How easy is it to get #plutonium?
source: theguardian.com/australia-news…
#security #fail #problem #australia #news #usa #internet
Sydney ‘science nerd’ may face jail for importing plutonium in bid to collect all elements of periodic table
Emmanuel Lidden, 24, to learn fate after breaching nuclear non-proliferation laws by shipping samples of radioactive material to parents’ suburban homeGuardian staff reporter (The Guardian)
like this
Moritoki Mochizuki
in reply to anonymiss • • •Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •David
in reply to anonymiss • • •Not a good hobby.
Some elements, including plutonium, are not good to have around. Plutonium is flammable, poisonous, and radioactive. Also, in the past, people have accidentally put too much plutonium in a small space, creating a critical mass and exposing themselves, very quickly, to a lethal dose of radiation (gamma and neutrons). It's dangerous stuff.
It's possible to make plutonium by exposing uranium 238 (most uranium found in nature is 238) to a source of neutrons. The uranium nucleus absorbs a neutron, spits out two beta particles, and becomes a plutonium 239 nucleus. This is how plutonium for nuclear weapons is usually created. You can also fuel nuclear reactors with plutonium.
When it's used to make nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, it's necessary to remove traces of plutonium 240. Plutonium 239 is so radioactive that it's actually warm to the touch. Plutonium 240 is even more radioactive. If it hadn't been removed from the warheads in our missiles, the upper level of our missile compartment would have been impractical to enter
... Show more...Not a good hobby.
Some elements, including plutonium, are not good to have around. Plutonium is flammable, poisonous, and radioactive. Also, in the past, people have accidentally put too much plutonium in a small space, creating a critical mass and exposing themselves, very quickly, to a lethal dose of radiation (gamma and neutrons). It's dangerous stuff.
It's possible to make plutonium by exposing uranium 238 (most uranium found in nature is 238) to a source of neutrons. The uranium nucleus absorbs a neutron, spits out two beta particles, and becomes a plutonium 239 nucleus. This is how plutonium for nuclear weapons is usually created. You can also fuel nuclear reactors with plutonium.
When it's used to make nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, it's necessary to remove traces of plutonium 240. Plutonium 239 is so radioactive that it's actually warm to the touch. Plutonium 240 is even more radioactive. If it hadn't been removed from the warheads in our missiles, the upper level of our missile compartment would have been impractical to enter. That would have been a problem.
[Our reactor, which powered the submarine, used uranium 235. That's much easier to work around safely than plutonium.]
Banning the creation of plutonium 239 would be one way to make it much harder to build nuclear weapons.
Almost no plutonium occurs in nature. Mostly what there is forms from the natural decay of uranium 238. (The neutrons released in the decay are absorbed by other uranium 238 nuclei.) plutonium 239 has a short half life so it doesn't accumulate.
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •@David I've seen the movie "Silkwood". Pu is bad stuff that we keep locked up.
I'm more concerned about a*****es building dirty bombs with any kind of refined radioactive materials which can be smuggled around in a lead lined coffee can than some random nobody getting a sample for a hobby.
This ain't DEFCON 1. Give em' a year in the clink and a year on probation (or whatever the AU criminal system does) and get on with it.
David
in reply to anonymiss • • •Another element that pretty much doesn't exist in nature is americium. Americium 241 is created by getting a plutonium 239 nucleus to absorb two neutrons and spit out one beta particle.
Americium is used in smoke detectors. No kidding. You probably have some in your home.
It's safer than plutonium 239 (most things are) because it decays with just alpha particles, not gammas and neutrons. Paper is actually an adequate shield against alpha radiation. However, if you get some alpha-emitting element in your lungs, it will just keep emitting alphas until it eventually causes cancer. I don't see a warning on my smoke detector about the problem of safely disposing of the thing. I think there should be one.
The amount in the smoke detector is very small. About 0.29 micrograms. A microgram is one millionth of a gram.
In 1994 a teenager tried to build a breeder reactor with the americium from about 100 smoke detectors (and other radioactive elements from camping lantern mantles, gun sights, and old clocks). There's a book about him called The Rad
... Show more...Another element that pretty much doesn't exist in nature is americium. Americium 241 is created by getting a plutonium 239 nucleus to absorb two neutrons and spit out one beta particle.
