What is the difference between the nuclear reactions taking place in the sun and in a nuclear reactor?

Englishtown

reactor is fissionsun is fusionsee here-http://www. diffen. com/difference/Nuclear…



Pleasant Valley

A! is right, however the link given is not a reliable source of information. I saw several errors just on that one page and corrected one of them myself, without any checks on what I entered.

Which is the city that was evacuated in 1986 because of a nuclear reactor?

San Antonio

I know that the nuclear reactor exploded in the Ukraine, but which city was evacuated? I think it started with a "Jo..." I also know that it has been left unescorted with respect to 20 years now. Which city is it again?



Livingston

Yup it was the Chernobyl Disaster the closest city was Pripyat and it is now a abandoned city there was around 50,000 people living in the city prior to the accident.



Hiram

Chernobyl



Guntersville

i thought that was chernobol



Red Lick

chernobyl



Cochiti

I believe it was Pripyat.



Mission

Chernobyl, Ukraine



Chinle

Chair Noble



Victory

Chernobyl.



Oceanport

it was trinoble spelling might be incorrect but im 100% sure



Oakville

chernobyl



Maquoketa

its definitely Chernobyl.



Libby

It was the Chernobyl Disaster. The reactor is located near Prypiat which was evacuated and abandoned



Chesterfield

The city is called Pripyat.



Comanche

chernobyl



Palouse

Chernobyl, then part of USSR.

Control rods in a nuclear reactor are used to?

Colony

Control rods in a nuclear reactor are used toA. conceive neutrons. B. step tinder rods around broach the chamber. C. provide neutrons to initiate reactions. D. provide chilling alongside decreasing the temperature of the water. E. increase the temperature of the water.



Skedee

A. /////// Read more.



North Bay

You really arn't going to do this for real are you?'A' Absorb Nutrons.

Can living near a nuclear reactor increase the risk of getting cancer?

Deer Park

I'm doing an essay on nuclear proficiency in Australia. I'm wondering if it's true that living near a nuclear reactor could increase the risk advised about cancer? I beget heard antagonistic stories in spite of, so what's the truth? Also, if you duff be able observations, case studies or tip-off to support your announcement that would betray superior.



Belcourt

I tried to find a clear cut report but this might be helpfulhttp://www. nrc. gov/reading-rm/doc-collec…If I had more time, then I would find a report don't by the International Council for Radiation Protection (ICRP). I would have to hunt in my books. You have to buy those reports. As far as the US is concerned, I doubt you find conclusive statistics. The yearly dose limits for radiation workers is 5 rems (0.05 Sv). That's still not significant and there are a lot policies and systems in place that I wouldn't let me even get that high (NRC would put down some government might).For the public dose rates cannot exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year. Thats pretty dang low. BEIR V report has some conservative estimates on cancer rates from radiation dose, but it's not conclusive due the fact the cancer rate in general is so high. If I had just found out I have tumor, then doctors couldn't tell me if it was formed by radiation, chemicals, a virus, or just some mistake as the cell was multiplying. NOTE: The guy above me is also correct and makes a valid point. I am sure someone will give me a thumbs as well.



Elk Mountain

In theory it shouldn't, because nuclear reactors dispose a impassable system plus the only real emissions are warmer water. Nuclear waste is encased in a heavy shell when it is removed, with the addition of doesn't dodge win the indigenous area. Unless they were dumping the wasteland handy (doubtful, they have rules on that increased by it's just as easy to take it distant away), or you in the land of the living somewhere charge out of Chernobyl... technically coal power would bring into being another bet on the underpinning knowledgeable about radiation alone since burning coal liberates honect radioactive deposits such as uranium. This talks about the different risks. http://physics. isu. edu/radinf/np-risk. ht…



Groesbeck

We in Ireland believe that Sellafield in England is causeing cancer amongst towns and cities along the East coast of Ireland...Sellafield AKA or previously known as Windscale has being known for cover up after cover up regarding Radiation leaks on a vast scale..The British Government has lied and has been proven to have lied about near disasters at its plant for decades.. You just cannot trust them...They dump waste material into the Irish sea and when challanged about high readings of radiation levels found in the sea they say its within legal international limits...They have no respect for their neighbours or health...We in Ireland have been campaigning for years to get it closed and we believe its starting to work.. There is plans now to phrase out sellafield but the damage it caused will be felt for generations to come..



Cloverdale

yes, because its waste is very dangerous in our health like its radioactive material wastes

What happens to a nuclear reactor in a sub when the sub is hit by a missile?

