Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Styrge

Obscured radiation physics related to nuclear power

Recommended Posts

okay, so you've read that book and you must have seen that it is reffering to waste gasses from the reactor, not air conditioning. and that the gasses are passed through a scrubber to remove radioactive particles BEFORE discharge.

 

also, just because a neutron has an effective diameter of an atom does not mean it behaves like an atom. it still won't follow pressure gradients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear power and the public

(By Harry Foreman, University of Minnesota)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ld4U6uZNa44C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=ventilation+pipe+nuclear+power&source=bl&ots=DqGt0CCvb0&sig=20cfJSKQgDmJt1LqxZNsLyZrnCE&hl=en&ei=3WbOSeSyM9nG-QajxvTUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

 

"The gases are then dispersed to the environs through a stack or vent pipe which is generally about twice the height of the nearby buildings."

 

Did you read the whole paragraph? Boiling water reactor, gases are put into delayed storage, and filtered. The reason you get this in a boiling water reactor is because the water is passed through the reactor — this is not the case of a pressurized water reactor, which has a primary and secondary loop to segregate the radioactive constituents.

 

Further, this is a vent of gases, not radiation. You need to learn the difference between radiation and contamination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also, just because a neutron has an effective diameter of an atom does not mean it behaves like an atom. it still won't follow pressure gradients.
Yes it does.

 

Maybe I don't want to search the net for a ventilation verification (everyone who worked in local nuclear facilities tell it's for air); the claim to use such a big chimney for reactor gases or delay them so they're not active is almost absurd. For example one gas reactor produces is radioactive carbon with 5000 y half-life.

 

The industry doesn't care that it's impossible to operate nuclear reactors without significant activation of the environment. The issue is just obscured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To YdoaPs: Plants that are being cooled with sea water which is not evaporated have this separate vent pipe. I'ts combined with the steam tower in the other version.

 

I've not seen one on any submarines or aircraft carriers. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does.

 

Maybe I don't want to search the net for a ventilation verification (everyone who worked in local nuclear facilities tell it's for air); the claim to use such a big chimney for reactor gases or delay them so they're not active is almost absurd. For example one gas reactor produces is radioactive carbon with 5000 y half-life.

 

The industry doesn't care that it's impossible to operate nuclear reactors without significant activation of the environment. The issue is just obscured.

 

carbon-14 is not a gas and it is produced in the atmosphere all the time as well by the sun.

 

and no, neutrons do not behave like a gas. anyway, the diameter of the neutron mentioned there is its capture radius its the cross section available to nuclear reactions. what it means is, that if it passes a neutron accepting nucleus close enough it will be captured. but for bouncing purposes it is still very very small. nucleus small like other nuclei.

 

and it isn't repelled by electric charge. this means that matter isn't very dense to it. it just floats on through because the chances of it hitting anything are incredibly tiny. this is why it doesn't behave like a gas when there is a fan. it just doesn't see the fan blade. or the walls.

 

i suppose if you had a massive fan made of big chunks of neutron reflectors then you could get something analogous but you still don't have a long halflife for neutrons. they'll decay before they even get outside the reactor never mind up a big chimney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half-life of a neutron is about 15 minutes. It will also reset every time neutron visits a nucleus. It is indeed attracted by the strong force but still has some kinetic energy to repel it or another neutron out also. This is more likely to happen with already neutron-rich isotopes (and cause saturation behaviour).

 

Ok, I'll mention xenon as one of the reactor generated gases. Half-life 10 hours (Xe-135) or a week (Xe-133). Try ro delay that inside the power plant...

 

Now I found a good graph of the chimney at last, it's from the brochyre about Olkiluoto 3:

http://kuvaton.com/k/TFQ.jpg

(Ol-3 is the worlds biggest prototype-like pressurized water shit with illegal plutonium yield and should have started already but never will!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Half-life of a neutron is about 15 minutes. It will also reset every time neutron visits a nucleus. It is indeed attracted by the strong force but still has some kinetic energy to repel it or another neutron out also. This is more likely to happen with already neutron-rich isotopes (and cause saturation behaviour).

 

Ok, I'll mention xenon as one of the reactor generated gases. Half-life 10 hours (Xe-135) or a week (Xe-133). Try ro delay that inside the power plant...

 

Now I found a good graph of the chimney at last, it's from the brochyre about Olkiluoto 3:

http://kuvaton.com/k/TFQ.jpg

(Ol-3 is the worlds biggest prototype-like pressurized water shit with illegal plutonium yield and should have started already but never will!)

