In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:24:23 -0400: Hi, [snip] >U232 is highly dangerous stuff. It has an alpha activity that is 10 times >that of U238 which is itself also very dangerous.
The half life of U232 is 69 years, That of U238 is 4.47 billion years. U232 is 65 million times more active than U238. > >If U232 gets into the air as particles, the particles pop around in the air >like little jets propelled by its own intense alpha activity and it tends >to break apart into smaller particles. It is very deadly stuff. > >The experimenter must have taken great pains to contain the U232 to protect >his life. I agree that they should, however that's no guarantee that it was done. > >No doubt, the experiment must have been sealed. >Also, the alpha activity would blow off U232 from any type of fixation on >the gold particles. This intense alpha activity would also keep it >suspended in solution. The experiment that produced the strongest results, only lasted for 1 hour. During that time only about 1 part in 1 million of the U232 would decay. IOW almost none of it. Therefore decay would make no measurable difference to the amount of U232 sticking to gold nano-particles and falling to the bottom. A gold nano particle with a radius of 10nm would only acquire 0.4 eV of kinetic energy from the decay of a U232 atom attached to it's surface. This isn't enough to dislodge any other U232's that may be attached to it. > >It also pumps out prodigious levels of gamma radiation. Some yes, but most of the energy in alpha decay reactions is carried by the alpha particle, and most of the gamma & x-rays produced are low energy (see http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/decaysearchdirect.jsp?nuc=232U&unc=nds) so moving the active substance to the bottom of the container, thereby increasing the separation distance from the detector, would reduce the count. In short this potential error can by no means be ruled out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
