[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 517x175, thorium.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5322626 No.5322626 [Reply] [Original]

Thorium: Proliferation warnings on nuclear 'wonder-fuel'

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-wonder-fuel.html

> The authors note that, from previous experiments to separate protactinium-233, it is feasible that just 1.6 tonnes of thorium metal would be enough to produce 8kg of uranium-233 which is the minimum amount required for a nuclear weapon. Using the process identified in their paper, they add that this could be done "in less than a year."

>> No.5322631

>>5322626

sage

>> No.5322643

>>5322631

Are you trying to censor the truth?

>> No.5322647

So is the article saying thorium is bad because people can get it and make bombs with it? 1.6 tonnes of it seems like it would be hard to get to just make 8kgs. Hypothetically, if we used thorium as a power source, there would obviously be tight regulations on them as they are right now with uranium, and it seems a lot easier to steal 8kgs of something than 1.6 tonnes

>> No.5322726

I pointed this shit out whenever I saw a thorium thread, but these guys do it and it gets a paper in Nature?

Since when is pointing out the obvious enough to get published?

Also: fuck Nature and its fucking paywall.

>> No.5322754

>>5322647 >So is the article saying thorium is bad because people can get it and make bombs with it?

Yes that's exactly what the article is saying

>1.6 tonnes of it seems like it would be hard to get to just make 8kgs

>seems
>speculation

No.

>> No.5322793

>>5322626
>>5322647
>just 1.6 tonnes of thorium metal would be enough to produce 8kg of uranium-233
>1.6 tonnes of it seems like it would be hard to get to just make 8kgs
>it seems a lot easier to steal 8kgs of something than 1.6 tonnes
What it actually says is that 1.6 tonnes of thorium metal would be enough to produce 8kg in one month with neutron radiation intensity available in typical power reactors, so you could do it quickly with just one chemical processing step.

8kg of thorium (well, maybe 10 or 20 kg) is just about enough to make 8kg of uranium-233, with a more intense neutron source (such as an accelerator -- not that hard to make) or a larger number of chemical processing steps, or continuous chemical processing.

The 1.6 tonnes is just for making a bomb quickly and conveniently with common nuclear equipment.

>> No.5322855

Incidentally, thorium has a little higher density than lead, so 1.6 tons is about 136.5 liters of volume, or 0.1365 cubic meters. It would fit in a wheelbarrow easily.

>> No.5322963
File: 56 KB, 263x596, 11329230788279.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5322963

>>5322855

1600kg in a wheel barrow

lol

>> No.5323027

>>5322963
>football fields in space

>lol

Sometimes people use familiar objects to express measurements in ways people can easily picture.

>> No.5323038

>>5322855
actually ~0.17cubic meters

>>5322963
and an average wheelbarrow (from Rona) can hold at max 0.17cubic meters of material so yes it will fit.

But you'll crush the wheelbarrow.

>> No.5323082

>>5322754
Speculation creates the hypothesis, do you even science?

>> No.5323099

>>5323038
>actually ~0.17cubic meters
Nope. I have no idea where you got that number.

11.7 g/cc = 11.7 tons / cubic meter

1/11.7 = 0.0855 cubic meters / ton
0.0855 * 1.6 = 0.137 cubic meters

It probably wouldn't crush a wheelbarrow either, unless it was really flimsy, you just wouldn't be able to lift it. If you did lift it, then it would break.

>> No.5323100

>>5323082
Real scientists don't even consider hypotheses that don't come from peer-reviewed literature.

>> No.5323121

>>5323099
shit I thought it said 2 tonnes. my bad. That is what I get for skimming /sci/ while doing other math related shit.

>> No.5323137

>>5322726
Nature is about pointing the obvious to the layman. To get published in it, what you need is a name and a title that look good. The content of the paper doesn't have to be of any scientific importance or originality.

>> No.5323142

>>5323100
That would mean no new hypothesis is ever considered because it would have to be published before it is formulated. You're stupid.

>> No.5323149

>>5323142
You're assuming that everyone who submits papers to peer reviewed journals is a real scientist and also that I wasn't fucking with you.

>> No.5323175

>>5323149
>You're assuming that everyone who submits papers to peer reviewed journals is a real scientist
No, there is a hidden assumption that non-scientists that submit to peer-reviewed journals aren't read by real scientists.

> and also that I wasn't fucking with you
I never assume that on the Internet, even less on 4chan.

>> No.5323196

>>5323027

Put 1600kg in a wheelbarrow.

Watch it fail miserably.

>> No.5323202

>>5323196
>Put a football field in space.

>Watch the player suffocate.

Do you really not understand the point I was making?

>> No.5323203

For every good thing Nature brings into the spotlight there are 5 articles by ethicists about how the world is big and scary or not green enough.

>> No.5323218

>>5323202
No evidently I do not.

Why would there be football fields in space? you could never move one there, and how about PLAYERS??

We can barely make it to the moon, how do you expect us to be able to land on a football field which is less than a thousandth the size??

Stop introducing these ridiculous metaphors.

