Little hydrogen is an isotope of the more abundant big hydrogen. It has -1 neutrons.

Uranium 238 should be pretty safe to touch and carry, in small amounts (I don't know at what size it becomes truly dangerous to the site exposed, especially if left there for any long length of time; I'd guess anything below one pound should be perfectly fine, but for all I know it could be 30 pounds).

You just cannot do this: do not swallow or inhale any of it. Also, if it has very sharp and jagged edges and it cuts you--then a tiny piece gets into your body (then the bloodstream), same problem.

But, at least this version of Uranium isn't too hazardous, but you certainly could poison someone with it. The heavier Isotopes created from Uranium are much more dangerous (I'm sure many are aware of this); like Plutonium (made in the natural environment if nuclear reactions are going on nearby, like a Star).

We created quite a bit of Plutonium back in the day using Uranium (more specifically we used Uranium and Deuterons; Deuterons are gathered from Deuterium, which is "Heavy Hydrogen"; the Deuteron is the nucleus of a Deuterium atom).

The hydrogen atoms would all be the same, except that they aren't (there are several isotopes of hydrogen).

As an American living in Thailand, I've adjusted pretty well to metric units for most things (to the point that I'd prefer them for MOST things).

Celsius has more sensible set points (1 and 100 being freeze and boil of water), but I still prefer to think in Fahrenheit for temperatures. For some reason it is harder for me to overcome the inertia of ~25 years of using Fahrenheit than it was to get used to metric distances.

One other thing I noticed about this video is that you could easily make similar arguments about our system of time being backwards or primitive. For some reason we have days of 24 hours, which are sometimes divided into 12 AM and 12 PM hours. Each hour has an arbitrary 60 minutes. Each minute has 60 seconds. Sometimes we divide seconds into hundredths (1/100) or milliseconds (1/1000). We have 12 months, each containing somewhere between 28 and 31 days. One year has 365.242199 days, so we call it 365 and then add one more on leap years, or occasionally skip a leap year since that fraction isn't a perfect 1/4.

That is all very messy and based on local, non-universal phenomena -- just like all those silly antiquated imperial units. Maybe at some point we'll shift to metric time based on radioactive isotope decay rates or something.

Reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium? Then where is weapons grade plutonium made? I think you'll find that it's made in exactly the same reactors as there is no real distinction between a reactor used for power generation and weapons generation other than in name.

"Uranium ore contains only about 0.7% of the fissile isotope U235. In order to be suitable for use as a nuclear fuel for generating electricity it must be processed (by separation) to contain about 3% of U235 (this form is called Low Enriched Uranium - LEU). Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to 90% of U235 (Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU), which can be done using the same enrichment equipment. There are about 38 working enrichment facilities in 16 countries"
http://www.cnduk.org/get-involved/parliamentary/item/579-the-links-between-nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons

The point is that continuation of current tech makes it a lot more economical to produce weapons tech, whether that be weapons grade plutonium or depleted uranium (DU). Reactors can cost upwards of ten billion dollars to build, why would a weapons manufacturer want to pay for one of those out of their own pocket when they can have the taxpayer's pay for nuclear power plants that can produce what they need?

"Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power"
- Dr. Amory Lovins (from NEIS)

In terms of renewables:, the 'new' renewables only account for about 3% of total energy use, so if that's what he meant then he's not far off. Stats from IEA, however, state that wind has had an average growth rate of 25% over the past five years, while solar has averaged an annual growth rate of over 50% in the same period. So their impact is increasing fairly rapidly. So I'm not sure why he's so pessimistic about them when the IEA is not.

Have environmental groups specifically spoken out against the type of nuclear reactors he is talking about? Which ones?

Did you know the differences in snowflakes have to do not only with the heat gradients that they are made in and re-exposed to over its creation, but also the isotopic composition and arrangement of said composition, I didn't.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

http://creation.com/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals

And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.

Read the above link.

You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth

Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists, does that make all of their claims valid?

You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.

You said there was no persecution today, but in fact there is quite a bit. Christianity is illegal in 51 countries. It's almost getting to the point in America where sharing your faith might become a civil rights issue.

