Which Is Safer: Dumping a Barrel of Plutonium into the Ocean or Dumping A Single Molecule of it?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I was not aware of it until I recently learned while viewing a Youtube video that there had been significant international dumping of barrels of radioactive waste into the oceans of the world.

Here's the thing: barrels of such waste are very heavy, and they will readily sink to the bottom of the sea where, if they burst open, heavy isotopes will remain at the bottom of the sea.

Recently, TPTB would have you believe that the "heavy" isotopes dissolved loosely in the radioactive water being discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants into the Pacific Ocean will merely sink to the bottom of the sea where they will be rendered harmless to humans.

Well, a molecule of plutonium is very, very light relative to a barrel of nuclear waste, and I can easily see it's being kept pretty much afloat for a good long time near the surface of the ocean due to the constant churning of the water at the surface. This ocean churning is what keeps plankton within a few feet of the surface of the ocean.

While that plutonium molecule is kept near the ocean's surface, it can easily be ingested by marine life thereby entering the food chain. I heard that, if just one molecule of plutonium gets into your system, then you are guaranteed of developing cancer.

So you tell me: which is safer: dumping a barrel of plutonium into the ocean or dumping a single molecule of it?

P.M.




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
There is the process of diffusion to also consider when dumping a barrel into the ocean. Once the barrel does break open the plutonium will not just sit outside the crack, but gradually spread further and further away as more leaks out of the broken barrel. Similar to putting in a drop of food dye into a glass of water, eventually the dye will spread evenly throughout the glass due to this force of diffusion. In time the plutonium will spread evenly throughout all the oceans. The high mass of plutonium might lead to a slightly higher concentration in the deeper parts of the ocean, but nowhere is safe.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
There is the process of diffusion to also consider when dumping a barrel into the ocean. Once the barrel does break open the plutonium will not just sit outside the crack, but gradually spread further and further away as more leaks out of the broken barrel. Similar to putting in a drop of food dye into a glass of water, eventually the dye will spread evenly throughout the glass due to this force of diffusion. In time the plutonium will spread evenly throughout all the oceans. The high mass of plutonium might lead to a slightly higher concentration in the deeper parts of the ocean, but nowhere is safe.


I am not an oceanographer, so I may be off base with this response, but you have not really addressed the question as it was posed.

I don't think that a glass of water can be compared with water at the floor of the ocean. There is great water pressure down there due to the weight of the water above. The water pressure in a glass of water is negligible thereby facilitating diffusion.

The weight of dye does not compare to the weight of a heavy metal, so the concept of diffusion, while relevant to dye in a glass of water may not "hold water" when applied to the case of heavy plutonium that's at the floor of the ocean and that's being subjected to untold tons of water pressure.

Additionally, the water in a glass will be at room temperature with its molecules moving fairly fast and colliding with each other much more frequently than the very cold water molecules at the floor of the ocean. Ocean currents at the floor of the ocean are probably zip compared to the tidal and churning currents at the surface. Bottom line is this: I don't believe that there will be much facilitation of diffusion of plutonium at the floor of the ocean.

So, back to the original question: which is safer: dumping a barrel of plutonium into the ocean or dumping a single molecule of it?

P.M.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

When you say molecule, I think you need to explain what molecule that is. Since plutonium is an atom ... one can expect it, to bind itself in a molecule structure.

Of course, I think the idea of dumping heavy metals into the ocean ... is to speed up the process of this materal returning to the earths inner. Since we suspect, that heavy metals ... seep into the earth.

So, molecule ... explain the binding you are suggesting, and the water molecules you suggest it is interacting with. Thereby provide some means of suggest, how pollution of this radiation will occur into surrounding areas.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Here is a link to one analysts of seawater composition www.stanford.edu...

It shows that heavy metal like lead, mercury and gold exist quite commonly in the parts per billion range. The premise that all introduced plutonium will just sink to the bottom of the ocean does appear weak as other heavy metals have not respond this way.

