Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Nuclear Fusion (pseudo)

  1. #1  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    Probably the people that get profit from oil and thus from hindering the development of technology. Still, fusion will never be something that faciliates society with energy. The background radiation growth has been under cover (by the same greedy men) quite totally but the neutron flux which partly causes this is hundred times stronger in a fusion reactor compared to fission reactor.

    This increase in background is already having impact on biosphere endangering our species (by ozone depletion for example). So no more.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    HUH?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    More about these things on my website:

    http://www.styrge.com/English.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I read your website....

    Radiation emissions from civilian nuclear reactors are vast, continuous and covered up.
    Don't live near a nuclear reactor then.

    A serious threat to all life arises from the very physical nature of radiation as it doesn't mysteriously disappear or get turned into heat. Instead, it accumulates into the environment.
    That's wrong. Alpha radiation is cleared up by a few cm of air, beta by a couple of metres, and gamma by a few km. A metre of concrete, which typically surrounds a nuclear reactor, will absorb virtually all radiation created within. All forms of radiation are removed when they interacte with any molecules or atoms, so there is no cumulative effect.

    Radiation dose we receive from natural sources has increased ten times since the pre-nuclear era.
    This is bad I suppose. But I'm glad it's from natural sources, and not from nuclear generators.

    All this is starting to have some perseivable effects; to the colour of the sky!
    NOOOOO! The end is nigh!!!

    This is something everyone can observe and verify whether this is to be taken seriously. Sky is getting increasingly pink at sunset (or sunrise). Well, it has been a colourful event before but now the traditional red is virtually extinct! It comes now with some blue addition shifting towards purple, magenta and other psychedelic tones.

    The phenomenon is resulting from the global growth in ionizing radiation which in turn creates more ionization in the atmosphere. Sky appears blue or the sunset yellow and red because of the oxygen and nitrogen molecules. They consist of two atoms and are just the right size to scatter the blue wavelength. Single atoms are too small to affect visible light when separated, and that is what ionization does. So more ionization, more blue is getting through in addition to yellow and red when the sun is shining from a low angle.
    How does the ionising radiations, at the tiny levels it is at (sorry, no figures for typical background radiation), cause trillions of tons of air to ionise? given that each ionising particle will become inert as a result of this. Also, what's stopping these oxygen and nitrogen ions from simply reverting to their original state?

    The present palette of colours has occurred before only with the maximum in solar activity which is not at hand earlier than the year 2012. The extra radiation load from utilizing nuclear power might be sufficient to collapse our protective system against the solar wind but perhaps you are more familiar with the destruction in ozone layer. It is happening again altought the CFC-compounds have been banned for decades.
    I'm afraid the ozone layer is:

    a) not affected by pink light
    b) out of reach of any ground-based ionising radiation.

    Reddish glowing air above a nuclear power plants is called a beta-flare. The name comes from the main cause for the phenomenon which is free neutrons decaying into protons and electrons. On top of that beta-flare is a mixture of all kinds of radiation and ionization. When ions (like the proton from a neutron decay) receive some replacement electrons, UV-light is produced. This in turn puts electrons on a charged orbit from witch they return by emitting visible light. Like in northern lights.

    The energies involved in beta-flare are sufficient to kill birds mid-flight. Or bring down airplanes if they defy the restricted area. Ionization breaks up molecules in tissue (lungs for example) or interferes with electronics. That's why nuclear power plant even has a chimney; for fierce ventilation, to get rid of ions and excess neutrons within their quarter-an-hour lifetime. If the air flow stops, everyone inside the powerplant would die in 15 minutes or so. (This occurred in Tshernobyl, different case than the big accident.)
    sorry to relieve myself all over your bonfire, but all the radioactive material inside a nuclear reactor is sealed away, completely airtight. It is not given off, ever.

    This is carefully obscured part of nuclear technology, covered with excessively bright lights pointing upwards and guards collecting the dead birds. But we got beta-flare on video when lighting was temporarily diminished at the Loviisa (Finland) power plant... while replacing bulbs with more distracting ones to prevent filming! As the phenomenon is mostly red, red filter is tested to take out industrial ambient light.
    More likely, you saw red light from de-exciting electrons in hot water vapour (steam). Do you by any chance also have infrared images from the same time and place? I'm guessing there was a lot of heat, which is actually not typical of radiation.

    The amount of rainfall is dramatically decreased in the areas containing nuclear power. Even some 100 km radius can receive 30% less rain than it used to! It is shockin especially when the global warming should have increased rainfall the same amount. But instead we experience drauht which is changing the local biosphere. This can be seen clearly in France for example, where the forests have perished from where the wind blows from a cluster of nuclear power plants.
    Amazing, considering the only emission from nuclear power plants is water vapour, which forms clouds.

    The mechanism is ionization which prevents the clouds from forming.
    Water being a polar molecule, ions would actually increase rainfall by providing a nucleation point for droplets to form.

    Beta-flare can be seen as a hole in the cloud straight above the power plant and then there is an hour surveillance period sped up to show how percistent the boundary is blocking the rain from falling over it.
    This 'hole in the cloud' is probably caused, again, by the heat of the steam given off, which causes convection in and around the area above the power plant.

    In a nuclear reactor every fission produces 2-3 neutrons but only one is needed to sustain the chain reaction. So it's evident that most of the neutrons escape into the environment. There they transform substances into radioactive isotopes and increase the background radiation level.
    Yes, they do this in a very minor way. Mostly, these are contained within the reactor, as they are absorbed by controll rods, which are treated as nuclear waste when replaced. The rest of these neutrons will be absorbed in the reactor wall.