And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

God says what is true about you and me, and that's all that matters.

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism



And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.


You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth


You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.


And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

Many creation scientists have advanced degrees and have published many papers. Why aren't they scientists? What makes a scientist a scientist?

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

There was a very concerted effort, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries to come up with evidence for an old age of the Earth to support the ideas of uniformitarian geology and macro evolution. There was an ideological war going on, just as there is today, between those secular scientists who wanted to establish their own secular idea of origins to undercut the account of biblical creation. Up until that point, all geologists were flood geologists. Now a days, you're right, they are resting on their laurels, because as I said it has become conventional wisdom, which is not science but philosophy.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old.

I grew up in a secular home with a great love for science, and I very activiely pursued studies in astronomy and biology. In all of my studies, I never heard so much as a peep about the controversy. There is an information filter on this subject, and it had kept me in the dark about the whole thing most of my life.

You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

None of this has anything to do with the question of salvation. The conflict you're seeing is coming from a liberal movement within the church which tends to embrace secular values and rejects traditional interpretation of scripture. As numbers go, it is a small amount of people. As a recent survey shows, the majority of Americans (ie 46 percent) believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

These views get overreprented in the media by liberals sympathic to their causes. It gets presented in such a way that it looks like it is the majority view when it is actually the minority view.

As far as what Creation scientists have to lose..not much. They already lost much of what they had to lose by becoming a creation scientist in the first place.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!

I don't agree with the catholic church on practically anything, let alone this.

So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

It's actually the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of man.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, all over the world.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

All I'll say to this is that ad hominem attacks reveal more about your character than they do mine.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old. You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!


So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

As a kind of plug (sorry), thorium based reactors are really great sources of Pu238 creation via neptunium exposure to flux. Pu238 is unique among isotopes as to be both physically and radioactively hot, but that radiation relatively benign, weak alpha particles (but your still number one if my heart!). Very simple shielding is needed to keep electronics safe...and a layer of human skin is all the shielding you need for a human . Problem is, isotopes of plutonium are all chemically identical, in a normal uranium reactor, you get the full range of Pu (239 weapons, 240 spontaneous fissions, 241 smoke detector ect). This means you don't get that nice predictable alpha decay, you get a mix of everything...not so good, you need REALLY pure Pu238 to be useful in Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, the things that powers curiosity). Just one of the many overlooked but awesome things about radionuclides. </end shameless plug>

@shinyblurry said:
1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter to natural
3. Beginning conditions known
4. No leaching or addition of parent
5. No leaching or addition of daughter
6. All assumptions valid for billions of years

If all of those assumptions are valid, the date can be trusted. The problem is that there is no way to determine whether all of those assumptions are true or not. And that is, if there were just one date. The experiment actually gives a range of dates, which is then further interpreted by what is called "field relationships" between the rocks. There are many technical problems with this, but I won't get into them here. There is also the problem that different dating methods give different results for the same rock, and that when we measure things we know the age of, we get incorrect dates. If we get incorrect dates for things we know the age of, why should we trust the dates it gives for things we don't?

Uh, things like constant decay rate is fare more than an assumption, and it certainly requires no form of faith to be believed in. Sure , we werent standing by actually watching the decay taking place for billions of years, but you know we have things like chemistry and physics where people have studied the properties of atoms and particles and figured out mathematically, and confirmed experimentally, the stability of different isotope-configurations This isnt a mystery or magic anymore, people know this stuff. Read some quantum chemistry that Kent Hovind didnt write.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was a bit of an assumption to say that decay was constant, lets just linger with that idea for a second. We see some decay happen, and we assume its contant backwards in time. well what would be the alternative? Well, a non-constant decay, of course. The problem is just that we have no information, that is, no evidence, that the rate of decay has ever, or even can, change. Worse still, since there is no evidence, we cant say how the rate has changed. Is it decaying slower and slower, (which would imply a younger universe) or faster and faster (which would imply an even older universe) or does it fluctuate wildly? There is of course no way to tell, except to concede that there is no evidence for any of these three scenarios. According you Young Earth Creationists, the earth is something like 6-12000 years old, which would mean a MASSIVE, impossibly weird and complicated, and seemingly undetectable deceleration in the rate of decay of all known elements. Worse still, in order for the math to work out, all the different elements would decelerate at different rates, for some, again, inexplicable reason. And again, without this being detected by todays best scientists.Talk about making assumptions, about having faith All in order to make a magic book remain magic.

