"Outside our imaginations" - not that new really. I'm given to mentioning the comment of an Apollo astronaut - Frank Borman - after the White/Chaffee/Grissom fiery deaths on the launch pad during testing. They just didn't consider that possibility ( hyperbaric oxygen + electrical fault + inward opening door hinge ) - which Borman described as a "failure of imagination".
But generational neglect of prior lessons isn't new either .....
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) The other one I like is 'attributed' to Neil Armstrong ( comment on Apollo safety ) - "How would you feel on top of a million components each built by the lowest bidder?" Notably both Borman and another astronaut turned down the chance to be the commander for the first moon landing. Thus Armstrong ( we find out decades later ) was Deke Slayton's third choice.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
AFAIK thorium is not fissile but fertile. If irradiated with neutrons coming from U235, which is fissile, it can be changed in U233, fissile. An attempt to use this method was made in Italy in cooperation with an American firm, Allis-Chalmers, but never came to a result, despite big investments. The program name was PCUT and is described by prof. Mario Silvestri, designer of the CIRENE reactor (similar to the CANDUs) in a book titled "Il costo della menzogna" (the cost of a lie), Einaudi, 1968.
Tullio
AFAIK thorium is not fissile but fertile. If irradiated with neutrons coming from U235, which is fissile, it can be changed in U233, fissile. An attempt to use this method was made in Italy in cooperation with an American firm, Allis-Chalmers, but never came to a result, despite big investments. The program name was PCUT and is described by prof. Mario Silvestri, designer of the CIRENE reactor (similar to the CANDUs) in a book titled "Il costo della menzogna" (the cost of a lie), Einaudi, 1968.
Tullio
Allis-Chalmers... wow... a name from the past, and I thought they had only made farm tractors and such. LOL
Seriously though, looking into the fissile/fertile bit, some of the articles I came across stated the same as you with non dissenting.
One in particular seemed to be rather informative: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Thorium. But then again, I see that it is authored by The World Nuclear Association, so I can see that some of the more "distasteful" aspects of thorium may have be glossed over. I don't know. It can be hard to find truly objective info.
I think nuclear is the best way to go for supplying the world's energy needs but, as Rod has alluded to, competent oversight and comprehensive controls is definitely warranted.
Mainly for reasons of cost, I believe. Since Italy had no suitable reactor, the thorium was to be irradiated in the Elk River BWR reactor in Minnesota, sent to Italy by ship, processed in a plant at Rotondella in southern Italy and resent back to the USA. The AEC was to pay a million dollar to Italy, while the processing plant would have cost ten million dollars to Italy. A total loss.
Tullio
Probably worth mentioning is that the distasteful aspects of these substances can often be for their chemical effects on biological systems as heavy metals and not radioactivity per se. For instance depleted uranium ( in armour and kinetic weapon tips, which powderise upon use ) is primarily a heavy metal poisoning problem and not because of any emitted particles ( despite the claims of some who are unaware of or obscure the real physics ). The binding to active sites on enzymes is a great problem, largely on account of their multivalency but also their mass makes them harder to budge.
Contrast this with say Plutonium in vapor form, which is readily well absorbed. They emit their quite energetic alphas once they get in, and rip up the intra-cellular structures ( like a ricocheting cannon ball ) especially delicate DNA. This will carry you off long before any disability from squatting at active enzyme sites.
This has to be kept in mind when thinking of dose related health effects. It won't be linear, and the time lines/lags also are on different scales.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
There is an inquiry in Sardinia about the death of a twenty-odd shepherds near the Salto di Quirra firing range where depleted uranium bullets and warheads may have been used. But I think judges and lawyers think only in term of radioactivity.They should also be aware of the chemical effects you mention.
Tullio
Hubris at its finest.. We
)
Hubris at its finest..
We should stop running away from radiation
My apologizes.. I could not read it all.. I have better things to do..
Edit: LOL Maybe a little hubris on my part..:-)
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Discovered some new
)
Another new engineering term.. Outside our imaginations.
Bad Assumptions
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Hubris at its
)
Maybe that guy should read "Low level radiation", by Ernest Sternglass. Nihil sub sole novi.
Tullio
"Outside our imaginations" -
)
"Outside our imaginations" - not that new really. I'm given to mentioning the comment of an Apollo astronaut - Frank Borman - after the White/Chaffee/Grissom fiery deaths on the launch pad during testing. They just didn't consider that possibility ( hyperbaric oxygen + electrical fault + inward opening door hinge ) - which Borman described as a "failure of imagination".
But generational neglect of prior lessons isn't new either .....
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) The other one I like is 'attributed' to Neil Armstrong ( comment on Apollo safety ) - "How would you feel on top of a million components each built by the lowest bidder?" Notably both Borman and another astronaut turned down the chance to be the commander for the first moon landing. Thus Armstrong ( we find out decades later ) was Deke Slayton's third choice.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
An interesting article I came
)
An interesting article I came across tonight...
Could thorium make nuclear power safe?
AFAIK thorium is not fissile
)
AFAIK thorium is not fissile but fertile. If irradiated with neutrons coming from U235, which is fissile, it can be changed in U233, fissile. An attempt to use this method was made in Italy in cooperation with an American firm, Allis-Chalmers, but never came to a result, despite big investments. The program name was PCUT and is described by prof. Mario Silvestri, designer of the CIRENE reactor (similar to the CANDUs) in a book titled "Il costo della menzogna" (the cost of a lie), Einaudi, 1968.
Tullio
RE: AFAIK thorium is not
)
Allis-Chalmers... wow... a name from the past, and I thought they had only made farm tractors and such. LOL
Seriously though, looking into the fissile/fertile bit, some of the articles I came across stated the same as you with non dissenting.
One in particular seemed to be rather informative: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Thorium. But then again, I see that it is authored by The World Nuclear Association, so I can see that some of the more "distasteful" aspects of thorium may have be glossed over. I don't know. It can be hard to find truly objective info.
I think nuclear is the best way to go for supplying the world's energy needs but, as Rod has alluded to, competent oversight and comprehensive controls is definitely warranted.
So, tullio, why did the project peter out?
Mainly for reasons of cost, I
)
Mainly for reasons of cost, I believe. Since Italy had no suitable reactor, the thorium was to be irradiated in the Elk River BWR reactor in Minnesota, sent to Italy by ship, processed in a plant at Rotondella in southern Italy and resent back to the USA. The AEC was to pay a million dollar to Italy, while the processing plant would have cost ten million dollars to Italy. A total loss.
Tullio
Probably worth mentioning is
)
Probably worth mentioning is that the distasteful aspects of these substances can often be for their chemical effects on biological systems as heavy metals and not radioactivity per se. For instance depleted uranium ( in armour and kinetic weapon tips, which powderise upon use ) is primarily a heavy metal poisoning problem and not because of any emitted particles ( despite the claims of some who are unaware of or obscure the real physics ). The binding to active sites on enzymes is a great problem, largely on account of their multivalency but also their mass makes them harder to budge.
Contrast this with say Plutonium in vapor form, which is readily well absorbed. They emit their quite energetic alphas once they get in, and rip up the intra-cellular structures ( like a ricocheting cannon ball ) especially delicate DNA. This will carry you off long before any disability from squatting at active enzyme sites.
This has to be kept in mind when thinking of dose related health effects. It won't be linear, and the time lines/lags also are on different scales.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
There is an inquiry in
)
There is an inquiry in Sardinia about the death of a twenty-odd shepherds near the Salto di Quirra firing range where depleted uranium bullets and warheads may have been used. But I think judges and lawyers think only in term of radioactivity.They should also be aware of the chemical effects you mention.
Tullio