Safe for who also raises some questions. Just because you do not live 5km deep in the ocean does not mean this area is devoid of life. But as a new toxin is introduced it may kill a lot of life with unknown repercussions into other ecosystems. With such a long half life of radioactive plutonium these implications need to be considered over millions of years as well. The quality of the barrels also has some issues, considering the situation it is expected the barrels will fail before the plutonium is safe.

I very much expect that there is already some very small traces of plutonium within seawater. I would say it is safer dumping a single molecule or atom of it rather than a barrel of it.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
Here is a link to one analysts of seawater composition www.stanford.edu...

It shows that heavy metal like lead, mercury and gold exist quite commonly in the parts per billion range. The premise that all introduced plutonium will just sink to the bottom of the ocean does appear weak as other heavy metals have not respond this way.



Thank you for responding to my original post.

What I was hoping to come out my post was a debunking of the premise that Fukushima's plutonium would simply sink to the bottom of the ocean, and you have provided that debunking.

I am not a nuclear physicist, but I have been giving the matter more thought, and I have been wondering if a mass of plutonium (or some other isotope) in a barrel would — especially considering the immense water pressure of the ocean — result in an underwater fission reaction causing a superheated explosion which in turn would melt a lot of under-the-see, frozen methane thereby exasperating the explosive scenario.

P.M.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough


I do not know what kind of chance there is for an uncontrolled nuclear reaction but it is an interesting and perhaps important question. In terms of some kind of weapon grade explosion I consider unlikely due to the very high radioactive concentrations required. If it is old nuke warheads getting dumped there is a lot I do not know about safe decommission and storage.

In terms of a long and slow burn it does appear to be the presence of neutrons rather than any water pressure and possible heat of volcanic vents that are the main concern. Should a large stockpile of nuclear waste start to undergo a chain reaction then it is a concern. As for what the actual risk are I do not know, good question though.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
So you tell me: which is safer: dumping a barrel of plutonium into the ocean or dumping a single molecule of it?
Is that a trick question?

Diffusion may cause the barrel's contents may get dissolved in the ocean eventually.

So while the barrel is intact, the barrel is safer. But once the barrel is breached through the inevitable corrosion, it's much worse.
edit on 14-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

So while the barrel is intact, the barrel is safer. But once the barrel is breached through the inevitable corrosion, it's much worse.


Think about what you are saying.

While there is no salt water or pressure to corrode barrels at WIPP, it is my understanding that they are still being subjected to the Wigner Effect, meaning the deteriorating effect of radiation on solid objects.

Are the barrels of nuclear waste at WIPP made of steel?

Let's assume that they are.

Now consider this: the new and expensive sarcophagus being constructed at Chernobyl to enclose a very damaged, very dangerous nuclear reactor is one of steel, presumably because steel is effective at blocking radiation. However, this is only a TEMPORARY measure projected to last only 100 years. Moreover, the steel of the new sarcophagus in all probability will not come into contact with the substances that are emitting radiation.

In contrast, the barrels at WIPP are coming into contact with their nuclear waste content, meaning that the inner surfaces of the barrels are being bombarded by a very strong dose of radiation and a very strong dose of the Wigner Effect.

Even if those barrels are made of steel, how long are they expected to last? Probably not even 100 years like the new Chernobyl sarcophagus.

Factor in the problem with about 500 WIPP barrels containing a form of kitty litter that results in a chemical reaction with the waste contents causing the production of explosive methane, and I would say you have are really big situation on your hands, one which, I am sure, is being downplayed by the government and the media.

Anything that requires extra care in handling involves the much higher probability of a screw-up.

With all of the screw-ups and disasters associated with things of a nuclear nature, in time, only people with less than a quarter-ounce of brains will be willing to be employed to deal with such things, and where will this state of affairs leave us all?

P.M.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
I was not aware of it until I recently learned while viewing a Youtube video that there had been significant international dumping of barrels of radioactive waste into the oceans of the world.

Here's the thing: barrels of such waste are very heavy, and they will readily sink to the bottom of the sea where, if they burst open, heavy isotopes will remain at the bottom of the sea.