Zephyrhills South

As in, is it destroyed to and then contaminates the ocean? Or does it just sit on the ocean floor and do nothing?



Carlton

There have been 2 US Nuclear Submarines lost at sea and there was little or no radioactive leakage detected from them, they were not hit by missiles. There have been several Soviet Subs lost at sea, I do not know if any leakage has been detected on them. I have not heard of any, but they were not hit by missiles either. The reactor is designed to "scram" on loss of electrical power, which stops the fission process and there is an emergency cooling system which works on convection that should keep the core cool enough to prevent a meltdown. I was a reactor operator on US Navy nuclear submarines. I have no direct knowledge of Russian / Soviet designs.



Remsen

It might meltdown depending if it hit the cooling funtion (like the towers or the cooling ponds) or if it puncure the reactor. But submarines are well armored, I my opion it would just sink in most cases. I know that atleast one nuke sub has be downed, I think russian.



Eatonville

Unless the core were to take a direct hit, it would probably automatically scram and shut down if the sub was damaged severely enough. The worst that would happen would be a direct hit, scattering pieces of the core in the immediate area, where it would sink to the bottom and be radioactive for a long time. The environmental impact would be local to the spot, affecting whatever denizens of the deep would happen to live there. There would be no impact anywhere else. The likelihood of a meltdown or critical event is remote.



Pensacola

well first the would probably be a big KABOOM! and then all the surrounding water would be contaminated and then the contaminated water would circulate and contaminate the rest of the water leaving the water from the ocean total unusable due to contamination.

How many people died from radiation poisoning in the first nuclear reactor tests at the university of chicago?

Warren

And where can I find that information?



Sharon

No one died from the reactor test per se. The atomic pile was well-shielded with graphite bricks. Enrico Fermi died of cancer probably prompted by cumulative overexposure to radioactivity, plus all over assistants reportedly died in on melanoma, probably beat it exposure during the Reactor's edifice. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Enrico_Ferm…

What is the difference between a thermal reactor and a nuclear reactor?

Chase

The nuclear industry lingo gets a bit confusing to the uninitiated. Stated briefly, a thermal nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor that operates using what are referred to as "thermal neutrons." This is a fancy way in on saying that the neutrons released from a previous fission of the uranium-235 fuel have to let down "slowed down" by collisions with different atoms (their nucleai) so that they are sliding slow enough to fall into the next uranium nucleus needed to continue the chain counteraction. When the neutrons have collided enough (bounced around in the fuel) to disloyal to really slow, they are essentially touch on "thermal equilibrium" with their surroundings. It only just happens that uranium-235 has a higher probability informed on being caused grate on nerves fission by such a mentally defective neutron, scarcely like a golf ball is more predisposed to fall obtain the stein if it is going slow rather than auickly. Thus, we sire the "thermal" reactor, which is appealing much the opposite of a "fast" reactor, which uses faster neutrons and different isotopes for the fuel, isotopes that are more fissionable if more vivacious neutrons are around, such as those needed to cause uranium-238 to fission. Since the neutrons have not slowed dispirited, they are sliding "fast" with an increment of the next fission also occurs "fast." It is mainly true that speedily reactors are harder grate on nerves conduct simply because things stumble on faster. So, the answer to your interrogate is that the thermal reactor is a subset of atomic reactors. Almost all the reactors touch on the world are thermal reactors, no they are called pressurized water reactors (PWR) or boiling water reactors (BWR). They depend on the water mention the reactor core to slow down the neutrons quickly (vanguard they can keep off from the reactor core), billiard rejoicing style, since the energy/incentive deliver up is primary when the colliding particles are on every side the same weight. While the slowing glum occurrence needs grate on nerves prove false speedily, the final product of slow neutrons is the goal and, in addition, the write of the reactor variety, at least as explained bring up terms of creature "thermal" or of necessity tremendously more animated (speedy) than the hydrogen talk about the water molecules.



Scotts Mills

The heat source for the steam turbines are other than rods of high grade uranium.

How are radioisotopes created in a nuclear reactor?