Xenon is a poison(ie, it likes to absorb neutrons). We don't delay it; we counteract it with rod withdrawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for proving conclusively you know precisely bugger all about what goes on in a nuclear reactor and are unwilling to accept even the possibility that you may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll mention xenon as one of the reactor generated gases. Half-life 10 hours (Xe-135) or a week (Xe-133). Try ro delay that inside the power plant...

 

Generally reactor products are contained within the cladding of the fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing that most of them are.

 

Then back to proof of increasing background. I give you a picture from UNSCEAR report from 1958:

 

http://www.styrge.com/pic/UNSCEAR_total_natural_dose_58.jpg

 

This verifies that it once was about 100 mrem.

 

Also look at how radiation contribution from nuclear power is exponential:

http://www.styrge.com/pic/Environmental_effects_annual_dose.jpg

 

 

Then there is 1978 value from Finland:

 

http://www.styrge.com/pic/Otavan_ensyklopedia_tausta.jpg

 

This states 2,2 mSv with radon and all, but our current value happens to be 4 mSv!!

 

(You can find 3,7 mSv reading from the year 2006 study in english from http://www.stuk.fi/en_GB/)

 

 

Xenon is a poison(ie, it likes to absorb neutrons). We don't delay it; we counteract it with rod withdrawl.
Shouldn't you do just the opposite?

 

Insanealien: I realize I may be wrong but that should go without saying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't you do just the opposite?

 

No. We need to combat the temperature decrease. Why would we insert rods instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thing that most of them are.

 

Then back to proof of increasing background. I give you a picture from UNSCEAR report from 1958:

 

http://www.styrge.com/pic/UNSCEAR_total_natural_dose_58.jpg

 

This verifies that it once was about 100 mrem.

 

Also look at how radiation contribution from nuclear power is exponential:

http://www.styrge.com/pic/Environmental_effects_annual_dose.jpg

 

I see how it's exponential … and 1 mrem out of 360.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, where does the 200 mrem increase come from? Why the effect from radon, for example, has tripled nowadays? Altough it has been taken into account in house design.

 

I see this as a result of human nuclear activity, or a cover-up of human nuclear activity (to make that 0,3% portion look smaller). Maybe even both so actual radiation dose would be even higher.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
No. We need to combat the temperature decrease. Why would we insert rods instead?
That slows down more neutrons to cause more fission reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, where does the 200 mrem increase come from? Why the effect from radon, for example, has tripled nowadays? Altough it has been taken into account in house design.

 

I see this as a result of human nuclear activity, or a cover-up of human nuclear activity (to make that 0,3% portion look smaller). Maybe even both so actual radiation dose would be even higher.

 

What 200 mrem increase? Where is your data on the Radon?

 

I don't really care what you "see" this as. You haven't presented any credible evidence of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That slows down more neutrons to cause more fission reactions.

 

No. Rods absorb neutrons. At power, rods just control temperature(reactor power follows steam demand). The moderator is what slows neutrons. Where, exactly, did you learn what you think you know about nuclear power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, mindbug. (And I study 60's literature with less sencorship and distortion.)

 

But now I got solid proof for my claims from measurements lasting two weeks.

 

Here you'll see the wind speed from the power plant towards the near by measurement station:

 

tuuli.png

 

This shows current detected by an ion cather (antenna only 5 m above ground, previous measurements have shown this is enough when air currents are descending as they travel from the power plant) and is shown in millivolts. When the value is positive or negative constantly, it can't be random disturbance which you can see varying around +-1 mV:

 

catcher.png

 

When the spike, electricity from air, is detected, the wind blows from no other direction than where the reactors lay! And the spike, you can imagine it's massive when seen with a standard voltage meter with another lead hanging 5 m above ground and the other grounded.

 

See the setup from this video (no subtitles at this point) where you can also veify the results with your own eyes:

 

All the curves are on this website: http://www.styrge.com/Mittaussarja/english.html

For example nice detection of radiation dose-rate correllation to wind too! All this contamination purposely done for profit and power and has to stop in the sake of our biosphere. Before it's too late!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you study 60's literature? I guess if I wanted to study airplane safety it would be better to study data that is 50 years out of date? Radon levels have nothing what so ever to do with nuclear reactors, radon levels in houses come out of the earth. it accumulates in basements and other low areas because it is so dense. Radon comes out of granite. Radiation is a natural part of the environment do not try to blame radiation on nuclear power plants. Much of the radiation increase in the environment has to do with nuclear testing, not nuclear reactors. There is no conspiracy to pollute the environment with radiation from reactors, no conspiracy dude, none. NUCLEAR REACTORS RELEASE LESS RADIATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT THAN COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE! Coal fired power plants release huge amounts of radio-nucleotides, almost all the radiation increase in our environment not attributable to nuclear bomb testing comes from burning stuff like coal, not nuclear power plants......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, mindbug. (And I study 60's literature with less sencorship and distortion.)

