 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Breeze block"
I was surprised the other day when a tradesman called a concrete block a "breeze block". I always thought (and the dictionary agrees) that a breeze block is a lightweight block made of cinder, not a heavy concrete block you can make supporting walls out of.
-- A little girl asked her mother, "Can I go outside and play with the boys?" Her mother replied, "No, you can't play with the boys, they're too rough." The little girl thought about it for a few moments and asked, "If I can find a smooth one, can I play with him?" |
|
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 16:42:57 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
I was surprised the other day when a tradesman called a concrete block a "breeze block". I always thought (and the dictionary agrees) that a breeze block is a lightweight block made of cinder, not a heavy concrete block you can make supporting walls out of. -- A little girl asked her mother, "Can I go outside and play with the boys?" Her mother replied, "No, you can't play with the boys, they're too rough." The little girl thought about it for a few moments and asked, "If I can find a smooth one, can I play with him?" Obviously of the old school. The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. They made them because the clinker was a waste material and little cement was needed due to the composition of the ash. |
|
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 16:42:57 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
I was surprised the other day when a tradesman called a concrete block a "breeze block". I always thought (and the dictionary agrees) that a breeze block is a lightweight block made of cinder, not a heavy concrete block you can make supporting walls out of. -- A little girl asked her mother, "Can I go outside and play with the boys?" Her mother replied, "No, you can't play with the boys, they're too rough." The little girl thought about it for a few moments and asked, "If I can find a smooth one, can I play with him?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nuclear-waste/ |
|
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:40:59 +0100, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 16:42:57 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote: I was surprised the other day when a tradesman called a concrete block a "breeze block". I always thought (and the dictionary agrees) that a breeze block is a lightweight block made of cinder, not a heavy concrete block you can make supporting walls out of. -- A little girl asked her mother, "Can I go outside and play with the boys?" Her mother replied, "No, you can't play with the boys, they're too rough." The little girl thought about it for a few moments and asked, "If I can find a smooth one, can I play with him?" Obviously of the old school. He's nearly 60. The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. They made them because the clinker was a waste material and little cement was needed due to the composition of the ash. So can you still buy a lightweight block? What he called a breezeblock was this (which is as heavy as brick): https://www.beatsons.co.uk/bricks-an...e-block-p19797 It's basically just pre-made lumps of concrete that you can build with faster than little bricks. When I were a lad (about 30 years ago), my parents had a spare few breezeblocks lying around, you could throw them about like footballs. They looked like brick, but didn't feel like it. And you could smash them. -- Bad or missing mouse. Spank the cat [Y/N]? |
|
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troll-feeding Senile Yank Alert! LOL
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT), harry, obviously another senile,
troll-feeding Yankietard, blathered: They made them because the clinker was a waste material So are trolls and their troll-feeding counterparts, idiot! |
|
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troll-feeding Idiot Alert! LOL
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:42:39 -0700 (PDT), harry, obviously another senile,
troll-feeding Yankietard, blathered: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nuclear-waste/ ....and a dessert for the attention-starved troll from the senile troll-feeding idiot! LOL |
|
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
Chris Hogg wrote
harry wrote The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. That may be so, but OOI why should coal ash be slightly radioactive, more so than anything else Because the coal is. and enough to warrant it not being used in cinder blocks? Ditto. Ash in coal arises from it's incombustible mineral content, presumably clay and sand laid down at the same time as the organic matter that makes up the carbon content. Or what the organic material that forms the coal falls on etc. Why should that clay and sand be any more radioactive than any other clay and sand, e.g. such as that used in bricks? Presumably because of where it is when the coal formed. |
|
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
Obviously of the old school. The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. They made them because the clinker was a waste material and little cement was needed due to the composition of the ash. I was told by a builder's merchant at the time that breeze block manufacture was discontinued because the raw material, coal clinker, was unavailable because of the conversion of the railways to diesel power. |
|
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:12:19 +0100, Mr Fuxit wrote:
Obviously of the old school. The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. They made them because the clinker was a waste material and little cement was needed due to the composition of the ash. I was told by a builder's merchant at the time that breeze block manufacture was discontinued because the raw material, coal clinker, was unavailable because of the conversion of the railways to diesel power. They actually built a railway line here to transport coal to a power station. It lasted about 2 or 3 years, then closed down. ****wits. -- Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner. |
|
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 29/04/18 18:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote: The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. That may be so, but OOI why should coal ash be slightly radioactive, more so than anything else and enough to warrant it not being used in cinder blocks? Because coal has traces of uranium in it and burning the coal leaves the uranium Ash in coal arises from it's incombustible mineral content, presumably clay and sand laid down at the same time as the organic matter that makes up the carbon content. Why should that clay and sand be any more radioactive than any other clay and sand, e.g. such as that used in bricks? Dunno, but it is. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD) |
|
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
Hmm, yes, well breeze blocks seem to be made of all sorts of stuff if the
old garage we had was anything to go by. cinder mainly but it seemed to me many were made from crushed cement and stone mixed in as well. This would have dated back to the war, I imagine. There are also those concrete blocks that have a hole through them. Seen them used for garage walls as well,with metal rods inside some of them. Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message news  I was surprised the other day when a tradesman called a concrete block a "breeze block". I always thought (and the dictionary agrees) that a breeze block is a lightweight block made of cinder, not a heavy concrete block you can make supporting walls out of. -- A little girl asked her mother, "Can I go outside and play with the boys?" Her mother replied, "No, you can't play with the boys, they're too rough." The little girl thought about it for a few moments and asked, "If I can find a smooth one, can I play with him?" |
|
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troll-feeding Idiot Alert!
