4 ms·

> Not good for proliferation. What do you think it changes about proliferation?

gosub100 3y ago
If it's proved viable wouldn't it allow anyone with access to the sea to obtain uranium? (I know you need concentrated U-235 to make an explosion, but just getting to yellowcake is enough to attract attention, right?).
- krisoft 3y ago
  It would still require a lot of power and a lot of infrastructure to do it. If a country or organisation would try to go down that route others would see that they spend a lot of effort on slurping seawater through machines they can’t explain with anything else. That is the bottleneck how nuclear non-proliferation is enforced. You can hide your intentions, but you can’t hide that a lot or energy is flowing into a process you don’t have a good explanation for. Because of this detecting a sea water sourced extraction would be even easier than a nuclear program based on mined uranium. (Because you need to enrich from an even weaker starting condition.) What happens after detection is either diplomacy (they ask the country to stop nicely, reminding them of the consequences) or force (bombing the facilities).
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Uranium can be obtained anywhere if cost is no object. If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium. At first I thought "surely that cannot be right", then did some calculation and it seems you are right? This report[1] states that: "Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is present in nearly all rocks and soils; it has an average concentration in U.S. soils of about 2 pCi/g (3 ppm)." I took the 3ppm figure from this and assumed that means 3g per million gram of soil. (This assumption might be a mistake, but I don't know how better to interpret it.) Then I googled and found 1000 square meter to be a reasonable size of estimate for the lawn size and 1400 kg/cubic meter seems to be a reasonable soil density. Then just multiplied these together "1000 * 1 * 1400 * (3 / 10*6) = 4.2" and found that indeed. As a rough estimation your statement seems to be right! (I mean of course you did know this :D I just wanted to show how I checked in case others are as surprised by the statement as I was.) 1: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Now do the same calculation with lead and arsenic. :)
    - gosub100 3y ago
      I didn't realize that either (it sounds unbelievable but it's not). It (may) also explain why radon is such a big deal for some people. There's that much U below you (and much more as you go through the crust), if enough of it is "hot" and releases Radon (which I believe is a decay product, might be wrong) it can build up enough to poison the occupants of the house.

If it's proved viable wouldn't it allow anyone with access to the sea to obtain uranium? (I know you need concentrated U-235 to make an explosion, but just getting to yellowcake is enough to attract attention, right?).

krisoft 3y ago
It would still require a lot of power and a lot of infrastructure to do it. If a country or organisation would try to go down that route others would see that they spend a lot of effort on slurping seawater through machines they can’t explain with anything else. That is the bottleneck how nuclear non-proliferation is enforced. You can hide your intentions, but you can’t hide that a lot or energy is flowing into a process you don’t have a good explanation for. Because of this detecting a sea water sourced extraction would be even easier than a nuclear program based on mined uranium. (Because you need to enrich from an even weaker starting condition.) What happens after detection is either diplomacy (they ask the country to stop nicely, reminding them of the consequences) or force (bombing the facilities).
pfdietz 3y ago
Uranium can be obtained anywhere if cost is no object. If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium. At first I thought "surely that cannot be right", then did some calculation and it seems you are right? This report[1] states that: "Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is present in nearly all rocks and soils; it has an average concentration in U.S. soils of about 2 pCi/g (3 ppm)." I took the 3ppm figure from this and assumed that means 3g per million gram of soil. (This assumption might be a mistake, but I don't know how better to interpret it.) Then I googled and found 1000 square meter to be a reasonable size of estimate for the lawn size and 1400 kg/cubic meter seems to be a reasonable soil density. Then just multiplied these together "1000 * 1 * 1400 * (3 / 10*6) = 4.2" and found that indeed. As a rough estimation your statement seems to be right! (I mean of course you did know this :D I just wanted to show how I checked in case others are as surprised by the statement as I was.) 1: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Now do the same calculation with lead and arsenic. :)
  - gosub100 3y ago
    I didn't realize that either (it sounds unbelievable but it's not). It (may) also explain why radon is such a big deal for some people. There's that much U below you (and much more as you go through the crust), if enough of it is "hot" and releases Radon (which I believe is a decay product, might be wrong) it can build up enough to poison the occupants of the house.