 

But now I got solid proof for my claims from measurements lasting two weeks.

 

Here you'll see the wind speed from the power plant towards the near by measurement station:

 

tuuli.png

 

This shows current detected by an ion cather (antenna only 5 m above ground, previous measurements have shown this is enough when air currents are descending as they travel from the power plant) and is shown in millivolts. When the value is positive or negative constantly, it can't be random disturbance which you can see varying around +-1 mV:

 

catcher.png

 

When the spike, electricity from air, is detected, the wind blows from no other direction than where the reactors lay! And the spike, you can imagine it's massive when seen with a standard voltage meter with another lead hanging 5 m above ground and the other grounded.

 

See the setup from this video (no subtitles at this point) where you can also veify the results with your own eyes:

 

All the curves are on this website: http://www.styrge.com/Mittaussarja/english.html

For example nice detection of radiation dose-rate correllation to wind too! All this contamination purposely done for profit and power and has to stop in the sake of our biosphere. Before it's too late!

 

 

So how do you explain the spike at 3.5 and 12.5, when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction? The lack of a signal at 4? The weak signal at 7-8, as compared to the signal at 8-9?

 

Why does the radiation dose rate (on your site) not match up with the ionization curve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how do you explain the spike at 3.5 and 12.5, when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction? The lack of a signal at 4? The weak signal at 7-8, as compared to the signal at 8-9?

 

I don't bother pondering explanations to those as they are minor compared to the two days with high values. For that the only reasonable cause is that one gigawatt ionizer!

 

Why does the radiation dose rate (on your site) not match up with the ionization curve?

 

To measure ionization, wind had to be a bit downwards also. Not too common conditions but previous test showed that it happens. Gamma can be registered from skies.

 

A very interesting curve that is. I'm excited to see radiation effects from the plant with a basic meter (and a lot of averaging) but also unsure how far I can go with the conclusions. So more test results coming some day.

 

What Moontanman said about conspiracy I haven't suggested that more radioactivity is the goal (for population control as foetal mortality comes first, for example). But if that kind of thing is possible, isn't it good if somebody (else) wastes his time checking it out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't bother pondering explanations to those as they are minor compared to the two days with high values. For that the only reasonable cause is that one gigawatt ionizer!

 

IOW, use the data that agrees with you, and discard/ignore the data that disagree.

 

Wonderful science, that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spallation reactions

 

One uranium fission is said to produce 2,5 neutrons. But third of the energy from a nuclear reactor comes from plutonium fission, each atom releasing 3,5 neutrons. Also an uranium nucleus can spray a whole bunch of neutrons if it's shattared by 20 MeV energy income. Daughter nucleii are releasing their share also, called delayed neutrons and that causes the famous unlinear power output of a reactor. Total average comes up to 5 neutrons per fission reaction as mentioned in earlier literature. That's double to what is being claimed today.

 

Then let's have a look at the nuclear chart. If U-235 with 92 protons and 1,6 times more neutrons is mathematicly split in half we have two palladium nucleii having 46 protons but only 1,3 times more neutrons. From 146 neutron amount the fission products can hold only 120 so over twenty is getting lost. What the heck is going on?

 

I've been already used to that most of the information related to nuclear power is false. The field of nuclear physics has been purposely distorted not to show the inevitable harm deriving from the use of fission reactors. I'm talking about the neutron flux to the environment resulting in growth in background radiation; from natural level it has multiplied globally and growth is exponential.

 

But let's not get too much ahead. Neutron spallation takes 10 - 15 MeV of energy and in theory the whole 200 MeV from splitting uranium could be spent stripping out those twenty neutrons. Coinsidence? Modern literature avoids the issue by sayin that over 80% of that energy would be used to move particles. Neutrons? Not solely, no, but it starts to be obvious how nuclear reactor acts as a significant neutron source. The figures are surprising even to me!

