On-Line Uranium Auctions 194
object.orient() writes "Yahoo! News has a story about a web site that will be starting on-line auctioning of uranium fuel for nuclear powerplants. Wow, now all those blueprints for nuclear weapons I downloaded might be useful! (Seriously, they say it's safe from terrorists.)" Granted, it does look like you have to be a registered purchaser and it's not plutonium or anything - but the whole thought amuses me, in a science project gone awry way..
[OT] Karma (Score:1)
I can understand that. But why does it go down when I meta-moderate. Not "when I am meta-moderated" but "when *I* meta-moderate".
--
Re:Another Item Off My List (Score:1)
Am I the only one who was disappointed as a kid when they found out that a nuclear fission reactor was nothing more than a giant steam engine?
--
Re:Take 2,000 smoke detectors and build a bomb. (Score:1)
That would be about 2 _million_ fresh smoke detectors.
Re:Safe until... (Score:1)
Re:completely wrong (Score:1)
According to the site [uraniumonline.com]:
Another successful auction has been completed using UraniumOnLine. This time a buyer bought 56,320 kg U as UF6 for delivery at USEC on 30 Nov at an amazing price of $23.05/kg U as UF6.
So much for needing to "crack the far more secure communications of the power plants and storage facilities."
Re:completely wrong (Score:1)
As for Dolph, what for? A heist like this only requires that an invoice be fudged, to get "your" crate get loaded on your truck at the dock. No need to shoot people. Really, international espionage is over-dramatized in Hollyweird.
Once the hack tells you who had *bought* it, you'd know whom to crack next. Elementary really. IANASpy BTW, really.
Re:whoa whoa whoa (Score:1)
Not quite (Score:1)
--
Re:It's relatively safe from terrrorists (Score:1)
1.21 Gigawatts?! (Score:2)
"Oh I'm sure in 1984 you can go down to the corner drugstore and get plutonium..."
Well maybe be not but I can get some uranium and feed it to the lil' breeder reactor in my garage...
Re:Yet more wonders of capitalism (Score:1)
So what? Bananas are radioactive (Potassium-40). You get an annual dose of about 39 millirem from radioactive elements in your own body, most of the dose is from Potassium-40 (see this page [isu.edu]).
Re:Yet more wonders of capitalism (Score:1)
Ummm... no. The Soviet RBMK reactors (like Chernobyl, which was/is an RBMK-1000) lowered the rods into the reactor core, whereas the American reactors are not graphite-moderated at all (rather, they are moderated by heavy water.)
In Chernobyl, the "American method" you describe above was exactly how Chernobyl's plant worked: the crew attempted to lower the rods into the reactor, but they jammed because they tried to lower them too fast...
Blink tags at www.uraniumonline.com (Score:1)
mostly right (Score:1)
Nuclear is also second cheapest. The differences in cost and safety are slight, but gas is still the winner. Coal, Al Gore are you listening? is a big looser.
Safe even then. (Score:3)
--
fear-mongering luddite! (Score:4)
Ughh. Yes, let's go back to using large animals and small piles of wood for our energy need. We can't tolerate dangerous things like a barely controlled continual explosion just feet from your body (i.e. the internal combustion engine in a car). You know how many people those kill every year in spontaneous catastrophic failure, with hundreds of millions in daily use (awful things, they clearly must be banned!).
The nuclear power station for a whole region is analagous to the internal combustion engine for the person, just as nuclear weapons are analogous to personal firearms. Yeah, it's dangerous, if it's made or maintained by an incompetent, or the owner insists on running it without proper maintenance. Yeah, it sounds dangerous if you describe it in terms of what can go wrong. But that doesn't mean it's actually more dangerous than other things.
Any big power source kills lots of people when it goes wrong. Think of dams bursting or coal-mine explosions.
Chernobyl? The world's experts knew it was unsafe. A good argument to listen to your mechanic, and not your pocketbook.
Three Mile Island? Far from a disaster, that was a little hiccup in the early days of nuclear power that lead to even greater modern-day safety.
Compare that to all the people that have died over the years from coal-dust explosions and being burned by petroleum products. And nuclear power becomes better understood and safer with every passing year.
And the rewards... !