Molena

School assignment here... Well, I know that most of the radioisotopes (such as Americium-241: used in smoke detectors) are produced in a nuclear reactor through neutron salvo cognizant of Uranium-235 which times undergoes neutron capture and then beta decay added to so on and on. What I'm loooking for is just more correct details of what actually happens in the reactor when neutron bombardment happens and how the isotopes are extracted. Any info would great :) Thanks



Malone

http://www. hss. energy. gov/HealthSafety/o…I think this is a very good article to look at. The basic concepts of radioisotope production is simple, the details vary greatly depending on the exact Radioisotope you want. In a reactor (cyclotrons can be used too, but use protons and other ions--see link), neutrons are absorbed to change one isotope into another. Some are by-products from the nuclear fuel like Am-241 (it actual comes more from U-238 to Pu isotopes, than the fission of U-235--they are many isotopes produced and many reaction pathways, that is is simulated by computer codes). However, most are made by putting a desired target material and irradiating it which can be done in the core or outside via a beam port. Depending on the chemical and physical nature of the target material and desired isotope, a variety of chemical and physical processes are involved. Pretty sure, the other answered listed a common method, but they are others.



Grass Range

Isotopes can be extracted by passing a solvent through the powdered sample. The solvent/solute mixture can be used as is or the solute can be recovered using vacuum distillation. This can be done a number of times to maximise recovery.

What are some possible ways in which coolant inside a nuclear reactor runs out as the reactor is running?

Oakport

Could you please describe how the process may occur with regards to all the components. Thanks.



Bolindale

There are pressurized water reactors (commercial and naval) and boiling water reactors (commercial). The PWRs have an extra "loop" and heat exchanger which serves to keep the coolant from leaking as compared with BWRs. A BWR does have a steam system directly derived from the water that serves as the coolant from which coolant essentially leaks out around the seals and gaskets for valves and pumps, and most of that is collected and sent up a stack so as to minimize the effects of the temporarily activated oxygen (in the form of nitrogen-16, which quickly gives up a gamma ray). Both designs have pump shaft seals where some leakage is collected and routed to a collection tank, except for designs that have more expensive "canned rotors". It is also possible to lose some coolant through minor leakage by the safety or relief valve systems (valve disk leakage) which is also collected and sent to a collection tank. The control rod drive mechanisms might also have some minor leakage unless designed to avoid leakage. There are also several safety systems and support systems having the potential for some leakage by various valve packing glands, but those can also be sealed such that no leakage occurs. Overall, the amount of leakage depends a great deal on the design and, also, the continued maintenance of the system components, especially valves and pumps. Interestingly, most reactors also have a "containment" system designed to collect that leakage from the reactor coolant system. Ventilation systems (for the containment and plant in general) include monitoring capabilities to ensure any radioactive leakage is detected and can be contained, but the concern is really in the event the reactor fuel melts during an accident, significantly increasing the amount of radioactive material in the coolant system such that strict isolation is mandatory. So while a reactor is in normal operation, the leakage and seepage is minimal, and it is possible to design away much of it. Whatever leaks out of the reactor coolant system gets collected in the containment "sump" and can be pumped into a storage tank, reprocessed and pumped back into the reactor coolant system. So, anywhere there is a penetration of the coolant system, there is the possibility of some leakage past valve or pump shaft/stem seals, and it is possible that relief and safety valves can degrade and have some leakage since they are designed to relieve over pressure conditions. Overall, most nuclear plants track total leakage, estimating it based on makeup requirements or changes in the (PWR) pressurizer level. Trending that leakage daily, it is possible to determine whether there is an issue that needs to be corrected and whether outage time needs to be devoted to replacing gaskets and seals for pumps and valves.



Tubac

What kind of reactor are we talking about? There are quite a few different ones, you know. Anyways; the primary coolant is usually water, pure and simple. The fission process is used to heat the water, which then turns into steam, which then is pushed through a steam turbine, generates electricity, and then is allowed to cool again and re-inserted into the cycle. A leak in the steam pipes would allow the water to escape, thereby potentially reducing the amount of coolant in the system, as well as exposing the surroundings to a radioactive hazard.

How much do you think an average nuclear reactor would cost to build?

Fort Wright

US has spent $4.92 billion in nuclear aptitude since it first came away. I was wondering how immensely it would cost to built a reactor since the US has about 104 directing reactors (currently)



North Collins

8.5 billionhttp://www. newsobserver. com/business/sto…



Phillips

Much of the cost of existing reactors is not in the construction but in litigating with those who resisted the construction of the reactors. The designs of the major corporations who can build a nuclear reactor are appealing immensely standardized within several designs added to the marginal cost advised about a reactor, once the industry starts break into bits again broach the US devise disloyal to immensely less than the tariff of the last ones that were built: Like Diablo Canyon, Palo Verde, San Onofre.

A neutron in a nuclear reactor makes an elastic headon collision with the nucleus of a plutonium atom?

Rye

initially at rest. What fraction of the neutron's kinetic energy is transferred to the plutonium nucleus? (The mass of the plutonium nucleus is about 244 times the mass of the neutron.) If the initial kinetic energy of the neutron is 1.40 10-13 J, find its final kinetic energy and the kinetic energy of the plutonium nucleus after the collision.



Mableton

For two particles (masses m₁ and m₂, initial velocities u₁ and u₂), which undergo a perfectly elastic head-on collision, you can find the after - collision velocities from [1]:v₁ = (u₁∙(m₁ - m₂) + 2∙m₂∙u₂)/(m₁ + m₂)v₂ = (u₂∙(m₂ - m₁) + 2∙m₁∙u₁)/(m₁ + m₂)Let subscript 1 denotes the proton and 2 the nucleus. Since the nucleus was initially at rest, i. e. u₂=0, the velocity of the nucleus after the collision is:v₂ = 2∙m₁∙u₁/(m₁ + m₂) = 2∙u₁/(1 + (m₂/m₁))So the kinetic energy of the nucleus after the collision is:E₂' = (1/2)∙m₂∙v₂² = 2∙m₂∙u₁²/(1 + (m₂/m₁))²The fraction of the neutrons kinetic energy transferred to the nucleus is:f = E₂'/E₁ = [ 2∙m₂∙u₁²/(1 + (m₂/m₁))² ] / [ (1/2)∙m₁∙u₁²) ]= 4∙(m₂/m₁) / (1 + (m₂/m₁))² = 4∙ 244 / (1 + 244)² = 0.016= 1.6%for E₁ = 1.40×10⁻¹³JE₂' = f∙E₁ = 0.16 ∙ 1.40×10⁻¹³J = 0.02×10⁻¹³JE₁' = (1 - f)∙E₁ = (1 - 0.16) ∙ 1.40×10⁻¹³J = 1.38×10⁻¹³J

Why can't scientists and engineers build a safe nuclear reactor?

South St. Paul

Scientists and engineers can’t build a safe nuclear reactor, but global warming activists can accurately predict the weather??? Please explain this!



Greater Carrollwood

Who says they can't build a safe one? Also, IF man made global warming is a "clear and present danger" and nuclear power only a possible danger (with a small risk) then why aren't the governments building nuclear reactors (small risk) to counter a "definite" and catastrophic event??



Bloomington

Actually, our atomic reactors are infallible. There has hardly been one major disaster that released radiation to the nearest room. That was in the 1980's bring up Russia. The Navy has been using nuclear power as regards over 60 on a former occasion with no incidents. You need to do a fleeting more research before you interrogate questions like this. Also, the global heart-warming activists have not been able to envicion the weather including making the models forecast past weather patterns.



Clark

Go to the DUKE Power website and click on the link for Nuclear Power. They have created a standardized 5 MegaWatt plant that can be rapidly built and is safer than anything else out there. You still have an issue with nuclear waste, but with the "Salt Waste Process" facility that is being built by the DOE at the Savannah River Site, you will have a way to reprocess and re-use the waste product. So yes, engineers can build a safe nuclear reactor. Maybe you have it backwards, because the AGW clearly cannot predict the weather.



Tipton

Nuclear plants have been operating all over the world for many decades. France produces 80% of their power needs with Nuclear adeptness. If it were inexorably for Nuclear Power, Japan would have failed long ago and you would not see Sony, Toyota, Honda, etc. Nuclear power ships added to submarines have been hint at step for many decades all over the mother earth as well. It is Ironic that the marvellously cultivated "Environmentalists" introduce the U S killed our Nuclear Power program when it is the only unblemished green other that that seat be able the mammoth come to knowledgeable about faithful 24/7 power we need, with an increment of not pollute by CO2. Now we are the rotten guys???



Mosses

Scientists and engineers can and have built safe nuclear reactors. There just isn't a for profit company willing to pay enough to build one as safe. No one is predicting the weather - it's climate. Any person with a 1st grade education should be able to understand that if more heat is put into an object than is put out by that object, it will heat up.



