What is Digg?64 Comments
- geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why must every science related article on Digg have comments spewed from the mouths of bible-thumping religious zealots? Wage your war on science elsewhere, trolls.
Anyway, on topic: the significance of this finding is that the process in which this natural nuclear reaction took place resembles the same method we humans use today and discovered it through trial and error all on our own, without having modeled nature, which is pretty neat. - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Another interesting natural phenomena is the usage of photons in photosynthesis (as well as photoreceptors in the eye, but photosynthesis moreso). Essentially, plants had figured out that light was made of photons before we did.
- fredgarvin1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe it's just how Discovery "dumbed-down" the science - but this doesn't make any sense:
"...water trickling into uranium-rich bedrock acted like the control rods in a modern reactor, increasing the efficiency of fission and causing the uranium to produce a chain reaction."
Control rods STOP chain reactions, not cause them, and they DECREASE efficiency, not increase.
" The reaction released heat that boiled the water. Once all the water was gone, the fission fizzled out, preventing a meltdown."
If the water were acting like control rods - then the lack of water would let the reaction run without "control" (hence the the use of the word control in the name CONTROL RODS).
Also, how do you tell that xenon was deposited in EXACTLY 30-minute cycles from 2 billion years ago?
Doesn't make any sense, no digg. - PercyKittenz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Indeed, the sun is a mass of incandescent gas... a gigantic nuclear furnace, if you would."
I have also heard that it is where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees. Or so They say. - andyzweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is sweet, this should totally make front page!
- AETAaAS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amazing... wonder how much heat it can output.
Even if its half or a quater of what we have in current nuclear reactors, I think it'd be a good replacement.
Unless of course, we perfect nuclear fusion. - chicomdk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1F-ing sweet this gets digg +5 of awesome
- Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1holy crap i learned something
++DIGG FTW - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's very cool.
- Mach5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We are forgetting about one other nuclear reactor. THE SUN. But yeah, this is neat, digg!
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The earth isnt 2 billion years old.... if it was, the sun would have barbequed the earth cause itd be so big and many other factors."
There are many tools to gauge the age of the earth, I'd like to know what sciences you have followed to prove that the earth isnt over 2 billion years old. Im sure enquiring geologists want to know.
But let's get to the _really_ fun stuff, now I would LOVE to read the paper that says the sun would become large enough to envelope the earth, or at least bbq it.
Any links to these scientific studies would be greatly appreciated, as, like all other sciences they need to be looked over with a fine tooth comb. Thanks in advance! - Dragular, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We are forgetting about one other nuclear reactor. THE SUN. But yeah, this is neat, digg!"
Indeed, the sun is a mass of incandescent gas... a gigantic nuclear furnace, if you would. ;) - Aknot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fred, exactly what I was wondering. How can they know that this happened every 30 mins, not 25 or 35 but 30 mins. 2 billion years ago, wouldn't the earth be on a different orbit which would alter the length of time on earth anyway.
- noflesh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, the idea of a naturally occurring fission reaction blows my mind, but i had to clarify a few misunderstandings:
1) The Earth is about 4 or 5 billion years old.
2) In another 5 or 10 billion years, our sun will go all 'red giant' on us and swell to swallow the inner planets (including us). Of course, we'd be bbq'd long before it actually touches us.
No citations--this is stuff I learned in the 10th grade and on Nova.
/first digg comment - adm58, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The earth isnt 2 billion years old...."
No, it isn't. It's older. - Dragular, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Hippies will be protesting at the site by next week."
That'll be fun, especially if it's unorganized. You know... "We're here to protest against nuclear power and for the environment!" "Wait... you say the environment created this one?" "We're here to protest against the environment and the Bush administration, they have been partners in crime for far too long!" - kejistan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In terms of the sun there is one problem, they go out with a bang sometimes...
But it would be awesome if someone made a miniature sun. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This goes a long way toward explaining our all out environmentally unfriendly assault on planet. George Bush has discovered that it has Weapons of Mass Destruction. :)
Oh come on! It's a joke. - BeefandBeer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So would this pave the way to a cleaner nuclear fission reactor design?
- nihilator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So this site should have tons of spent uranium, which the US could mine and make more armor piercing rounds for weapons.
- dp109, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, here is more proof that nature can do amazing things and that we still have a lot to learn about the world around us.
- TomJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting read, oh yeah, and the article was pretty good too.
- scottym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay, this is cool...
But mr.gates is right...
Our own Sun is a perfect nuclear reactor, as are all living stars. - bitxdeadweight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...and here I thought it was called 'the sun'
foolish me... - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I thought the Sun would go "red giant" on us in about 15 billion years! You saying they've cut 5-10 billion off that number already! We better get hopping on that "escaping a dying star" routine before we're wiped out.
Time flies when you're having fun... - RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Terrorists where already planning on overtaking this Geo-Reactor 2 billion years ago ;)
- xofc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cool.
- mikeruiz7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The Earth is older than the bible says because Genesis was not a literal explanation of the creation. Google something like "old world creation" or something to read about it. It's a debate but most people agree on it.
Also, the Sun is not technically a nuclear reactor as this is, since the Sun works off of fusion and not fission (A much more effective method but unable to be contained) - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hippies will be protesting at the site by next week.
- elfguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You know what's funny, it's always the christians that have to flame on every science topic out there. It would be a laugh to see how they would manage if they not only had to counter science but budism, islam, etc, which all have completely different tales. So really, give it up, if you want to spew whatever your sect teaches you, do it elsewhere before I bring you how the earth is really just a dream and we're all peons in a big dragon's dream, oh ya!
- Daecilius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0its nuclear, i digg it
- Seventus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is old news. Although, perhaps not previously mentioned on Digg before, this has come up in the news several times in the last 10 years. It's been known for at least half a century, if not longer.
- H_o_p_s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And let us all not forget that there is still radioactive waste produced in this reaction. The water that is cooling down the reaction is in contact with the uranium-rich bedrock.... It wouldn't be safe to drink from around there...
Very interesting read, but the damn thing was still hazardous. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 I remember reading about this somewhere before, nice digg I forgot about it. A nice explanation of how it happened too, I don't think there was much info on it when I read about it. It's still hard to imagine though that there was a natural nuclear reactor! It worked for 150 million years too!
- thezisme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm...
This find could be quite a gem of information against the young earth creationism that is being argued here.
-=IRonGRundy=- 's comment mentions this process went on for about 500,000 years. I'm not sure where the evidence for that number came from (I'd love to hear more on it), but if it is the case, the method which they used to get that number would be significant. For instance, if they knew that the reaction took exactly 30 minutes, and they had evidence of N reactions, then the 500,000 years number was probably calculated by multiplying N * 30 minutes. If that is the case, then we have a perfect example of the earth being at least 500,000 years old (not ~5,000) without resorting to techniques such as carbon dating (which I believe many creationists debate).
I think it would be very difficult to explain something as intricate as the evidence of N nuclear reactions coming from a worldwide flood. - Bindibadgi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Yo if you want to talk about intelligent design please explain why the stomach is so POORLY DESIGNED in women. If it was so intelligently designed why would the stomach of a woman be pushed up into her chest when she is pregnant... not so intelligent since its Life threatening"
Explain to me why there's 6 billion people on this planet then? It's so life threatening woman have survived for millenia giving birth.
As for natural nuclear reaction: freakin sweet +++diggalicious - Krisalis78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0blank page???? :'|
- eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Offhand I remember reading that it was a low power reactor 10kw max, sometimes less and would shut off when conditions were not right.
- asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>In terms of the sun there is one problem, they go out with a bang >sometimes...
>But it would be awesome if someone made a miniature sun.
It's called a hydrogen bomb. - iWorks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First... Artificial Trees.
Now, Natural Nuclear Reactors?!?
What is going on?!?! - zohn6920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0fredgarvin1138-
You're right about the article not making sense- control rods ABSORB NEUTRONS (keeping them from hitting other fissionable atoms), thus stopping the reaction. Water is a MODERATOR- (it "thermalizes" neutrons)- When neutrons come off a fissioning Uranium atom, they are screaming fast (2MeV) we need to slow them down A LOT (0.025 eV) so they have a better chance of hitting another atom instead of flying right past it. (Referred to as a Cross-section)
Since we need thermal (slow) neutrons to keep the reaction going, and it is water that thermalizes them, if the water disappears, so does your reaction. It stops because the neutrons are moving too fast to hit anything.