 

A good rule of thumb is that a fission reactor produces radiation as much as electricity. 1000 MW from a 1000 MW unit. So besides neutrinos and gamma, neutrons spray out with hundreds of megawatts. Another approach is to look at the weight: 1 GW plant has 100 tons of fuel in it. 1 kg from that turns insto energy. It's important to know, IAEA is keeping track jelaously not a gram is missing from the world supply. Or so they think...

 

First estimate is that plutonium releases again the neutron used to make it. So we can concentrate on the 3,5% part of the 100 ton load undergoing uranium fission. 23 neutrons spallate somewhere during the procedure, 10 % mass is lost! That makes 350 kg from the total fuel load. Of course this is a theoretical maximum but we are still talking about a hundred kilo error in the book keeping! Global total loss with 440 reactors: 50 t every year. As 10 kg of reactor plutonium is enought for a bomb we realize why these miscalculations are not told to the public.

 

How is nuclear industry able to cover this up? Obscuring, constraining... Actually it was commonly known for example among TVO:s workers that uranium "mystically" disappeared every year on a hundred kilos scale. But because only one or two specialists were hired to officially do the counting this information was not shouted on the hills. Correspondents were muted by the typical silencing atmosphere. And as figures are already falsified, it is an irresistible chance for some international black market with nuke material more valuable than gold. IAEA has been taking advantage of this briskly. When I told about this kind of slice in state economy, the next day I experienced online censorship like never seen before! That hit a spot of almost unreal delicasy, huh?

 

Neutron enbrittlement is yet one indicator of the uncontrollable neutron flux. How machinery malfunctions hastely is typical to nuclear power plants. Everything from mechanical parts to vital security systems are breaking up in no time. For example a tight fit swells stuck after absorbing some extra mass. Even the reactor vessel gets brittle like glass during it's 25 year lifetime in neutron bombardment.

 

It only takes 2-5 years for shields and walls to suck up all neutrons they can and after this saturation almost all of them are escaping further and further into our biosphere. As they penetrate even a meter of steel easily, a 10 - 20 cm layer covering the reactor has little effect to begin with. Measuring neutrons with wide energy spectrum is difficult some being "too slow" to detect but intense calculations are made to predict their behaviour inside the reactor. Well, outside on the other hand or for personnell dosage tracking this is not even allowed! And on top of that, deuterium values or similiar neutron carriers are missing from the radiation protection reports, how convenient.

 

Closing paragraph is that neutrons thus released either decay with beta radiation or turn substances into radioactive isotopes. It is purposely done not too many people knowing, but those who do baldly let the background radiation increase. When the effects start to show, it takes thousands of years to go back, situation is constant and cumulative in human pespective. This issue has to become publick and how fast we must stop produsing artificial radioactivity must be researched for our own survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spallation reactions

 

One uranium fission is said to produce 2,5 neutrons. But third of the energy from a nuclear reactor comes from plutonium fission, each atom releasing 3,5 neutrons. Also an uranium nucleus can spray a whole bunch of neutrons if it's shattared by 20 MeV energy income. Daughter nucleii are releasing their share also, called delayed neutrons and that causes the famous unlinear power output of a reactor. Total average comes up to 5 neutrons per fission reaction as mentioned in earlier literature. That's double to what is being claimed today.

 

Then let's have a look at the nuclear chart. If U-235 with 92 protons and 1,6 times more neutrons is mathematicly split in half we have two palladium nucleii having 46 protons but only 1,3 times more neutrons. From 146 neutron amount the fission products can hold only 120 so over twenty is getting lost. What the heck is going on?

 

One thing that's going on is that you're getting the physics wrong, again. The fission yield curve has two lobes — you don't tend to get two Pd-166 nuclei from it. You get a nucleus with about 95 nucleons and another with about 140.

 

Yes, you can get more neutrons if you hit the nucleus with a high-energy neutron, but these are thermal reactors, so there are materials around to slow neutrons down. And you don't typically get 20 MeV neutrons — on average, they have an order of magnitude less energy than that.

 

The neutron yield includes delayed neutrons, not that this changes the total much. They account for less than one percent of the neutrons. Where do you come up with 5?

 

 

I've been already used to that most of the information related to nuclear power is false. The field of nuclear physics has been purposely distorted not to show the inevitable harm deriving from the use of fission reactors. I'm talking about the neutron flux to the environment resulting in growth in background radiation; from natural level it has multiplied globally and growth is exponential.

 

But let's not get too much ahead. Neutron spallation takes 10 - 15 MeV of energy and in theory the whole 200 MeV from splitting uranium could be spent stripping out those twenty neutrons. Coinsidence? Modern literature avoids the issue by sayin that over 80% of that energy would be used to move particles. Neutrons? Not solely, no, but it starts to be obvious how nuclear reactor acts as a significant neutron source. The figures are surprising even to me!

