Nuclear Powered Airlines, Oil and Minerals

The fundamental basis of why the world is railroaded using carbon is countries vested interests in making money from their reserves. Plenty of countries have more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil. So the want to exploit these reserves because it means money. Other countries have large reserves of natural gas that they can mine and sell. Whatever the material if a country has it then it's money in the bank and will be used.

The Boeing 747-400 Airline uses around 10 tonnes of Avgas per hour. Airlines could be re-designed to use Uranium fuel rods withing a reactor on an airline. The heat from the nuclear reaction would be absorbed directly into molten lead and transferred to water(sea-water) that would be pumped to the reactor to produce super-heated steam. Essentially the Airline would have sea-water contained in the fuel-tank contained within its wings. The super-heated steam would be pumped to the turbine jets in-place of Avgas. The steam would interact with the air from the turbine jet intake causing thermal expansion of the air in the turbine compressor and producing thrust. Airlines could be build much larger carrying enough seawater to fly 25,000 miles around the world without refueling with water. Potentially the could fly faster than conventional Airlines (1,200mph) and be able to keep up with the spin of the Earth providing daylight throughout the flight when flying East to West.

I think a nuclear powered bomber, the Convair NB - 36, was made by the US as a test to see if the idea could work. It worked fine, but the problem was the fear of a crash. If a nuclear powered aircraft had an accident, the result would be deadly (Hence the bomber being scrapped). Radiation would be spread over a massive area, and aircraft accidents even now occur too often for something like that to be safe. So, the idea itself is sound, but the danger is too high.

- Gehn

This post has been edited by Gehn on May 29 2008, 05:07 PM

My dad died a very slow death, at a relatively young age, from prostrate cancer. He worked in the uranium mines when he was young. Is that something you would wish on your children or grand children? Research uranium mining, and see if that is something you really would wish upon humans to increase mining to meet the demand.

That's why people work in improving technology, genius.

You know, like robots and shielded suits?

Ahem...

The uranium itself isn't too dangerous. But the ores can contain radium, which does cause cancer. So mining may be a hazardous occupation. This would be solved by using robots or criminals to do the mining.

You left off the rest of the sentence from the link.

And more on radon and mining.

You left off a lot more than half a sentence from the page you linked to.

Wikipedia subarticle on the effects of Radon

Now radon causes lung cancer. Ok, got that down. But here is "THEY"s statement:

Note that she specifically says prostrate cancer, not lung cancer. There's a difference. So while radon poses a serious threat to your health, there's nothing to prove that it causes prostrate cancer. Understand?

Note that she specifically says prostrate cancer, not lung cancer. There's a difference. So while radon poses a serious threat to your health, there's nothing to prove that it causes prostrate cancer. Understand?

Whether or not They's Dad's prostate cancer was a result of radon or uranium exposure remains uncertain. There is research that suggests a link between cancer and the radiogenic and chemical properties of natural and depleted uranium.

The main point of They's statement was that there was, and still is health risks associated with uranium mining. Your selective Wiki quote was misleading in regards to the known cancer risk associated with uranium mining. Quoting the full sentence demonstrates the true danger of the occupation.

Prostrate cancer is a cancer of individuals who lay face down.

Prostate cancer is cancer of the prostate gland.

My Dad used to make the same mistake with prostate/prostrate.

Link?

I was questioning whether "THEY"s dad's cancer was a result of uranium mining, not how dangerous uranium mining is.

Your selective Wiki quote was misleading in regards to what type of cancer radon can cause.

Again, I wasn't arguing that uranium mining wasn't dangerous. I was questioning "THEY"s statement.

Link?

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/04/21/68146

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...15&blobtype=pdf

http://www.nirs.org/les/lesdureportredactedfeb2005.pdf

It definitely causes lung cancer, and it may possibly cause others. How many different types of cancer are necessary to pose a health risk?

That was part of They's statement, IMO it was the most significant part of the statement.

You're taking my statement out of context. I never said that so-and-so number of cancers are needed to pose a health risk.

You're taking what I said out of context again. I was refering to "THEY"s statement that her dad's prostate cancer came from uranium mining. Remember?