    Neutron flux is hardly measured at all. Partly because they are hard to detect (as the speed varies from a floating stage to few kilometres per second). They are moderated to travel under the escape velocity of earth (11 km/s) so they can't escape all the way to space as gravitation pulls them back. Other reason is the cumulative harm they cause to the biosphere and to human health.
    neutrons generally have a range of 3-4 metres when 'free', I believe. But I have no sources so this is subject to confirmation.

    Radiation officials measure only shadows from the total radiation that escapes the powerplant. Neutron flux is only one way to radiate our environment without detectors revealing it. The nucleus of every atom (expect basic Hydrogen) can get charged and carry this charge for a wide range of times. Most of them are short but some are metastable in the sense that they need an another hit from gamma radiation to release their energy.
    Aren't nuclei of atoms generally charged to start with?

    This charge is not visible to any measurement until it's discharged. So particles, even air itself, can contain energy that is released as a quantum of gamma or röntgen after they have found their way out from the power plant. And no-one notices! Well, there must be some mysterious readings a bit further away (not from the ventilation pipe alone) because radiation data from the nuclear power area is held back.
    A similar thing happens when you turn the light on, to every atom or molecule in the room. generally the electrons store this energy, and de-excite over time to release photons of specific energies unique to every element. It is called emission spectra if you want to research it.

    I got some undisputed ascending in my background radiation measurements, more than is admitted to happen, as I cyckled to and around the local nuclear power plant.
    Erm, well done? A tiny increase in background radiation, still well below dangerous levels.

    YouTube-video (In finnish but gamma meter is visible. It's also X-rayed in the end and shows multiple values for a minute after the activation.)
    That's because x-rays are also ionising to an extent, and so are picked up by the meter.

    Worst case scenario
    As radiation is being artificially produced more than it escapes the earth, it's just a matter of time when the atmosphere will set on fire, burning nitrogen into carbon. It was speculated whether it would happen already with the first atomic test explosion. Now with the multiplied background radiation, it would be almost certain if the biggest existing bomb were detonated.
    Erm.

    Is this ionising radiation or electromagnetic radiation? Either way, both are absorbed, and their energy converted into light.

    an increase in background radiation will set the atmosphere on fire? Really? Like it does when a radioactive source is brought out of it's lead box which shows a reading of several thousand on a very similar piece of equipment to that which you used in your video? I've seen this happen and I'm still very much alive.

    Background radiation increase in Loviisa (Finland) nuclear power municipality. The terrestrial gamma radiation curve shows no linear growth at first, but wait! The area was subjected to the Tshernobyl fallout and so the curve should be descendin! Activation from the power plant emissions and fallout decay cancel eatch other out. This is confirmed with some Swedish data from Gävle, which shows an obvious decay. These regions were equally contaminated.
    ?!?!

    Nuclear decay is generally what causes ionising radiation. Please read up on your suposed 'facts'.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    OP, Google "ITER". If The Man is really suppressing fusion research he's doing a terrible job of it.

    Also, how would they keep the background radiation "under cover"? Anyone with a Geiger counter would be able to figure it out. I have one in my lab. And a Beta-Scint counter too if the radiation levels are too low for a Geiger. It's pretty easy to test this stuff.

    So, why don't you provide us with some empirical evidence to back up your claims. Observations, readings, data. Or even other written (peer-reviewed) sources. Anything. Otherwise I'm going to lock your thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The problem I never see people discussing is the waste. The products created by nuclear fusion are just as radio-active as the products created by fission, aren't they?

    How would fusion present us with an energy solution that's better than the one we already have?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The problem I never see people discussing is the waste. The products created by nuclear fusion are just as radio-active as the products created by fission, aren't they?

    How would fusion present us with an energy solution that's better than the one we already have?
    Well they'd hardly be sinking so much funding into the idea if it offered no potential advantages.

    If it works as intended, a fusion reactor should produce about 1% of the radioactive waste that a fission reactor does. Also, fusion reactors cannot undergo reactor meltdown and if current thinking is correct, shouldn't be able to undergo any sort of dangerous loss of reaction control. Add to this that the fuel, depending on the design, will be much more readily available than radioisotopes and you can see the potential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I read your website....

    Radiation emissions from civilian nuclear reactors are vast, continuous and covered up.
    Don't live near a nuclear reactor then.

    Good old down to earth British advice,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Radiation emissions from civilian nuclear reactors are vast, continuous and covered up.
    Right... Except I used to work very near a civilian nuclear power plant. In case of any problem, we had a geiger counter on site. It never registered much if anything above normal background radiation.

    Now, in case someone were to argue that we were given a "rigged" counter in order to facilitate the cover up, I know for a fact that it worked.

    In 2000, it was discovered that I had cancer in my right kidney. I was sent for a bone scan to check to see if it had spread elsewhere (it hadn't). The point is that to prep for the scan you are injected with a radioactive tracer. The tracer will collect where there is increased activity (such as a tumor). They then scan you with what is essentially a geiger counter and look for "hot spots".

    Anyway, when the nurse injected me with the tracer, she told me that I'd be slightly radioactive for about a day or so. So the next day at work, I decided to check it out. I pulled out the geiger counter and started to pass it over my body. Sure enough, it registered more clicks closer to me than farther away, and I got the highest reading when I passed it by the area of my right kidney.

    BTW, I had the kidney removed and have had no return of cancer since then.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    duteirium+tritium =He4+14.1Mev neutron +17.59 Mev of energy
    WHAT WASTE?
    E=Mc2 still works!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •