| Pages:
1
2
3 |
SulfurApothecary
Harmless
Posts: 37
Registered: 26-6-2012
Location: Boise
Member Is Offline
Mood: For science!
|
|
Radioactive Chemistry
I was wondering if anyone have tried radioactive chemistry at home? I know that americium is in smoke detectors (alpha emitter) radium in luminous
clocks (alpha emitter) thorium dioxide in lantern mantles (alpha emitter). I think it would be interesting to try to do this at home, but the dangers
would be somewhat great considering inhalation hazards, and the fact that anyone who made gammer emitters it could pose a public health risk. Now I do
know that you can take an alpha emitter and take aluminum and then bombard it would alpha particles, then one could produce neutrons. From this
someone could take this and make more radioactive elements. Paraffin could be used to slow down neutrons as well as water. But even better than
aluminum is beryllium, its just that it is harder to get. Another thing that one could get is tritium that could emit beta -.
So in conclusion it is interesting that one could actually get their hands on radioactive materials, for experimentations.
(Lithium could be used to isolate thorium from thorium dioxide).
You can't arrest me, it was for science!
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
You're talking about transmutation? If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't ask such questions. It is completely out of reach for a home chemist
with even a good protective equipment.
Unless you don't care about your life, and the life of people in your vicinity.
The point is that in order to make measurable concentrations of the new stuff, you've really got to have a good source of particles.
Also, I suppose you don't have a mass spectrometer at home, therefore to detect anything with typical crude methods (even the best typical analytical
ones are crude compared to mass spectroscopy), you'd have to really pile up lots of the initial stuff, and that means contamination and a waste of
money. People have done it before (Hahn et al.  ) and they really messed things
up.
The only radiochemistry safe enough to do is small scale analytical. For example the properties of solutions of radioactive elements, given that their
radioactivity is not great. For example uranium-238 salts in small quantities won't harm you if you hold on to strict procedures because the danger is
in the absorption of the atoms, not few measly rays.
However any messing with radium will fuck you up.
Therefore, analytical radiochemistry of weakly radioactive elements. But transmutation? Don't even try it. It's truly out of safe reach.
To do anything measurable, you'd have to resort to the Curie methods, with buckets and acids and all that. Just don't.
[Edited on 12-7-2012 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
DoctorOfPhilosophy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 130
Registered: 12-6-2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: enthralled
|
|
Transmutation can be done on a DIY cyclotron. A select few people have actually taken the time to build one, so you might wanna contact them and ask
to borrow 
Yes Hahn screwed up big time. I'm assuming you don't mean to do a large scale experiment though (I hope not). Curie method is also high inadvisable
(esp. strapping a gram of radium to your arm for a month)
In my humble opinion, it is unfair to make general statements about the safety of gamma radiation or radium chemistry. Yes one must be extremely
careful, but any experiment can be done safely if the scale is small enough!
I have a section on my web page dedicated to chem with technetium/promethium/polonium/thorium/radium/protactinium/uranium/americium. This is the link, take a look if you're interested. The only reason I haven't done any is because I can't choose a Geiger counter. USE A GEIGER
COUNTER! Not something you wanna save money on.
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by DoctorOfPhilosophy  | Transmutation can be done on a DIY cyclotron. A select few people have actually taken the time to build one, so you might wanna contact them and ask
to borrow
Yes Hahn screwed up big time. I'm assuming you don't mean to do a large scale experiment though (I hope not). Curie method is also high inadvisable
(esp. strapping a gram of radium to your arm for a month) |
By Curie method I meant working with large amount of materials. They've concentrated their stuff. I can hardly imagine the amount of particle flux
needed to make a measurable trace of some new element. These things are done in real reactors and cyclotrons with high fluxes.
| Quote: |
In my humble opinion, it is unfair to make general statements about the safety of gamma radiation or radium chemistry. Yes one must be extremely
careful, but any experiment can be done safely if the scale is small enough! |
Radium is so intensively radioactive that any concentration of its salts large enough to be detected by any method other than a Geiger counter, would
be very dangerous. Even a slightly visible precipitate of its carbonate is enough radioactive to pose a danger of acute burns through the test tube.
It glows, and the air surrounding it glows, too, indicating its furious decay.
