Majority of Uranium is 238 - and U235 is the most neutron energetic, which is why it is used for maximally efficient reactors.
Chemistry note: all Uranium has 92 protons, and the number 235 or 238 etc, is the total number of protons and neutrons. U235 has 143 neutrons in addition to the 92 protons.
U308 would have 216 neutrons to 92 protons and that would be so unstable, and essentially impossible to exist.
Edit: upon further review - the font and lack of following standard nomenclature seems to point to a chemical, rather than an element, in the video. U3O8 - as in 3 Uraniums and 8 Oxygens bonded together.
[ - ] froggy 1 point 11 monthsJun 4, 2023 22:25:58 ago (+1/-0)
Uranium isn't the issue. It's the decay products. Plutonium in particular. The body does not recognize it since it doesn't occur naturally in nature, and as a result doesn't have a way to expel it. Very nasty stuff.
Yeah but adding onto the misinformation is the idea that nuclear reactions shit out barrels of glowing green liquid that can leech into water supplies and such. When in reality it's small amounts of solid radioactive material that can be easily disposed of by simply digging a big ass hole and burying it. We solved this issue decades ago. The majority of nuclear waste has a lethal half life of <30 years. But you don't have to talk my word for it. If you just go onto YouTube and type "nuclear waste" into the search bar, the majority of results are all talking about the misconceptions of nuclear waste and how easy it is to actually deal with.
[ - ] froggy 1 point 11 monthsJun 4, 2023 23:24:23 ago (+1/-0)
Not arguing any of your points at all. I'm a STRONG proponent for nuclear energy. However, there are dangers that exist, and being educated on the issue, good AND bad, is how we dispel the stigma that modern sheep have towards this subject
Most of the dangers actually came from mismanagement, under funding, and cutting corners. After seeing this post I started doing some more reading on the topic and it turns out that in the 60s they invented a special kind of reactor designed specifically to use the waste products from other reactors. Meaning it would be possible to recycle it basically down to nothing. Interesting topic.
I'm sure it would be no surprise to you the project was quashed by big oil.
I don't think it's even a stigma that modern sheep have towards nuclear energy honestly. It's just that big oil would never let it actually happen. I've never met an individual anywhere that when the topic came up, actually believed nuclear was a bad idea. I wonder if that's just another msm psy-op to make the public think that the public is largely against nuclear.
Those are breeder reactors. My understanding is that back when the tech was being decided on, they specifically wanted the plutonium for nuclear bombs. I guess now the issue is breeders are more expensive, more complicated, and not the devil you know.
Canada currently uses a variant of that reactor design. It can use ultra low enriched fuel, or can burn up existing decay products. Amazing design and operation history. odd that Canada is the only country to use them
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 11 monthsJun 4, 2023 23:59:14 ago (+1/-0)*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium#:~:text=List%20of%20isotopes%20%20%20%20Nuclide%20%5B6%5D,%20216.024760%20%2830%29%20%2020%20more%20rows%20
Majority of Uranium is 238 - and U235 is the most neutron energetic, which is why it is used for maximally efficient reactors.
Chemistry note: all Uranium has 92 protons, and the number 235 or 238 etc, is the total number of protons and neutrons. U235 has 143 neutrons in addition to the 92 protons.
U308 would have 216 neutrons to 92 protons and that would be so unstable, and essentially impossible to exist.
Edit: upon further review - the font and lack of following standard nomenclature seems to point to a chemical, rather than an element, in the video. U3O8 - as in 3 Uraniums and 8 Oxygens bonded together.
Changes the context a lot.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2023 07:25:18 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] froggy
[ - ] froggy 1 point 11 monthsJun 4, 2023 22:25:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Trollasaurus
[ - ] Trollasaurus 2 points 11 monthsJun 4, 2023 23:09:12 ago (+2/-0)
But you don't have to talk my word for it. If you just go onto YouTube and type "nuclear waste" into the search bar, the majority of results are all talking about the misconceptions of nuclear waste and how easy it is to actually deal with.
[ + ] froggy
[ - ] froggy 1 point 11 monthsJun 4, 2023 23:24:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Trollasaurus
[ - ] Trollasaurus 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2023 00:18:06 ago (+0/-0)
Interesting topic.
I'm sure it would be no surprise to you the project was quashed by big oil.
I don't think it's even a stigma that modern sheep have towards nuclear energy honestly. It's just that big oil would never let it actually happen. I've never met an individual anywhere that when the topic came up, actually believed nuclear was a bad idea. I wonder if that's just another msm psy-op to make the public think that the public is largely against nuclear.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2023 07:21:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] froggy
[ - ] froggy 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2023 07:48:02 ago (+0/-0)