« No Means No | Main | Vertical Drinking »
August 02, 2006
Dodgy Science
No, I know nothing about this other than this brief report:
Scientists claim to have discovered a way of speeding up the decay of nuclear waste so that it can be rendered harmless within a few decades, instead of thousands of years.
The technique proposed by German physicists involves slashing the half-life of alpha-emitting material by embedding it in metal and cooling the metal to a few degrees above absolute zero.
Sounds awfully dodgy to me. I might believe (I’m not a good enough chemist or physicist to know though) that a few degrees above absolute zero there is less observed radioactivity....that’s pretty much what it means isn’t it? Cold means less excitation of the atoms? But even if that were true wouldn’t it all just come back as soon as it heats up again?
August 2, 2006 in Nuclear | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834da453d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dodgy Science:
Comments
It's explained better here:
Rolfs believed this effect could be explained in simple terms by assuming that the free electrons in a metal act like the electrons in a plasma, as described in a model by Dutch physicist Peter Debye. The lower the temperature of the metal, the closer the free electrons get to the radioactive nuclei. These electrons accelerate positively charged particles towards the nuclei, thereby increasing the probability of fusion reactions.
But Rolfs realized that the reverse reaction might also occur and that free electrons could enhance the ejection of positively charged particles from a nucleus. This would reduce the half-lives of α-decay or β+-decay, and increase half-lives for processes involving electrons (which are repelled by the free electrons within the metal), i.e. β–-decay and electron capture.
It all sounds a bit unlikely, but then you could say that about a lot of physics - quantum mechanics in particular. Still, I'll believe it when his results are replicated by others. Cold fusion, anyone?
Posted by: MCrab | Aug 2, 2006 9:52:16 AM
Cooling anything of significant size to a temperature close to absolute zero will be practically impossible. It would simply require way too much energy.
Maybe those who came up with the idea of sticking nuclear waste in Siberia are trying to do this on the cheap?
Posted by: Tim Newman | Aug 2, 2006 10:43:03 AM
Oh this is rubbish. Temperature is a measure of atomic motion, but radioactivity depends on forces inside the nucleus itself.
Posted by: Tony Jackson | Aug 2, 2006 11:06:00 AM
funny things happen inside the nucleus too when you get close to absolute zero, but you have to be quite a bit closer to "a few degrees" and I agree with Tim that it is highly unlikely that we are going to solve an energy crisis this way.
Posted by: dsquared | Aug 2, 2006 11:13:51 AM
Reading MCrab's link it is nothing to do with anything going on inside the radioactive atom at all. It seems to be the effect of the free electrons from the metal around it giving an bit of an extra pull on protons in the nuclius, so reducing the energy barrier. A colder metal gives a denser cloud of free electrons and so a greater effect.
Posted by: chris | Aug 2, 2006 12:21:36 PM
I'm going to stick my neck out and say this sounds like complete cobblers.
Posted by: David Gillies | Aug 2, 2006 4:28:20 PM
Might it not take so much energy to cool and keep the waste down to that close to absolute zero that it would cancel out any benefits of using the radioactive material in the first place?
Posted by: auntymarianne | Aug 2, 2006 5:25:24 PM
well I guess this might be labeled Cold Fission.
I believe radioactive decay will be speeded up - someday, somehow - but not this way.
Isn't the cross section of the nucleus v. the size of the electron cloud too small?
Electrons enclose the nucleus on every side leaving their net 'pull' within the nucleus at effectively zero.*
*If only I hadn't become a brain surgeon and rocket scientist. As I nuclear physicist I could be unsure and get a grant to try this with ethanol production.
Posted by: K | Aug 2, 2006 11:27:45 PM
