Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radioactive Decay Not Always Constant?
Physics Web ^ | 31 July 2006 | Edwin Cartlidge

Posted on 08/08/2006 9:40:52 AM PDT by Sopater

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: greasepaint

my cold fusion reactor is not working properly.
please help
_______

I'd like to help, but my kids used my alpha emitters as toys and now they're broken.


21 posted on 08/08/2006 10:25:54 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zathras
Sounds like someone wants Funding $$$.

Nothing wrong with that if they can speed up decay significantly. Those funds would be paid back a hundred times over. Wouldn't it be crazy not to do the experiments to find out if this really works and instead spend billions to bury the stuff? Then, 50 years from now, we find out it could have been done more easily.

22 posted on 08/08/2006 10:26:10 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

Good catch!


23 posted on 08/08/2006 10:31:21 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

After 1000 years of storage, the main concerns from spent fuel is Am-241 (a gamma ray emitter), Pu-240 and Pu-242 (both neutron emitters). Speeding up alpha emission would not help long term storage concerns, but would certainly help with the mid-term (5-1000 year) storage activity.


24 posted on 08/08/2006 10:32:00 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater; Physicist

Not an expert, but my recollection is alpha emmitters are 1 the most damaging radiation in that they are the most energetic and 2 the easiest to stop (shield) because alphas are big charged particles.

The worst emmitters are gamma and neutron emitters. They are really hard to stop (shield).

Back to the article, regarding plasmas, if this is true, you should be able to cook the radioactive waste too by emersion in a true plasma and sending em shockwaves of the correct frequency to agitate the nuclei into emitting early.

any comments physicist ?


25 posted on 08/08/2006 10:52:35 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
other than ingestion danger, alpha emitters aren't much of a worry as waste. What about neutrons, gammas, and betas?

that is what I thought too except I thought betas (electrons) were not much of a problem either.

26 posted on 08/08/2006 10:56:21 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

True, but they do have some penetrating abilities, particularly to the lens of the eye. Nowhere near gammas or neutrons.


27 posted on 08/08/2006 12:18:54 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Crazier than a rattlesnake at a Thai wedding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

Well, every generation science is surprised by something it didn't know yet. Nothing is sacrosanct. Scoffers very likely said:

Man couldn't fly
Can't split the atom
Impossible to stand on the moon
Underwater limit for man is how long he can hold his breath
Can't genetically engineer something God didn't make first

Etc. Scientists make far wilder claims than "changing radioactive decay rates" and no one makes them out to be idiots. For example, using wormholes (did I say that right?) or black holes to travel through time and space instantaneously. Sounds far wilder to me.

Listen with your ears open and watch with your eyes open.

[From a man without a PhD but with two engineering degrees and a sound mind.]


28 posted on 08/08/2006 5:54:53 PM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tom h

Oh, I don't think they're idiots. I just think this claim will be easy to prove or disprove. I also think that if it was possible to radically change the decay rate by cooling we would have seen some hint of that before now.


29 posted on 08/08/2006 7:32:53 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

This is particularly true of radioactive teeth.


30 posted on 08/11/2006 9:04:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Thursday, August 10, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Their proposed technique – which involves slashing the half-life of an alpha emitter by embedding it in a metal and cooling the metal to a few degrees kelvin – could therefore avoid the need to bury nuclear waste in deep repositories
Hmm. Could be a good fit with pebble bed nuclear reactors.
31 posted on 08/11/2006 11:02:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Thursday, August 10, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson