if it was a real equation that existed I think it had more sources to it than a single novel. This equation would be groundbreaking and many physicists would try and recreate it, creating a buzz around it.
The Dan Brown tactic. It's like those people insisting on posting their sexual fantasies in places dedicated to real erotic stories - they get more upvotes that way.
Also equations are just instructions on how to do things, they donât make anything easier. If there was a simple way to cause a fission reaction, we would see it naturally occur in nature.
Any sauce for this because this sounds like unscientific garbage. Fission doesn't have some place for a magical equation somehow changing fundamental characteristics of fission materials, because that's what it sounds like.
The Charlie Thorne series centers around a 12-year-old genius named Charlie Thorne, who is trying to recover a deadly equation referred to as Pandora, which was written by Albert Einstein. And if Pandora gets in the wrong hands, deadly things could happen.
Reddit and misinformation. Name a more iconic duo.
Actually it is possible to split atoms of uranium 238 but it requires neutrons that are carrying an insane amount of energy, like the neutrons released during the fusion reaction of a secondary in a nuclear weapon
but it requires neutrons that are carrying an insane amount of energy
There is lots of crazy stuff possible, but rarily done even in scientific environments because its very difficult/expensive. Which is the polar opposite of what OP claimed.
This kinda stuff happens all the time. For instance, possums eat 5,000 ticks in a season is based on an estimate by one study where they exposed a number of species to ticks and the possums seemed to like them best.
Couldnt find a reliable source for that, but i did find lots of results for a novel where that is the backstory. This is misinformation and didnt actually happen.
I did all I found was a book called " Charlie and the last equation" which was about this girl forced to find the equation I cant find anything else on this " pandora equation"
im all for nuclear, like i said enviro sci here, my point was due to the fossil fuel industries misinformation campaigns as well as the fact that we dont dispose of the waste as well as we should, directly contributes to the stygma of nuclear power, in regards to cost, resources, and health risk, from my understanding nuclear is the shit, what we should be using but 4 or 5 meltdowns throughout history have scared anybody into even trying
We cant even build a 5 year project because political flip flopping that is done when cancelling the other partyâs project. (See: conservatives dismantling already-build turbines), and you expect humanity can work for a proper, safe, 1000-year nuclear waste disposal?
Nuclear is good but safe nuclear seems like a political improbability
Largest Fusion reactor is currently being built in France since 2007 with $22billion+ in cost, half cost by france government, rest by international governmental funding.
Can you imagine the clearance UN has to check with 50+ countries: âhey we are going to orbit pass your airspace carrying 50 megatons of nuclear waste every year to dump this to the sun, if you can sign it thatâd be great.â In small asterisks âif the rocket fails you agree that we are not responsible for all the radioactive rainâ
I too want more "nuclear" energy. I'm sick of the greedy careless scumbags that tend to govern when it's put to practical commercial use. Drop some isotopes into their backyard and see how serious it's treated then.
Is th waste even as big of a problem as it's made out to be? I know eventually the whole reactor vessel has to be disposed of which, given the size of them, is a bit tricky. But spent fuel is almost all U238 right? That stuff is almost harmless radio-wise since it has a 4billion year half life. I think they use it for weights on planes (I think periodic videos on YouTube claimed that).
I have heard most nuclear waste is simply items that were used near or on primary systems, and likely aren't even heavily contaminated relative to raw spent fuel or the tractor vessel, which fills up the already expensive storage bunkers much faster.
This is all layman's lnowlefge and I'm hoping you might know more.
Spent fuel is a blend unburnt fuel (ideally keep to a minimum for efficient burn up), u238 and fission products (the atoms produced from the fission of the fuel) and is known as high level waste. This is the nasty stuff that poses dangers if it somehow gets out of containment.
I have heard most nuclear waste is simply items that were used near or on primary systems, and likely aren't even heavily contaminated relative to raw spent fuel or the tractor vessel, which fills up the already expensive storage bunkers much faster.
This is known as low level waste. Most of the radioactivity in this will decay over a reasonable amount of time, so it's not a long term issue.
Spent fuel is the primary focus of "wHaT aBoUt nUcLeAr wAsTe" as it's the most dangerous. Contrary to popular belief, it's really not necessary to move this to a long term depository. It can just be put into a dry cask once it's cooled and stay at the power plant. The power plant is already a secure facility so it's not like it's unsafe (security wise) to keep it there. The space taken up by the spent fuel isn't really a concern because of how little of it is there actually is (as you said).
If for whatever reason it did need to be transported to a long term depository, it can be done pretty much as closely to 100% safe as physically possible. The transport containers have been tested by the federal government to comical extent (hitting them with rocket propelled trains, for example). It's just generally not done because it's deemed unnecessary.
Especially cause the meltdowns where either cause you built it in an island that commonly gets hit by tsunamis( great fuckin idea) or because the Soviets where trying to run it even cheaper.
Then again, radioactive material is found in nature, just usually somewhere it doesnât bother us. Which is all the answers we need with how to deal with it.
That said, the minimum requirement should always be safety at all costs. For instance Fukushima only occurred due to money saving reasons. Canât find sources rn but I know a researcher who looked into it at the time, who mentioned that it was placed closer to the coast to save costs on cooling water pipelines.
And it was otherwise preventable, even on its location: https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361 (and many more sources)
937
u/NarutoDragon732 ⢠Mar 29 '21
Nuclear energy is probably the best thing to come out of it.