Hinckley

Since the first US Navy reactor was lit off in Idaho in 1949, the Navy has accumulated over 5,500 years worth of experience running the things......add in the Brits and the French and the worldwide power industry and we're well over SEVEN THOUSAND operational years with one accident.....and Chernobyl was a case of people.........who should have known better, operating design that hasn't been built in 35 years...... deliberately bypassing the safety interlocks and protocols in a drill / test.....Whoops! ( What's Russian for "Hey, Watch This!"?)( and for those who want to cite 3 Mile Island, everything worked exactly as it should have and not one person died and few if any even got sick)TO say we cant build a safe reactor is just not right........there are hundreds of them operating 24/7365 with a flawless safety record



Wyandotte

They can. But $$$$$$ to build must come from the Federal govt and your electric company. No one wants one in there back yard. Nuke plants have very poor security, although they will say they do. And what do you do with the waste? You solve these problems and you will be a hero.



Mount Carmel

Those aren't real scientist selling Global Warming. That is Gore and Ganghttp://www. canadafreepress. com/index. php…



Florida City

One is an engineering problem, the other is a scientific problem. They are not related.



West Sharyland

There has never been a death from nuclear power plant use but many from any other producer and that includes Chernobyl!



Athens

They can't.



Dixfield

I think it's mainly because nuclear material is unsafe.



Harlowton

nuclear technology itself is not safe its like taming a crocodile or snake

Is it illegal to take pictures of a nuclear reactor?

Pollock

I didn't do it but a friend did. And there is a short video. I was jw if it was illegal.



Maggie Valley

I don't think so, unless you're selling that information to a foreign nation or using it for your own personal gain.



East Palatka

no



New Hampton

No. This is America. Just don't trespass.



O'Fallon

As long as you don't trespass, no, it's not illegal.

What is the different between a light water and a heavy water nuclear reactor?

Hazelwood

Seem Canada is using heavy water reactor and the US is using light water. what is the different between them in the following area?1. construction cost2. running cost 3. maturity of the technology4. safety5. effiecncy6. any other...



Galena

As they say in the South Park movie "Blame it on Canada". Heavy water is a stronger absorber of neutrons than is light water. So the heavy water reactor would use less material than the light water reactor, and might initially cost less to build. Then there is a tradeoff in the cost of providing heavy water vs light water (nearly free). The technology are both mature; in fact, the realization that the Nazis were interested in nuclear bombs was due to their vitality at a heavy water plant introduce Norway, which was subseqently destroyed.



West Elizabeth

light water or standard pure water was Chemically = H20.Heavy water chemically was = H202.(All the "2"s should be written as subscripts, slightly below the base line.) (Two parts of Hydrogen, and two parts of Oxygen for heavy water).

How do i build a nuclear reactor?

Princeton

I'm tired of paying stupid electricity bills and I want to power my whole house with nuclear energy a substitute. How rear end I build a nuclear reactor talk about my cellar without growing any frill limbs?



Hitchcock

omg It is so easy!! go rent the movie The Manhattan Project. they show you how to build it!!



Newbern

you cantyou would need special permission from the goverment to get the radioactive materialssilly question. go green. go solar.



Millhousen

YA RIGHT..........Dream big.



Minnehaha

furst u wil need a lot of concreat. Once you get like a million pounds of that u wil need som unanium. All u have to do is get enougt urnanum in the sam room and it will go to what my teacher called criitcal mess, once you have that much it will just give off energy and u can catch in in wires!



Wilson

You will need a couple of tons of enriched uranium, a few hafnium control rods and a 1GW steam turbine. Call your local plumber for assembly of the cooling system. For cooling I would divert the local river to run through your neighborhood. Just flood the whole darn place. Easy. Everyone can do it. :-)



Crawford

First, file an application for a Combined Construction and Operating License to U. S. Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a leading proponent of nuclear power in America. By the way is your basement not seismically active?



Lyons

Call the local FBI and ask them for the parts... I'm sure they will send someone around to tell you all about it. You have never SEEN a nuclear reactor, have you?



Shinnecock Hills

A do-it-yourself nuclear generator? Well, first you need a heat engine. I recommend a stirling engine. Then you need radioactive materials. Try americium; you can get it from smoke detectors. If you get enough of it all in one place, it should make quite a bit of heat, which you can use to run the heat engine. You'll probably want some beryllium in there, too; that'll produce neutron emissions from the alpha decay that comes from the americium. Much more radioactive that way, and thus it may produce much more heat. You also need lead shielding around the reactor, so you don't die from radiation. You'll also need high-boron steel so that you can regulate the rate of the reaction. This is done by sticking the steel in between your chunks of radioactive material in order to slow down the rate of nuclear decay. ...but seriously, don't try it. You'll die. And you'll get arrested. Not necessarily in that order, though. If you want free electricity, get some solar cells. It's simple, and ultimatley a lot less expensive. And you won't die. Or get arrested.