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:55:32 +0100, Brian Gaff, the notorious, troll-feeding
idiot, blabbered again: Hmm, yes, well ....and the next retarded troll-feeding idiot runs along, unable to resist the dumbest baits the Scottish sow sets out for the likes of him. LOL |
|
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
I always thought a breeze block had to be lightweight, and not simply a block of concrete.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:55:32 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote: Hmm, yes, well breeze blocks seem to be made of all sorts of stuff if the old garage we had was anything to go by. cinder mainly but it seemed to me many were made from crushed cement and stone mixed in as well. This would have dated back to the war, I imagine. There are also those concrete blocks that have a hole through them. Seen them used for garage walls as well,with metal rods inside some of them. Brian -- Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes? |
|
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 02:25:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 29/04/18 18:36, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote: The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. That may be so, but OOI why should coal ash be slightly radioactive, more so than anything else and enough to warrant it not being used in cinder blocks? Because coal has traces of uranium in it and burning the coal leaves the uranium Ash in coal arises from it's incombustible mineral content, presumably clay and sand laid down at the same time as the organic matter that makes up the carbon content. Why should that clay and sand be any more radioactive than any other clay and sand, e.g. such as that used in bricks? Dunno, but it is. Hmm...a quick search on the Internet produces lots of shock-horror stuff saying that coal ash is radioactive and contains uranium and thorium, but gives little indication as to why or where it originated. I'm none the wiser. Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Alarmists. -- The only intuitive user interface is the nipple. |
|
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? -- Roger Hayter |
|
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/2018 14:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:35:43 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:00:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. But they are blown into the atmosphere with volcanic activity ? It doesn't require volcanic activity. Both elements exist in ppm quantities throughout the earth's crust, more concentrated in some places than in others. Natural groundwater movements will leach both species and make them available to plants. There are other radioactive elements in plants, including potasium (makes nuts and bananas radioactive) carbon (why carbon dating works) even oxygen. Its all natural stuff too. |
|
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/18 14:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? technically you are correct. -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki" |
|
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/18 16:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:51:15 +0100, (Roger Hayter) wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? Well yes, if you call radioactive decay a normal environmental circumstance, which you could, I suppose. In which case you'd include lead. And quite a lot of transitional elements like radium/polonium etc etc -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki" |
|
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/18 16:33, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which leads into an interesting question I encountered recently ... Lets suppose that 100,000 years ago a civilisation of h. Sapiens emerged and attained the*exact* same level of technological advancement as we enjoy today. Then something caused them to lose it all. Greens prtobably What - if any - traces of them could we sensibly expect to survive for us to find now. Tons and tons. Mainly of concrete. Brued under the strata. Also there wouldn't be any uranium or thorium left. Or, if you don't like the premise, more straightforwardly, is there *anything* modern man could do that could leave a 100,000 year legacy ???? Tons and tons. Mainly of concrete What would our nuclear test sites (and waste) look like in 100,000 years time ???? Given that they aren't that confident we can contain it at Sellafield for 100 years ?????? Like nothing special. What does Hiroshima look like 73 years after being bommbed by an A-bomb? (it was never 'cleaned up') https://www.shughal.com/10-images-of...-then-and-now/ -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ...I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End) |
|
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/18 16:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote: The clinker they were made from is slightly radioactive (coal ash) so actual clinker block has been replaced with other insulating blocks. That may be so, but OOI why should coal ash be slightly radioactive, more so than anything else and enough to warrant it not being used in cinder blocks? Coal contains one part per million uranium. Actually of course everything is "slightly" radioactive, but some things more so. Like granite, too, so don't go to Dartmoor or you'll glow. Actually thet depnds on waqht you mean by 'things' Vast quantities of pure elements are not radioactive at all. But any mixture is likely to contain some that are. Human beings are fairly radioactive, for example. -- "In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is true: it is true because it is powerful." Lucas Bergkamp |
