On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:04:56 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:48:14 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>>>>> Which tells you that it isn't *that* dangerous or there wouldn't be
>>>>> any life in the ground.
>>>>
>>>> It's also an extremely rare element. Not like a reactor core, which
>>>> is make out of pure Uranium...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A reactor core is NEVER "pure uranium".
>> 
>> It's far nearer to being pure than anything in nature.
> 
> Would you like me to have a bona-fide nuclear physicist refute this?  I
> have a very close friend who has a doctorate in nuclear physics (and two
> others who hold advanced degrees, one doctorate and one masters), and
> after he stopped laughing, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to give you
> all the nitty-gritty details about what is wrong about that statement.

Here's what he had to say:

--- snip ---

It depends on the type of reactor and the fuel composition differs
between them. But generally they are not of "pure" Uranium but often
a mix but with a HIGH U content - most of the reason is that the
"unpureness" gives you a higher melting point and is a little
"safer."

Here is a good article about the different fuel types:

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

--- snip ---

Jim

Post a reply to this message