Recently, TPTB would have you believe that the "heavy" isotopes dissolved loosely in the radioactive water being discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants into the Pacific Ocean will merely sink to the bottom of the sea where they will be rendered harmless to humans.

Well, a molecule of plutonium is very, very light relative to a barrel of nuclear waste, and I can easily see it's being kept pretty much afloat for a good long time near the surface of the ocean due to the constant churning of the water at the surface. This ocean churning is what keeps plankton within a few feet of the surface of the ocean.

While that plutonium molecule is kept near the ocean's surface, it can easily be ingested by marine life thereby entering the food chain. I heard that, if just one molecule of plutonium gets into your system, then you are guaranteed of developing cancer.

So you tell me: which is safer: dumping a barrel of plutonium into the ocean or dumping a single molecule of it?

P.M.


I think you are getting weight and density confused. While there may be some effects due to atomic bonding etc., given a body of still water, and a neutral bouyancy barrel material, the barrel and molecule will sink at exactly the same rate. Think of it as a barrel of sand vs a grain of sand. The churning effects are limited and the sand will hit the bottom relatively quickly regardless of form. The grain may be lighter, but is the same density. The only "floating" effects would be if it bound to other atoms becoming a different material with different density. If I am misreading your comment, then i apologize.

Secondly, if there are any atomic bonding effects producing secondary chemical molecules, they will also have the same density whether they were created at the bottom of the sea or the surface and would find themselves at the same levels over time regardless.

Thirdly, nuclear waste in the ocean is bad.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

I think you are getting weight and density confused. While there may be some effects due to atomic bonding etc., given a body of still water, and a neutral bouyancy barrel material, the barrel and molecule will sink at exactly the same rate. Think of it as a barrel of sand vs a grain of sand. The churning effects are limited and the sand will hit the bottom relatively quickly regardless of form. The grain may be lighter, but is the same density. The only "floating" effects would be if it bound to other atoms becoming a different material with different density. If I am misreading your comment, then i apologize.

Secondly, if there are any atomic bonding effects producing secondary chemical molecules, they will also have the same density whether they were created at the bottom of the sea or the surface and would find themselves at the same levels over time regardless.

Thirdly, nuclear waste in the ocean is bad.


Why do you add the assumption of "still water" to your analysis?

The Pacific Ocean, particularly near the surface, is anything but a still body of water.

So, dear sir, I think that it is you who are confused.

You seem to be confusing the question posed in the original post with one-half of the age-old high school physics problem as presented in the following question: if a bowling ball and a feather are dropped at the same time, then which will hit the ground first?

Well, if you drop the bowling ball and the feather in a vacuum, then they will both hit the ground at the same time; but, if you drop them from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, then, of course, the bowling ball will hit the ground first.

The ocean is not like a vacuum. Even minute currents at or near the surface can keep a very light molecule of a heavy metal nearly afloat, whereas, in contrast, a heavy barrel of stuff will hardly be affected at all by very strong currents.

Also, at or near the surface of the ocean, the molecule also will find many larger particles of various things off of which it will bounce or upon which it will hitch a ride, whereas, in the case of the barrel, these same particles will bounce off the barrel or hitch a ride on it .

The barrel will sink in short order. The molecule will not. The molecule will stay at or near the surface of the ocean long enough to be ingested by marine life thus entering the food chain of humans... and very dangerously so.

The intent of the original post was to spur-on critical thinking to debunk the outrageous lie that radioactive isotopes are heavy and will sink harmlessly to the bottom of the sea... a lie just as outrageously false as saying that smiling will make you impervious to Fukushima's radiation.

P.M.
edit on 16-6-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Corrected typos.
edit on 16-6-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Clarification.
edit on 16-6-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Corrected punctuation.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I'm just curious why you think Plutonium is "light", when it has the atomic mass of 244u, which is heavier than lead - with an atomic mass of 207.

Are you concerned the cask cannot contain the weight or something else? Why would heavy plutonium molecules rise from extremely low depths?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Philippines
Are you concerned the cask cannot contain the weight or something else? Why would heavy plutonium molecules rise from extremely low depths?
You have to realize that water interacts with some substances and dissolves them. Sodium Chloride is heavier than water, so when you pour table salt into a glass of water, it sinks to the bottom.