|
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:51:15 +0100, (Roger Hayter) wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? Well yes, if you call radioactive decay a normal environmental circumstance, which you could, I suppose. In which case you'd include lead. Come come come. Of course it's a normal environmental circumstance. What else would it be? What is more natural than an atmoic bomb? I know, a fusion bomb! Also known as a supernova, that created at least half the earth's elements. Harnesssing natural radioactivity is no different to harnessing wind or solar power, also created by a far more dangerous reactor with no shielding that - unlike earth bound reactors - does pose a serious health hazard. -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan |
|
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news  On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. It can't be that simple. Plenty of other stuff has extensive root systems and dont have radioactive fruit. |
|
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:38:07 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:35:43 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:00:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. But they are blown into the atmosphere with volcanic activity ? It doesn't require volcanic activity. Both elements exist in ppm quantities throughout the earth's crust, more concentrated in some places than in others. Natural groundwater movements will leach both species and make them available to plants. Which leads into an interesting question I encountered recently ... Lets suppose that 100,000 years ago a civilisation of h. Sapiens emerged and attained the *exact* same level of technological advancement as we enjoy today. Then something caused them to lose it all. What - if any - traces of them could we sensibly expect to survive for us to find now. Or, if you don't like the premise, more straightforwardly, is there *anything* modern man could do that could leave a 100,000 year legacy ???? No reason why the bigger stuff like the pyramids wont still be around then. What would our nuclear test sites (and waste) look like in 100,000 years time ???? Still obviously where the waste was dumped, just with different ratios of the various decay components. After all, the naturally occurring radioactive deposits have been around for a hell of a lot longer than that. Given that they aren't that confident we can contain it at Sellafield for 100 years ?????? Irrelevant to your previous question. |
|
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Monday, 30 April 2018 16:40:06 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/18 16:33, Jethro_uk wrote: Which leads into an interesting question I encountered recently ... Lets suppose that 100,000 years ago a civilisation of h. Sapiens emerged and attained the*exact* same level of technological advancement as we enjoy today. Then something caused them to lose it all. Greens prtobably What - if any - traces of them could we sensibly expect to survive for us to find now. Tons and tons. Mainly of concrete. Brued under the strata. Also there wouldn't be any uranium or thorium left. Or, if you don't like the premise, more straightforwardly, is there *anything* modern man could do that could leave a 100,000 year legacy ???? Tons and tons. Mainly of concrete What would our nuclear test sites (and waste) look like in 100,000 years time ???? Given that they aren't that confident we can contain it at Sellafield for 100 years ?????? Like nothing special. What does Hiroshima look like 73 years after being bommbed by an A-bomb? (it was never 'cleaned up') https://www.shughal.com/10-images-of...-then-and-now/ The Japan bombs did not explode at ground level. Most of the radioactivity was dispersed in the atmosphere. |
|
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/2018 16:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:56:21 +0100, "dennis@home" wrote: On 30/04/2018 14:38, Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:35:43 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:00:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. But they are blown into the atmosphere with volcanic activity ? It doesn't require volcanic activity. Both elements exist in ppm quantities throughout the earth's crust, more concentrated in some places than in others. Natural groundwater movements will leach both species and make them available to plants. There are other radioactive elements in plants, including potasium (makes nuts and bananas radioactive) carbon (why carbon dating works) even oxygen. Its all natural stuff too. Yup. But if you'd read upthread, you'd see they've already been covered. It's the uranium and thorium in the coal ash that gets people's knickers in a twist. I think its just the fact that the combustion process in effect concentrates the trace elements of radioactive elements weight for weight. So start with a million tons of coal, and it will have small quantity of uranium and thorium naturally present in it. Burn it, and the quantity of uranium and thorium will stay roughly the same (presumably a small amount escapes to the atmosphere), but its now concentrated into a much smaller volume of ash. Making the ash appear more radioactive that the coal originally did. (Thorium contamination is a general problem with many things you dig out of the ground. It particularly affects rare earth element mining. Until recently when people have started to consider it might actually become a useful fuel, its had negative cost - i.e. you had to pay to get someone to take it off your hands) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:00:04 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Bananas because of the potassium. Carrots? Since they make you see in the dark.... -- If the Pope goes #2, does that make it "Holy ****"? |
