Uranium/Plutonium

[ComradeChris]

A post in another topic brought this up. What are the key differences between the two (besides atomical structure)? Can both be used for energy and nuclear weapons? Where do both come from (regionally in the world; where are the largest deposits)?

[rice349]

Uranium is naturally occurring while plutonium is primarily man made with only traces occurring naturally. Uranium and its compounds are highly toxic, both from a chemical and radiological standpoint. However i believe that very small doses of uranium can be handled by the body. Plutonium is a very dangerous radiological hazard. Because of the high rate of emission of alpha particles and the fact that it's specifically absorbed in bone and collected in the liver, plutonium is radiological poison only handled with special equipment.

that's really all i know

[ComradeChris]

I knew Uranium occurred naturally (there's approximately 300 grams in the average Canadian's backyard). I guess it's moreso the difference of plutonium I don't know.

But isn't it once you use Uranium in a reactor it becomes Plutonium?

[Latin America]

Good question ComradeChris?

[red_orchestra]

Yes, spent nuclear fuel is fairly decent quality weapons grade Plutonium.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just to add on to rice's post, while uranium is poisonous, plutonium is much, much worse. It is nearly a thousand times more toxic than the most virulent snake venoms. and a single milligram can cause massive fibrosis of the lungs if inhaled.
Plutonium is almost universally used in weapons, but there are some reactor designs that use plutonium.

[ComradeChris]

Ok...I must have known a bit more about the two substances than I priorly thought. Other than I wasn't sure if one was worse then the other in radioactivity...although it makes sense that plutonium is. If Uranium was worse, and since it occurs naturally, we'd all be either dead or mutated spawns :lol: .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, no, if the earth had had plutonium, then life would have either developed a resistance or it wouldn't have started at all.
I don't think plutonium affect the reactions that are reckoned to have kick-started life, so life might have formed even if plutonium was present.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:41 PM
Actually, no, if the earth had had plutonium, then life would have either developed a resistance or it wouldn't have started at all.
I don't think plutonium affect the reactions that are reckoned to have kick-started life, so life might have formed even if plutonium was present.
I didn't mean life itself would be dead, but humans don't have immunity to Plutonium. So if humans were born in it's vacinity we'd be dead.

[caliban]

In VERY simple terms, uranium is raw and plutonium is the refined product taken from uranium. There are differing "grades" of plutonium depending on what you want to use it for.I know that plutonium 238 is considered weapons grade plutonium and, l think, plutonium 235 is what is used in reactors. A cyclotron(sp?) is used to "refine" the uranium, and the amount of time they refine it will dictate the "grade".

[coda]

Uranium-235 & 238 are used in reactors and is a naturally occurring element that is mined. There are trace amounts of Plutonium found in Uranium and Plutonium can be extracted from the spent fuel of unconverted Uranium from nuclear reactors which can be reprocessed into enriched Uranium which converts into weapons grade Plutonium.

[coda]

<<Other than I wasn&#39;t sure if one was worse then the other in radioactivity>>

spent fuel of unconverted urnaium is radioactive for about 300 years if the plutonium is extracted and radioactive for thousands of years if the plutonium is left in. The USEPA standard puts radioactive decay to safe levels after 10,000 years.