Why we should listen to the 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. I proved it to you. Why do you think that we don't do it?

Sorry, dummy, plutonium isn't created by chemical processing.

Reprocessing spent fuel rods is more a mechanical process (think centrifuges). And plutonium, like any other chemical, can certainly be manipulated (isolated for instance) by chemical processes. It's not magic.

Manipulating and isolating is not creating.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly. One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college.

According to this guy, you should have failed.

The dangers of plutonium are analyzed in detail in a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report that is available on the web at www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/118825.html. Here are the key facts:

Plutonium is toxic both because of its chemical effects and because of its radioactivity. The chemical toxicity is similar to that of other "heavy metals" and is not the cause for the widespread fear. The dangers are different for ingestiion and for inhalation.

Ingestion. For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation. For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms, a factor of

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles.

Light

Tell that to the Japanese.

What does your huge error have to do with the Japanese?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Snookie is absolutely correct. Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body. Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.

Alpha-emitters do nasty things to your wet parts. Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

It's, like, not even close to being champion.

 

[Abraham3]

Snookie is absolutely correct. Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body. Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.

Alpha-emitters do nasty things to your wet parts. Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

It's, like, not even close to being champion.

You say it's not the best
Well, name the rest.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Do you ever wonder if the reason why you struggle to understand these topics is because you ignore the information other posters present for you, in favour of laughable attempts at oneupmanship?

 

[Abraham3]

From Wikipedia's article in Plutonium

Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element by virtue of its most stable isotope, plutonium-244, whose half-life of about 80 million years is just long enough for the element to be found in trace quantities in nature.[3] Plutonium is mostly a byproduct of nuclear reactions in reactors where some of the neutrons released by the fission process convert uranium-238 nuclei into plutonium.[4]
Both plutonium-239 and plutonium-241 are fissile, meaning that they can sustain a nuclear chain reaction, leading to applications in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Plutonium-240 exhibits a high rate of spontaneous fission, raising the neutron flux of any sample containing it. The presence of plutonium-240 limits a sample's usability for weapons or reactor fuel, and determines its grade.
Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years and emits alpha particles. It is a heat source in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are used to power some spacecraft. Plutonium isotopes are expensive and inconvenient to separate, so particular isotopes are usually manufactured in specialized reactors.
A team led by Glenn T. Seaborg and Edwin McMillan at the University of California, Berkeley laboratory first synthesized plutonium in 1940 by bombarding uranium-238 with deuterons. Trace amounts of plutonium were subsequently discovered in nature. Producing plutonium in useful quantities for the first time was a major part of the Manhattan Project during World War II, which developed the first atomic bombs. The first nuclear test, "Trinity" (July 1945), and the second atomic bomb used to destroy a city (Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945), "Fat Man", both had cores of plutonium-239. Human radiation experiments studying plutonium were conducted without informed consent, and several criticality accidents, some lethal, occurred during and after the war. Disposal of plutonium waste from nuclear power plants and dismantled nuclear weapons built during the Cold War is a nuclear-proliferation and environmental concern. Other sources of plutonium in the environment are fallout from numerous above-ground nuclear tests (now banned).

Alpha decay, the release of a high-energy helium nucleus, is the most common form of radioactive decay for plutonium.[7] A 5 kg mass of 239Pu contains about 12.5×1024 atoms. With a half-life of 24,100 years, about 11.5×1012 of its atoms decay each second by emitting a 5.157 MeV alpha particle. This amounts to 9.68 watts of power. Heat produced by the deceleration of these alpha particles makes it warm to the touch.[8][9]

[Metallic plutonium produced by a chemical reaction]
Metallic plutonium is produced by reacting plutonium tetrafluoride with barium, calcium or lithium at 1200 °C.[30] It is attacked by acids, oxygen, and steam but not by alkalis and dissolves easily in concentrated hydrochloric, hydroiodic and perchloric acids.[31] Molten metal must be kept in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere to avoid reaction with air.[15] At 135 °C the metal will ignite in air and will explode if placed in carbon tetrachloride.[32]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Snookie is absolutely correct. Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body. Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.

Alpha-emitters do nasty things to your wet parts. Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

It's, like, not even close to being champion.

You say it's not the best
Well, name the rest.

Radium-224 Half Life 3.6 days
Radon-222 Half Life 3.8 days
Polonium-210 Half Life 138 days
Thorium-228 Half Life 1.9 years
Plutonium-238 Half-life 87.7 years
Plutonium-240 Half Life 6,560 years
Plutonium-239 Half Life 24,100 years

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Do you ever wonder if the reason why you struggle to understand these topics is because you ignore the information other posters present for you, in favour of laughable attempts at oneupmanship?

Pointing out the errors in those claims is not a struggle at all.

 

[Abraham3]

Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.

It's, like, not even close to being champion.

You say it's not the best
Well, name the rest.

Radium-224 Half Life 3.6 days
Radon-222 Half Life 3.8 days
Polonium-210 Half Life 138 days
Thorium-228 Half Life 1.9 years
Plutonium-238 Half-life 87.7 years
Plutonium-240 Half Life 6,560 years
Plutonium-239 Half Life 24,100 years

Half-life is not an alternate measure of alpha decay rates. Plutonium decays by alpha, beta and gamma decay. The Wikipedia article explicitly states that it is a more powerful alpha emitter than is radon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You say it's not the best
Well, name the rest.

