Atomic energy

Nuclear physics (1)
Nuclear reaction (8)
Radiation (87)
Radioactivity (19)

Synopsis: Physics & astronomy: Atomic energy:

as of this writing, is searching for an appropriate stretch to build the first tube. 1. Sustainable Fusion reactor Nuclear fission (the process by

which nuclear power plants produce energy) is much easier to control than nuclear fusion (the process by which the sun burns, and nuclear weapons work).

Small nuclear fusion reactors have been built, but a large-scale, sustainable fusion reactor has yet to be attempted#ntil now.

nuclear fusion is cleaner and yields three to four times more power than fission. The project is called ITER, for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor,

What if there is a radiation leak? Do you send rodents into it? You can see the moral and ethical issues that need to be worked out.

#Cold war Nuclear Radiation Creates Anti-Poaching Tool (ISNS)--Radioactive carbon atoms created during 20th-century nuclear bomb tests could help save elephants

and other endangered species. A new study published in this week's issue of the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that carbon-14 a radioactive version of the common carbon atom can be used to determine

and'60s spread a radioactive variety of carbon worldwide which was picked up by plants during photosynthesis

Germany's new coalition government will extend the lifespan of the nation's nuclear power plants which last year produced around 23%of the country's electricity needs beyond 2022.

The extended run will be used by scientists at the particle-physics laboratory CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, to hunt for the elusive Higgs particle at the collider's current collision energies.

including a new wave of investment in nuclear power. These steps will strengthen American industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

They can t the radiation in space is DEADLY. Not just the Van allen belts the Van allen belts protects us from the sun

If the radiation belts in the Earth's magnetosphere were really that deadly because we have been shielded improperly this whole time we probably would have noticed by now...

because all of those astronauts would have died of radiation poisoning. And we DID in fact land on the moon the proof is in the retroreflectors that we can use on a regular basis to measure (with extreme precision) with lasers the distance between Earth and the moon.

The International atomic energy agency may be known best for dealing with nuclear disasters such as the Fukushima reactor meltdown but it also works on crop science techniques that use radiation.

with a tiny bit of radiation enough to damage their DNA. That created a pool of seeds with different random mutations any

but the FAO/IAEA Joint Programme doesn't use it because the IAEA focuses on radiation technologies.

Radiation is believed widely to be the element fueling mutation in evolution. To the point that mutation based on radiation is accepted as a biological dating system.

The plant is not radioactive it s only accelerated evolution with human selection. The wisdom in human selection is the greatest risk factor here. tmarti69 As the Earth is currently in the beginnings of a magnetic polar flip with a ongoing to zero reduction of magnetic field more wild life will be subject to the the sun comsic radays

inducing more cancer deathes and mutations. Here comes the MUTANTS! HERE COMES THE MUTANTS S

If asked they will say that they did not have the kind of understanding of the nature of the cell that would indicate that radiation could harm them.

âÂ# Just like a century ago âÂ#Âoescientificã¢Â# evidence of radiation harming cells didn't exist either!

despite no radiation from the Sun reaching the planet ever again. Tough but doable. The caveats in that previous paragraph are the much larger obstacles to overcome in my opinion.

The potential would be greater than that of either nuclear power or fossil fuels at less than half the price of the lowest traditional power source Michaud says.

For complete control to be maintained there must be several ways to turn off the lower vents Michaud says comparing it to how a nuclear power plant has several redundancies to prevent a meltdown.

#Over Time, Nuclear power Would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleumusing nuclear power for energy instead of coal has prevented almost 2 million pollution-related deaths around the world

The paper argues that policymakers should increase nuclear power rather than continuing dependence on fossil fuels. The 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should not deter governments from expanding nuclear power according to Hansen

and its lead author Pushker A. Kharecha of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

and Columbia University Earth Institute On the contrary nuclear power will prevent further deaths from air pollution they argue.

Even taking the disaster at Fukushima into account they calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1. 84 million air pollution-related deaths

which fuel nuclear power will be replacing.)Nuclear power has prevented already 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions and would prevent the equivalent of another 80 to 240 gigatons again depending on

which fuel it replaces. The paper does acknowledge the serious health and environmental concerns related to storage of nuclear waste.

