‘other toxic substances,’ since they are just as likely to have caused whatever health problems are present.
It is absolutely not a denial that a problem exists to attempt to determine its real cause.
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Fuel Cycle, Health, Scientific Method
Posted on February 24, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »
| Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||