Oh well.

But of course, thats just be beginning, because it just so happens that the assumption we made (that the rate of decay is constant) lines up pretty damn nicely with other known facts about the universe, like how big it is, what stars are made of, how massive they are how long they have burned, how the whole universe is expanding, how tectonic plates move, how animals evolved, how fossils were buried by Satan to fool us all laid down in order over the eons, genetic diversity and the relationships and relatedness of all living things. It all pans out pretty fucking nicely to an emerging picture of a universe thats 13.72 billion years old, and an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old.

But I guess all these aligning scientific facts make the baby jesus sad and must be ignored, or at least made out by believers to be "based on faith" (The very thing that, by definition, underpins the entire worldview of a believer!) So that they can dismiss it because its just faith. Oh the irony, it burns.

>> ^alcom:

@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.
Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.


Well said Alcom.

Sagemind, If you would take advice from a fellow skeptic, we do have temperature reconstructions going back more than 100 years. The instrumental record, from actual direct human measurement of temperature goes back just over 100 years, to around the late 1800's. That record graphs a rather consistent and linear warming trend from start to finish. More over, it records an increase of exactly the degree the speaker in the video mentions.

There is a trick to all this though. The temperature record going back more than about 100 years is measured with an entirely different methodology. It shows, again, as the speaker mentioned temperatures over the last few thousand years that has not varied very much.

There are people like the speaker who then put those 2 pieces together to declare proof positive that unprecedented warming began 100 years ago, right when man started burning fossil fuels. As I said, I'm skeptical myself. The other significant thing about 100 years ago is the change of methodology for building the graph and reconstruction of temperature. With 1 method, we have a fairly static graph, with another method we immediately have another. Any scientist worthy of the name would look at that and say the same, and investigate ways to rule out the methodology as the cause of the different results.

That's why I insisted on directing people to google scholar and looking at Mann's own work. He's the one that came out with the famous hockey stick graph that 'proved' man-made warming. All of his follow up work is showing more and more evidence that reconstructing the last 100 years with same methodology used to construct the last few thousand shows a much less scary picture.

But don't take my word for it. Don't take the speaker in the video's word for it. Don't even take Mann's word for it. Go look at the raw results in his article's and the other available related scientific literature. I promise I have and come back convinced it is looking like a good portion of the gloom and doom is merely an artifact of methodology change over at the same time as man started burning up fossil fuels.

@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.

Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.

To continue this lesson, it is important to note that most bomb technology doesn't use enriched uranium alone. The other key material compound is plutonium. For all intents and purposes, all plutonium is man made (with only traces of 244 found in nature, of which is completely unsuitable for weapons..Pu244). Plutonium is usually needed in a bomb because of its much lower critical mass. This lower mass makes bomb fabrication easier, but that creation of plutonium is by no means trivial.

You need huge facilities, dedicated to the sole purpose of uranium exposure. Like the video mentions, normal uranium is mostly U238, this junk gains value in the creation of plutonium. Weapons grade plutonium is a special isotope of plutonium, Pu239. This need is very specific, the different isotopes of Pu can have so very serious implications for bombs. Lets go over them as we as we go over how uranium is exposed to make this very special isotope

First, we start off with U238...the fuel stock. This isotope is bombarded with neutrons. These neutrons are occasionally absorbed by the uranium, turning it into U239. U239 is highly unstable, and quickly decays (in 23.45 minutes) to neptunium 239. This will in turn, decay into Pu239 (in about 2.3 days). Sounds easy, right? Not exactly, neutron absorption isn't something you can control with ease. What I mean is, there is little to stop our Neptunium or Plutonium from absorbing neutrons any more or less than the Uranium (in fact, their absorption cross sections are typically much larger...they are more hungry of neutrons than uranium in other words). When this undesired absorption happens, the neptunium and plutonium eventually becomes Pu240...and that is a big problem.

Plutonium Pu240 is HIGHLY undesirable in a bomb. Pu240 is a medium lived isotope of Plutonium, meaning it decays pretty quick, but it is HOW it decays that is the problem. Pu240 often decays by spontaneous fission. Having spontaneous fission in your fission bomb is just as undesirable as it sounds. Firstly, all even number isotopes are poor fission candidates, so for every even number isotope in your bomb, that lowers the bombs over all yield (because they prefer to fission themselves, and for very little return energy). This is further complicated by high densities of Pu240 causing your bomb to prematurely detonate, ya...bad news. The levels of Pu240 represent yet another challenge in the level of heat they generate from their rather quick decay, though, considering the previous 2 issues, this one is less problematic, though still troublesome. And lastly, there is nothing stopping our Pu240 from absorbing yet another neutron causing yet another isotope of plutonium to arises, namely Pu241.

Pu241, being an odd numbered isotope heavier than lead makes it a rather good subject to undergo fission. It doesn't have the same set of problems as Pu241, but it rapidly decays (14 years) into Americium 241, which is not fissile, and has a halflife of 432 years. These factors add large amounts of heat to the bomb, and reduce overall yield, as well as detract from critical mass.

The solution for this is a very low tech, time consuming, laborious process with produces tons of waste and very little plutonium. One has to expose small blocks of uranium to neutrons under a very brief window. The brief window decreases the chances of undesired neutron absorption and negates much (but not all!) of the heavier forms of plutonium being created. After exposure, they are left to decay, then after a few months, are chemically processed to remove any plutonium and other undesirables (this is also very very hard, and I won't even go into how this is done), then re-exposed. This yields gram(s) at a time. To make a weapons, you need 10 killos, at least...for one bomb...if everything went great. This means you need HUGE facilities, HUGE staff, and HUGE uranium resources. Your facility would be obvious and serve no other purpose, use tons of energy, and pile up radioactive waste of the kind no one wants, heavier than uranium wastes...the worse of the worst. No such facility could exist alongside some traditional uranium facility and not be noticed, period, end of story, done.

We haven't even covered bomb making problems, of which killed some of our top minds in our own bomb program. A set of incidents revolving around a specific bomb type, after taking 2 lives, was dubbed the Demon core. These are the reasons over half the budget of the DOD gets soaked up in nuclear weapons, and we haven't even covered some of the more important aspects (like delivery systems, one simply doesn't walk into Mordor). Nuclear weapons are hugely expensive, hugely conspicuous, require massive facilities and require a level of sophistication that is completely absent from the training of reactor nuclear scientists.

Reactor research and materials are orders of magnitude different from weapons grade materials and research. No bomb in history has EVER been made from reactor grade plutonium because the levels of Pu240 and Pu241 (and we haven't even covered Pu238!) are blisteringly high, way to high for weapons. Isotopic separation for Pu would be even more costly than uranium because of their mass similarities (compared to U235 and U238) and need a different set of enrichment facilities specially tailored to plutonium enrichment, of which all the people who knew something about that are Russian and American, and most likely dead or work classified to the highest degree.

The problem of nuclear weapons via reactor development is all a game to ratchet up the fear machine to get a particular end. It isn't a technical problem, it is a political problem. In the end, though, emerging technology could make enrichment easier anyway, so many of the issues I mentioned might eventually fall to the wayside (not within the next 10 years I imagine; for interested parties, google laser enrichment...coming to a world near you, but not exactly tomorrow, it's awesome stuff though). Eventually, the US is going to have to get used to the idea of more and more nations owning the bomb...but that issue is completely unrelated to reactor design and research. Reactors and nuclear weapons share about as much in common as cars and space shuttles...trying to link them as a dual proliferation argument is a political game and doesn't map on to them technologically.



I should note that I am not yet a nuclear engineer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express.