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.

 

HHO Brown's Gas as an "Endlager" for Nuclear Waste

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Endlager is the German word for the "final solution" or "permanent disposal site" for nuclear waste.

Typically, our endlagers look like this:



Thousands of 55 gallon drums buried deep within the earth for future generations to deal with.

A few ATS thread have hinted towards the possibility of HHO being used to completely and permanently dispose of nuclear waste, burning off all radiation.

Is it possible? You tell me:

pacenet.homestead.com...

video.google.com...

radiation level reduced from 1000 to 40



Before learning of the tranmuting properties of HHO I was ardently against nuclear energy.

Can brown's gas make nuclear GO GREEN? I think this topic deserves its own ATS Science & Technology Thread.

lets discuss, your links and commentary are welcome!


google keywords: transmute, radiation, hho, brown's gas, nuclear waste



I am,

Sri Oracle

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Sri Oracle]

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Sri Oracle]




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
kind of related, but not iirs brown gas
There was a patent granted a few years ago that would 'clean up' radioactive waste but wasnt or isnt used comercially becos, i think the excuse was, no comercial application or something like that
if i can find it, ill post a link to it
so, if brown gas can clean up nuclear waste etc..., doesnt mean they will actually do it i dont think
im pretty sure there are reasons for not trying now, polotics, money, maybe if its well known that nuclear power would be so clean and friendly, why we burning oil?, see where i going with this?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Short answer that no one is going to believe or read;

This is not possible. Radiation does not work like that.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 


Hmm.. Sorry about that it looks like I posted the same article as you. They both have different names but are indeed almost wholly identical.

Here is a video instead...
Reduction of radioactivity of Americium 241 using browns gas.


This is an interesting topic, but there is absolutely nothing that I can find that can validate any of these claims. There are a bunch of references to the "Canadian Atomic Commission" and a boat load of other people claiming to have "witnessed" nuclear waste radioactive reduction "instantly", but there is no proof available this is happening, nor is there anyway to verify if any of these methods were "certified" by the Canadian Atomic Commission.

In fact -- I can't even find that the Canadian Atomic Commission even exists. I can see there is a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that was previously known as the Atomic Energy Control Board, but outside of these HHO nuclear waste radioactivity/half-life reduction claims there is no mention of this so-called Canadian Atomic Commission.

I think it is interesting to note, almost all of these claims find their way back to one George Wiseman who runs Eagle Research. He won't even touch this himself despite being referenced by almost everyone who makes these claims.



It has now been officially proven (in Canada) that Brown's Gas can neutralize radioactive waste in seconds, easily and extremely inexpensively. This neutralization treatment can take place right at the nuclear reactor so there is no need to transport or store nuclear waste.

This issue is so politically HOT that we deliberately do not promote it. Brown's Gas technology is not firmly enough in general use to prevent suppression by 'vested interest'. This single application is worth billions of dollars and can revolutionize the nuclear power generation industry.



Sure... He makes the claim it's "proven", and from what I gather all of the information regarding the "proof" is in his hands. He isn't even providing this himself, though.



Certified as such by Canadian Atomic Commission; on file with George Wiseman.


Neutralization of Radioactive waste Video


Provided with NDA for a fee with George Wiseman's "opportunity package." The video presents "Proof that Brown's Gas neutralizes radioactive waste." (Eagle Research)


Not without paying him and signing a NDA. Sounds like a huge steaming pile of...

[edit on 6/27/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


Bahahahaha.

Burning an alpha source in the open air.
I hope they enjoy their probable lung cancer.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


Do you have anything of substance to add to this topic?



Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air.


Eg. Can be stopped by air.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


Please don't insult your intelligence.


In general, external alpha radiation is not harmful since alpha particles are effectively shielded by a few centimeters of air, a piece of paper, or the thin layer of dead skin cells. Even touching an alpha source is usually not harmful, though many alpha sources also are accompanied by beta-emitting radiodaughters, and alpha emission is also accompanied by gamma photon emission. If substances emitting alpha particles are ingested, inhaled, injected or introduced through the skin, then it could result in a measurable dose.



Also;


However, another component of alpha radiation is the recoil of the parent nucleus, due to the conservation of momentum requiring the parent nucleus to recoil, much like the 'kick' of a rifle butt when a bullet goes in the opposite direction. This gives a significant amount of energy to the recoil nucleus, which also causes ionizaton damage. The total energy of the recoil nucleus is readily calculable, and is roughly the weight of the alpha (4 amu) divided by the weight of the parent (typically about 200 amu) times the total energy of the alpha. By some estimates, this might account for most of the internal radiation damage, as the recoil nuclei are typically heavy metals which preferentially collect on the chromosomes. In some studies[2], this has resulted in a RBE approaching 1,000 instead of the value used in governmental regulations.


