Nothing could be more relevant today, given the adverse events that have befallen on Japan, talking about nuclear power which Italy would now use the referendum despite so many years ago. Often we talk about nuclear power without having very clear ideas about how it functions, which involve risks, many types of nuclear reactions are known today. It is, for example, confusion between nuclear fission and fusion and I'll try to explain the difference.
Everything starts with the Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 from which it appears as a small amount of mass can generate a huge amount of energy .. But let's condemn the difference between fission and fusion.
FUSION: If two light nuclei, such as deuterium and tritium subject to strong pressure, blend together creating a heavier nucleus (in this case a helium nucleus), the mass of the latter will be less than the sum initial masses of the nuclei, while the missing mass is converted into energy will be! And 'This is a much cleaner form of energy than that produced by the fission time someone has called it: The Sun of the future, but produce results in some difficulty. The two nuclei fuse that should have the same electrical charge and therefore are subject to the strong repulsion given by the electrostatic force. The most practical to have them merge, and dramatically increase their temperature so that they collide with each other so violently as to bring into play the "nuclear forces". The fusion occurs normally in the sun and stars. However, so far the only way that scientists have found to use the merger was the construction of the H-bomb, triggering a process manageable and therefore not inappropriate, at least for now, to produce energy for peaceful purposes. Fusion to be used for civilian purposes, it is still working. Let us therefore of very current
FISSION: If a heavy nucleus, for example, Uranium 235 (we could also use the plutonium as an example) is appropriately bombed by a neutron, it will break into two lighter nuclei (radioactive) whose total mass will be lighter than the original mass. The missing mass will be converted into energy according to this scheme that I report for clarity:
1) A nucleus of uranium 235 is "bombed" by a neutron;
2) is thus the fission the nucleus splits into two fragments and three free neutrons and energy.
3) of 3 neutrons produced at least one bomb another nucleus of uranium 235 that splits into two fragments releasing two neutrons and energy.
4) The two neutrons collide with nuclei each nucleus of uranium 235 and one to three free neutrons that are used to continue the reaction.
Ultimately it will have formed a great mass of energy, but also a lot of radioactivity.
But because we are afraid of radiation?
We have reason to fear it because its absorption entails risks both for the individual who comes into contact, and because of its reproductive system and then to his offspring. But we try to do some practical example.
We are daily bombarded by cosmic rays and radiation that come from the crust, but throughout the year, does not absorb more than 100 millirem of radioactivity. The rem is a measure of radiation absorbed by the body in certain circumstances it is no longer used on an international scale, but I will use it in a comparative way and without going into mathematical language to give you a pretty good idea of \u200b\u200bthe risks it run with the nuclear
· One spectator who watches television color absorbs a millirem per hour;
• If we do a scan taken up 5 rem
and given that exposure to radiation results in the accumulation of REM was determined the maximum dose of radiation accumulated over a lifetime (DMA).
This recipe for a healthy individual and 50 years is 160 rem. But to give you even an idea of \u200b\u200bthe risks involved, I offer more data about the radiological examinations in all we subject:
1,000,000 On examination
· An X-ray skull poses a risk of 4 cancer:
· A brain scan "70"
· A chest x-ray "1"
· A mammogram "287 if the patient is young
· "" 66 if it is older
· A thyroid scan "5 if the patient is an adult
· A radiograph to the teeth" 3 and so on
(I took the data from the magazine "Tempo Medico" a few years ago).
Finally I want to list the radioactive isotopes that are released after a nuclear explosion.
are: iodine 131, cesium 134, 135 and 137, 132 tellurium, ruthenium 103, strontium 90.
The target organ is the thyroid iodine, cesium and potassium in the body replaces the internal, and so does the strontium to calcium. The disappearance of these radioactive isotopes depends on their half-life but, in the case of strontium, its biological decay lasts 50 years so that, once inside the body, it remains there for life.
worth the risk? Must account of risks and benefits.
to you to draw a conclusion from what I have summarized in this simple page.
Key Copyright © 6375508220327be354de6118cafa0302 of 19/03/2011
<
NOTICE: To comment on the publications you must have an account certificate
Share
on 19/03/2011 Garagozzo Mario Sergio wrote:
The only conclusion that comes to mind is that nuclear power is used as source of energy is a technology obsoleta.Esattamente pertolio like, because it is renewable and highly polluting. I would opt for a revision and development of theories on Tesla.Specialmente those cosmic rays. Ironically, a central take energy cosmic rays from space without using a single milligram of material particles of radiation terrestre.Le cosmic'm energetiche.Si estimated that the average flow at sea level has a mean energy of 2 GeV (2 billion electron volts). If you tovasse how to channel these flows in only one station, would be resolved forever problem of Earth's energy needs without causing any environmental pollution. Sooner or later, our leaders (those who bring out the money for research) will understand this. We must only wait for a century and a few dozen environmental disaster of apocalyptic proportions such as Japan. Regards. A. 19/03/2011
the Osvaldo Dino Healy replied:
The problem lies in that "if he were." You teach me that the cosmic rays, especially those at higher-energy, travel at near the speed of light, then I think it is still far from the possibility of converting them into usable energy. If you have different information about, please speak. I myself (and please do not laugh because I already do it myself) I have patented a system of exploitation of energy that comes from lightning, but I think that ENEA has not even read my statement. Thanks for the comment. Dino ps Have you signed in and I've put cusiosità. Where does it come out?
answer
ARCANGELO GALANTE A publication like this