|
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:12:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. Read up about the Oklo natural reactor, and how the uranium there came to be concentrated. Seems that uranium can be dissolved in oxygenated water. Oklo was at the junction of two rivers, one with oxygenated water, the other not. The former could carry the uranium downstream, but at the junction it would precipitate out, thus concentrating it. Possibly that same happened somehow with coal deposits. Interestingly the Oklo reactor of 2 billyun years ago couldn't happen today, as the proportion of U235 to U238 was around 3% then, only 0.7% today. Also of interest is that the waste products of the reactor have not migrated significantly over the period of time since, so people worrying about Sellafield are wetting themselves unnecessarily. I find it's always a good idea to ignore all alarmists. We don't have global warming, we just had two feet of snow. We don't have a shortage of bees, I can see 20 in my front garden right now. -- Two men were talking. "My son asked me what I did during the Sexual Revolution," said one. "I told him I was captured early and spent the duration doing the dishes. |
|
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 01/05/18 14:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
Yes, I realise that, but if you assume, quite reasonably IMO, that coal is a mix of coalified organic matter derived from tree ferns etc that were around in the Carboniferous period (approximately 300 to 350 million years ago), and inorganic material such as sand, silt and clay deposited at the same time (and which would make up the bulk of the ash after the coal was burnt), which of those two components contains more uranium and thorium than the equivalent materials today? I don't see why the sand, silt and clay in coal should be significantly different from the stuff used to make bricks today, nor do I see why the coalified tree ferns should contain it either. Is modern wood ash, e.g. from wood-burners, significantly radioactive? I doubt it. I think you miss a pint. AIUI and its a long time since I looked, coal was formed in shallow lakes and bogs...essentially where all the water that leaches stuff out of the hills ends up. In te samne waty te gold accumulates in stream beds because ist heavy asnd when the water speed drops, so does the gold out of suspension, heavy metals tend to accumulate in slow moving water. Uranium oxide is water soluble, so anywhere where water is trapped, and filtered or evaporates will naturally accumulate uranium. That includes plants. So my question remains: where has the uranium and thorium in coal, come from? I doubt there will be an answer, unless some lab somewhere has ground up some coal samples_very_ fine and done a density separation, or more probably a flotation, to separate the organic component from the inorganic, and measured the radioactivity in each ?? I think you are not thinking straight. Uranium is inorganic, period. Do you mean 'Uranium silts versus uranium in the actual organic matter as was? because frankly I dont thingk there is much difference once its coal. Nor is it scientifically intesting: If a plant grows in uranium rich soils due to leaching from elsewhere, then whether the dead plant or the soil remnants contain the uranium is pretty academic. Both do in reasonable equlibrium. -- it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984. Vaclav Klaus |
|
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 01/05/18 15:05, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2018 14:45:44 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:27:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 30/04/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:51:15 +0100, (Roger Hayter) wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? Well yes, if you call radioactive decay a normal environmental circumstance, which you could, I suppose. In which case you'd include lead. Come come come. Of course it's a normal environmental circumstance. What else would it be? What is more natural than an atmoic bomb? I know, a fusion bomb! Also known as a supernova, that created at least half the earth's elements. Harnesssing natural radioactivity is no different to harnessing wind or solar power, also created by a far more dangerous reactor with no shielding that - unlike earth bound reactors - does pose a serious health hazard. The sun poses a health threat? What **** have you been reading? Try this for a start, and dispel a very tiny portion of your massive ignorance https://www.skincancer.org/skin-canc...n-cancer-facts Skin cancer, primarily due to sunburn, kills around 3,000 people a year in this country. Imagine if nuclear power did the same... -- If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph Goebbels |
|
