4 ms·

Overall, uranium is toxic in the same way that lead is toxic, and the chemical toxicity is probably worse than the radiotoxicity. You know darn well we're not

Overall, uranium is toxic in the same way that lead is toxic, and the chemical toxicity is probably worse than the radiotoxicity. You know darn well we're not talking about "overall uranium". We're talking about very hot uranium and plutonium directly from the cores of active nuclear reactors and the entire spectrum of elements and isotopes that get produced when you take that core, rods, and support structure and melt it out through the bottom of a containment vessel onto a concrete foundation that wasn't designed as a core catcher. Mix in seawater, steam, hydrogen explosions and gord knows what else and you have a reaction that is insufficiently modeled. What we do know is that a large area of land is not being occupied in Japan due to contamination. The Japanese have very expensive land, know a thing or two about radioactive contamination, and are not exactly known for exaggerating the impact of industrial accidents.

shareme 15y ago
no you are not! the isotopes from uranium and plutonium fuel rod use and miss use only!
shareme 15y ago
put another way most USA houses have a percentage of soil containing uranium..yet only less than 0.1% require any meaningful radon gas decontamination work.. the fuel rods when not used only give off so many isotopes per hour. the problem here is the rods in melted state are not cooled off to non active yet, hence the use of water and other materials to bring their activity down.
Confusion 15y ago
The uranium in that reactor isn't different from overall uranium, except that it's concentrated and its composition differs from what naturally occurs. However, that's over there. Uranium would be dangerous to US citizens if the uranium was in the US. It isn't. And so far, not even the worst doomsayers that actually know their stuff have worried about uranium or plutonium. That's just not the stuff you care about after a nuclear meltdown. You care about the other isotopes that were produced and that are much more easily carried outside and are easily used to compose other molecules that can spread further. Secondly, what on earth is 'hot uranium'? If you are speaking about the temperature: it certainly isn't hot anymore by the time it reaches the US. If you are speaking about it's radioactivity, you're wrong: individual uranium atoms from that reactor, once escaped, do not behave differently than naturally occurring uranium atoms. As for your other fears: it's perfectly well known what radioactive isotopes controlled and uncontrolled fission processes can produce. That's why they've been monitoring for things like cesium, iodine and basically every radioactive isotopes that exists: the number is rather limited). No significant levels of the stuff have been seen in the US.
- marshray 15y ago
  The uranium in that reactor isn't different from overall uranium, except that it's concentrated and its composition differs from what naturally occurs. That can be a pretty serious categorical difference, particularly in the concentration. However, that's over there. Uranium would be dangerous to US citizens if the uranium was in the US. It isn't. Duh. Did you even read what I wrote or are you pasting this from some talking points you got somewhere? And so far, not even the worst doomsayers that actually know their stuff have worried about uranium or plutonium. Which is not to say it's not a problem, only that you find some reason to dismiss the views you don't agree with. That's just not the stuff you care about after a nuclear meltdown. You care about the other isotopes that were produced and that are much more easily carried outside and are easily used to compose other molecules that can spread further. That must be why they're setting limits on the acceptable level of uranium in the rice then. To draw attention away from the things that are really dangerous. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-28/fukushima-may-abandon-rice-planting-amid-radiation-in-soil.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-28/fukushima-may-ab... Riiight. Secondly, what on earth is 'hot uranium'? What I said was "very hot uranium and plutonium directly from the cores of active nuclear reactors and the entire spectrum of elements and isotopes that get produced when ...". If you are speaking about the temperature: it certainly isn't hot anymore by the time it reaches the US. If you are speaking about it's radioactivity, In this case, the term 'hot' captures temperature (in Celsius), reactivity (neutrons), and the health effects of radioactivity (Becquerels). It works on many levels. you're wrong: individual uranium atoms from that reactor, once escaped, do not behave differently than naturally occurring uranium atoms. You really seem to want me to be talking about specifically uranium atoms in fallout on the continental US. The vast majority of that article is about Japan with only a few sentences claiming some nonspecific particles could be detected in the US. Is it that you know only this one counter argument, the one that natural and low-enriched uranium samples aren't wildly different in decay rates? As for your other fears: I'm not afraid, you're just making that up. it's perfectly well known what radioactive isotopes controlled and uncontrolled fission processes can produce. I don't think our knowledge of these meltdowns is anywhere close to "perfect", but note that I said "the entire spectrum of elements and isotopes...". They don't know what temperatures were reached what state of matter the cores were in and for what time periods. The IAEA says there could have been recriticality, but they don't know for sure one way or the other. That's why they've been monitoring for things like cesium, iodine and basically every radioactive isotopes that exists: the number is rather limited). Do you think I've never heard of the periodic table or something?

