A better method for extracting Uranium from sea water

[Jan Panteltje]

Better method for extracting Uranium from sea water:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/sc/c3sc50230a

About 200mg per gram MOF (metal-organic framework).

[Klaus Günter]

It depends on how far you are from fukushima and shit like that, I suppose

[Poutnik]

Klaus G�nter posted Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:27 +0000 (UTC)

I very doubt about that, because what is leaking from reactors
is not uranium, but its fission products.

--
Poutnik

[Earl Wagner]

Poutnik wrote:
> Klaus Günter posted Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:27 +0000 (UTC)

For people like us this will always be the same thing. It is all
greek, by using different technology, which also goes by the name of
"Modern Physics" :)

[Poutnik]

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000 (UTC)


>
> Poutnik wrote:
> > Klaus G�nter posted Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:27 +0000 (UTC)

The point is, the uranium collection from sea water
is based on its physical and chemical properties as chemical element.

Uranium physion products are different elements
with very different properties,
having in common with uranium just radioactivity.

And quality and lasting of this radioactivity
differs very much as well.

Unanium-235 has hald half time 700 millions years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235


E.g. One of the most scared is 131-Iodine with short half-life (8 days),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/131I

that is volatile and created contamination of atmosphere
during Cernobyl accident.

Another scared Stroncium-90 and Caesium-137,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90

with longer half life ( about 30 year for caesium, 29 for stroncium )
that are reactive metals and create soluble salts,
contaminating soil and water.

90Sr was well known in the accident of exposure of japanese fisherman
during some early nuclear weapon tests.




--
Poutnik

[Earl Wagner]

Poutnik wrote:

> The point is, the uranium collection from sea water is based on its
> physical and chemical properties as chemical element.

We don't give a shit, can't you read, fool?

[Poutnik]

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 11:44:06 +0000 (UTC)

Manners of a butcher's dog.
Do you even eat from his plate ?

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

Irony.

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000 (UTC)

> > I very doubt about that, because what is leaking from reactors is not
> > uranium, but its fission products.
>
> For people like us this will always be the same thing.

Knowing the differences between word meanings is essential to reading.

Your apathy to the ignorance of the difference between "uranium" and
"fission products" is not a reflection on someone else.

[Earl Wagner]

Wally W. wrote:

> Your apathy to the ignorance of the difference between "uranium" and
> "fission products" is not a reflection on someone else.

You don't get the point, fool, another one, lol. You morons always
walk in pairs.

[Earl Wagner]

You being a fool, has nothing to do with manners, but all to do with
your stupid behavioural not getting the main point in a discussion.

I tell this for your benefit of course.

[Poutnik]

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC)

Those without manners do not know what manners are.

Uranium extraction is extraction of natural uranium content from water.
That is maint point of discusion.


--
Poutnik

[Earl Wagner]

Poutnik wrote:

> Uranium extraction is extraction of natural uranium content from water.
> That is maint point of discusion.

Idiot. lol, where exactly you've been asked about the technological
process? Contrary, you've been made aware that it does not matter.
Reread.

[Wally W.]

You chimed in on a technical discussion with the "point" that 18th
century chemistry was of no interest to "people like us."

You might find more positive reinforcement by making your "point" in
groups where like-minded people are more prevalent, if you can
co-exist.

[Poutnik]

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 12:26:03 +0000 (UTC)

Where exactly you've been asked
to provide this your useless OT comment ?

--
Poutnik

[Earl Wagner]

Wally W. wrote:

> You might find more positive reinforcement by making your "point" in
> groups where like-minded people are more prevalent, if you can co-exist.

I disagree, it would be much cheaper for us, you to take your stupid
shit and attitude then disappear in silence, yesterday if possible.

For instance, a month from now in the future I will come to ask "Did
anybody seen Wally W, the Stupid, recently?" lol

[Earl Wagner]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Idiot. lol, where exactly you've been asked about the technological
>> process? Contrary, you've been made aware that it does not matter.
>> Reread.
>
> Where exactly you've been asked to provide this your useless OT comment ?

Was it a real question or you just try to divert the attention from
you flagrant mistakes and disabilities?

[Poutnik]

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 12:48:04 +0000 (UTC)

There is the third option, that you have missed,
being focused to trolling.

--
Poutnik

[Earl Wagner]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Was it a real question or you just try to divert the attention from you
>> flagrant mistakes and disabilities?
>
> There is the third option, that you have missed,
> being focused to trolling.

Illucid, why then are you protesting when me telling that what you
say sounds stupid?

[Poutnik]

Earl Wagner posted Sat, 25 May 2013 13:06:06 +0000 (UTC)


>

Others will decide themselves,
who sound stupids and who does not.

--
Poutnik