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 01/05/18 15:35, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2018 15:07:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: So my question remains: where has the uranium and thorium in coal, come from? I doubt there will be an answer, unless some lab somewhere has ground up some coal samples _very_ fine and done a density separation, or more probably a flotation, to separate the organic component from the inorganic, and measured the radioactivity in each. I suggested a possible answer. Oklo, IIRC. While I realise that uranium and thorium might be transported by groundwater, that doesn't really explain why they should be incorporated into deposits that eventually became coal, especially as coal deposits are widely distributed across the world. OK so in the Carboniferous, the land masses were very differently distributed to what they are today*, but I still find that explanation unlikely. It would require a rather unique set of circumstances to apply to may large areas of Everglade-type swamp, and why don't other non-coal deposits of similar age also contain raised levels of U and Th. Or perhaps they do. I think 'perhaps they do' is about right. All plants contain uranium and are thereby radioactive. Its a very common element and occurs almsot everywhere, but is more pravalent in rocks that have been extruded from deeper in the mantle - i.e. volcanic rocks like granite and the like. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea -- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket. |
|
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: Ah, I must have imagined being in bed for a week with very bad sunburn when aged 19, because I foolishly spent the whole day on the beach. Had a workmate who was pretty ill with sunstroke. After doing a normal day's work outside in London. Only one on the crew, though, so may have been susceptible. Was young with a full head of hair. -- *Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: Ah, I must have imagined being in bed for a week with very bad sunburn when aged 19, because I foolishly spent the whole day on the beach. Had a workmate who was pretty ill with sunstroke. After doing a normal day's work outside in London. Only one on the crew, though, so may have been susceptible. Was young with a full head of hair. I had a cousin who died of malignant melanoma some 10 years ago. He was my age -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
|
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 01/05/2018 14:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:30:40 +0100, John Rumm wrote: On 30/04/2018 16:18, Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:56:21 +0100, "dennis@home" wrote: On 30/04/2018 14:38, Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:35:43 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:00:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. But they are blown into the atmosphere with volcanic activity ? It doesn't require volcanic activity. Both elements exist in ppm quantities throughout the earth's crust, more concentrated in some places than in others. Natural groundwater movements will leach both species and make them available to plants. There are other radioactive elements in plants, including potasium (makes nuts and bananas radioactive) carbon (why carbon dating works) even oxygen. Its all natural stuff too. Yup. But if you'd read upthread, you'd see they've already been covered. It's the uranium and thorium in the coal ash that gets people's knickers in a twist. I think its just the fact that the combustion process in effect concentrates the trace elements of radioactive elements weight for weight. So start with a million tons of coal, and it will have small quantity of uranium and thorium naturally present in it. Burn it, and the quantity of uranium and thorium will stay roughly the same (presumably a small amount escapes to the atmosphere), but its now concentrated into a much smaller volume of ash. Making the ash appear more radioactive that the coal originally did. Yes, I realise that, but if you assume, quite reasonably IMO, that coal is a mix of coalified organic matter derived from tree ferns etc that were around in the Carboniferous period (approximately 300 to 350 million years ago), and inorganic material such as sand, silt and clay deposited at the same time (and which would make up the bulk of the ash after the coal was burnt), which of those two components contains more uranium and thorium than the equivalent materials today? I don't see why the sand, silt and clay in coal should be significantly different from the stuff used to make bricks today, nor do I see why the coalified tree ferns should contain it either. Is modern wood ash, e.g. from wood-burners, significantly radioactive? I doubt it. Apparently you have a very similar issue with wood ash (and I would expect any ash from burnt "naturally" available energy sources. E.g. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search...._q=RN:32018428 http://burningissues.org/radwaste1.html http://www.academia.edu/17942809/Ass...uthwest_Sweden So my question remains: where has the uranium and thorium in coal, come from? I doubt there will be an answer, unless some lab somewhere has ground up some coal samples _very_ fine and done a density separation, or more probably a flotation, to separate the organic component from the inorganic, and measured the radioactivity in each. Radionuclides are naturally present in the environment... so they are going to end up in organic stuff. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troll-feeding Idiot Alert!
On Tue, 01 May 2018 15:10:00 +0100, Tim Streater, another obviously mentally
challenged, troll-feeding moron, blathered: The sun poses a health threat? What **** have you been reading? Ah, I must have imagined being in bed for a week with very bad sunburn when aged 19, because I foolishly spent the whole day on the beach. ....and now you foolishly feed the filthiest, dumbest troll these groups have ever seen! tsk |
|
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troll-feeding Idiot Alert!