shareme 15y ago

no you are not! the isotopes from uranium and plutonium fuel rod use and miss use only!

shareme 15y ago

put another way most USA houses have a percentage of soil containing uranium..yet only less than 0.1% require any meaningful radon gas decontamination work.. the fuel rods when not used only give off so many isotopes per hour. the problem here is the rods in melted state are not cooled off to non active yet, hence the use of water and other materials to bring their activity down.

Confusion 15y ago

The uranium in that reactor isn't different from overall uranium, except that it's concentrated and its composition differs from what naturally occurs. However, that's over there. Uranium would be dangerous to US citizens if the uranium was in the US. It isn't. And so far, not even the worst doomsayers that actually know their stuff have worried about uranium or plutonium. That's just not the stuff you care about after a nuclear meltdown. You care about the other isotopes that were produced and that are much more easily carried outside and are easily used to compose other molecules that can spread further. Secondly, what on earth is 'hot uranium'? If you are speaking about the temperature: it certainly isn't hot anymore by the time it reaches the US. If you are speaking about it's radioactivity, you're wrong: individual uranium atoms from that reactor, once escaped, do not behave differently than naturally occurring uranium atoms. As for your other fears: it's perfectly well known what radioactive isotopes controlled and uncontrolled fission processes can produce. That's why they've been monitoring for things like cesium, iodine and basically every radioactive isotopes that exists: the number is rather limited). No significant levels of the stuff have been seen in the US.

marshray 15y ago
The uranium in that reactor isn't different from overall uranium, except that it's concentrated and its composition differs from what naturally occurs. That can be a pretty serious categorical difference, particularly in the concentration. However, that's over there. Uranium would be dangerous to US citizens if the uranium was in the US. It isn't. Duh. Did you even read what I wrote or are you pasting this from some talking points you got somewhere? And so far, not even the worst doomsayers that actually know their stuff have worried about uranium or plutonium. Which is not to say it's not a problem, only that you find some reason to dismiss the views you don't agree with. That's just not the stuff you care about after a nuclear meltdown. You care about the other isotopes that were produced and that are much more easily carried outside and are easily used to compose other molecules that can spread further. That must be why they're setting limits on the acceptable level of uranium in the rice then. To draw attention away from the things that are really dangerous. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-28/fukushima-may-abandon-rice-planting-amid-radiation-in-soil.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-28/fukushima-may-ab... Riiight. Secondly, what on earth is 'hot uranium'? What I said was "very hot uranium and plutonium directly from the cores of active nuclear reactors and the entire spectrum of elements and isotopes that get produced when ...". If you are speaking about the temperature: it certainly isn't hot anymore by the time it reaches the US. If you are speaking about it's radioactivity, In this case, the term 'hot' captures temperature (in Celsius), reactivity (neutrons), and the health effects of radioactivity (Becquerels). It works on many levels. you're wrong: individual uranium atoms from that reactor, once escaped, do not behave differently than naturally occurring uranium atoms. You really seem to want me to be talking about specifically uranium atoms in fallout on the continental US. The vast majority of that article is about Japan with only a few sentences claiming some nonspecific particles could be detected in the US. Is it that you know only this one counter argument, the one that natural and low-enriched uranium samples aren't wildly different in decay rates? As for your other fears: I'm not afraid, you're just making that up. it's perfectly well known what radioactive isotopes controlled and uncontrolled fission processes can produce. I don't think our knowledge of these meltdowns is anywhere close to "perfect", but note that I said "the entire spectrum of elements and isotopes...". They don't know what temperatures were reached what state of matter the cores were in and for what time periods. The IAEA says there could have been recriticality, but they don't know for sure one way or the other. That's why they've been monitoring for things like cesium, iodine and basically every radioactive isotopes that exists: the number is rather limited). Do you think I've never heard of the periodic table or something?