Ancient Nuclear Power Controlled By Water

[zavvy]

<b>Ancient Nuclear Power Controlled By Water</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />Nuclear power was invented in Africa 2 billion years ago. Now scientists think they have figured out how geological processes conspired to create the equivalent of a 100-kilowatt nuclear plant that produced pulses of power every three hours for a period of about 150,000 years.<br /><br />These natural nuclear reactors were discovered in the Oklo region of Gabon in 1972. Scientists found geological evidence that uranium in lens-shaped veins of uranium ore had undergone self-sustaining fission chain reactions, generating intense heat.<br /><br />In this process, subatomic neutrons released by radioactive decay of uranium atoms induce decay of other uranium atoms, leading to a cascade of nuclear fission and substantial release of energy as heat. This is what modern nuclear reactors use to produce power.<br /><br />The puzzle, however, is why the Oklo reactors didn't plunge straight into a runaway chain reaction, leading to meltdown of the veins or even to an explosion. In nuclear plants the reaction is kept under control by using 'moderators'. These are substances that either slow down the chain reaction by absorbing some of the fission neutrons or encourage it by adjusting the neutron energies. <br /><br />Chained reaction<br /><br />Alex Meshik and his colleagues, from Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, have found evidence that the Oklo reactors switched on and off cyclically; they publish their results in Physical Review Letters1. Active periods of about 30 minutes seem to have been followed by dormant spells of around two and a half hours. <br /><br />The researchers think that this was related to the presence of water in the rocks. When a uranium nucleus undergoes nuclear fission, the ejected neutrons are travelling too fast to be absorbed by other nuclei and trigger fission. So there is no chain reaction. But

 

[tom_hobbes]

Fascinating stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I've heard of those naturally-occuring nuclear fission reactors before. It is indeed fascinating. You'd think that the set of circumstances would be so improbable as to be impossible, given how carefully commercial reactors have to be managed to keep them going and not melting down, but this proves it's not too improbable.<br /><br />The world is an amazing place. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

i think this was the basis for H. Rider Haggard`s novel & film: "She". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />A self-regulating fission reaction that may have been operating for 150,000 years! Very cool. <br /><br /><i>..But in the Oklo reactors they seem to have been trapped inside atomic-scale holes in the phosphate crystal structure. "Maybe this can give us a clue how to capture these gases in nuclear plants," says Meshik. ..</i><br /><br />Interesting. I wonder if an application can be found that mimics this natural process and if suitable changes could be made in present day systems? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[zavvy]

Some interesting replies, but this one caught my eye from ZeroGeezus..<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The mutagenic radiation from such natural reactors could have been a major driving force in evolution.</font><br /><br />This gives some credence to the Gould and Eldredge theory of Punctuated Equilibria and might explain why we've never found that elusive 'missing link' for a variety of species, including our own... <br /><br /><br />

 

[earthseed]

The natural reactor is interesting, but it would not affect evolution in any way. First, of course, these reactors are few and far between, and could only affect the very small area around them. But more fundamentally, evolution is not driven by random new mutations popping up. Rather, it is driven by the selection of organisms that survive in a given environment. The background mutation rate is sufficient to drive this process, because the mutation rate itself is biologically determined, adapted to balance between species stability and the need to adapt to changing circumstances.<br /><br />Since most mutations are harmful, increasing the mutation rate simply kills more orgranisms. If you kill enough organisms, ie. a mass extinction, evolution is affected. A slighly increased death rate near a natural reactor will change nothing at all.

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">Since most mutations are harmful...</font><br /><br />What about the ones that aren't harmful?<br /><br />I've also been wondering what effect the Sun's radiation might have had on evolution over the years... (I'm grasping at straws..)<br /><br />There are so many holes in the theory of evolution that I'm surprised it hasn't been abandoned. There's really nothing else to fall back on except creationist theory, which I also have problems with.

 

[Maddad]

Mutation is an absolutely necessary ingredient to evolution.

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">Mutation is an absolutely necessary ingredient to evolution.</font><br /><br />It's certainly a plausible explanation that might account for all those 'missing links' but, when all's said and done, evolution is just a theory that's been disproven many times.

 

[earthseed]

Yes, the minority of mutations that are beneficial are essential for evolution to occur. The point I am making is that evolution is not driven by the mutation rate, it is driven by the selection of those mutations. <br /><br />The theory of evolution has never been disproven. I would like to know what those "holes" are. As for missing links, there are a lot fewer of them than there used to be, and as far as I know, there is no evidence from the fossil record that is inconsistent with evolution.

 

[earthseed]

stevehw33 - I agree that a certain mutation rate is necessary for evolution to take place. I just wonder if the normal mutation rate is sufficient, and that increasing it would make little or no difference. As far as I know, there is no correlation between change in mutation rate and evolutionary change, while there is an obvious relationship between environmental disaster leading to mass extinction and the very fast rate of evolution that follows it.<br /><br />There is a popular misunderstanding about the role of mutation. For example, all you have to do is apply some radiation, and you get the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I see mutation as the evolutionary engine - it makes is possible to drive. The environment is the driver, it decides which few of the very many mutations will survive, which way evolution will go. Speeding up the engine just makes the car crash, you don't actually get anywhere faster.<br /><br />By the way, good answer to the "disproof" of evolutionary theory. If there are disproofs, then I expect to be told what they are, not just hand waving.

