OT: Nuclear War???

[Slick]

I really don't know where the idea that fusion bombs are "clean" comes from. It doesn't come from facts. Maybe the idea is coming from the so-called "clean" fusion reactors being "cleaner" than fission reactors (fusion reactors still make lots of radiation and generate radioactive waste, it's just that they have a different public impression - and they aren't able to produce usable power yet so who knows how "clean" the final Version will be?).

However, there is absolutely no correllation between reactors and bombs.

No offense to anyone here, but it really bothers me when I see "junk science" being propagated. Someone says something that's completely wrong; either by being totally misinformed and not bothering to even check if it's correct, or by portraying themselves as an expert when they are not. Then other people read the junk and they remember it, and the next time the subject comes up, they believe it is a fact because they read it "somewhere". Then, when more than one person has this same wrong idea, it becomes "common knowledge". This is usually accompanied by "junk logic" in which preposterous conclusions are drawn from these baseless assumptions. I am flabergasted that, on the internet, anyone can say anything - true or not, and the very people who wouldn't believe the word from a total stranger on the street use the internet to find "facts". This is evidenced by a drastic move away from libraries toward the internet for "reasearch" as reported by many colleges and universities. Now, I do believe that there is a lot of good, easy to get truth on the internet; BUT, there is a lot of terrible, easy to get junk on the internet as well - and when you read either, they both kinda sound believable.

Let the reader beware.

[Aiken]

Probably it came from the most trivial fusion reaction: D+T->He+n+E. It doesn't have a decay products in form of radioactive isotopes, so it's considered "clean".

[Slick]

Again, no offense, but even in your example of one of the basic fusion reactions:

D+T->He+n+E

Free neutrons just don't hang around, the free neutron "n" in that equation can/does activate surrounding materials and does create radioactive isotopes.

I say again, that "fusion is clean" is just the public impression. Fission has a very negative public image. People think about Bikini Atoll, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, SL-1, and other accident sites. They don't think (or know that) workers at a coal mine or coal burning conventional plant get more radiation exposure from the naturally occurring Carbon-14 than nuclear plant workers. They don't think/know that, although there have been accidents at nuclear power planets, there also have been accidents at conventional power plants which have resulted in a great many more deaths over the years. What about people who fly in airplanes for a living - they spend many hours at high altitudes above some of the protection of the natural radiation protection. People get killed all the time in non-nuclear industry, but people think that non-nuclear industry is "clean" as well. I don't think that acid rain, smog and industrial waste in the country's rivers is "clean", and they didn't come from nuclear plants.

Fusion is considered "clean" because we won't have to mine fissionable materials from the ground; we can pull deuterium out of the ocean - ocean water is abundant, right? and has an infinite supply of deuterium, right? They also think that the the reaction is Hydrogen -> Helium. I don't see any "dirty" by-products in that reaction (that equation is not correct, by the way, but it is "common knowledge") And Helium is very safe and very clean. We all know that. We put it in our kids' balloons. We inhale it to make our voices sound funny.

I personally think fusion will be a great step foward as well, but I work in the industry. I don't think it will be as safe and clean as its current reputation. Let's put it this way: a fission reactor (with all of its bad publicity) works at (or usually below) temperatures & pressures of conventional power plants. Fusion can only work at temperatures & pressures found in the sun. Safe and clean?

[Aiken]

Offense? No, it's always good to learn something new or dispel delusions. What equation would be correct? Asking this out of curiosity.

[Spoo]

Well said, Slick.

[Slick]

aiken said:
Offense? No, it's always good to learn something new or dispel delusions. What equation would be correct? Asking this out of curiosity.

I'm not vouching for everything on this website, but here's an overview. Any college textbook also has the basics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/fusion.html

[Slick]

Well said, Slick.

--------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

Now, Spoo....

I've been meaning to talk to you about your sig...

just kidding.

[Renegade 13]

Slick said:
However, there is absolutely no correllation between reactors and bombs.

Absolutely. Take for example the reactors Canada builds, the CANDU reacter. If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong, please correct me) it uses deuterium, and somehow or other, uses nuclear reactions to produce power. These reactors are sold to other countries which *may* be a nuclear threat, but these reactors CAN NOT produce materials through their reactions that could be used to make a nuclear or dirty bomb. Therefore reactor does not = bomb making materials.

[Slick]

At the risk of becoming a pain...

There are some reactors that produce fissionable materials. They are known as "breeder reactors". These are the kind that the nuclear capable countries try to prevent other countries from building. They are generally used for making weapons grade material. [For further reading search for Israeli bombing of 2 reactors in Iraq in 1981.] I am not sure what kind of reactors are used in Canada, but I would be surprised if they were breeders. I'd expect them to be a typical pressurized water or heavy water power reactor used for electrical power generation. I'd guess that information is readily available for anyone somewhere on the net.

Also, all reactors generate radioactive waste. Therefore all reactors produce materials that could be used in making a dirty bomb. Radioactively, the highest of this waste is spent fuel. Any rad waste can be used in making a dirty bomb. Unless the most highly radioactive material was used (unlikely), a dirty bomb is more a public panic/disruption weapon than an actual health threat. If low level radioactive material (say rad medical waste used for treating heart attack victims, which is much easier to obtain than spent reactor fuel) is used in a dirty bomb, it will cause minor contamination in a small area but no real health threat. But nobody will want to go into that area until it is cleaned up.

What people are normally oblivious to is that we live in constant fields of radiation. Naturally occurring isotopes exist in the very ground we walk on. Radon is a radioactive gas that comes out of the ground. Concrete contains trace natural uranium and other radioactive nuclides. We are bombarded by cosmic rays from space, and all kinds of radiation from the sun - what do you think gives you that great suntan??? Heck, even your smoke detector in your house has probably somewhere around 1 microCurie of Americium-241. Americium-241 is a decay product of PLUTONIUM-241. Did you know that you have a radioactive decay product of PLUTONIUM-241 in your house; maybe in your kitchen???

[Atrocities]

Take the door off of your microwave oven, stick something in the tripper switch and set the timer for 3 minutes. Turn on. Been nice knowning you.