But two days later, do you see any table salt at the bottom of the glass? Not if the water is at room temperature; it has all dissolved into the water. You can speed up the process if you stir it, but it will happen even if you don't stir it.

Seawater contains not only dissolved salt, but also dissolved plutonium:

www.sciencedirect.com...

Stability constants for plutonium complexation with inorganic ligands in seawater suggest that Pu(VI) dissolved in seawater will be dominantly PuO2CO3OH−
Note that most of the other atoms in that molecule are hydrogen and oxygen, easy to come by since they are the components of water and the radiation can break up water molecules, making it easier to form other compounds. The only other atom needed for that molecule is Carbon and this is also readily available in oceans full of carbon based plankton. There are other soluble forms of plutonium and other heavy metals like uranium also dissolved in seawater.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Philippines
Are you concerned the cask cannot contain the weight or something else? Why would heavy plutonium molecules rise from extremely low depths?
You have to realize that water interacts with some substances and dissolves them. Sodium Chloride is heavier than water, so when you pour table salt into a glass of water, it sinks to the bottom.

But two days later, do you see any table salt at the bottom of the glass? Not if the water is at room temperature; it has all dissolved into the water. You can speed up the process if you stir it, but it will happen even if you don't stir it.

Seawater contains not only dissolved salt, but also dissolved plutonium:

www.sciencedirect.com...

Stability constants for plutonium complexation with inorganic ligands in seawater suggest that Pu(VI) dissolved in seawater will be dominantly PuO2CO3OH−
Note that most of the other atoms in that molecule are hydrogen and oxygen, easy to come by since they are the components of water and the radiation can break up water molecules, making it easier to form other compounds. The only other atom needed for that molecule is Carbon and this is also readily available in oceans full of carbon based plankton. There are other soluble forms of plutonium and other heavy metals like uranium also dissolved in seawater.



You're absolutely right, thanks for your response =)

I was thinking about his term of "barrel", and was thinking about the methods of wet or dry cask storage, not just dropping a "barrel" of nuclear waste into the ocean.

Ok, so my chemistry is not that great, so please bear with me. Sure, NaCl (plus minus whatever else traces may be there) will dissolve in water at warm temperatures well. Would PuO2CO3OH− also saturate the waters as much at the same temperature, or could it be too heavy with the Pu atom in it?

Also, good point on the radiation absorption by many other variables out there. I'm very glad it doesn't have a carbon atom, but with the Oxygen in there, I wonder if it could be breathed in or otherwise processed no matter where it goes



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Philippines
I was thinking about his term of "barrel", and was thinking about the methods of wet or dry cask storage, not just dropping a "barrel" of nuclear waste into the ocean.
There is an interesting wiki about nuclear waste dumping in the oceans before 1993 when it was banned. If the container didn't implode at depth it could still be prone to leaking over time:

Ocean disposal of radioactive waste

Disposal projects attempted to locate ideal dumping sites based on depth, stability and currents, and to treat, solidify and contain the waste. However, some dumping only involved diluting the waste with surface water, or used containers that imploded at depth. Even containers that survived the pressure could physically decay over time.
The article goes on to say that they've checked for leaks and found them but the elevated radiation is highest closest to the source of the leak.


Ok, so my chemistry is not that great, so please bear with me. Sure, NaCl (plus minus whatever else traces may be there) will dissolve in water at warm temperatures well. Would PuO2CO3OH− also saturate the waters as much at the same temperature, or could it be too heavy with the Pu atom in it?
This leads to some fun science experiments you can do with your kids. At low concentration levels, the dissolved materials tend to not precipitate out of solution, like a teaspoon of salt in a glass of water will tend to stay dissolved, though you can get salt rings at the top of the glass as the water evaporates. The experiment I liked as a kid was making rock candy, supersaturating water with sugar, then watching the sugar precipitate on the string in large crystals.