If fission power plants were developed to their potential, electricity would be so cheap it wouldn't be worth metering except for industrial uses. Aluminum would become cheaper than wood, cheaper than good garden dirt. Coal would be left in the ground and nobody would just burn oil. That haze in the sky, whether you're too accustomed to it to notice it or not, would be a thing of the past, as would smog and acid rain.
That's the kind of cheap energy we need to make things like space travel affordable. By the end of the 1960's we had adequate rocket technology for space colonization, if only it was mass-produced with cheap energy and we used small onboard reactors on spacecraft instead of trying to carry up huge amounts of chemical fuel, both for our machines and ourselves.
The only possible justification for not using fission power is the expectation that fusion power will become available shortly. We've pretty much put our civilization on hold waiting that development. Compare the changes in the first 70 years of the 20th century to the latter 30 years: we went from "Bigger, Better, More" to "Smaller, Cheaper, More Efficient." Car and house prices stopped going down, consumer goods became less substantial. We didn't get smarter, we regulated away progress in energy production so this is the only progress we can still have!
but for a company to trade it over the Internet is just asking for trouble! With the trend of backdoor penetrations into ecommerce by hackers over the last few years, I doubt any online site is truly safe from a determined and persistent hacker. And uranium could be a big prize for the right person.
They're finding a buyer over the internet. That's all.
Would it have made you happier if they they did it over the telephone, or with smoke signals?
They will still be meeting with the buyer in real life and going through all the security protocols necessary to transfer the fuel (moving uranium is hardly a simple matter of tossing it on a truck and sending it off). It's not like they're FedExing the package to anyone whose credit card clears.
The internet sale doesn't add the least bit of risk, it's just a natural use of the most efficient mode of communication we have.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
uh oh. (Score:1)
Re:Still Safe (Score:1)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
completely wrong (Score:3)
Hacking the site, no matter how expertly done, would gain you the knowledge of who had *bought* the uranium. Since nuclear power plants do not typically wait until they're running out of uranium before buying some more, this gives you no knowledge beyond the date at which a book entry was presumably made on the ledgers of a storage facility, the locations of which are also public knowledge. In order to know when it's going to be delivered, you'd need to crack the far more secure communications of the power plants and storage facilities.
Re:Yet more wonders of capitalism (Score:2)
None of the new things Amazon sells is a logical extension for a book and music store. I mean lawnchairs? Hardware (read: hammers and nails, not SCSI cables and USB hubs)!? Soon they're going to start selling CARS (seriously)! I wouldn't be surprised to see uranium (or anything else) on amazon at this point.
Re:Great. Just Great. (Score:1)
up and ATOM
up and AT THEM
UP AND ATOM!
UP AND AT THEM!
Re:Yet more wonders of capitalism (Score:2)
No, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.
No: here's why it's needed (Score:2)
5 day waiting period? (Score:1)
Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:1)
On an offtopic note, how much TNT would you need to make a shockwave that's rideable?
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Re:mostly right (Score:1)
In the final analysis I think this factor must also be taken into account.
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:1)
Re:You're missing the point there (Score:1)
Thank you. Good heavens, I get so bloody tired of the anti-n-ergy activists. They have nothing in their arsenal of banal facts but scaremongering. And that they do well.
Coal, oil, fossil fuels... All are dangerous (right now!) and all are running out. Use the fossil fuels such as oil as petrochemical fodder. Pleeeeese, lets stop burning the stuff.
And about wind-machines and solar panels. Does anyone know the energy required to produce aluminum. Ungodly amounts of energy, in the Mwe, to produce it. Where's that energy going to come from. If we had entirely wind-generated power, most of it would be used in the production of the bloody turbines themselves...
Also, check out www.atomicengines.com. Read up on the next generation n-ergy plant, the atomic engine. Fantastic.
Chicken/egg (Score:1)
--
How long before... (Score:1)
I've always wondered how long it would be before some terrorists blow up a major city with an atom bomb. I mean, face it, there are some radioactive elements out there whose critical mass is measured in grams, and I'm sure there are lots of ex-communist countries' not-too-careful-about-ethics scientists who would be more than willing to sell such quantities to Joe R. Terrorist for a couple of M$.
Building an A bomb is easy, isn't it? Basically, you just hit together two blocs totalling more than the critical mass. In the case of Uranium, you have to separate the U235 from the U238 and such tedious details, but basically, it isn't hard.
So which will be the first city hit, and when? Honestly, I don't think it will happen in North America, Europe or Japan, because terrorists have generally more immediate targets. But still, it makes you shudder.
Still Safe (Score:4)
Re:whoa whoa whoa (Score:1)
Re:whoa whoa whoa (Score:1)
Bad parsing skills (Score:2)
Online uranium? How does the radioactivity get to me? Via email?
--
Re:Does this mean? (Score:1)
Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:1)
Actually that's not entirely true. Heavy water reactors, such as the ones used in Canada, only require roughly 1% U-235.
But this whole discussion is rather silly. A terrorist could just as easily cause massive damage by using a device to scatter radioactive material all over a populated area. He wouldn't even need a fission reaction, although that is much more spectacular...
who needs uranium? (Score:1)
Re:Great. Just Great. (Score:2)
As others have noted, the big threat is that Russian warheads will wind up with "FOR SALE" signs. Reactor fuel (raw, spent or re-refined) is not a proliferation threat.
--
Shrooms (Score:3)
Those things are just too cool.
It's relatively safe from terrrorists (Score:2)
Or at least until the terrorists build a breeder reactor to generate plutonium.
Silly scare mongering, Hemos, we expect better of you.
George
Great. Just Great. (Score:1)
This is just great. Now I guess I will live the rest of my life in the local fallout shelter.
Don't worry, you can get plutonium too (Score:2)
I amazed noone was in here crying hoax already. Jeez...
Re:Good idea (Score:1)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Uhmm... wrong (Score:1)
Re:Still Safe (Score:2)
You just create an airburst bomb made of high-ex wrapped in powdered Uranium.
That'll screw people up just as definately as blowing them up will. It'll just be slower and less pretty to watch. [a2000.nl]
Of course, it'll cause far more mass hysteria, since the "Bang!" method tends to get rid of the people that get all hysterical about it...
Re:Yet more wonders of capitalism (Score:5)
The bottom line is that Nuclear power is extremely safe compared to every other form of power we have available. Three mile island and Chernobyl not withstanding. Have you ever seen what coal soot can do to your lungs?
--
Re:Uhmm... wrong (Score:1)
If we're thinking of the same 100,000... you might have trouble getting them to attest to anything!
Re:Another Item Off My List (Score:1)
The time machine used plutonium, not uranium.
--
Breeder reactors, Breeder reactors, Breeder re.... (Score:1)
The big fun-fun part of it is that it produces this unfriendly mix of Pl-139,140,141,etc. Aka Reactor-grade plutonium. Weapons grade plutonium is ==pure== Pl-139. You could hold it in your hand. The only way to get weapns-grade plutonium is to pump gob-boodles of Mwe (and millions of $) into a specially designed isotope seperation process. So, you get this nice hogde-podge of fissle material that gets used again and again and again untill all you've got left is some light to heavy metals in the half-life range of tens of years. Most of which are either alpha or beta emitters (ie tin foil is a great shield material).
Terrorists don't have the capital or the time to turn reactor-grade pl into weapons-grade. It's easier for them to buy pre-assembled warheads from the former Soviet republics of Kasakistan, Uzbekistan, etc. Those poor folks have nothing to eat. And nothing to sell but hiiigh priced oil and big boom-booms. What would you do? Starve?
Re:Shrooms (Score:1)
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
Re:Funny Story (Score:1)
He didn't get too sick, but he had burns on him. Shit, I probalby got radioactive poisoning from him. To avoid jail he joined the navy, and is still there as far as I know.
Re:whoa whoa whoa (Score:1)
Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:1)
Well that can be said of lots of things that are already legal and being sold online. The point is that this isn't going to result in lots of people making and deploying the things that people think of when they hear the scary phrase "nuclear bomb."
IIRC, most of the good ones use Plutonium anyway.
Re:Online ordering doesn't really change anything. (Score:1)
Normally I would agree with you, but I would like to offer a counter example: James Acord. He first started gathering uranium from old fiesta-ware plates (for a few years the oarnge plates were colored with uranium). He broke up the plates to concentrate the uranium. Not enough to do anything with, but enough to alarm some people.