 

[tom_hobbes]

Doesn't selection also occur through breeding? As the environment changes, variant pockets within a population who find themselves better equiped to cope will thrive while others less suited wither away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

An enhanced mutation rate would be useful only if the genetic variation within the population is very low (for example, the population has just recovered from a "bottleneck").<br /><br />Otherwise, there is enough natural genetic variation in a healthy population that a higher mutation rate is unnecessary, and perhaps even deleterious.<br /><br />There are some very good computer models which have tested the role of mutation in much detail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[Maddad]

zavvy<br />"<font color="yellow">evolution is just a theory that's been disproven many times.</font><br /><br />Can you hear my signature line?<br /><br />Evolution is both a fact and a theory. As a fact evolution is the fossile record which shows a progression through time of one body form into another. As a theory evolution is the explanation of why we see this progression.

 

[earthseed]

Good point, Tom_Hobbes, sexual reproduction is an important source of variation in eukaryotes. But mutation is required to create a new species.<br /><br />silylene raises an interesting point, "An enhanced mutation rate would be useful only if the genetic variation within the population is very low." This leads to the question, do mutation rates change when individuals or species are under stress? But still, this does not suggest that natural reactors or any other external cause of increased mutation rates have anything to do the course of evolution.

 

[kmarinas86]

<p>http://www.maddad.org/laff.wav<br /><br />Here are some other sounds that I made with my own voice <br /><br />baa.wav <br /><br />baalow.wav <br /><br />bark.wav <br /><br />cawcaw.wav <br /><br />cawcaw2.wav <br /><br />cawcaw3.wav <br /><br />doublebaa.wav <br /><br />doublebaaecho.wav <br /><br />dudeyouturnedonthecomputer.wav <br /><br />flute.wav <br /><br />heybeavis.wav <br /><br />lasercaw.wav <br /><br />meow.wav<br /><br />minilaser.wav <br /><br />minilaserlong.wav <br /><br />teenybark.wav <br /><br /></p>

 

[earthseed]

reikel - about the Earth's internal heat: Geologists can account for the Earth's internal temperature from the decay of reasonable amounts of radioactive minerals (see here). As far as a nuclear reaction at the core goes, one problem is the core is solid. How can uranium concentrate in solid core? If the supposed nuclear reactor was significant, the Earth would have a different heat distribution than from the distributed radioactive mineral model. I don't know if this difference can be measured. The best paper I could find about it is this one.

 

[zavvy]

Hi Steve and maddad..<br /><br />Let me state up front that I'm not a creationist.<br /><br />It really isn't my intention to get involved in a heated debate about why evolution is just a theory that hasn't been satisfactorily proven over the years - I really don't have the time. I also should have stated that I was speaking of Darwinian evolution with all its problems and fallacies..<br /><br />I don't claim to be an expert in this field by any stretch, but I have studied the claims that certain proponents of evolution have stated to be "fact" over the years and have found that many don't stand up under extreme scrutiny.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is that there has never been even one transitional species discovered that can back up the claims of evolution theory, and it <i>is</i> just a theory.<br /><br />I'm not sure if you're familiar with Richard Milton and the smear campaign launched against him by Richard Dawkins of Oxford University. It was nasty and unnecessary, and was extreme bullying at it's worst.<br />_______________________________________<br /><br />Here is Milton's account of how he was censored and bullied..<br /><br /><b>The Open Society and its Enemies</b> <br /><br /><i>"I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand when I published Shattering the Myths of Darwinism and found myself subjected to a campaign of vilification. I had expected controversy and heated debate, because that is in the nature of Darwinism. But it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent academic, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, as 'loony', 'stupid' and 'in need of psychiatric help' in response to purely scientific reporting.<br /><br />It was equally unpleasant to discover that, behind my back, Dawkins was writing letters to newspaper editors alleging that I am a secret creationist and hence not to be believed. This kind of behavior culminated in March 1995 when a British weekly newspaper, the Times Higher Education Supp</i>

 

[Maddad]

zavvy<br />If you post something that size it's not likely to be read. We have lives outside of SDC, you know. Tell us why you think darwinian evolution has problems, not why someone else was critisized for saying so.<br /><br />earthseed<br />"<font color="yellow">As far as a nuclear reaction at the core goes, one problem is the core is solid. How can uranium concentrate in solid core?</font><br />Only part of the core is solid. The outer core is liquid sulphur and iron, and the inner core is solid iron. We suspect that even inside the inner core is a sphere perhaps five kilometers in diameter of radioactives.<br /><br />Solid and liquid though have different meaning from our everyday life. Over time a solid object will bend and flow under the high temperatures and pressures found in the Earth's interior. It's the reason for the flow of iron which gives Earth its magnetic field.

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">If you post something that size it's not likely to be read. We have lives outside of SDC, you know. Tell us why you think darwinian evolution has problems, not why someone else was critisized for saying so. </font><br /><br />I posted my succinct comments on why I thought evolution theory was not scientifically viable. When I was pressed to address this matter in detail, I did so.. with the post you appear to have a problem with.<br /><br />I suggest you read it.<br /><br />The fallacies of Darwinian evolution have been disproven time and time again... the only reason people cling to such tosh is that there is no other alternative explanation at the present except Creationist theory, which I've already stated I have extreme problems with...<br /><br />My feelings are that we need to dismiss all that's been stated as "fact" in the past about 'evolution' and begin to seriously address what our true origins really are..................

 

[Maddad]

No, if you posted it then it's probably not worth my time reading. I have more important stuff to do than that.

 

[kmarinas86]

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories<br /><br />http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000175.html

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">No, if you posted it then it's probably not worth my time reading.</font><br /><br />Your intellectual loss. <br /><br />You sound very threatened.. why is that?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

zavvy -<br />"The fact of the matter is that there has never been even one transitional species discovered that can back up the claims of evolution theory, and it is just a theory."<br /><br />So you're saying that none of the transitional fossils on these pages are relevant in claims of evolutionary theory?<br />