Last note, this tech has been in Reactors for quite a while. All modern reactors will die if they loose coolant because of this same mechanism (Chernobyl's design did NOT use this, when they inserted the graphite tipped control rods, the graphite did the same as water and increased the reaction rate, it was a mistake, and this was one of the lessons industry learned) - LittleOni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"humans are nature."--dubayou.
Wrong. Pollock is Nature.
"I am Nature"--Jackson Pollock - FrostyTheDMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice digg l3ill...
- LukeDashJr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Evolutionism is just another false religion. The Earth *is* only around 6000 years old... Here's a good documentary to watch:
http://tracker.bittorrent.dashjr.org:1969/ - RMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's sweet, gotta love how smart the Earth is...
Another Example, "Global Warming" temperature rises by 1 degree C over a ***** of years. BOOM! Volcano blasts off a bunch of Ash and lowers the Temperature back down. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the plants on this planet knew how to make a nuclear reactor before us!? we MUST take them out! they are a threat to our humble existence! ...and their boss--mr. sun; he needs to go too! who's with me!?
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sounds like a lot of you are stuck in your own perspectives, not to mention that i'm going to assume none of you can actually speak for any of this knowledge as you arn't very credible sources yourself.
ironically enough you're all going back and forth for absolutely nothing, you'll never reach a solution with all your corrupted (limited to your understanding) information.
also it probably wouldn't be wise to even bother commenting back at the religious "zealots" as you only provoke them to keep blabbering on about things they assume to be true.
*cough* assume.
you can't claim you're understandings as fact because all you're knowledge comes from a book written by men stuck in their own perspectives (bible). they wrote things as they understood, not as things exist in truth. (some bias too)
anyway, the article seems a little unclear, but i +digg because nature rocks.
someone mentioned advanced civilizations before us? it's possible, anythings possible, but there would be a trace of them. there's nothing proven thus far, so you can only assume. ...assume.
which i find it incredibly insane to persistantly argue something as fact when you're assuming. - _jd_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...Chernobyl's design did NOT use this, when they inserted the graphite tipped control rods, the graphite did the same as water and increased the reaction rate...
Actually it is a bit more complicated than that. The reactor was Xenon-135 poisoned and the control rods were withdrawn completely in order to maintain reactivity. When the power started to rise the coolant voided (which reduced neutron absorption) and the reactor operators inserted all the control rods. The graphite followers on the controls rod added reactivity (as you pointed out), which resulted in a power surge. The other point to remember is that graphite moderates better with increasing temperature while water moderates less with increasing temperature. Thus, in Chernobyl, the poor moderator (voided coolant) was replaced with a good moderator (hot graphite).
The 30 minutes could be determined by measuring the relative abundances of the isotopes in the fission product decay chains. The "restart mechanism" is controlled by the rate at which water seeps back in and the decay of the Xe-135 fission product, which is a massive neutron absorber. - r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Ohh, I like how my earlier post gets a -2
----------
@l3ill, it's called Original Sin
"God cursed both Eve and Adam. Eve's curse created the menstrual cycle and the difficulties of pregnancy and child-rearing (according to Jewish tradition, Cain and Abel were born fully-grown immediately after conception, before the sin took place). Additionally, the relationship between husband and wife was changed to the form we are familiar with today (the original relationship, which presumably will also be the final relationship, is the subject of much speculation). Adam was cursed to toil for his sustenance, taking away time for pursuit of knowledge, perfection, and communion with God (the pursuit of happiness). (Genesis 3:16-21)"
Learn your science!
--------------------
Goes to show many digg readers are just ***** morons
It's a new form of HUMOR called SARCASM.
I suggest you try it sometime.
asshats. - -=IRonGRundy=-, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"You know what's funny, it's always the christians that have to flame on every science topic out there."
"Why must every science related article on Digg have comments spewed from the mouths of bible-thumping religious zealots? Wage your war on science elsewhere, trolls."
Why on earth is intelligent design a Christian Bible thumping theory? I was alluding to a "Prehistoric Civilisation" (human or non-human) that was far more technologically advanced than we are today. THATS what annoys me about science today...its the narrow idea that we are the most advanced civilisation in History and that all before us have been Cavemen! What science tells us about intelligent inhabitants of our planet through history is mostly bogus.. -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is