Americium is used in smoke detectors. No kidding. You probably have some in your home.
It's safer than plutonium 239 (most things are) because it decays with just alpha particles, not gammas and neutrons. Paper is actually an adequate shield against alpha radiation. However, if you get some alpha-emitting element in your lungs, it will just keep emitting alphas until it eventually causes cancer. I don't see a warning on my smoke detector about the problem of safely disposing of the thing. I think there should be one.
The amount in the smoke detector is very small. About 0.29 micrograms. A microgram is one millionth of a gram.
In 1994 a teenager tried to build a breeder reactor with the americium from about 100 smoke detectors (and other radioactive elements from camping lantern mantles, gun sights, and old clocks). There's a book about him called The Radioactive Boy Scout. (He was an Eagle Scout. He's dead now, from drugs and alcohol. His name was David Hahn.)
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •@David
You wrote:
Nope. In the US, Americium was largely discarded in favor of optical or other schemes due to the various "Infantilizing American Adults To Weaken Them For Conquest And Enslavement By The Billionaire Class" movements.
People who have Americium in their smoke detectors are likely out of compliance with local ordinances that require changing detectors every 10 years (or whatever.)
David
in reply to anonymiss • • •Hmm. I think my new smoke alarm may be photoelectric and not ionization. So maybe no more americium.
Apparently the newer photoelectric detectors outperform the ionization type. Good news for a change.
BTW, there was an episode of The Big Bang Theory in which Sheldon tries to build a reactor with americium. The script was no doubt inspired by Hahn.
Richard likes this.
Josef
in reply to anonymiss • • •Richard likes this.
David
in reply to anonymiss • • •Might have to be a very big garden.
Rickover’s regulations back in the Navy were based on the sensible idea that, if you can get less exposure and still operate the propulsion plant, that’s what you should do.
Our limit back in the 1970s was 300 millirem a year and 100 in a calendar quarter. If you’re not used to rem, 1 rem is 0.01 sievert. So 100 millirem is 0.001 sievert, or 1 millisievert.
Everyone on the submarine wore a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Nuclear weapons people and nuclear propulsion people like me got more exposure at sea than on land at sea level. People who stood watch in the operations compartment actually got less than on land because the ocean and the hull of the submarine shielded them.
My total occupational exposure was 600 millirem. According to this epa.gov/radiation/radiation-so… that’s less than the average American in a year. Some
... Show more...Might have to be a very big garden.
Rickover’s regulations back in the Navy were based on the sensible idea that, if you can get less exposure and still operate the propulsion plant, that’s what you should do.
Our limit back in the 1970s was 300 millirem a year and 100 in a calendar quarter. If you’re not used to rem, 1 rem is 0.01 sievert. So 100 millirem is 0.001 sievert, or 1 millisievert.
Everyone on the submarine wore a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Nuclear weapons people and nuclear propulsion people like me got more exposure at sea than on land at sea level. People who stood watch in the operations compartment actually got less than on land because the ocean and the hull of the submarine shielded them.
My total occupational exposure was 600 millirem. According to this epa.gov/radiation/radiation-so… that’s less than the average American in a year. Some of these sources on this web page don’t apply to me at all. Half of exposure medical? I don’t get any medical exposure. I probably get a lot less medical care than most people, though.
I was at sea on that submarine for a total of only about 16 to 17 months. (A standard deterrent patrol was 10 weeks.) I trained on a prototype in Idaho for between 5 and 6 months. Exposure there, believe it or not, was measured with film badges.
Radiation Sources and Doses | US EPA
US EPAJosef
in reply to anonymiss • • •Back to the original story: It's always a bad idea to get radioactive sources from the internet. Serious-minded companies would tell you what you are allowed to buy and what not.
Khurram Wadee
in reply to anonymiss • • •David
in reply to anonymiss • • •I was not a nuclear weapons person. I was a nuclear propulsion person. Our propulsion plant was an S5W reactor plant, the most common at the time. It was a pressurized water, enriched uranium reactor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5W_reac…
enriched uranium = uranium 235
No radioactive substance entered anyone's body in the nuclear navy. The only real hazard was exposure to whole-body penetrating, ionizing radiation. We managed that hazard quite effectively. I credit Rickover's policies with that.
United States Navy nuclear reactor
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)