Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.


"Custos Custodum" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nv9vo1tq9vrbbqeljtbe8oqgj4kh6l9dmb@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:49:33 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
> <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Custos Custodum" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:1gbro192sd5o8e4m8ve2d0sat61ccosean@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:59:33 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>> <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Custos Custodum" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:hd4po118a2ol7n4dp7h1bor17b5vhpnat2@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:49:51 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>>>> <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes I know but it is great fun to, (eventually), ask them to explain
>>>>>>how
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>can end up with a bigger quantity of fuel after withdrawing power from
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've never heard of 'fast breeder' reactors, then?
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is also funny to see the results of then asking why putting the now
>>>>>>depleted fuel back underground has increased either the overall
>>>>>>natural
>>>>>>radioactive stock or the risks thereof.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that was quite what was claimed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Where did you learn your physics.
>>>
>>> At university. Four years of it, plus all the associated 'hard sums'.
>>> TBH, I've forgotten most of it now.
>>>
>>>>Fast breeder or not it is not possible to
>>>>create anything.
>>>
>>> Out of nothing?
>>> No one has claimed otherwise.
>>Oh! but they have. If they claim we are making the World mire radioactive
>>that is exactly what they are claiming.
>>>
> No it is not. Radioactivity is not subject to any conservation laws in
> the way that mass-energy, charge, spin, etc. are. You don't need to
> add matter to matter in order to increase its radioactivity - you only
> need to rearrange its composition so that it becomes more unstable.

You think so??
Explain please how one can do this?
If added where do the particles that get added to the original come from.
If subtracted from the original where do they go?
If just moved from the inner to the outer parts then how can the atom be
radioactive for to be radioactive they have to be throwing off particles?
(And just in case you are a little more deeply into this than you
eem -that particle bit could be described as rays or even little packets of
energy).

Sorry! I forgot you don't do explanations - just denials.
> It
> then decays faster and the radioactivity increases. This is precisely
> what happens in a reactor core.

Ahem! Radioactivity is an atom throwing off particles due to an imbalance
between the positive and negative bits of that atom and an ability to
overcome the, "Atomic Glue", holding everything together.

That expression you used, "Decay", is a description of it doing just that.
It can only do this if there is an imbalance in the atom and this cannot
happed unless you add a particle or take one away. No imbalance then no
radiation.

> The fission fragments and
> newly-created plutonium are all considerably more radioactive than the
> original uranium fuel. The overall mass is reduced by the particles
> emitted and the mass equivalent of the energy that has been liberated.
All very well but tell us all why it is called, "The original Uranium FUEL".

I have no doubt that the resultant Plutonium is radioactive and throwing off
particles but there is no way it can do this for there is no way to end up
with more particles than you start out with. You cannot create matter and
you cannot lose it so the overall total of subatomic particles must be
exactly the same.
>
>
>>>>If a nucleus gains a neutron the neutron comes from
>>>>somewhere else. If you enrich something you deplete something else. You
>>>>make
>>>>nothing - you only shift it around.
>>>>
>>> I can see that you have an urgent need to disabuse yourself of some
>>> serious, fundamental misconceptions you have about the nature of
>>> radioactivity and nuclear power generation. Here are some pointers for
>>> further study:
>>>
>>> 1. When an atom decays, the decay product is not necessarily less
>>> radioactive than the parent was. Likewise for fission products.
>>Never said it was.
>>> 2. While the overall trend of a decay chain is down the periodic table
>>> towards lighter, stable elements, in practice there is considerable
>>> zig-zagging about. Beta emitters decay *up* the periodic table.
>>Makes no real difference in the overall scheme of things. The principle
>>that
>>any change in state can only be obtained by either losing or gaining from
>>or
>>to elsewhere. The total cannot be changed if you increase one you decrease
>>another.
>>> 3. Only a minuscule amount of the power from a nuclear reactor comes
>>> from radioactive decay. The bulk of it comes from fission - a
>>> completely different process.
>>It still does not change the simple fact that the total cannot be greater
>>than the sum of the products
>>
>>> 4. Spent nuclear fuel is far from inert and contains many 'hot'
>>> isotopes. Furthermore, the plutonium it now contains is capable of
>>> yielding much more energy than the original uranium mix.
>>
>>Indeed but that is not the point. Again I say if you increase one part you
>>must decrease another. Those bits don't come from nowhere. You are
>>standing
>>too close to the trees and you are not seeing the wood.
>>>
>
> And you are repeating a mantra that has no relevance to the point in
> question - radioactivity is not governed by the usual conservation
> laws.
Oh yes it is!
>
>>>
>>>>This also is the longer term solution for we will, in time, learn to
>>>>shift
>>>>things around to end up with stable resultants. In the meantime if we
>>>>bury
>>>>it the fact remains the overall total
>>>
>>> The overall total _what_?
>>See - told you you are lost in the woods and can't see the trees.
>>
>
> I repeat, the overall total _what_? Mass? Intensity of radiation?
The whole lot of course. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise
the overall thing is governed by the law that when you add them all up
together the total cannot be other than the original.
>
>>I will say it agai. - In no way can any process add or decrese the overall
>>quantity of matter for the very simple reason that to change any substance
>>you must take something from another substance which is then decreased.
>
> So where do you think all the energy from a nuclear reactor comes
> from? Stored potential energy?
Where else? That is what I have been asking you all along.
>
>>Four tears and you still believe in magic?
>>>
>
> No, Bob, I believe in physics, a subject of which your understanding
> is patently superficial.