As the source I cited on plutonium mentioned, it's not extremely well researched so I don't know if the saturation levels for plutonium compounds are known, but it's fun to play with sugar and salt at home to see where the saturation levels are. Don't do the plutonium experiments at home though. Maybe the dangers of doing the research are one reason it's not well researched?


Also, good point on the radiation absorption by many other variables out there. I'm very glad it doesn't have a carbon atom, but with the Oxygen in there, I wonder if it could be breathed in or otherwise processed no matter where it goes
Sorry you lost me on that Carbon comment because the plutonium molecule I mentioned as being dissolved PU in the ocean does have a carbon atom.

Regarding what radioactive contaminants are absorbed through fish gills or consumed in their food, we knew a few things, but as this article says it's not a well-developed science:

Radioactivity in the Ocean: Diluted, But Far from Harmless

If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can be transferred to fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, as has been seen in the Irish Sea. Fish can also take in radionuclides in the water through their gills, and radionuclides can be ingested by mollusks. But Edward Lazo, deputy division head for radiation protection at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said, “This is not a fully developed science and there are lots of uncertainties.”



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Also, good point on the radiation absorption by many other variables out there. I'm very glad it doesn't have a carbon atom, but with the Oxygen in there, I wonder if it could be breathed in or otherwise processed no matter where it goes
Sorry you lost me on that Carbon comment because the plutonium molecule I mentioned as being dissolved PU in the ocean does have a carbon atom.

Regarding what radioactive contaminants are absorbed through fish gills or consumed in their food, we knew a few things, but as this article says it's not a well-developed science:

Radioactivity in the Ocean: Diluted, But Far from Harmless

If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can be transferred to fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, as has been seen in the Irish Sea. Fish can also take in radionuclides in the water through their gills, and radionuclides can be ingested by mollusks. But Edward Lazo, deputy division head for radiation protection at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said, “This is not a fully developed science and there are lots of uncertainties.”




Doh, the Carbon atom is right there, not sure why I didn't see it - you're right on that.

In relation to the OP of the thread though:



Well, a molecule of plutonium is very, very light relative to a barrel of nuclear waste, and I can easily see it's being kept pretty much afloat for a good long time near the surface of the ocean due to the constant churning of the water at the surface. This ocean churning is what keeps plankton within a few feet of the surface of the ocean.


This part doesn't make sense to me why a heavy molecule from the bottom of the ocean would rise to the surface, unless some organism carries it there. However, deep sea creatures who may ingest/breathe etc. the radiation tend to stay in the depths of the sea imo.

Here is a link I found on oxidation states of Plutonium in aqueous solutions, maybe it helps:


THERE ARE FIVE OXIDATION STATES OF PLUTONIUM (PU) IN AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS: PU(III), PU(IV), PU(V), PU(VI), AND PU(VII). HOWEVER, UNDER THE OXIDIZING AND NEAR-NEUTRAL CONDITIONS EXPECTED IN THE SURFACE WATER, THE PU(IV) OXIDATION STATE IS THE MOST STABLE (CLEVELAND, 1979). PU(IV) IS PRACTICALLY INSOLUBLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS BECAUSE IT READILY HYDROLYZES TO FORM PU(OH)4(S) AND, UPON LOSS OF WATER, TO PRODUCE THE THERMODYNAMICALLY STABLE PUO2(S). THIS SOLID PHASE IS A COLLOIDAL POLYMER OF NEUTRAL OR POSITIVE CHARGE. INCREASING PH TENDS TO REDUCE THE CHARGE DENSITY OF THE POLYMER, AND AT PHS ABOVE 9 IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE COLLOID BECOMES NEGATIVELY CHARGED. THIS REDUCTION IN CHARGE DENSITY AND EVENTUAL CONVERSION TO AN ANIONIC FORM AT PHS ABOVE 9 DECREASES ITS ADSORPTION AFFINITY FOR SOILS AND THUS INCREASES ITS MOBILITY IN THE SOIL/WATER ENVIRONMENT. IN SOLUTION, PU(V) AND PU(VI) COEXIST AS IONS WITH THE PU(IV) POLYMER. AT A PH OF 8, THE DOMINANT IONIC FORM OF PLUTONIUM MAY BE PUO2CO3OH- OCCURRING AT A CONCENTRATION OF APPROXIMATELY (10-12)M (1.5 X (10-5) PCI/L). HOWEVER, THE SOLUBILITY OF PLUTONIUM CAN BE INCREASED THROUGH COMPLEXATION WITH HUMIC ACIDS.