He then managed to score a few tonns of uranium blankets that were to be used in a german fast breeder reator. The reactor never went online, and so Siemans had a few tonns left over. They gave it to James Acord for an art project. I don't think the art project was ever built, and I don't know where the uranium is today. Mr Acord has (had?) an NRC license for the material, so in a sense it is under control.
To read more about James Acord, Nuclear artist look at http://www.hanfordnews.com/1999/dec8.html [hanfordnews.com] or http://www.artscatalyst.org/htm/eots/n uc.htm [artscatalyst.org]
W
Re:UPS (Score:1)
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
nukeauction.com?! (Score:1)
We are also beginning the implementation of a new auction site dedicated to areas of nuclear procurement other than fuel. We expect to be online within weeks at www.nukeauction.com.
--
Re:Still Safe (Score:1)
I hope I remembered correctly, it's been forever since I took physics.
The U is safe (Score:1)
Guess I was wrong (Score:1)
Ryan
oops? (Score:1)
Managed Risk (Score:1)
How the hell did peoples' perspectives regarding nuclear energy become so warped?
Terrorist safe it is (Score:1)
Correction on Chernobyl (Score:2)
The point is threefold:
--
Solution to the terrorist bidder problem... (Score:4)
Negative comment for user EvilMidnightBomber from Bob's Surplus Nukes, Inc.:
Warning: Do not deal with this guy! His check bounced, he refuses to answer e-mails, and he nuked Manhattan! Stay away from!!!
You're missing the point there (Score:2)
You should go research some facts, troll-man. Nuclear power is by far the safest form of power.
Are you trying to tell me that nuclear power is inherently better than say, solar power? Of course coal plants are dangerous and polluting, but they're on the way out in many places and about time too.
What you seem to be missing is that although the risks of an accident may be less than for coal, the consequences are much, much worse! This is why nuclear power is an evil which we should do without, because if something ever really goes wrong, it will be a disaster for a huge geographical area and the people that live there.
Re:Be creative, folks... (Score:2)
Yet more misconceptions about nuclear power (Score:2)
--
Re:completely wrong (Score:2)
No you wouldn't; this is my point. The knowledge that a nuclear plant has bought uranium is not interesting in itself; it could be speculating, building an inventory, or any one of a number of other things. Added to this, typically the uranium is bought not at the individual plant level, but by operating companies and brokers who serve more than one plant.
What you need to find out is the time of delivery, and that is much more difficult. And uranium isn't loaded onto "trucks" at "docks" -- there's a lot more paperwork and confirmation than that, plus you'd need the right kind of transporter, plus you'd need to show up at the exact right time, having first somehow prevented the actual owner from arriving.
You think that's safe? Think again. (Score:3)
Hydropower is also being opposed by the greenies because
--
Woo hoo! (Score:2)
I need a bit for my cloud chamber..... (Score:2)
Re:You're missing the point there (Score:2)
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
If you read the story (or even other comments) you'd see that there is no anonymity here. The auctions are by invitation only, and they're unlikely to invite a new buyer without some serious investigation. Also, any newcomers to the market can probably expect a visit from the FBI.
--
Re:So one kind is alright, but not another? (Score:2)
barring accident, no radioactive materials escape nuclear plants,
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
Care to reconcile?
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Sign up all you want, guys. Good luck buying anything unless you've been approved, which you won't be.
And this should clear up a lot more:
--
Re:So one kind is alright, but not another? (Score:2)
---
The real bear is the physics (Score:3)
This is why plutonium bombs are all implosion designs; a gun can't get a mass of plutonium into the right shape fast enough. The chain reaction starts prematurely, the bomb comes apart before more than a tiny fraction of the Pu has fissioned, and you get a "fizzle". This is the reason that it is nearly impossible to use recovered plutonium from power reactors to make bombs. Power reactor fuel spends years in a heavy neutron flux, and it is chock-full of higher isotopes of Pu (like Pu-240, Pu-241 and Pu-242) which have far higher spontaneous-fission rates than Pu-239. You'd need a bomb design made from scratch to use this stuff if you could use it at all. ISTR reading that the Russians had actually done isotope separation on their already-weapons-grade Pu to get rid of some of the higher Pu isotopes and make their weapons more reliable. If you're going to need gas-centrifuge gear anyway, you might as well go with uranium. Your chances of success are far better that way.