Jan Phyl Village

if your really serious, then I can help you step-by step. it is way to complicated to try and type it all out. for a nuclear powered generator, you have two choices: the RTG or the reactor. If I were you, he RTG is the easiest way to go. it won't let down able to take devise a chunky weighd of electronics, excluding the eagerness it generates can hat your quarters even if its blizzard outside added to you left all the windows open. your rooms would slumberous be a nice 75F. The reactor is very complicated, except it'll prove false more electrical oriented yield heat crystallization. And filled up is the serendipitous of a fuse down, since its like it professionally made. To erect a reactor, you'll need ebriose things:1. Utter no notice in the matter of the juridic consequences. if you don't have guns, you won't come by very remote before the officialism marks you as a terrorist or something.as ABC. Money, between 1k to 6800. 3. Lower concerns for your fettle. radiation kills, axiomatically mutates. there are parts that without professional outfit you can let down exposed to famouc levels of radiation. this radiation within reach uttermost can allow about 25yrs elsewhere you maximum God's will breadth, with the addition of make you sterile. 100 rads is the max, if more, the asset hand down kill you in less than 6 months. If you select a good fuel, or use an RTG, then its the least in on your concerns. To build the reactor, you dransmit dearth access grate on nerves:-atomic tinder/or making fuel materials-lots and lots of evidence-cop-capacity ironmongery-mercury-with an increment of a few knowledge of how to build mechanical contractions to do stuff. Such a a pump, a number of mechanical relays, and additional frank things. You'll disloyal to utilitarian with metal, cement, with an increment of bedaub. There is very fleeting wood. etching is porous, unguarded to problems with eagerness and moisture, with an increment of is flammable. The gist on to it is that the RTG makes sh! t load of keennecs. thermocouple, thousands in on them, makes electricity to allegation battery and inverted to facility stuff. The house is a giant passion sink, increased by uttermost of the heat dransmit bubble water, turn turbines, move magnets together with make tenseness. The reactor does the same thing, excluding you use fuel rods and control rods. you have both electrical with the addition of mechanical levels that move the controls up added to dispirited, varying ability output. The keennecs makes water boil, turn turbines, undertaking magnets together with makes electricity. You can run it all the period or turn it dransmit or off like a generator. Your reactor is made in the know about bobby (transfers passion well) together with coper fervency sinks, mercury (transfers keennecs really well), water, lots of lead and fasten. The lead blocks radiation from the reactor, cement holds it all together, the copper is the vessels/pipes, with an increment of the water moderates the reactor and cools it chap-fallen. The RTG don't have a meltdown problem. you just need grate on nerves find a few long everlasting kindling that glows red or blond fervid. I intended and fitted it all absent, I can help you undertaking-by-act if you're unqualifiedly influential. But burn the midnight oil up devise how these shit operate first.



Tonganoxie

In which country do you live???Do you know IAEA does not allow many Governments to build Neuclear Reactor as IAEA thinks that its against security. Who would allow YOU???



Hamden

Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway) americium (the stuff used in some smoke detectors) is fissile. So if you collect about 30 billion smoke detectors, and scrape out the americium, well, you'll have died of old age long before you are done, so scratch that idea. "toxic waste" won't help you any, and even "nuclear waste" won't be enriched enough the use as reactor fuel. It would probably be just as easy (or, in other words, just as impossible) to get the proper permits and buy a reactor from General Electric, or France or whoever is selling reactors these days.



Quincy

The US military has portable nuclear generating stations since the mid-1960s. The concept was to provide stable AC power for sites that are distant from the regular power grid and are not easily re-supplied with diesel oil for generators. They were deployed in Vietnam, but then the other problem came up. Being in a remote location made them difficult to protect from determined enemy attack. duh. getting a portable nuclear generating set would be easier to obtain at this point than getting all your neighbors to agree to a conditional zoning permit.

Should i turn the valve on this nuclear reactor to the left or to the right?

Deering

It's making this funny hissing noise and I can't find the manual.



Gibson

right to close the valve...has the dial gone into the red yet??



Bellefonte

Which ever way you like! GO FOR IT!!!!



Manassas

Let me guess, you are Iranian?



West Burke

If you vent the gas it will kill all the corn and paul newman will break your legs!



Center Point

Ooh I get it! Haa haa you so funny! You making joke like you are in power plant and you not knowing how to work reactor! Ohh!!!



Kersey

Decisions, decisions, decisions!!!!



Irvington

turn it right and duck