The danger of the rays exists as a lone fact if the stuff is sealed. But if you do any experiments with it, you will get yourself contaminated. It is
absolutely impossible to do any experiments without getting yourself contaminated. Just think of that damn sodium that is a nuisance in spectroscopy
even in minute, trace concentrations. Well while those concentrations are ok for sodium, they present an acute radiotoxic danger for radium.
Given that the amount are not macroscopic, i.e. detectable by a counter only, the only way to do it would be in a lead glovebox with disposable
microscale equipment, for example plastic eppendorf tubes.
Any precipitation obviously means there's an extreme radiotoxic danger.
It is simply not something you want to do if you don't want to die too early.
Here's a video showing how things are not supposed to be done. It's actually incredible how the hell YouTube didn't remove it. Check out my comments - the
guy is obviously ignorant and cocky, thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
His house is probably contaminated now. It's not radium, but yellowcake, but it's dangerous nonetheless.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Any form of experimenting with radioactive materials in appreciable quantities in a home setting, w/o proper tried and tested safety features and w/o
peer review is simply a recipe for slow and painful suicide/murder.
[Edited on 12-7-2012 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
DoctorOfPhilosophy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 130
Registered: 12-6-2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: enthralled
|
|
Most home-built cyclotrons are about 12" - 14" in diameter (http://cyclotronconference.org/). A 37 inch cyclotron was used to prepare the first sample of Tc-99m. It's hard to say how much technetium would
be produced by a 14" cyclotron, but even if it's a nanogram it can still be eluted in a chromatography column. The question is, would the Geiger
counter be sensitive enough to pick up the radiation. I know DIY neutron activation is a tried and tested experiment (http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-...), and some isotopes quickly decay to another element. That's an indirect
transmutation. Of course you will not get a gram or milligram quantity, but something detectable.
I absolutely agree that large scale production is a bad idea, but let's give some numbers to the concepts instead of using weasel words.
Needless to say, if you see a radium salt precipitating from a solution, then it's a miracle your still alive. However, using your brain, a capillary
tube, and a centrifugal evaporator, you should be able to safely produce no more than a microgram. Here is my logic:
Natural uranium has a specific activity of 25,280 Bq/g. Radium is 3.66x10^10 Bq/g. In Canada, the maximum amount of natural uranium an average joe can
have lying around without a license is 15kg. That has the same activity as 10.36 milligrams of radium. Both are alpha emitters. Unlike radium salt
though, the uranium shields itself. And it isn't water soluble. And it's VERY hard to loose. In other words, 10 mg of radium PERFECTLY SEALED would be
safe in big lead block, but should the seal break, you and your town are going straight to Utah.
Consider 10ug of radium, equal to 15g of uranium. It's the smallest amount you could probably see with the naked eye. 15g or uranium wouldn't do much
harm outside you, but if a water soluble salt (e.g. uranyl nitrate) got into you, its more likely than not going to kill you. Nevertheless, people
like Theo Gray have about that much uranyl nitrate at home, safely. The big difference is it's a lot easier to loose a grain of salt than 15g of
powder.
If you are a responsible person doing things properly and not in a Home Depot bucket, I think up to 1ug of radium (1.5g U equivalent) is reasonable.
You can see the crystal under a descent microscope, and even if by some stupid freak accident you did swallow it, you will have just hurt yourself
really. The worst thing would be to drop it on the floor, but you can always find it with a Geiger counter. In fact, if you check all you equipment
and work area with a Geiger counter, you can find contamination before your house becomes a superfund site.
That's just my opinion though, I'm certainly not recommending anyone to try unless they personally think it's a good idea.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No, and going by your site I'm not recommending you try it either. Try crawling before walking: there's plenty interesting home chemistry around
before having to dream up schemes that involve highly radioactive materials and microchemistry (an art by itself).
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17 |
Here's a video showing how things are not supposed to be done. It's actually incredible how the hell YouTube didn't remove it. Check out my comments - the
guy is obviously ignorant and cocky, thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
His house is probably contaminated now. It's not radium, but yellowcake, but it's dangerous nonetheless. |
Not to mention his swimming pool!