But the main point is that nuclear power is cleaner and greener than sources that belch carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

and he has rankled environmental groups with his support for nuclear power. With his departure from NASA the climate research community loses one of its most vocal members

The same holds for nuclear power vs. other energy sources. The*real*risk of a nuclear power disaster is far less than the*(mis) perceived*risk.

If nuclear power was safe we would not need the Priceã¢Â#Ânderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.@

@Anyclon I have seen never a better comparison. Those occurrences get blown out of proportion because people do not realize the big picture

--and that includes Anyclon who refuses to believe that nuclear power is less risky than most other sources of energy.

I read somewhere that coal fire power plants release more radiation (in the form of radioactive impurities being vaporized) into the atmosphere every year than all nuclear power plants ever (including meltdowns.

but we're at such a point in our'advancement'that our diluted pollutants are reaching toxic levels. 1. Nuclear power plants emit dangerous radiation into the air and water during their DAILY operations.

Cancer-causing radiation such as Iodine-131 Cesium-137 Tritium Krypton Strontium...2. A NEW Gallup Poll says over 70%of Americans want more WIND

and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima in which the amount of cancers caused by radiation in our food

and in our environment from nuclear meltdowns and nuclear power plants was discussed. The total amounts of deaths birth defects miscarriages heart attacks cancers etc. due to nuclear radiation is in the millions upon millions;

far surpassing any deaths that could be caused by any other energy. That is why nuclear energy is rightly known as the most dangerous energy in the world.

/id=hcf@Listenup 1. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste http://www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm?

id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste2. I do agree we shall go for clean renewable energy

I think nuclear fission energy will be suitable as a transitional substitution mean while. 3. Let's hope we can have feasible nuclear fusion energy soon.

Why can't they take nuclear fuel rods into space and drop them to burn up in reentry to atmosphere?

You don't seem to realize that there are only TWO events in all of history that actually spread any significant amount of radioactive particles into the atmosphere from nuclear reactors-Chernobyl

and Fukushima. 3 mile island caused less extra radiation than you'd get from a cross-country flight.

By contrast coal-fired power plants release higher quantities of radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere than even the oldest nuclear reactors ever did.

Just Google radioactive coal ash (without quotes) and you'll learn the truth about coal.

They won't become any less radioactive just by getting a little hot. The nuclear dream is fading fast.

Fukushima is expected by Dr. Helen Caldicott M d. to cause at least 1 million deaths by cancer due to radioactivity already released.

If a Magnitude 8 earthquake strikes Japan before a fuel pool dangling 100 feet in the air is secured the resulting radioactivity is expected to be at least 40 times that of Chernobyl causing untold millions of cancers across the Northern hemisphere.

Markwhen environmentalists sue nuclear power plants and stop them from proceeding we should sue the environmentalists for killing us.

The newest generations of nuclear power plants are some of the most well design and safest power plants in the world.

Nuclear power is a very good thing. However given his penchant for wildly distorting numbers in his computer models the estimated number of lives saved 1. 84 million should be treated with the same credence as virtually every other ridiculous claim he has made ever.

and about as mature as your avatar. 1. A quick trip to wikipedia shows many many nuclear meltdowns and accidents such as Santa Susana in California and the Urals in Russia which spewed tons of radiation

over unsuspecting populations. 2. Comparing radiation received from an airplane flight to exposure to nuclear radiation

which is inhaled/ingested is a hugely false comparison (so is comparing it to bananas or radiation from watching TV etc.)

These comparisons are made by pro-nuclear propagandists to try to minimize the dangers of nuclear radiation. 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous

and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation. Dr. Romeo F. Quijano said this about nuclear radiation:

The small amount of radiation claimed to be safe by authorities added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world.

Radioactive particles especially Plutonium Strontium and Cesium are bioaccumulative extremely persistent and highly toxic. They travel long distances

and will contaminate all regions on earth. www. abs-cbnnews. com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose4.

Dr. Yablokov found ONE MILLION deaths due to Chernobyl. 5. Dr. Wing found that lung cancers rose dramatically in people exposed to the Three Mile Island radiation plume. 6. Dr. Gould

and Dr. Sternglass found a statistically significant increase of ONE MILLION deaths after Three Mile Island.

coast. 9. Dr. Gofman did studies on the increases of breast cancer due to nuclear radiation. 10.

and predicts a 70%increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed to Fukushima radiation as infants. 11.