Also;


The 2006 assassination of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko is thought to have been caused by poisoning with Polonium-210, an alpha emitter.



So, my "something to add" would be this question, addressed to all;

Would you rather have nuclear waste buried deep underground in 55-gallon steel drums, or would you rather be breathing it?

[edit on 6-27-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
there are several good links and videos here:

clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl...

The way I am understanding this, there is nothing radioactive left. This is not like grinding it up and dispersing it into the atmosphere. It supposedly transmutes to a non-nuclear base material.

I've read hho can actually weld two sapphires together.

Sri Oracle



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 


I have also read that George Bush personally flew the planes into the WTC. I have also read that NIIBURU, the "tenth planet" should have crashed into earth about five years ago.

Doesn't make it any less incredulous.


If you want transmutation of atomic elements, maybe I should point you in this direction;
youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
I have also read that George Bush personally flew the planes into the WTC. I have also read that NIIBURU, the "tenth planet" should have crashed into earth about five years ago.

Doesn't make it any less incredulous.
If you want transmutation of atomic elements, maybe I should point you in this direction;
youtube.com...


It is blatantly obvious that you have nothing of substance to add.

I don't believe this is possible, but at least I had the common sense to express a reason. You do not have the common sense to do that and offer nothing as to why it wouldn't work.

So pray tell.. why can this not work?


Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
The 2006 assassination of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko is thought to have been caused by poisoning with Polonium-210, an alpha emitter.


This is NOT even comparable to Americium. A lethal dose of Polonium is as low as 10 nanograms. Do you have any idea how many more alpha particles are emitted from this element compared to Americium? Obviously not, or you wouldn't have even bothered to compare it to Americium.



No reports were located regarding death in humans resulting from acute-, intermediate-, or chronic-duration inhalation exposure to americium.

Death was noted within 6 months in an unspecified number of dogs following acute exposure to 241Am aerosols (as americium nitrate) resulting in inhaled activity of 1.5 μCi/kg (55.5 kBq/kg) (Buldakov et al.1972).

Significant early mortality, attributed to radiation pneumonitis, was noted in rats following acute inhalation of 241AmO2 particles (activity median aerodynamic diameter [AMAD] 0.75–1.39 μm) resulting in an approximate initial lung burden of 1.3 μCi (48 kBq) and radiation dose to the lungs of 1,500 rad (1.5 Gy) (Sanders and Mahaffey 1983).


That is 55 500 becquerels per kilogram for a dog. If human beings and dogs were directly comparable (which they are not, but we shall compare them since there is no data of death from humans from Americium) then it would take 4 384 500 becquerels to become lethal.



Very large amounts may produce effects on the blood, pneumonitis if the material was inhaled, or other known radiation effects.

One man who received a massive accidental intake of americium as a result of an industrial accident at age 64 was exhaustively studied until his death from heart disease at age 76. At the time of his death he had more than a half million becquerels of americium in his body, about 90% of which was in the bone.

Despite this massive quantity of americium—hundreds of times greater than the so-called permissible limit for workers—he did not develop cancer.


Do you see the difference? It is a HUGE one.


Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
Would you rather have nuclear waste buried deep underground in 55-gallon steel drums, or would you rather be breathing it?


I would rather you show some data that says it would be impossible to accomplish this rather than cite data that is not relevant and post video's to anime.

Oh.. by the way... If YOU want transmutation of atomic elements then may I point you to Americium-241 which Plutonium-241 decays into.

[edit on 6/27/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


Not relevant is an argument that can be addled to everything you just posted, champ.

I'm not saying they imbibed a lethal dose, (you're really being a dick about this.) I am saying that they WILL have had radiation exposure, depending on how much was in there, how many times they have done this, etc.
I did not say they were going to drop dead in a week. Don't misrepresent my statements.

I guess you want to try and prove that americium is harmless by your logic. That's the same logic tobacco companies use to keep cigarettes in stores. There is a word for those type of examples, like the one you posted.



Statistical Aberration


I could use that same logic to postulate that alcohol is not a biological toxin, and all studies of it are incorrect because some man had a BAC higher than the "studied" overdose level.


www.drugrecognition.com...


0.50 BAC - Published overdose level leading to death.
0.74 BAC - Highest recorded blood alcohol level by a US hospital.




Regardless of why you feel a need to single out someone who agrees with you, I am right. You, are angry?


Basically I would, for the sake of argument, assume anyone who wanted to play their opinion on this type of subject would have at least a high school understanding of nuclear reactions. This has been proven incorrect, obviously. Here is the primer material that explains why heating up some americium through the use of a thermal chemical reaction will NOT reduce the radioactivity of said element.

en.wikipedia.org...


Really, maybe there should be an exam you need to pass before you can comment in any of the science threads here on ATS, because having to cite and quote yourself for even the most mundane of "bad-science" or just plain idiocy is tired. And even then, you get told that wiki isn't good enough because "it can be edited". Ever try to edit wiki?

Christs sake though man, you really succeeded in derailing the poor OP's thread. Good job, pat yourself on the back.


edit;

Decay is not transmutation, champ.

Decay happens naturally. Americium doesn't magically ionize in seconds, the ferrous substrate they placed the americium upon BURNS, vaporizing the americium.

Hmmm. Radioactive. Let's burn it. Vaporized source, check. WELL I'LL BE DAMNED, MUST HAVE BEEN THE BROWNS GAS.

[edit on 6-27-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]

Oxyhydrogen, which is all that browns gas is, burns at 2800 degrees C. Hottest possible temperature.
Sapphire melts at about 2040 degrees C.

MAYBE you could weld two of them together. But that is simple physics, and skill with a torch.


[edit on 6-28-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


Do not get all "holier than thou" on me.

You already know who really derailed the topic.



I did not say they were going to drop dead in a week. Don't be an ass. Don't misrepresent my statements.

I guess you want to try and prove that americium is harmless by your logic. That's the same logic tobacco companies use to keep cigarettes in stores. There is a word for those type of examples, like the one you


You were comparing Polonium to Americium, and I never said it wasn't harmless. I said they are not logically comparable. Take your own advice on this.

I am not being a "dick". Saying you heard "bush flew planes into the WTC", "niburu smashed into the planet", and then posting a link to an episode of Full Metal Alchemist for information about the transmutation of atomic elements is what would be called "being a dick". How is any of that even relevant, or anything more an attempt at baiting?

You knew damn well what you were doing with that post.



Basically I would, for the sake of argument, assume anyone who wanted to play their opinion on this type of subject would have at least a high school understanding of nuclear reactions. This has been proven incorrect, obviously.


I didn't "play" any opinion at all. The only opinion I stated was that this was not possible.

I don't need to read about radiation. None of your posts had ANY substance to them at all besides your response about the inhalation of particulates and this is still only valid if the particles were still radioactive.

You can no more prove that they were still radioactive than anyone can that they were not. There are radioactive elements that can be made to go into complete radioactive decay this was already demonstrated by CERN.

It is not impossible to do this artificially. It is just very improbable it can be done with Brown's Gas.

That is the point.



Decay is not transmutation, champ.


Yes, it is. Are we just playing with words now?

Nuclear Transmutation


Nuclear transmutation is the conversion of one chemical element or isotope into another, which occurs through nuclear reactions. Natural transmutation occurs when radioactive elements spontaneously decay over a long period of time and transform into other more stable elements. Artificial transmutation occurs in machinery that has enough energy to cause changes in the nuclear structure of the elements. Machines that can cause artificial transmutation include particle accelerators and tokamak reactors as well as conventional fission power reactors. Nuclear transmutation is considered as a possible mechanism for reducing the volume and hazard of radioactive waste.


[edit on 6/28/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


So what, exactly, are you trying to prove here?
I mean, the rest of the choir and I are ready to sing.
You are just upset that my way of expressing things is different from yours.

Wah
.

[edit on 6-28-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
be nice...

here's another link to chew on...

www.brownsgas.com...

it gets interesting at:



We now proceed to the experimental results obtained by advanced transmutation which have direct bearing on the problem of disposal of nuclear waste fuel.

Interaction with ionic hydrogen and ionic oxygen


and goes on to say:



Using a slice of radioactive Americium ... Brown melted it together on a brick with small chunks of steel and Aluminum ... After a couple of minutes under the flame, the molten metals sent up an instant flash in what Brown says is the reaction that destroys the radioactivity.


Sri Oracle

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Wouldn't HHO make nuclear power obsolete anyway?

Google "Dr. Paul Brown Nuclear Battery"




top topics



 
1

log in

join