 

No, can't happen. Much of the energy has to go into the fission products; they are charged particles repelling each other. A ~40e and ~50e nucleus sitting 10^-14m apart have a few hundred MeV of electrostatic potential energy. That gives you the scale of the problem. There just isn't a lot of energy left to go into spitting out neutrons.

 

A good rule of thumb is that a fission reactor produces radiation as much as electricity. 1000 MW from a 1000 MW unit. So besides neutrinos and gamma, neutrons spray out with hundreds of megawatts. Another approach is to look at the weight: 1 GW plant has 100 tons of fuel in it. 1 kg from that turns insto energy. It's important to know, IAEA is keeping track jelaously not a gram is missing from the world supply. Or so they think...

 

You're wrong here, too, but for a different reason. 100% of the energy released in fission is radiation. But almost all of it is captured in the reactor. Simple thermodynamics tells us that we can't get a MW of released radiation for every MW of electricity; the process used has an efficiency of around a third. For every MW of electricity there MUST be ~2 MW of waste heat produced, and ALL of that had to come from the radiation of the reaction. So your accounting is short. No only is there nothing left to be emitted, you owe me 1000 MW. (Even if the efficiency was 50% you'd have nothing left over)

 

 

First estimate is that plutonium releases again the neutron used to make it. So we can concentrate on the 3,5% part of the 100 ton load undergoing uranium fission. 23 neutrons spallate somewhere during the procedure, 10 % mass is lost! That makes 350 kg from the total fuel load. Of course this is a theoretical maximum but we are still talking about a hundred kilo error in the book keeping! Global total loss with 440 reactors: 50 t every year. As 10 kg of reactor plutonium is enought for a bomb we realize why these miscalculations are not told to the public.

 

You're just making up numbers here. Pure fiction. As the above nonsense is the basis for your conclusions, it is not worth addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that's going on is that you're getting the physics wrong, again.

I appreciate the details

The fission yield curve has two lobes — you don't tend to get two Pd-166 nuclei from it. You get a nucleus with about 95 nucleons and another with about 140.

Both unstable and over twenty neutrons disappear in every product scenario. Fission produces also three doughter nuclides every now and then, with even lower neutron/proton ratio.

 

Yes, you can get more neutrons if you hit the nucleus with a high-energy neutron, but these are thermal reactors, so there are materials around to slow neutrons down. And you don't typically get 20 MeV neutrons — on average, they have an order of magnitude less energy than that.

These minorities are good to point out.

 

The neutron yield includes delayed neutrons, not that this changes the total much. They account for less than one percent of the neutrons. Where do you come up with 5?

I didn't know delayed neutrons are counted in. Any source for this? Fritz Kahn had this number 5 in his book. (Couldn't find english title, something like Der Natur). There I think the delayed ones could be part of, on top of spallation. This launched the idea to reconcider what's going on in nuclear reactor.

 

No, can't happen. Much of the energy has to go into the fission products; they are charged particles repelling each other. A ~40e and ~50e nucleus sitting 10^-14m apart have a few hundred MeV of electrostatic potential energy. That gives you the scale of the problem. There just isn't a lot of energy left to go into spitting out neutrons.

Good try but different energies exist all the time and only that matters is how much of converts from a form to another. Also scale is too small (the nucleus itself is 10^-14m), should be Å.

 

You're wrong here, too, but for a different reason. 100% of the energy released in fission is radiation. But almost all of it is captured in the reactor. Simple thermodynamics tells us that we can't get a MW of released radiation for every MW of electricity; the process used has an efficiency of around a third. For every MW of electricity there MUST be ~2 MW of waste heat produced, and ALL of that had to come from the radiation of the reaction. So your accounting is short. No only is there nothing left to be emitted, you owe me 1000 MW. (Even if the efficiency was 50% you'd have nothing left over)

How much escapes in the form of radiation to be exact. Neutrinos are sure to get out and they receive 5% of the energy. Then comes gamma and neutrons which are not much held by the reactor. I have to check the amount. It totals at least to 5% of the reactor power. And good point with the efficiency thing: 30% electricity, 60% heat, 10% radiation. And this would give the rule of thumb that a reactor releases radiation 1/3 from the amount of electricity. Sounds better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think a reactor makes electricity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously nuclear power plants aren't for making power they are for releasing radiation, get with the program ydoaPs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.