Japan Earthquake | Page 710

  • After separating the gaseous uranium-235 through many centrifuge steps, engineers use another chemical reaction to convert the gas uranium back into a solid metal, Klein said. That metal can then be shaped for use in either reactors or bombs.

    Because each step only step only purifies the uranium gas mixture by a small amount, nations can only afford to run centrifuges that are engineered to the highest levels of efficiency, said Nietert. Otherwise, producing even a small amount of pure uranium-235 becomes prohibitively expensive.

    And designing and making those centrifuge tubes requires a level of investment and technical know-how beyond the reach of many countries, said Nietert. The tubes require special types of steel or composites to withstand the extreme pressures of rotation, must be perfectly cylindrical to maximize efficiency, and are manufactured by specialized machines almost as difficult to build as the tubes themselves, said Nietert.

    To put the endeavor of separating uranium into perspective, take the example of the building of the bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima. The United States needed 137 pounds (62 kg) of uranium-235 to make the bomb, according to “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes (Simon & Schuster, 1995). Separating those 137 pounds from almost 4 tons of uranium ore took place in world’s largest building and used 10 percent of the entire country’s electricity, Nietert said. It took 20,000 people to build the structure, 12,000 people to operate the facility, and cost more than $500 million, in 1944, to equip it, according to “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” That’s around $6 billion in 2009 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:22:14 PM

  • @sims Exactly...its preposterous.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:22:47 PM

  • @dean: Uncontrollable Nuclear reactions also liberate a large amount of byproducts that make carbon dioxide seem like a cool breeze on a hot summer night ;-) IMHO
    by Tenzing 4/14/2011 9:23:54 PM

  • @Tenzing global warming is an issue that is by several orders of magnitude larger than any kind of realistic release of radioactive material from reactors
    by sims 4/14/2011 9:24:57 PM

  • @sims Except that it puts a HUGE number of them under water. I wonder how we'll deal with that. Maybe Dai-ichi is a blessing in that it will make people start thinking about water-safe long-term containments.
    by radioguy 4/14/2011 9:26:27 PM

  • Peter are you here
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:29:19 PM

  • your right Tenzing...
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:29:48 PM

  • Result of testing water from unit 4 sfp.
    by Scilla 4/14/2011 9:30:01 PM

  • by Scilla 4/14/2011 9:30:10 PM

  • I know people who live accross from a SIMPLOT ferterlizer plant and it belches so much SULPHER DIOXIDE it is like a fog,, worse when there are seasonal changes... well .. all the bridges and railroad trussel crossings have to be replaced at intervals because of the acidic affect of sulpher dioxide mixing with water in the air... you can sense it if you breath some times.. I dont' live there tho
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:31:35 PM

  • web.ead.anl.gov more about uranium enrichment
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:32:18 PM

  • I go on this one bicycle race in Idaho and the course goes right next to a huge cattle feed lot.. let me tell you on a 100 degree F day.. it's overwhelming.. peee ewwwwww
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:32:21 PM

  • @sims The current events at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant may rewrite the realistic release of radioactive material from reactors
    by Tenzing 4/14/2011 9:33:41 PM

  • I can't open that unit 4 sfp file .. sign
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:35:47 PM

  • something to think: we rely in nuclear plants which were designed in the 70s-80s of the last century. our technology has developed in these 40 years and will develop even more rapidly, while every reactor we build today is expected to work for 40 or 50 more years to be worth the investment. these concrete blocks are like dinosaurs unable to adapt to improvements and development. we should use our mental and material resources in more intelligent technologies, against the power of the mightyful companies that own the dinosaurs.
    by Edano 4/14/2011 9:35:49 PM

  • www.tepco.co.jp Analysis of the water in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 at FDNPS 1
    by Tenzing 4/14/2011 9:37:50 PM

  • good point Tenzing.. in my opinion.. nothing should be outside of CONTAINMENT that touches reactor water... turbine buildings etc.. should be able to withstand the same seismic and other requirements.. .
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:38:48 PM

  • fukushima accident will redefine .. "defense in depth".. for protecting the fuel
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:39:50 PM

  • I didn't know this... "plutonium contamination originating from Nevada Desert atmospheric weapon tests in 1952 and 1953 extended eastwards as far as northwestern Europe" www.sciencedirect.com
    by Bobby1 4/14/2011 9:44:25 PM

  • @dean Risk assessments are based on cost analysis, and "defense in depth" was utilized at Fukushima, but the thing is, the risk statistic can be manipulated to reflect the most unlikely occurrence. We make the same assumptions here in the US, but in reality....the danger of even 1 chance in 10 billion of a critical accident and the damage it causes is enough to say don't build em ever. There is never a 100% guarantee of safety.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:47:53 PM

