Wood ash radioactivity? Chernobyl fallout detected by Astro Cam?

[saac]

19 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I think the Wikipedia article is very balanced and unsensational.

"His homemade reactor never came anywhere near reaching critical mass—but it ended up emitting dangerous levels of radiation, likely well over 1,000 times normal background radiation."

That's the first time I had heard about this story. It really is tragic, dealt with differently this young lad could have gone on to have a bright future, he certainly had talent and drive. 

 

Jim 

[George 47]

18 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

Referring to a fellow member as 'fruit-cake' in the way you have done here is quite frankly offensive and there is no need for it. 

I was referring to the people on You Tube, not anyone here. Louise has been cautious and careful. If my response implied otherwise then I apologise that was not my intent, it was the people on You Tube.

The Wiki article is not in my view balanced.

I am well aware of the risks (minimal) from these detectors as it was part of my job to enforce the regulations. And I was also involved with discussions with our EU colleagues on the safety of detectors (France and Germany do not allow Am241 detectors with a preference for optical detectors).

My main aim was to reassure that there was no fallout from Chernobyl or Fukushima that would cause tracks in a CCD camera and a very low chance that a fire detector would do so if the fire detector is intact. Despite allowing fire detectors to be disposed of to landfill there has been no evidence found of any significant Am 241 getting into the environment. 

[barkis]

Please use the Report system to alert the Moderation team about anything you feel needs attending to.
Members should not undertake that job themselves. We will always appreciate the help given to us by
responsible members, but don't dispense any chastising on our behalf. That's our job.
In this case, I think there was a genuine misunderstanding, so no harm done.
Barkis.

[Thalestris24]

1 hour ago, George 47 said:

I was referring to the people on You Tube, not anyone here. Louise has been cautious and careful. If my response implied otherwise then I apologise that was not my intent, it was the people on You Tube.

The Wiki article is not in my view balanced.

I am well aware of the risks (minimal) from these detectors as it was part of my job to enforce the regulations. And I was also involved with discussions with our EU colleagues on the safety of detectors (France and Germany do not allow Am241 detectors with a preference for optical detectors).

My main aim was to reassure that there was no fallout from Chernobyl or Fukushima that would cause tracks in a CCD camera and a very low chance that a fire detector would do so if the fire detector is intact. Despite allowing fire detectors to be disposed of to landfill there has been no evidence found of any significant Am 241 getting into the environment. 

I believe the Am241 is encased in glass/ceramic so won't wash away or anything

Louise

[Stub Mandrel]

The experiments I find interesting are the homemade fusion reactors. Not flaky 'cold fusion' experiments but successful attempts to demonstrate very low levels of fusion in a controlled environment.

Home made x-ray tubes or even old TVs and oscilloscopes are probably more dangerous than experiments with smoke detectors or fusion.

Early issues of Model Engineer magazine had many (76) articles and discussions on how to make your own x-ray machine and related topics, from 1899. In 1924 there was an article on using one to keep a waterbutt sweet - an early application of what we would now call 'sterilised using gamma radiation'.

Strangely the home woprkshop articles cut off sharply around 1930, after which they tended to be about industrial applications, perhaps because people became more aware of the risks.

[George 47]

There is an extremely low chance that anyone can make an operational nuclear reactor or an experiment that is critical, it is incredibly difficult for major engineering companies to make a reactor. Getting hold of the nuclear material is not easy either. A fast breeder reactor is even more difficult. A fusion reactor has not been built anywhere despite billions being spent by major nuclear operators.

This rather sad young guy ended up with radium and thorium and ground them up or smashed the sources with a hammer. That was what the EPA had to spend US taxpayers' money to clean up.  He did not make anything resembling a reactor. The article in Harpers started to build him up as a bit of a hero which in reality was not the case. Sad really as he was clearly enthusiastic. 

On removing the foils from fire detectors, fire detectors have safety advice on them not to dismantle them. The USNRC advises not to remove the sources as does the UK Health Protection Agency. In my view removing these sources is not sensible and should not be done or encouraged. 

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, George 47 said:

There is an extremely low chance that anyone can make an operational nuclear reactor or an experiment that is critical,

No doubt at all, and if they did they wouldn't have long to tell anyone about it. I doubt that was the objective, I suspect he started simply by wanting to see if he could get an elevated reaction which he obviously did... apparently his poor mum did more clean up than the EPA and it went into the dustbin

Equally home fusion can be done, but is a vastly further way from making a net power gain than the full size is from generating sustained and economic power with a practical fusion reactor.

[George 47]

14 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

No doubt at all, and if they did they wouldn't have long to tell anyone about it. I doubt that was the objective, I suspect he started simply by wanting to see if he could get an elevated reaction which he obviously did... apparently his poor mum did more clean up than the EPA and it went into the dustbin

Equally home fusion can be done, but is a vastly further way from making a net power gain than the full size is from generating sustained and economic power with a practical fusion reactor.

Now you have intrigued me. He got no fission reactions at all as far as I can see. He did contaminate his shed but then that has happened with radium in the UK as well.

How fusion can be done...???? I am not sure I accept that, where???

[Stub Mandrel]

1 minute ago, George 47 said:

Now you have intrigued me. He got no fission reactions at all as far as I can see. He did contaminate his shed but then that has happened with radium in the UK as well.

How fusion can be done...???? I am not sure I accept that, where???

Maybe he didn't.

Fusion:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/

[George 47]

5 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Maybe he didn't.

Fusion:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/

Hmmm. A fission reactor is one that maintains a self-sustaining criticality. A fusion reactor is one that has a self-sustained fusion reaction.

By his definition, a D-T tube would be called a fusion reactor, which it clearly isn't. And if I get a lump of granite with uranium in it and I put it next to a neutron source then they could cause a few atoms of uranium to fission. A fission reactor? Those voltages in his 'reactor' and the generation of X-rays is highly dangerous. There are some strange people around. 

Anyway back to astronomy.

[Stub Mandrel]

39 minutes ago, George 47 said:

Hmmm. A fission reactor is one that maintains a self-sustaining criticality. A fusion reactor is one that has a self-sustained fusion reaction.

By his definition, a D-T tube would be called a fusion reactor, which it clearly isn't. And if I get a lump of granite with uranium in it and I put it next to a neutron source then they could cause a few atoms of uranium to fission. A fission reactor? Those voltages in his 'reactor' and the generation of X-rays is highly dangerous. There are some strange people around. 

Anyway back to astronomy.

Hmm.. in my book a reactor is a vessel for carrying out reactions in. Nuclear 'reactors' to produce special isotopes have nothing to do with power generation, and I think these 'experiments' fall into that category, but I don't want to get lost in semantics and sophistry...

I agree they are risky, but there are riskier hobbies like cave diving and climbing Everest...

[saac]

1 hour ago, George 47 said:

There are some strange people around. 

Anyway back to astronomy.

Yep and they are in good company for this is often how science was advanced through the ages.

Jim

[George 47]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Hmm.. in my book a reactor is a vessel for carrying out reactions in. Nuclear 'reactors' to produce special isotopes have nothing to do with power generation, and I think these 'experiments' fall into that category, but I don't want to get lost in semantics and sophistry...

I agree they are risky, but there are riskier hobbies like cave diving and climbing Everest...

Nuclear Reactor: 'an apparatus or structure in which fissile material can be made to undergo a controlled, self-sustaining nuclear reaction with the consequent release of energy. ' A standard definition.  Also, the IAEA definition 'produce energy by initiating and controlling a sustained nuclear chain reaction'. 

[vlaiv]

In a broadest sense, Nuclear reactor: place where you put some stuff and (intentional) nuclear reactions happen