--
Re:Take 2,000 smoke detectors and build a bomb. (Score:2)
Oops. My bad. So much for doing math in my head, I always seem to lose the decimal.
Ya know, I never do that when I'm calculating capacitor values and reactance and stuff like that.
...
Better call ahead for that order. Maybe get them to bump up the credit limit on your Home Depot card.
Online ordering doesn't really change anything. (Score:3)
I'd like to note that nuclear weapons can be made of other things besides plutonium. In fact, the fission cross section of Pu-239 is high, so it is quite difficult to make weapons out of plutonium. One cannot use a gun assembly like Little Boy, the U-235 bomb that dropped on Hiroshima, and instead one surrounds a subcritical mass of plutonium with high explosives that, when detonated, compress/implode the material to get it to go critical. This is a delicate business best left for the pros e.g. Los Alamos Nat. Lab. An attractive and moderately low-cost alternative to plutonium that has been tried by at least one country (India, IIRC) is to breed U-233 from thorium to make material for weapons. (This is one place where the South Park song "Blame Canada" is actually fitting since, if I remember right, the materials were bred in reactors supplied by Canada).
The problem of uranium purification is a difficult one, and it would be nearly impossible to surreptitiously acquire enough reactor-grade uranium to construct a weapon without the world's intelligence agencies being clued in to the fact, mail-order uranium notwithstanding.
If I were a terrorist I'd forgo the whole nuclear weapons thing and just start manufacturing anthrax. Acquiring the materials is trivial (just go find a field of sheep), and you get considerably more deaths per dollar with biological agents than with nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they are easier to deploy, and they are much more difficult to detect and disable.
Bioweapons--the poor-man's nuke.
Re:Yet more wonders of capitalism (Score:2)
Please read the article. The aucion is by invite only. You can't juts sign on as '5kr1p7_k!!dd!3' and hope to get a good deal on some uranium. It's very controlled.
Try to have a clue before you start spouting things like "Nuclear power is the spawn of the devil! Repent ye and be saved!"... fool.
--
Radioactive coal? Do me a favour! (Score:2)
This assumption depends on a) a ludicrous overestimate of the amount of naturally occurring trace radioactive elements (uranium, thorium etc.) in naturally occurring coal and b) an assumption that nuclear power always works without error and without leaks.
So in other words, if a nuclear power station is safe, then it's safe. Thanks, guys.
Re:Uhmm... wrong (Score:2)
OTP Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:2)
Re:Bad parsing skills (Score:2)
Hmm... let me see...
According to Schrodinger, I guess that means that if you didn't check your email, then at any given moment, the email would be both unsent and sent.
Good idea (Score:4)
You are a unique individual...just like everyone else.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Safe until... (Score:2)
This is scary.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
What do you think they're gonna do, use UPS? (Score:2)
What do you think the uranium producers are going to do, ship it to your house vie UPS or FedEx? Come on...it's not like they're going to ship this to just anyone. It's just a lot harder to fly all the uranium buyers to an auction than it is to use a web site.
So say someone does break in and tries to buy reactor grade uranium. When they list their address as:
Osama Bin Laden
123 Main St. Apt. 4
Somewhere in Afganistan
It's prolly NOT going to be delivered. You trigger happy morons deserve nothing but flame for not thinking through your comments. You're just like a tabloid...if you can sensationalize it, print it. This is very similar to a Chicago suburb getting all in a fit because the U.S. Navy wanted to ship napalm through their town on it's way to be destroyed. Never mind the fact that they allow tankers full of sulfuric acid and chlorine through there all the time...
Luddites, be damned...be damned to the eternal stoneage you would rather have.
Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:2)
Weapons grade uranium is 90% U235. The rest is U238 (plus some other junk).
The uranium used in reactors is also U235.
Naturally occuring uraniu m [webelements.com] is 0.72% U235.
Naturally occuring uranium is slightly enriched, to 3% U235, for use in reactors.
And, actually, there are multiple ways of seperating isotopes. Centrifuging uranium hexaflouride is just the cheapest and easist way, requireing ten passes to get weapons grade. Previously, magnetic deflection of ions (like in a mass spectrometer) was used.