On Tue, 01 May 2018 15:05:13 +0100, Chris Hogg, another obviously mentally
deficient troll-feeding idiot, blabbered: The sun poses a health threat? What **** have you been reading? Try this for a start, and dispel a very tiny portion of your massive ignorance https://www.skincancer.org/skin-canc...n-cancer-facts The troll thanks your for taking his bait again, idiot! Gee... |
|
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Tue, 01 May 2018 15:05:13 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2018 14:45:44 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:27:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 30/04/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:51:15 +0100, (Roger Hayter) wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? Well yes, if you call radioactive decay a normal environmental circumstance, which you could, I suppose. In which case you'd include lead. Come come come. Of course it's a normal environmental circumstance. What else would it be? What is more natural than an atmoic bomb? I know, a fusion bomb! Also known as a supernova, that created at least half the earth's elements. Harnesssing natural radioactivity is no different to harnessing wind or solar power, also created by a far more dangerous reactor with no shielding that - unlike earth bound reactors - does pose a serious health hazard. The sun poses a health threat? What **** have you been reading? Try this for a start, and dispel a very tiny portion of your massive ignorance https://www.skincancer.org/skin-canc...n-cancer-facts I'll tell you what causes skin problems, people who aren't used to the sun going out in the sun. All these morons buying suncream and staying pasty white. I never use suncream, my skin gets used to it and gets tanned, and I never ever get burnt. The sun is a natural phenomenon, and believing we're supposed to invent artificial chemicals to shield ourselves from it is preposterous. -- "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - Aesop |
|
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On Tue, 01 May 2018 16:07:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/18 15:05, Chris Hogg wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2018 14:45:44 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:27:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 30/04/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:51:15 +0100, (Roger Hayter) wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? Well yes, if you call radioactive decay a normal environmental circumstance, which you could, I suppose. In which case you'd include lead. Come come come. Of course it's a normal environmental circumstance. What else would it be? What is more natural than an atmoic bomb? I know, a fusion bomb! Also known as a supernova, that created at least half the earth's elements. Harnesssing natural radioactivity is no different to harnessing wind or solar power, also created by a far more dangerous reactor with no shielding that - unlike earth bound reactors - does pose a serious health hazard. The sun poses a health threat? What **** have you been reading? Try this for a start, and dispel a very tiny portion of your massive ignorance https://www.skincancer.org/skin-canc...n-cancer-facts Skin cancer, primarily due to sunburn, kills around 3,000 people a year in this country. Imagine if nuclear power did the same... The treehuggers will have you believe it does. -- A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway. Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel was knitting! Realizing that she was oblivious to his flashing lights and siren, the trooper cranked down his window, turned on his bullhorn and yelled, "PULL OVER!" "NO!" the blonde yelled back, "IT'S A SCARF!" |
|
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2018 15:05:13 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2018 14:45:44 +0100, "Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:27:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 30/04/18 17:13, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:51:15 +0100, (Roger Hayter) wrote: Chris Hogg wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). Yebbut that's from potassium. Coal ash is from uranium and thorium. The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Oh, quite. Uranium and thorium are not 'created' under normal environmental circumstances, nor are any other elements, for that matter. Radon? Well yes, if you call radioactive decay a normal environmental circumstance, which you could, I suppose. In which case you'd include lead. Come come come. Of course it's a normal environmental circumstance. What else would it be? What is more natural than an atmoic bomb? I know, a fusion bomb! Also known as a supernova, that created at least half the earth's elements. Harnesssing natural radioactivity is no different to harnessing wind or solar power, also created by a far more dangerous reactor with no shielding that - unlike earth bound reactors - does pose a serious health hazard. The sun poses a health threat? What **** have you been reading? Try this for a start, and dispel a very tiny portion of your massive ignorance https://www.skincancer.org/skin-canc...n-cancer-facts I'll tell you what causes skin problems, people who aren't used to the sun going out in the sun. All these morons buying suncream and staying pasty white. I never use suncream, my skin gets used to it and gets tanned, and I never ever get burnt. The sun is a natural phenomenon, and believing we're supposed to invent artificial chemicals to shield ourselves from it is preposterous. Sez the little **** all who uses a sun lamp without eye protection. He thinks that it makes him look attractive to women. Wrong as always phucker - who is now back on the dole. IQ of 138 and signing on. ******. |
|
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Breeze block"
On 30/04/2018 11:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:37 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote: Maybe the tree ferns and other vegetation that eventually became the carbon in coal were able to concentrate those heavy metals from the groundwater. Brazil nuts are faintly radioactive (as are bananas). The extensive root systems work to concentrate *already existing* radioactive compounds. Seem to remember that Brazil nuts are one of the most radioactive foodstuffs around ( radioactivity by weight). |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| "Breeze block" | Home Repair | |||
| Breeze block for outdoors? | UK diy | |||
| Chasing out breeze block | UK diy | |||
| Replace singe breeze-block - mortar substitute? | UK diy | |||
| Breeze Block / Party Walls Questions | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