You wish!
How about -"The reaction that occurs spontaneously, and involve a
conversion of mass into (mainly) kinetic energy of the decay products".
A change of mass into energy but the total does not change.

or again, "in fusion lighter elements ``fuse'' into heavier ones".
Once again two element being fused but the total will be the same when
considering all things.

Or yet again in "fission heavier elements are broken into lighter ones",
but thge total when all is considered remans the same.

Or - perhaps, "nuclear reactions can be induced, for example, bombarding a
nitrogen nucleus with an alpha particle", so here a particle is being added.

>
>>>>remains the same on a World wide
>>>>scale. Thus the disposal question is not due to the total radioactive
>>>>quantity getting bigger, (that's not possible)
>>>
>>> Oh yes it is!
>>>
>>>>but the gathering of it in
>>>>local places away from its original un-mined area to where the plant
>>>>that
>>>>uses it as a fuel are situated. So the disposal question is just another
>>>>red
>>>>herring.
>>>>Don't worry about radiation; worry about contamination.
>>>
>>> AIUI, the real worry about burying waste is that no one can guarantee
>>> the geological stability of the sites for the next 10000 years or
>>> more.
>>Not the point though, is it? If we dig the stuff up and do something with
>>it
>>that cannot possibly add to the overall quantity of radioactive matter in
>>the World
>
> We are not adding to the quantity; we are increasing its activity -
> considerably. Why are you finding this point so difficult to
> comprehend?