Ok, to return to my point, I should have said the most difficult part in getting fuel grade uranium to explode, is the construction.
The reason weapons grade uranim is used is because it's a lot easier to make explode, in a controlled manner. And it gets you big bangs.
Fuel grade uranium will not get you a much bigger bang than, say, 13 kiltons, assuming your careful about how you build it.
That is a mere fire cracker compared with todays 100 megaton [gwu.edu] bombs. At one 100000th of that power, it's the same size as the Hiroshima bomb.
If you were ever going to build one from fuel grade uranium, it would be a terror weapon. Even if all it did was blow up a block, that wuold do.
[Aside: Fuel grade uraium can be made into a bomb: the chain reaction co-efficent of a nuclear reactor is 1 (by definition). This is controled by control rods, that allow the maximum chain reaction co-efficent to be reduced (but not enchanced). Thus the natural peak chain reaction co-efficent of the fuel must exceed 1.]
Alternativly, you could build an FBR to produce plutonium, but that's getting off the point.
Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:5)
However, given that you need licenses to import uranium, you need to shape it in an inert atmosphere (argon), you need licenses to work with boron [0] too, and lets not even consider tritium. Krypton switches arn't exactly common, and high explosive is not trivial to obtain either.
The most expensive part of a bomb is not the knowledge, and not the raw material either. It's the construction.
I hardly think that anyone is going to use this to build a bomb.
[0] Boron is needed to control the reaction. It's also probably (as boron nitrate, the comonly used ceramic form)the single best ceramic. It's used in bulletproof ceramic vest, it's got a tensile strength and elestic modulus somewhere in the 'oh, my god!' region, and requires to be dome formed at 2000 centigrade.
Re:You're missing the point there (Score:2)
Yeah, especially when you miss the target by a fraction of a degree and fry a nearby town. They'll need some SPF 2 million sunblock, man.
---
Re:So one kind is alright, but not another? (Score:2)
You're damn right he's saying that. I'd rather have an amount of nuclear waste in a container buried deep in the desert than a large amount of free radioactive radon particles spewing out of the top of the nearest coal burning facility.
Wait a second, you do know that, barring accident, no radioactive materials escape nuclear plants, don't you? Perhaps not.
---
Re:You're missing the point there (Score:2)
Solar power is nuclear power. Just like in a fission plant, you don't derive the power directly from the fission, the same holds true for solar power. And the global impact of something going wrong with the Sun far exceedes any other disaster. To be safe, we need to get rid of the Sun.
Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:3)
The manufacture of a fission bomb is not very hard for knowledgeable engineers, this was done over fifty years ago from scratch, it is easily doable today and the design doesn't have to be at all sophisticated. A fusion bomb is more tricky but the info about the Teller-Ulam design is already out there and easily obtainable.
There's supposed to be an international effort to prevent nuclear proliferation, including civil applications like power generation because of the obvious application to weapons production. The bottom line is that this material is a prerequisite for anyone embarking on a WOMAD program. How does a site like this comply with international non proliferation objectives? I expect it does this the same way the market handles it now, with export licenses and restrictions on the point to point trade. This is just another market place, these things are already traded, at least this way the DOE can outbid the terrorists instead of having to beat them to the salesman every time, although it seems unlikely that unsavory trades would pass through such a public forum.
Does this mean? (Score:2)
But, seriously, why is this needed? Don't nuclear power plants already have their own well-established suppliers? The article didn't make it clear what kind of benefit this really has. Power plants must already have their supplier list, otherwise they couldn't operate...
Just B2B as usual... (Score:2)
I looked the site over. It doesn't seem too different than the sites they use to do men's apparel or socks or pistachios. Of course, the +1, Funny potential is high, but nuclear fuel isn't that bizarre.
IIRC, the isotopes used by reactors are different from the isotopes used in weapons-grade uranium. So it isn't much of a danger-- it would take the resources of a third world country to process U-235 into U-238 (or is it the other way backwards-- I always forget). Either way, Third World countries have plenty of uranium-- what they are missing is processing technology, such as gas-centrifuge systems and other technologies. And we, happily, are watching those technologies pretty closely.