It's not just cancers and death that nuclear radiation causes. Dr. Wertelecki found teratomos conjoined twins mocrophthalmia NTD microcephaly horrible birth defects and a decrease in cognitive skills due to Chernobyl.

and health effects caused by nuclear radiation. Again I highly recommend everyone watch the speakers at the Fukushima Symposium to learn more. www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?

/id=hcfthe doctors at the Symposium have spent decades studying the effects of nuclear radiation and their grim analysis is in their presentations.

And nuclear radiation is not just affecting humans. Animals are showing signs of radiation exposure.

Fish have been caught with radiation. An entire species of nails is extinct due to Fukushima. Radiation is being in found in seaweed zooplankton and sea life in the oceans.

Animal and plant mutations are being found everywhere. There is no doubt about it. Man-made nuclear radiation is wreaking havoc on human genetics human health and our environment.

NEW Gallup Poll: Americans Want More Energy From Wind Solar Gasno fewer than two in three Americans want the U s. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%)wind (71%)and natural gas (65%.

%Far fewer want to emphasize the production of oil (46%)and the use of nuclear power (37%.

%Least favored is coal with about one in three Americans wanting to prioritize its domestic production. www. gallup. com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas. aspxlistenup regardless of the tone

of Onihikage's comments he's exactly right about there being only two nuclear power plant incidents in history that resulted in significant radiation release

since the first nuclear power plant went online in 1954. There have been 68 fatalities in 59 years 57

Interestingly no one died from radiation released in the Fukushima Daiichi accident. That averages out to a little over 1 fatality a year.

Here's a list of all nuclear power plant accidents: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear and radiation accidentsthe*4000 cancer number associated with Chernobyl is the number of cancers--not deaths--attributed to Chernobyl.

%This UN Scientific Committee Report on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published in 2008 says there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident.

That's from the WORST nuclear power plant accident in history. See UNSCEAR report (2008) on Chernobyl here:

and Dr. Sternglass claiming a million deaths due to the radiation release from Three Mile Island. What you're missing in your extremely narrow

and warped view on nuclear radiation is balance and perspective. Onihikage was right to call you out on your radiation junk science.

Do you know how much radiation was released from Three Mile Island? I'll tell you. The radiation released resulted in an average dose of 1. 4 mrem to the two million people near the plant.

The report compared this with the additional 80 mrem per year received from living in a high altitude city such as Denver.

As further comparison you receive 3. 2 mrem from a chest X-ray âÂ#Âmore than twice the average dose of those received near the plant. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Three mile island accidentdo

you seriously think a million people die from receiving a chest X-ray? If that were true chest X-rays would have been abolished long ago by the FDA.

Your claim 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation is also rubbish.

Nuclear radiation is used daily to irradiate foods to prevent spoilage with no adverse health effect whatsoever.

In fact it saves lives by preventing deadly bacteria from forming. Nuclear radiation is used safely countless times every day in numerous ways in medical and diagnostic procedures on humans;

all of which results in the prolonging of life and improving the quality of life for millions of people each year.

The effects of nuclear radiation have been studied carefully for over 60 years and extremely conservative dosage limits set in place to protect the safety of people who work in environments where radiation exposure is commonplace.

The U s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates âÂ#Âbelow about 10000 mrem (100 msv).

Studies of occupational workers who are exposed chronically to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects. http://www. nrc. gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad

-exposure-cancer. htmlhere's a graphic comparison of different levels of radiation dosages: http://xkcd. com/radiation/And here's an MIT study from 2012 which suggests that the established long-term radiation dosage limits may be 10 times too conservative due to the way the cancerous effects are measured;

not from actual experiments of long-term radiation but from EXTRAPOLATING the effects from single high-dosage events like the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the exposion at Chernobyl:

http://web. mit. edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515. htmlto sum up do as Onihikage suggests

and read up on the remarkable safety of nuclear power and get some perspective on the vast array of other things that pose much greater health risks than nuclear power.

As for the Gallup poll Listenup it says nothing about what forms of energy Americans want to prioritize.

It simply shows that Americans want the country to produce more energy from all of the sources named.

If you add up the same emphasis as now or more emphasis results it looks like this:

Solar power: 88%Wind: 87%Natural gas: 89%Oil: 67%Nuclear power: 65%Coal: 56%In other words generally speaking Americans want to become energy independent through ALL THE resources at our disposal. http://www. gallup. com/file/poll/161525/Energy sources 130327. pdfthis is absolutely true

and it kills far less people anually then coal. If you leave your solar panel running in your garage no one will die.

Second of all although most of the facts previously stated about radiation and nuclear energy are true you do realize that most of that info is talking about decades old nuclear technology?

That's only a DECADE after the FIRST nuclear fission in human history! The nuclear plants finished recently (within the past decade) were built with technology developed in the seventies and eighties.

Nuclear fission and fusion and combination of the two have yet to reach the potentials and can be so much better than fossil fuels in both safety and efficiency (with A LOT OF help).

#A Huge Burst Of Gamma rays Hit Earth--And No one Noticedlast year Japanese scientists found evidence that in 775 AD Earth was hit with a sudden blast of high-intensity radiation--a blast

instead in the amount of radioactive carbon trapped in the annual growth rings of some of the world's oldest trees.

Carbon's key radioactive isotope carbon-14 forms when energetic particles enter Earth's atmosphere

So what could have caused the massive burst of radiation and the high influx of energetic particles that led to the elevated levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere?

The radiation either came from an especially intense solar flare or the explosion of a nearby star.

Second--and perhaps more importantly--such flares would also have destroyed the Earth's ozone layer exposing all of life to harsh radiation

A nearby supernova would have sent gamma rays flying in all directions. Those rays would have created high-energy particles in our atmosphere

which could then go on to form the carbon-14 present in such abundance in the Japanese cedars.

But in order to send out enough gamma rays to do the trick the supernova would have had to be bigger and brighter than other historical bright spots that were documented in fact.

a short-duration gamma ray burst produced by the collision of two nearby neutron stars. Though immensely powerful (we're talking two 10-mile wide boulders each with the mass of our sun) the collision would only have been visible from Earth for about a day

So the formation of radioactive isotopes isn't a steady process? This could cause us to change our assumptions about dating methods.

Nondestructive imaging of ancient fossilsby integrating high-resolution X-ray imaging (termed microct) 3d image segmentation and computer animation a new study conducted by Carole Gee at the University of Bonn Germany demonstrates the visualization of fossils without destroying the material.

Using this technique X-ray images similar to those used in the medical field are captured providing virtual cross-sections of the specimen without ever cutting into the sample.

and radiation and show promise for stacking in three-dimensional arrays. Rudimentary silicon memories made in the Tour lab are now aboard the International Space station where they are being tested for their ability to hold a pattern

when exposed to radiation. The diodes eliminate crosstalk inherent in crossbar structures by keeping the electronic state on a cell from leaking into adjacent cells Tour said.

The nanostructured black silicon coating features very low reflectivity meaning that a larger portion of the Sun's radiation can be exploited.

Not just the intensity but also the waveform of emitted terahertz radiation totally and dynamically changes in response to molecular adsorption and desorption.

Laser pulses generated coherent bursts of terahertz radiation through a built-in surface electric field of the indium phosphide substrate that changed due to charge transfer between the graphene and the contaminating molecules.

and radiation as well as elements that enable wireless connectivity between the greenhouse and mobile devices like cell phones.

The research team investigated adaptive radiation--the explosive evolution of species into new ecological niches powered by natural selection--of New world Leaf-nosed bats.

This kind of engineering model may illuminate many other adaptive radiations and the origin of so much diversity On earth.

valos of Stony Brook University and support from the National Science Foundation studied the evolutionary histories of the adaptive radiation of New world leaf-nosed bats based on their dietary niches.

As the authors point out adaptive radiations that is the explosive evolution of species into new ecological niches have generated much of the biological diversity seen in the world today.

and other radioactive elements not commonly found in nature thanks to our nuclear weapons testing. And we have created some new compounds that will be in the geologic record for a long time to come, the most ubiquitous

But a person can t just eat a radioactive chemical and hope to be healthy,

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011