Radium-224 Half Life 3.6 days
Radon-222 Half Life 3.8 days
Polonium-210 Half Life 138 days
Thorium-228 Half Life 1.9 years
Plutonium-238 Half-life 87.7 years
Plutonium-240 Half Life 6,560 years
Plutonium-239 Half Life 24,100 years

Half-life is not an alternate measure of alpha decay rates. Plutonium decays by alpha, beta and gamma decay. The Wikipedia article explicitly states that it is a more powerful alpha emitter than is radon.

I didn't see radon in that article or in your post.
What did it say?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Do you ever wonder if the reason why you struggle to understand these topics is because you ignore the information other posters present for you, in favour of laughable attempts at oneupmanship?

Pointing out the errors in those claims is not a struggle at all.

Then why are you always wrong?

Most of your schtick seems to be attacking claims no one ever made - as you are doing here again now with the half-life discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Do you ever wonder if the reason why you struggle to understand these topics is because you ignore the information other posters present for you, in favour of laughable attempts at oneupmanship?

Pointing out the errors in those claims is not a struggle at all.

Then why are you always wrong?

Most of your schtick seems to be attacking claims no one ever made - as you are doing here again now with the half-life discussion.

Show where I've been wrong.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?

You keep claiming they do, so show me.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?

It has received far less subsidies than the warmist cult members claim. It also only received subsidies 200 years after it started. if an industry can't survive without subsidies, then it's doomed to fail. It's nothing but a burden on consumers and taxpayers. Why would any rational person want to enable that?

 

[PMZ]

Todd -

Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?

It has received far less subsidies than the warmist cult members claim. It also only received subsidies 200 years after it started. if an industry can't survive without subsidies, then it's doomed to fail. It's nothing but a burden on consumers and taxpayers. Why would any rational person want to enable that?

Are you saying that the coal industry is doomed to fail?

 

[daveman]

Todd -

Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?

It has received far less subsidies than the warmist cult members claim. It also only received subsidies 200 years after it started. if an industry can't survive without subsidies, then it's doomed to fail. It's nothing but a burden on consumers and taxpayers. Why would any rational person want to enable that?

Are you saying that the coal industry is doomed to fail?

It is if the warmist cult gets their way and shuts it down to replace it with empty promises of wind and solar.

 

[Snookie]

According to this guy, you should have failed.

The dangers of plutonium are analyzed in detail in a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report that is available on the web at www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/118825.html. Here are the key facts:

Plutonium is toxic both because of its chemical effects and because of its radioactivity. The chemical toxicity is similar to that of other "heavy metals" and is not the cause for the widespread fear. The dangers are different for ingestiion and for inhalation.

Ingestion. For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation. For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms, a factor of

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles.

Light

Tell that to the Japanese.

What does your huge error have to do with the Japanese?

If you are that stupid, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Gotta draw you people pictures, for crist sake.

 

[PMZ]

There has been no compelling evidence that a warm Earth is bad. In fact the historical record is very clear that number one the Earth has been MUCH warmer for the vast period of its existence (75% of the Earths life has been much warmer than today) and secondly the time when it was much warmer in the past, the PETM witnessed, an explosion of life all over the planet.

The claim that a warmer world is bad, is simply not born out by fact. On the other hand, the asteroid impact possibility is very real and that we know has the ability to do exactly what you claim warm will do. And you idiots whistle Dixie about it because you can't make money off of it.

The compelling evidence is that the more the climate changes from what we built civilization around the more we'll spend adapting to the new one.

You hope that by denying that proven fact you can get others to pay for your lifestyle.

Your plot to overthrow the country by denial lies, to impose that BS on all of us, is obvious now.

It's not happening.

You have zero evidence to support that. Absolutely none. What you do have is the requirement that we squander 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that it will reduce the global temps by one degree in 100 years.....maybe. That's ALL you've got.

Only you have zero evidence. Science has a great deal. Compelling.

The fact that you ignore it has no effect on it.

 

[PMZ]

Actually......in terms of climate science, nothing is mattering. Like I said.....its nothing more than a hobby.......like a bit old group navel contemplation session. There are no solutions. Never were.......never will be. The "solutions" are nothing but hail Mary pass guesses.( so-called green fantasies) As such, they are having zero effect on public policy that would possible create those "solutions". The best the climate k00ks have now is wind and solar power.......which are laughable.


What the nutters never understand that there is an absolute truth linking politics and science. The dreams of the green nutters like we have on this forum is a world that is not possible.......100% certainty. Why? Because the world runs on fossil fuels and nothing else......well.....I lie.....3% of energy use is via renewables. Just enough to keep the Al Gores of the world building their mega-estates and flying all over the world in Lear jets.


As Ive said in the past.......nobody cares about the science. To the public, its akin to a fly on the ass of an elephant. When might that change? Well......if sometime in the future, we see reports of 70 degree temperatures in central Alaska in the middle of January for a period of 3 weeks. Not a moment sooner. When we see waterskiing going on in Buckland Alaska in mid-January, MAYBE people will take notice.

I believe that your point is that nothing matters to you. After all, you are the only one that you can speak for.

I'll bet though that nobody is surprised that nothing matters to you. In fact, it's in my experience, not an atypical conservative worldview. Maybe it's even a requirement in order to be a conservative.

meh



I only care about whos not winning!!!



In recent years, conservatives are getting their clocks cleaned on most everything. But not on the issue of climate science. It is utter domination of the progressive nutty-asses. In the past 7 years, they've moved the goalposts exactly zero = losing.

How much has been spent in the last year on fossil fuel power plants in the world? How much on sustainable power? How many new muscle cars vs high mpg. How's the market for light bulbs that make more heat than light? How about low efficiency appliances?

I'd you think know that the world hasn't changed because you have't, you need to come out of your hole.