Source: [EPA]



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Philippines
Here is a link I found on oxidation states of Plutonium in aqueous solutions, maybe it helps:

THE DOMINANT IONIC FORM OF PLUTONIUM MAY BE PUO2CO3OH-

Source: [EPA]
It looks familiar, it's the same molecule I posted from a different source:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
www.sciencedirect.com...

Pu(VI) dissolved in seawater will be dominantly PuO2CO3OH−

So if you put a teaspoon of salt in a glass of water, it sinks to the bottom because the salt is heavier than the water, right?
How does the heavier salt then rise to the top, after a couple of days when you don't see any salt left at the bottom, it's all dissolved. But if you take a teaspoon of water from the top of the glass, it's salty. So how does the heavy salt rise to the top? (Hint, I already gave the answer in a previous post if you don't know).



edit on 19-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Philippines
Here is a link I found on oxidation states of Plutonium in aqueous solutions, maybe it helps:

THE DOMINANT IONIC FORM OF PLUTONIUM MAY BE PUO2CO3OH-

Source: [EPA]
It looks familiar, it's the same molecule I posted from a different source:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
www.sciencedirect.com...

Pu(VI) dissolved in seawater will be dominantly PuO2CO3OH−

So if you put a teaspoon of salt in a glass of water, it sinks to the bottom because the salt is heavier than the water, right?
How does the heavier salt then rise to the top, after a couple of days when you don't see any salt left at the bottom, it's all dissolved. But if you take a teaspoon of water from the top of the glass, it's salty. So how does the heavy salt rise to the top? (Hint, I already gave the answer in a previous post if you don't know).



Sure on the compound you linked, I just linked the EPA part to maybe get more of an idea of it, if it helps at all.

This is the part that still boggles my mind: the weight of the molecule

Using this: www.lenntech.com...

With NaCl, the molecular weight is: 58.44

With PuO2CO3OH, the molecular weight is: 353.02

It's hardly a fair comparison in molecular weight between salt and plutonium. This is where I'm getting logic blocks in my mind to think that such a heavy molecule will rise to the surface, especially that usually in deep sea environments there are not too many currents stirring the bottom.

I don't doubt the solubility of Pu, thanks for that, but it's still pretty heavy to rise up or get stirred around without some outside interference. And when the OP says "Well, a molecule of plutonium is very, very light relative to a barrel of nuclear waste," - why is Plutonium considered "light" compared to the rest of the waste?

Thanks for your responses though!



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Philippines

And when the OP says "Well, a molecule of plutonium is very, very light relative to a barrel of nuclear waste," - why is Plutonium considered "light" compared to the rest of the waste?

Thanks for your responses though!


Philippines, if you were ordered to carry a molecule of anything in the palm of your hand for a mile, I guess that you'd say, "Gee, this is not so heavy."

So, now I admit that instead of characterizing a molecule of plutonium as "light," I should have characterized it as being "not so heavy."

Now, compare carrying a molecule for a mile to carrying a barrel of plutonium for a mile.

P.M.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Philippines
With NaCl, the molecular weight is: 58.44

With PuO2CO3OH, the molecular weight is: 353.02

It's hardly a fair comparison in molecular weight between salt and plutonium.
Why not? What's the molecular weight of H2O? It's 18.

So if a molecular weight of 58 can dissolve in a molecular weight of 18, why would you think it would be a problem for 59, or 60, or, do you see where this is going? What kind of artificial construct have you made in your mind to draw a line somewhere between 58.44 and 353.02 and what is the basis for this? Think about it.

If you're drawing a line somewhere between those, where is it, and why?

Now if the molecular weight of NaCl was 17, and water was 18, I could see why you'd have questions about 353, but this isn't the case.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification





 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join