Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 
Send Topic Print
NUCLEAR POWER (Read 37823 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #150 - Oct 7th, 2010 at 8:42am
 
Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:15pm:
I think Thorium pebble reactors are the best bet.
We know they work & they can't melt down.
Neutrons have to be fired into them for them to work -
stop the neutrons & the reactor stops.

Thorium is abundant in Australia.
We should be selling the Thorium pebbles & then invent
the technology to provide the power stations to use it.
We could be world leaders in safe nuclear energy.

What a winner for business, technology & safe energy we could be.
We only need one man/woman with a vision to lead us.


The Chinese seem to be having more success with the technology than the Germans, but yeah once it has a track record, it would make sense to go down that track. Less Waste - virtually unbreakable.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #151 - Oct 7th, 2010 at 9:27am
 
muso wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 8:42am:
Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:15pm:
I think Thorium pebble reactors are the best bet.
We know they work & they can't melt down.
Neutrons have to be fired into them for them to work -
stop the neutrons & the reactor stops.

Thorium is abundant in Australia.
We should be selling the Thorium pebbles & then invent
the technology to provide the power stations to use it.
We could be world leaders in safe nuclear energy.

What a winner for business, technology & safe energy we could be.
We only need one man/woman with a vision to lead us.


The Chinese seem to be having more success with the technology than the Germans, but yeah once it has a track record, it would make sense to go down that track. Less Waste - virtually unbreakable.


How much waste is "less waste", and how toxic is it, and how long does it remain so?

I still hold massive concerns over Nuclear waste, and until we have a waste product that will not remain deadly for periods exponentially longer than any civilisation has ever lasted, then I will continue to hold such concerns.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #152 - Oct 7th, 2010 at 11:26am
 
mozzaok wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 9:27am:
How much waste is "less waste", and how toxic is it, and how long does it remain so?

I still hold massive concerns over Nuclear waste, and until we have a waste product that will not remain deadly for periods exponentially longer than any civilisation has ever lasted, then I will continue to hold such concerns.


Crude Oil is an example of a naturally occurring substance that is potentially much more harmful than borosilicate encapsulated nuclear waste.  The aromatic content is carcinogenic, teratogenic and we concentrate the aromatic fraction of crude oil and sell it to people with absolutely no technical expertise, in order to refuel their cars.

Crude Oil is mobile and has lasted for many millions of years.  

If we were selling encapsulated radioactive waste to the general public, it would represent a much lower risk than selling petrol.

Then there are cigarettes..............

To answer your question on Thorium, it  has several advantages:

1.The process produces 0.1% of the high-level radioactive waste per unit energy compared to Uranium fission.

2. The half life of the waste is of the order of tens of years compared to thousands of years for the Uranium cycle.

3. If we transition to a cyclotron based fission system using Thorium, it has the potential to use and decontaminate existing Uranium fission waste.


In terms of total radioactive waste, the burning of coal produces 100 times the amount of radiation compared to  Uranium based nuclear fission.

Before the Second World War, a certain type of bright yellow Czech glassware was very popular. You can still pick it up in some antique shops. It contains more Uranium and more radionuclides than borosilicate encapsulated radioactive waste.

In terms of toxicity, it's much less toxic than many household chemicals that we can buy from the supermarket.

People have a superstitious fear of nuclear power generation. That's all it is.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2010 at 11:41am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 103136
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #153 - Oct 7th, 2010 at 4:17pm
 
Mozz.
Quote:
I still hold massive concerns over Nuclear waste, and until we have a waste product that will not remain deadly for periods exponentially longer than any civilisation has ever lasted, then I will continue to hold such concerns.


Trust me - I used to work for the government.
Thorium is very safe.
You could have a reactor at the end of your street & not have to worry at all.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #154 - Oct 7th, 2010 at 5:47pm
 
muso wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 11:26am:
In terms of total radioactive waste, the burning of coal produces 100 times the amount of radiation compared to  Uranium based nuclear fission.

Before the Second World War, a certain type of bright yellow Czech glassware was very popular. You can still pick it up in some antique shops. It contains more Uranium and more radionuclides than borosilicate encapsulated radioactive waste.

In terms of toxicity, it's much less toxic than many household chemicals that we can buy from the supermarket.

People have a superstitious fear of nuclear power generation. That's all it is.


I think you mean burning coal releases 100x more radiation than nuclear fission, Muso. Fission produces a lot of radiation, but the containment features of a nuclear power station keep it isolated from the environment.

Regarding glass, at Sydney airport there is some nicer apple green glass which owes it colour to the uranium salts it contains!  
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #155 - Oct 8th, 2010 at 8:22am
 
pjb05 wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 5:47pm:
I think you mean burning coal releases 100x more radiation than nuclear fission, Muso. Fission produces a lot of radiation, but the containment features of a nuclear power station keep it isolated from the environment.

Regarding glass, at Sydney airport there is some nicer apple green glass which owes it colour to the uranium salts it contains!  


That's what I thought I said - I was talking in terms of waste.

The green glass probably contains mostly Uranium 238. It's the most abundant form (about 98%) of Uranium found naturally.

It has a half life the age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years) but it's an alpha emitter which means that you can hold a lump of U-238 wearing a pair of rubber gloves.

...

Alpha emitters are the worst when it comes to ingested or inhaled dust because Alpha particles cause about 100 times more damage to the body cells, compared to gamma rays, which penetrate the entire body.  
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 103136
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #156 - Oct 10th, 2010 at 11:20am
 
Muso.
Quote:
It has a half life the age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years) but it's an alpha emitter which means that you can hold a lump of U-238 wearing a pair of rubber gloves.


I believe you can hold radioactive waste if it's encapsulated in glass.
That's a way of making waste safe.
There is also the synrock alternative.

I'd like to get some of that green glass.
I bet it glows in the dark?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #157 - Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:28pm
 
It fluoresces green under UV light. The old watch dials that used to glow green contained some Radium.

Yes, you can encapsulate the waste in borosilicate glass.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #158 - Oct 10th, 2010 at 6:32pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Oct 10th, 2010 at 11:20am:
Muso.
Quote:
It has a half life the age of the Solar System (4.5 billion years) but it's an alpha emitter which means that you can hold a lump of U-238 wearing a pair of rubber gloves.


I believe you can hold radioactive waste if it's encapsulated in glass.
That's a way of making waste safe.
There is also the synrock alternative.

I'd like to get some of that green glass.
I bet it glows in the dark?


It's not allowed due to non-proliferation rules. The uranium glass at Sydney airport (part of a glass mural in the arrival area) was possible due to ANSTO getting a special exemption.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 103136
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #159 - Oct 10th, 2010 at 9:01pm
 
Pjb05,
Quote:
It's not allowed due to non-proliferation rules. The uranium glass at Sydney airport (part of a glass mural in the arrival area) was possible due to ANSTO getting a special exemption.


When I was a young Uni student I took a watch
( an old present from my grandfather ) & presented it to the
lecturer when he was measuring radioactivity with
a geiger counter of some samples.
My watch was more radioactive than his samples.
The marks for hours & the hands would glow in the dark
as they were painted with flourescent paint mixed with
some sort of radioactive ore. ( Radium? )

You can't get watches like that now - but  - maybe they are dangerous?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #160 - Oct 17th, 2010 at 7:23am
 
It's all a question of dose. I'd suggest that the dose would be minimal.

Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male
Re: NUCLEAR POWER
Reply #161 - Oct 17th, 2010 at 9:53am
 
Bobby. wrote on Oct 10th, 2010 at 9:01pm:
Pjb05,
Quote:
It's not allowed due to non-proliferation rules. The uranium glass at Sydney airport (part of a glass mural in the arrival area) was possible due to ANSTO getting a special exemption.


When I was a young Uni student I took a watch
( an old present from my grandfather ) & presented it to the
lecturer when he was measuring radioactivity with
a geiger counter of some samples.
My watch was more radioactive than his samples.
The marks for hours & the hands would glow in the dark
as they were painted with flourescent paint mixed with
some sort of radioactive ore. ( Radium? )

You can't get watches like that now - but  - maybe they are dangerous?


Radium is highly radioactive. Marie Curie's desk and papers are still radioactive and can only be handled with special precautions. She used to keep samples in her desk and open the drawers and admire the pretty glow they gave off. As the discoverer of radium she was given a pendant containing some radium. She died from lukemia brought on by overeposure to radiation.
 
Yes radium was used on watch dials but id not regarded as a health hazard for the wearer:

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_radium.cfm

Radium Paint in Wrist Watches

Paint containing small quantities of radium-226 has been used since the early 1920’s on the hands and numerals of wrist watches. Following the discovery of radium by Pierre and Marie Curie in the early 20th century, it was quickly realised that the luminescent properties of radium made it useful on watch and clock faces, as it made them easy to read in the dark. Paint containing small quantities of radium-226 has been used since the early 1920’s on the hands and numerals of wrist watches.

Although the scientific literature contains many stories about the high rate of cancer among the women employed as dial painters, the radiation risk associated with wearing a standard wrist watch is extremely small.

Radium emits alpha radiation and gamma radiation. The alpha radiation carries most of the energy, but is only hazardous when taken into the body by inhalation or ingestion, or through open wounds. Gamma radiation is more of an external hazard, but there is only a small amount of radium on the face of a typical wrist watch, and the back of the watch (next to the skin) is protected by a metal or plastic case.

The problem with the dial painters occurred because watch faces are very small, and the dial painters had the habit of licking the tips of their brushes to make a fine point, so that the paint would go where it was wanted. As a result of this practice, which was carried out for a number of years, most of the cancers suffered by the dial painters were cancers of the jaw, mouth and throat.

Other non-radioactive substances are now used in modern watches to make them visible in the dark. The wearing of older wrist watches that do contain luminescent radium paint is not regarded as any form of health hazard.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 
Send Topic Print