Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sanders asked to leave restaurant
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3128658" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Yes, but radioactive materials do different amounts of damage depending upon A) what kind of particles they're emitting (alphas, betas, or gammas), B) the energy level at which they're doing so, and C) where in the body they end up. Anything coming out of a smokestack stands a very good chance of ending up in your lungs, which is a very bad place for any emitter.</p><p></p><p>Alphas are hugely destructive, but have no penetrating power--a sheet of paper will stop them. Betas are less damaging, but have a bit more penetration. Gammas are the least destructive (though still dangerous), but penetrate with impunity--they take lead, or substantial amounts of concrete, or similar to stop. External gamma sources are more dangerous to long-term health than external alphas (though external alphas can cause wicked radiation burns). Alpha emitters taken <em>internally</em>, though are Bad News.</p><p></p><p>Believe me, I'm particularly well-versed in things nuclear just due to personal curiosity. "Radiation" is an incredibly broad category; "radioactive" means "ionizing radiation" (which light is not), and even then can be subdivided by particle and energy. Most people don't even know coal ash has any radioactive material in it, but they know "nuclear = scary." The lack of concern over coal is driven by ignorance just as much as the fear of nuke plants is (for that matter, MRI is called such because the proper name, <em>nuclear</em> magnetic resonance imaging, tended to spook the sheep, even though it refers to a cell's nucleus, not an atom's).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Clean would be nice, but it's not viable yet. I'm actually a huge proponent of nuclear in the short-to-medium term, but we have to start by using modern reactor designs. New designs--many of which use different fuel cycles--just don't have the same safety issues as older ones. Unfortunately, ignorance drives political sentiment, so those designs will probably never be put into production service on American soil.</p><p></p><p>Filling your car with tap water will never be viable. To use the water as a fuel source, you have to split the hydrogen off from the oxygen; that takes energy. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear about not being able to get something for free. As for having a reactor--fusion or fission--on a car, that's just not viable. Spacecraft use radiothermal generators--that is, they take their energy directly from the heat of nuclear decomposition, not from a controlled chain reaction. They lose power over time (directly in proportion to the half-life of the element), and they only generate a handful of watts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3128658, member: 13624"] Yes, but radioactive materials do different amounts of damage depending upon A) what kind of particles they're emitting (alphas, betas, or gammas), B) the energy level at which they're doing so, and C) where in the body they end up. Anything coming out of a smokestack stands a very good chance of ending up in your lungs, which is a very bad place for any emitter. Alphas are hugely destructive, but have no penetrating power--a sheet of paper will stop them. Betas are less damaging, but have a bit more penetration. Gammas are the least destructive (though still dangerous), but penetrate with impunity--they take lead, or substantial amounts of concrete, or similar to stop. External gamma sources are more dangerous to long-term health than external alphas (though external alphas can cause wicked radiation burns). Alpha emitters taken [I]internally[/I], though are Bad News. Believe me, I'm particularly well-versed in things nuclear just due to personal curiosity. "Radiation" is an incredibly broad category; "radioactive" means "ionizing radiation" (which light is not), and even then can be subdivided by particle and energy. Most people don't even know coal ash has any radioactive material in it, but they know "nuclear = scary." The lack of concern over coal is driven by ignorance just as much as the fear of nuke plants is (for that matter, MRI is called such because the proper name, [I]nuclear[/I] magnetic resonance imaging, tended to spook the sheep, even though it refers to a cell's nucleus, not an atom's). Clean would be nice, but it's not viable yet. I'm actually a huge proponent of nuclear in the short-to-medium term, but we have to start by using modern reactor designs. New designs--many of which use different fuel cycles--just don't have the same safety issues as older ones. Unfortunately, ignorance drives political sentiment, so those designs will probably never be put into production service on American soil. Filling your car with tap water will never be viable. To use the water as a fuel source, you have to split the hydrogen off from the oxygen; that takes energy. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty clear about not being able to get something for free. As for having a reactor--fusion or fission--on a car, that's just not viable. Spacecraft use radiothermal generators--that is, they take their energy directly from the heat of nuclear decomposition, not from a controlled chain reaction. They lose power over time (directly in proportion to the half-life of the element), and they only generate a handful of watts. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sanders asked to leave restaurant
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom