It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can they keep a lid on this ? ( Radioactives Selling )

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam


The emission is the same inside your body or out…the becquerels won't vary.

The difference between internal vs external sources is the key.

One you can walk away from, like an X-ray or airline flight. The source is external, once the flight or X-ray machine is turned off, the emissions stop. The other you carry within you, you can't walk away form an internal source and you can't turn the mini X-ray machine off.


Whether you can walk away or no, the activity of a particular isotope is going to be the same.

You're trying to conflate physics with emotion and fear, and you can't really do that. Get the terms right, THEN try to fear-monger with them.

Becquerels are becquerels. You don't have more or less because you ingested it. Stop trying to act like it makes a difference to the activity of the substance - it doesn't.

If you want to say that you have more damage from alphas if you ingested or inhaled it, great. But it doesn't change the activity a bit.

Oh, and after I'm dead, I really don't care much if it's still radioactive. Just gives my successors issues with the body.

edit on 20-4-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

You keep saying the stuff wasn't harmful.


I'm saying the harm is chemical. Heavy metals are toxic. The radiation from uranium may give you the horrors, but it's not very radioactive. The primary damage is due to chemical toxicity, and that's it.

Back to the OP and the topic, which you keep drifting off of to your favorite inaccurate topic, is that uranium is not a good dirty bomb material, because a dirty bomb is a hazard due to radioactivity. Since uranium is not very radioactive, it is not suitable for use in a dirty bomb. And unenriched uranium's not even useful as a fissile.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
BTW, since it seems to be confusing you, 'raw', 'natural' and 'unenriched' are the same term, when it comes to uranium. The other states you can have are 'ore' or 'enriched'. Enriched would have a higher percentage U235 than natural uranium. 'Ore' has a lot of other non-uranium elements in, usually way more than uranium by weight.

At any point past ore, you can have refined, which is metallic, and unrefined, which would be some non-metallic form like yellowcake.

So it's possible to have refined natural uranium, which would be shiny, cold and hard. But still not very radioactive.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Bedlam, just to go back to my point yesterday that the reflector can substantially reduce the pit size needed, I can't find my more in depth source which is pissing me off as it was awesome, but I did find this link that states




A limited exception to this is that a thin beryllium reflector (thickness no more than the core radius) can actually reduce the total mass of the system, although it increases its overall diameter. For beryllium thicknesses of a few centimeters, the radius of a plutonium core is reduced by 40-60% of the reflector thickness.


nuclearweaponarchive.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: Bedlam

Bedlam, just to go back to my point yesterday that the reflector can substantially reduce the pit size needed, I can't find my more in depth source which is pissing me off as it was awesome...



I just found one notebook with a lot of differential equations in about calculating mean free path of neutrons but it's not the one with reflectors in. Some stuff on tampers. If I run across it I'll post it.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: Bedlam

Bedlam, just to go back to my point yesterday that the reflector can substantially reduce the pit size needed, I can't find my more in depth source which is pissing me off as it was awesome...



I just found one notebook with a lot of differential equations in about calculating mean free path of neutrons but it's not the one with reflectors in. Some stuff on tampers. If I run across it I'll post it.


Won't you have to scan that? Don't go to all that trouble mate. Honestly. Last time I did a differential equation was 25 years ago when I studied physics at uni. Much to my chagrin, i couldn't even tell you what one is these days. Heck, i can't even solve a quadratic equation anymore. A lifetime of animating has made me much stupider than I used to be.

Thanks for the offer though. That source I quoted is actually quite good...i was reading it all night.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Last time I did a differential equation was 25 years ago when I studied physics at uni.


My problem too. When I was at LANL I could have probably gotten close from memory. Now I'm down to pawing through the ghosts of memories past. Don't use it, you lose it. Like ambitwistors.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join