Totally bonkers. On a much smaller scale, with adequate precautions, it might be able to do this safely, if you have access to low radiotoxic waste
disposal services. I'm guessing he chucked most of his debris with the household waste too! D*ckhead Supremo, indeed!
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
The only radioactive chemistry suitable for a very experienced home chemist that received his knowledge by reading proper books, and not by browsing
the Web and watching YouTube, is one of depleted uranium and perhaps thorium.
Uranium-238 salts are available in small quantities as a reagent. Its radioactivity is meek and it's used in analytical chemistry without special
precautions needed for handling more active stuff.
If you ensure you're wearing gloves and you're washing your glassware thoroughly, you can do fine even with larger precipitates (few grams). General
caution applies like when handling mercury salts, therefore it surpasses skills of the most of forumers here.
However if you're a typical YouTube-experimenter that uses plastic cups, soda bottles, doesn't wear gloves, picks his nose, stay far away from it. I'm
not pointing fingers now. I'm adressing to anyone who reads this. You will contaminate yourself with a radiotoxic heavy metal.
It's obvious home experimenters' bodies are having a larger than average intake of poisons. Keep the contamination in the reasonable range such as
typical heavy metals, organic solvents, oxidizers.
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17 |
Here's a video showing how things are not supposed to be done. It's actually incredible how the hell YouTube didn't remove it. Check out my comments - the
guy is obviously ignorant and cocky, thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
His house is probably contaminated now. It's not radium, but yellowcake, but it's dangerous nonetheless. |
Not to mention his swimming pool!
Totally bonkers. On a much smaller scale, with adequate precautions, it might be able to do this safely, if you have access to low radiotoxic waste
disposal services. I'm guessing he chucked most of his debris with the household waste too! D*ckhead Supremo, indeed! |
Well it's not the swimming pool I'm worried about. Dudes are drying the yellowcake with a fan heater. They're blowing hot air over it.
The stuff is apparently >40,000 CPM over a plastic bag and they're blowing into the sand and dust like particles. What a waste of protective
equipment. D:
I'd mix the waste with concrete and make a block. The usual method.
If it's embedded in the concrete, you can throw it in the dumpster. Nobody would notice and nobody would suffer. It's natural uranium. This guy, on
the other hand, could just throw it back to the mine from which he took the ore. He even mentions it in the comments. So that's ok. But the drying and
the initial chucking of the high activity ore like it's a piece of regular rock... stupid.
[Edited on 12-7-2012 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Where are your comments, Endimion?
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Check the "see all", they're quite old, almost as the video itself.
|
|
|
Wizzard
Hazard to Others
Posts: 337
Registered: 22-3-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@Endimion- What's wrong with picking one's nose??
And that video about the Uranium on Youtube- That's some scary bad DIY chemistry- I'd hate to see what his did with all that radioactive contaminate.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Love his straw man counter-comment:
"Contrary to what you might think, the United States has established acceptable exposure limits for insoluble uranium compounds, none of
which could be expected to be met considering the quantity of the sample prepared, physics properties of the sample, time spent handling the sample,
and radiation detected around the lab with a very sensitive meter (not significant over background). There was absolutely no reason to believe that
any industrial safety standards were violated."
Except he hasn't measured anything. At least not properly...
|
|
|
vmelkon
National Hazard
Posts: 669
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SulfurApothecary | | I was wondering if anyone have tried radioactive chemistry at home? I know that americium is in smoke detectors (alpha emitter) radium in luminous
clocks (alpha emitter) thorium dioxide in lantern mantles (alpha emitter). I think it would be interesting to try to do this at home, but the dangers
would be somewhat great considering inhalation hazards, and the fact that anyone who made gammer emitters it could pose a public health risk. Now I do
know that you can take an alpha emitter and take aluminum and then bombard it would alpha particles, then one could produce neutrons. ...
|
Here's my experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huzb0hs4Bcc
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So, assuming that the difference in the counts is actually statistically significant (it's hardly a rigorously controlled experiment...) you
may have transmutated a few atoms of Al...
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Nothing at all. I do it all the time, but not while I'm in the lab... and not while anyone can see me.