  • @Sin : i agree. i don't see a point in simply raising safety standards. you cannot win a fight against nature.
    by Edano 4/14/2011 9:48:46 PM

  • @Bobby1 I have been researching testing done in the 40s and 50s. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to high levels all over the US, but you never heard about it, because it was classified.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:50:16 PM

  • @Sin : but the only conclusion is: stop that silly race, you can never win. forget about nuclear energy (at least next to where humans live). stop building nuke reactors.
    by Edano 4/14/2011 9:51:15 PM

  • @Sin Pretty much the same attitude today.
    by Bobby1 4/14/2011 9:51:27 PM

  • that's so true Sin,,, and, imagine if we applied the same philosophy to coal mines or dupont chemical plants, or oil drilling... across the board. no industry has spent as much for safety as nuclear... of course the space shuttle program spend a ton of money.. ...
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:52:03 PM

  • automobile industry.. probably can't even give the probability of an inadvertent failure of the breaks that would lead to 1 death.. we do accept risks in our lives.. many of which have disastrous consequences... one is a fire in the coal pile for a cole burner power plant.. or.. in the steel industry.. accidently dropping a huge laddel of liquid metal on the floor and watch the beams and colums melt
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:53:41 PM

  • Topics Unit 4 sfp, EU Sets levels. www.world-nuclear-news.org
    by Scilla 4/14/2011 9:53:55 PM

  • @dean : nobody is aiming back to coal mines. we should aim forwards.
    by Edano 4/14/2011 9:54:07 PM

  • yes Edano.. in all industries with hazards...
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:54:31 PM

  • @dean I don't see these other hazards affecting the genetic integrity of man like radiation does.
    by Bobby1 4/14/2011 9:55:14 PM

  • I'm not trying to defend nuclear.. every industry is susceptible to risks..
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:55:32 PM

  • to me, it is all about $$$. Its a feudal system and we are the expendable peasants. Scientific innovations in alternative energy sources have come up with many less dangerous viable forms of energy, but funding is limited for that.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:55:41 PM

  • @dean : we know the hazards of coal, so we invented nukes, now we know the hazards of nukes ....... so let's go on. why defend technologies that are noit suitable to humans ?
    by Edano 4/14/2011 9:56:00 PM

  • bobby .. I think I disagree.. you can have birth defects with alot of chemicals used in the world today .and probably more from that than radiation
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:56:12 PM

  • "clean" coal is an oxymoron
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:56:34 PM

  • Sounds like this belongs on the organize board
    by Markfm 4/14/2011 9:56:36 PM

  • A concrete pump vehicle with a 62-metre arm was used to collect samples from the pool. The temperature in the pool was found to have risen to 90oC, and the water level had dropped by 5 metres. In response some 195 tonnes of water were sprayed into the pool on 13 April.
    by Scilla 4/14/2011 9:57:29 PM

  • Sin I was reading about some of the hazards of just a simple windmill.. and there have been many deaths, many instances of catastrophic failures that threw blades off which crashed to home... all energy sources have risk..
    by dean 4/14/2011 9:57:39 PM

  • @dean We are seeing now what one nuclear plant can do... Bhopal was horrible, but it didn't spread throughout the earth.
    by Bobby1 4/14/2011 9:57:49 PM

  • coal ash is ull of carcinogenics. dean is right about that. I do think they are less dangerous, but still too dangerous to use, any fossil fuel based energy source harms health.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:58:25 PM

  • news and tech
    by Markfm 4/14/2011 9:58:43 PM

  • @Scilla 900C ?
    by VeenOui 4/14/2011 9:58:57 PM

  • 90C
    by Markfm 4/14/2011 9:59:13 PM

  • I will support Mark there
    by elainekirk 4/14/2011 9:59:40 PM

  • somebody falling off a ladder at a windmill can not compare with the permanent damage to DNA of hundreds of thousands of people.
    by Sin 4/14/2011 9:59:56 PM

Japan Earthquake | Page 710

Who's Blogging
  • hudebnikhudebnik
  • albleealblee
  • UKValUKVal
  • Oliver (ScribbleLive)Oliver (ScribbleLive)
  • Jonathan KeeblerJonathan Keebler
  • kaykodhkaykodh
  • PKelleyPKelley
  • MarkfmMarkfm
  • AngieAngie
  • DebDeb
  • Mid ValleyMid Valley
  • Pedro Jesus
  • Matt (ScribbleLive)Matt (ScribbleLive)
  • George GibbGeorge Gibb
  • elainekirkelainekirk
  • lillymunsterlillymunster
  • deandean
  • bobo
  • EdanoEdano
  • IanGoddardIanGoddard