>> No.5323262

>>5323218
You are either autistic or a foreigner, he was using a simple idiom for plebs such as yourself to create an image of what he is talking about without over explaining.

>> No.5323282
File: 42 KB, 400x400, tumblr_mdymdePn8K1rkui3po1_400[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5323282

>>5323218

>> No.5323378
File: 55 KB, 640x480, 1354494889636.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5323378

>>5323218
WANRING!!
WANRINGG!!
SYSTEM OVERHAET!!
SAYSTEM OVARHET!!
RESTRT WANDOWS!!

>> No.5323397

>>5323218
>we could never land on something that small!

how can you be this fucking retarded?

>> No.5323412

>>5323397
Indeed. You landed right on a trolling post, surely your can land soccer balls in space.

>> No.5323414

>>5323218
>never land on something that small
Can you into space stations?

>> No.5323446

>>5323218
HOW
ARE
YOU
THIS
STUPID

>> No.5323456

>>5323218
>less than a thousandth the size
you don't say...............

>> No.5323497

>>5323456
The moon actually has under 1000 football fields.

>> No.5324554

>>5323218
Excellent

Anyway. I originally laughed at the idea of such weight in a wheel barrow because a wheel barrow wouldn't survive that. I'm assuming the wheel barrow was already mentioned because it would be terrorists transport method of choice.

>> No.5324560 [DELETED] 

or maybe a new sport that uses the entire moon as the playing field

>> No.5324564 [DELETED] 

>>5324560
like war

but on the moon

>> No.5324566 [DELETED] 

a good wheelbarrow could hold 1.6 tonnes on the moon

>> No.5324589

>>5324566

1.6 tonnes on the moon is the same as 1.6 tonnes on the earth

>> No.5324591 [DELETED] 
File: 66 KB, 500x565, tumblr_lew9l3Xcis1qesetlo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5324591

>>5324589
F_w=weight

F_w=m*g

g is less on moon

>> No.5324600

>>5322626
So someone creates an amount of fissile material?
Nuclear bomb making isn't all fun and games kids, it requires more than some Uranium

>> No.5324627 [DELETED] 

>>5324600
how much uranium?

>> No.5324633

>>5324591
>implying tonne isn't a unit of mass
ISHYGDDT

>> No.5324634

>>5324627
Eight kilograms?
I don't know how much you need to make a bomb, but you can't just slap some 235 down into a box and throw it off the back of the truck to make it explode

>> No.5324643

>>5324633
g_moon < g_earth
F_moon < F_earth
Wheelbarrow has to deal with less, thus less likely to break.

>> No.5324654

>>5324600
Getting the uranium is a key hurdle in making a nuclear bomb.


Also, something to read. I haven't checked it thoroughly but it's recent.
http://wmdjunction.com/121031_thorium_reactors.htm

>> No.5324659

>>5322626
Someone made a good point in the comments. The fact that Thorium is so widely available means there's nothing you could do about it anyway.

>> No.5324990
File: 2 KB, 200x200, 1329228467913.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5324990

>>5324659

Funding LFTR and touting it as a low proliferation risk is where the problem is.

Proliferation is one of the LFTR peoples greatest arguments. This research kicks them square in the nuts.

>> No.5324998

thoriumfags endlessly fucking told

back to masturbating over blade runner science fans

>> No.5325021

>>5324659
>The fact that Thorium is so widely available means there's nothing you could do about it anyway.
Thorium's not THAT widely available.

It's a BYPRODUCT not a WASTE product of some other mining. The waste product is a mess that contains small amounts of thorium, not pure metal, and it's mostly noted because the thorium content makes it radioactive. It's already treated as controlled nuclear material.

If you were going out into nature and picking it up yourself, you'd have a hard time because there's no such thing as high-grade thorium ore. There are places you can walk around and pick a rock up off the ground that's mostly uranium by weight, but thorium is only found in low concentrations and mixed with other elements that are chemically very similar and difficult to separate.

There are very few places in the world that you could just pick up even a pound of refined thorium or any pure thorium compound and run off with it, and they're all secure and difficult to steal from. Putting a ton of material together would be difficult.

The point of this paper is that if, say, Iran started putting together a thorium reactor, it wouldn't make sense to breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh good, they're using a technology with no proliferation potential." We can't assume that India's thorium program is completely peaceful either, particularly given their open interest in expanding their nuclear arsenal.

>> No.5325830

>>5324998

thoriumfags are mad

>> No.5325873

>>5324990
>Proliferation is one of the LFTR peoples greatest arguments.
Funny, I hadn't heard the proliferation argument before today and I've been loosely following thorium for a couple years now. I would have said the greatest argument is the estimate of 400 years worth of worldwide baseline power generation.

It's a transuranic, who was making a proliferation argument?

>> No.5325918

guys

guys

okay

what if

like

the WHEELBARROW

okay

what if

THE WHEELBARROW

was made of thorium?

>> No.5325943

>>5323456
>>5323446
>>5323414
>>5323397

5-hit combo.

successful troll is successful.