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | Love his straw man counter-comment:
"Contrary to what you might think, the United States has established acceptable exposure limits for insoluble uranium compounds, none of
which could be expected to be met considering the quantity of the sample prepared, physics properties of the sample, time spent handling the sample,
and radiation detected around the lab with a very sensitive meter (not significant over background). There was absolutely no reason to believe that
any industrial safety standards were violated."
Except he hasn't measured anything. At least not properly... |
Technobabble with a style that reminds me of politicians. 
I'd buy him a cat. It would walk around the contaminated floor, licking its paws occasionally, like cats do.
He could measure the activity of its dried urine each week. That would be a fun thing to do.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Or 'salesmen' of 'HHO' jam jars...
It shows that getting lots of UToob hits isn't that difficult: do something daring badly (his yellowcake looks decidedly dodgy) and presto... the dumb
faithful adore you!
[Edited on 12-7-2012 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
DoctorOfPhilosophy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 130
Registered: 12-6-2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: enthralled
|
|
First off, I absolutely and vehemently disagree with everything done in the (first) video, and the quote does sound like quackery. Having said that, I
have to play the devil's advocate here.
A lot of people look the same way onto amateur chemistry. I can totally imagine some concerned parents on the news saying that they were "shocked" and
"horrified" when they police discovered a sulfuric acid electrolysis cell in their neighbors basement. Many people have many opinions on what's safe
and what isn't.
Not to be overly rash, but I'd say if you don't want to sound like the typical anti-chemistry propagandists, look for some numbers or figures that
actually support your assertions. Just saying " that's dangerous but this isn't " is politics, not science.
[Edited on 13-7-2012 by DoctorOfPhilosophy]
[Edited on 13-7-2012 by DoctorOfPhilosophy]
|
|
|
Boron Trioxide
Harmless
Posts: 42
Registered: 18-6-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just my contribution:
http://www.youtube.com/user/bionerd23
Someone's youtube channel mostly about radioactivity.
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath...
Everyone should know about united nuclear and what they sell.
If you already knew about these things then I am sorry for wasting your time.
|
|
|
vmelkon
National Hazard
Posts: 669
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation
|
|
united nuclear is a nice site, but they are US based. I asked them if they had ever shipped their mineral samples to Canada, and they said every
single one of them has been confiscated.
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath...
I had also contacted Canada Post. A lady called and left a message saying that Canada Post doesn't want anything to do it and to use another shipping
company.
So, I wonder how come their are able to ship within the USA.
|
|
|
DoctorOfPhilosophy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 130
Registered: 12-6-2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: enthralled
|
|
If it's radioactive, they'll detect it in no time. You could use that to your advantage though, there are lots of radioactive rocks in Canada so it
shouldn't be too hard to find a bit of uranium
I've ordered beryllium from United Nuclear (they had the best price) and it got here alright
|
|
|
rannyfash
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 21-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wanted to accelerate alpha particles from americium with an electrostatic field in a vacuum to a thin film of aluminium and with lead shielding
focus the neutrons into a beam and irradiate a small piece of lithium coated with a thick clear expandable phosphorescent polymer.
neutrons would be captured by the small percentage of natural Li 6 and would fissure releasing an alpha particle and tritium the radioactivity of the
tritium would then cause the phosphor to glow.
although keep in mind that this is a half baked idea and i have not fully looked at the practical implications as i ruled it out as a safe feasible
reaction as many of you should also come to terms with the brutal fact that you would be risking your life experimenting with a non-visible force
albeit i think it could be done at home but only with an almost none existent margin of error, i have no practical experience on this subject.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Then stay clear or very SERIOUSLY read up and TOOL up. On second thought, just stay clear. 
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
I don't think anything can happen to him. The flux is ridiculously low. That's physics what he's trying to to.
|
|
|
DoctorOfPhilosophy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 130
Registered: 12-6-2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: enthralled
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by rannyfash | | I wanted to accelerate alpha particles from americium with an electrostatic field in a vacuum to a thin film of aluminium and with lead shielding
focus the neutrons into a beam and irradiate a small piece of lithium coated with a thick clear expandable phosphorescent polymer.
|
See on the physics forums if someone built a Farnsworth Fusor anywhere near your area. Maybe you can use that to do your experiment. Hopefully the
same person would know enough about physics to stop any dangerous ideas.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