Because it just cannot be the case. You end up with the exact same total
you started with if you count everything. I have no doubt that locally you
may have a more concentrated source of radiation but only because you have
taken one thing into it or extracted something from it and these have to be
factored into the total.
>
>>then the problem is no different than the place where the stuff
>>originated - What of the geological stability of the origins of the stuff?
>>Who guaruntees it?
>
> The uranium in ore is far more dilute than in spent fuel. It also
> contains fewer fission products. I'll let you work out the rest.
Is that not a clue that what I have said is now what you are trying to tell
me?
It is more dilute is the converse of it is more concentrated but to dilute
something you must disolve it in something else and to concentrate it you
must take something away from it. However a more concentrated radioactive
source means just that - the same quantity in a smaller package it sure does
not mean more of the original has been created.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed I used the term,
"Radioactive sources are cumulative in nature", That means if you put two
sources together the result is the total of them both. The fact is you have
confused removing something from the total but leaving the same total
radiation as a result. You do not, though, have more in total.
>
>>>
>>>>Now tell me the
>>>>proportion of members of the public who have been contaminated by
>>>>nuclear
>>>>power generation and also the numbers contaminated by oil and coal
>>>>pollutants?
>>>
>>> I have no idea - I'm not in the numbers game. I believe the main
>>> concern of the 'anti' lobby is the potential for widespread disaster
>>> in the event of a major incident such as a melt-down. The probability
>>> of that happening may well diminish with each new generation of
>>> reactor, but it can never be zero.
>>I never claimed it was not a hazard nor did I claim no one has been killed
>>or injured by it. The facts cannot be ignored that the nuclear power
>>industry is far safer than any other major fuel for producing electic
>>power.
>>On an annual basis of people per million killed per terawatt of power
>>produced by each fuel nuclear is the safest by far.
>
> So far.
Aw! Come on! The fact is that there will be little difference in those
figures as the acident rates of the other fuels will also change also.
Safety rates tend to improve as foks tend to learn how not to kill
themselves as they go along. Exploitation excepted. You though only see one
generation by one fuel getting worse.
>
>>Let me put it this way - if you think that any nuclear process can make
>>the
>>overall total of matter in the World greater or less then those four years
>>were a total waste.
>
> Tell me Bob, what does E=mc^2 mean to you? Anything?
Appareently a little more than it does to you.
Perhaps " for even a small amount of mass a huge amount of energy can, at
least in theory, be released", might briefly fit the bill, (or so my old pal
Einstien told me), but what, in this instance are you getting at?
>
>>Furthermore if you think a fuel that kills less people
>>per terawatt generated
>
> So far.
So you are basing your theory on an unsupported belief. Just what I have
been telling you.
>
>>than another is more dangerous you have also wasted
>>your education.
>>
>>Do you actually understand what that safety record is telling you? Nuclear
>>power is safer than other power generation and that includes
>>hydroelectric.
>
> So far.
Again - So you are basing your theory on an unsupported belief. Just what I
have been telling you.

>
>>For any educated person to claim any kind of reaction of any kind can gain
>>or lose the overall quantities of that reaction is a disgrace
>
> You're waffling. Quantities of what?
It really matters not a jot - for in any reaction, or action, if you take
all factors into account the end product's total is the sum of all the
components. There is no way round that fact. If you think otherwise there is
something you are missing from the total.
I tried this one before but it stands the test of time. In your kind of
theory this fact would make sense, A horse attempts to pull a cart but the
pull action of the horse is equalled by the reaction pull of the cart. How
then does a horse move a cart?Is it magic like your phantom increase in a
radioactive reaction or is there something else to be considered?
>
>
>>to the modern
>>education system and may account for the reason the general public have
>>lost
>>a great deal of trust in today's scientists.
>
> That's OK then - I did my degree almost 40 years ago.
>
>
>>BTW: may I remind you that this
>>use of the term particle is really not the only way to consider reactions.
>>We are still searching for the Quark you know.
>
> No we're not. Didn't you read my other post?
Not on that subject as yet but I expect you refer to the - March 2, 1995,
Fermilab announcement.
>
> This post has been brought to you courtesy of the numbers 235, 238 and
> 239, and the letters "U", "Pu" and "mumpsimus".
>

However - think about what I actually said.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago
    ... fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta ... fuel is exposed to atmosphere (such as opening the zirconium-clad fuel ... Nuclear is indeed a very clean technology today. ... and the radioactivity went over Scotland and ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Nuclear Power on the way...
    ... For radioactivity, ... >> should I remember facts which are not true, or forget the 'true facts', ... that nuclear is a dangerous and expensive way to get our energy. ... don't share your faith in the safety of the nuclear fuel cycle, ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... > radioactivity and nuclear power generation. ... Only a minuscule amount of the power from a nuclear reactor comes ... Spent nuclear fuel is far from inert and contains many 'hot' ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... with the case against nuclear power generation. ... an element and this results in an increase of radioactivity. ... As to the risks involved - you wanted a more efficient fuel and now you have ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Worse than Chernobyl: dirty timebomb ticking in a rusting Russian nuclear dump threatens Europe
    ... 20,000 discarded uranium fuel rods stored in the Arctic Circle are corroding. ... A decaying Russian nuclear dump inside the Arctic Circle is threatening to catch ... falls to the floor and generates such a spark, an enormous explosion could ... There are enormous amounts of radioactivity ...
    (soc.men)