Tritium, on the other hand, is useful for both industrial and military purposes, and so is much more interesting. ;)
Media mayhem (Score:2)
-----
Take 2,000 smoke detectors and build a bomb. (Score:2)
That's the key. So long as that is safe from being screwed with.
Even if I were to break in and order some uranium from them, I doubt they'd deliver it to my house, anyway. I'm sure it would have to be a radiologically-licensed lab.
I had initially figured it would be some sort of novelty website, selling natural uranium for people. Natural uranium (U238) is basically lead, but a little bit heavier and with different chemical properties. Not very radioactive, quite harmless unless you ingest it (like almost all heavy metals). But they appear to offer a search among a variety of isotopes and pellet configurations, so the fuel is suited to different reactor types.
and it's not plutonium or anythingWell, all American light-water moderated reactors run on U-235. "Enriched" uranium. It's an isotope that occurs in nature - it's uranium but with a few less neutrons than usual. This makes it more prone to fission, and therefore more useful as fuel. Chemically, it's ordinary uranium, but just a little heavier, so it's separated from U238 with a physical, not chemical, process.
U235 is dangerous. It's more dangerous than many isotopes of plutonium. For example, Pu239 is dangerous as all hell - but chemically, not because of the alpha particles it throws off.
Remember, Japan got to taste-test a Uranium and a Plutonium bomb.
but the whole thought amuses me, in a science project gone awry way..Nah. People are just afraid of nuclear anything. Just take some precautions. Bad things will happen from time to time (as they always do when technology fails). But, nuclear technology is a boon to mankind. No one would ever suggest that we give up aviation because a plane crashes. No informed person would advocate that we give up nuclear technology because there was an idiot at the controls at Chernobyl. As we've learned from plane crashes, we learn from criticality accidents and mishaps.
Ionizing smoke detectors save more lives each year than all the people who have died as a result of Chernobyl.
And on the ceiling in your bedroom, that little smoke detector contains one of the wonderful by-products of the plutonium produced for the arms race: Americium 241. Alpha emitter, so it creates a positive electrostatic field around itself. Half-life of 49 years. Fairly active stuff. And you have, in your bedroom, about 1 microcurie of the stuff. Even if you open your smoke detector, as long as you never eat or inhale your smoke detector, you're perfectly safe: alpha emitters are harmless outside your body (alpha particles can't pass through skin) but if you get them in your body, you're in trouble.
Criticality of Am241 occurs at about 2 curies. From that, you'd get a big blue flash, a lot of heat, and a lot of weird cancers. So, head down to Home Depot, and order 2,000 good and fresh smoke detectors. Pull them all apart and get the Am241 out of them. Keep two separate, but equal, piles of Am241 chunks. Melt them down in separate containers, and pour them into molds that have complementary shapes. Put them, always spaced about a foot apart, in the container of your choice. Use conventional explosives to force the two of them together. There ya go. You're now a nuclear power, ready to take on India or Pakistan. Kinda makes you wonder why it took them so long to get that far. (Canada had to sell each country a CANDU nuclear reactor back in the 1970s, for "civilian use". Good idea. Thanks. Yet another way that the Canadian government makes me feel proud to be a Canadian. <sigh>)
There's nothing to it, the cost is only a few grand, and all the info required is basic and common knowledge; most of it you could acquire at any good municipal library. But, I assure you, you won't get to build your little nuke. Someone in the Feds will discover you've got a very strange interest in smoke detectors.
1 ton of Uranium.. wait.. 0.99 tons.. err.. 0.98 (Score:2)
Guess you need to factor in the length of the auction and the total shipping time to accurately figure the price-per-pound to see if you're getting a good deal.
The local CVS pharmacy has it on sale right now, and I don't have to pay shipping. Plus.. the Radio Shack next door promises me they'll have a flux capacitor soon. Then I'll go back in time and kill that damned milkman that was always winking at my mo...
Re:Plutonium irrelevent... (Score:2)
The biggest problem is that it needs to be highly enriched Uranium. The other minor problems are that you need to bring them together fast and with enough of an initial release of neutrons to get the chain reaction started quickly and also make the sphere dense enough so that the material does infact go boom and not fizz.
Re:Does this mean? (Score:3)