Yes, I figured as much, but there are so many misconceptions about plutonium
that I could not resist a response.
Some years ago, we needed a small amount of Pu-237 for an experiment. This
isotope has a half life of about 40 days or so and is not even fissile! We
had to jump through so many hoops that doing the actual experiment was a bit
of an anti-climax. So, going back to your example, the turn-off would not
so much be the money but the paperwork to get the plutonium.
BTW, all plutonium isotopes are radioactive. That's why we have to keep on
making it to keep the supply up. ;-) It's not like some of those more
persistent toxic elements like mercury, arsenic, and cadmium that hang
around forever.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: John W Burgeson [mailto:burgytwo@juno.com]
Sent: Monday February 19, 2001 5:32 PM
To: vandergraaft@aecl.ca; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: New Kansas Science Stds.
The plutonium swallowing idea was a throwaway, of course. I was thinking
of
radioactive plutonium.
Perhaps the expense part would be enough of a turn-off?
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 19 2001 - 20:25:35 EST