Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

The Mystery of Glenn Seaborg's Missing Plutonium: Solved 85

KentuckyFC writes: In the early 1940s, Glenn Seaborg made the first lump of plutonium by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons in two different cyclotrons for over a year, The resulting plutonium, chemically separated and allowed to react with oxygen, weighed 2.77 micrograms. It was the first macroscopic sample ever created and helped win Seaborg a Nobel prize ten years later. The sample was displayed at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley until the early naughties, when it somehow disappeared. Now nuclear detectives say they've found Seaborg's plutonium and have been able to distinguish it from almost all other plutonium on the planet using a special set of non-destructive tests. The team says the sample is now expected to go back on display at Seaborg's old office at Berkeley.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Mystery of Glenn Seaborg's Missing Plutonium: Solved

Comments Filter:
  • by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @01:45PM (#48782147) Journal

    They weighed it?

    • Don't be silly! They asked to see its ID.
    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @01:53PM (#48782203) Homepage Journal

      They looked at the radiation coming out of the sample to find evidence of Am-241, an impurity that would be formed if the sample were created in a cyclotron but not if it were created in a reactor. This test doesn't require the sample even to be touched.

      • by nojayuk ( 567177 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @02:20PM (#48782375)

        It's the other way around. Extra neutron captures in plutonium created in a nuclear power reactor produces Pu-241 and by decay, Am-241. The bombardment of U-238 with deuterons doesn't produce Pu-241. No Am-241 in the sample hence it was not produced in a reactor. That's the theory.

        It's more complicated than that, there are ways of producing very pure Pu-239 in a reactor but the extreme purity of the sample in question seems to mitigate against it being produced by the capture of fission neutrons in a reactor.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          What I want to know is which will work best in my space modulator? It was only design for 36.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      you could try to rtfa
      the weight does match
      and also it isn't emitting any radiation characteristic of isotopes produced from plutonium created in a nuclear reactor
      almost all extant plutonium was created in a reactor
      so correct weight + not from a reactor = high probability of sample match
      higher than weight alone, especially considering the measured weight is necessarily approximate, as the case the sample is in can't be opened

    • Nah, they found it inside a dust bunny that was glowing in the dark.
    • They weighed it?

      So, they did not use a particle accelerator?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    But who's going to pay for my operation? Lesson learned: don't swallow plutonium, no matter how appealing!

    P.S. The side benefit was, if I had to go to the bathroom at night, I didn't need nightlights...once I started to go, it all glowed in the dark, providing sufficient light to see!

    • But who's going to pay for my operation? Lesson learned: don't swallow plutonium, no matter how appealing!

      P.S. The side benefit was, if I had to go to the bathroom at night, I didn't need nightlights...once I started to go, it all glowed in the dark, providing sufficient light to see!

      Yes, but why did you piss on the floor in the hallway?

  • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @01:53PM (#48782201)
    the early naughties, those were the good ole days.
  • It's distinguishable from other plutonium, because it got here from 1985.

  • = cyclotron's ?
    I simply stop reading when an author makes obvious grammar mistakes.

    • I simply stop reading when an author makes obvious grammar mistakes.

      They haven't taught grammar in schools since the early naughties

    • Well, that's one way to wean yourself off the Internet...I usually grit my teeth and press on.

      Though I still lose it when somebody writes "ex-patriot".

      • Though I still lose it when somebody writes "ex-patriot".

        Errr, why? It would seem a perfectly sensible construct for someone who used to be a patriot but for whatever reason (money, loathing for their home-country's debased political establishment) has ceased to be a patriot.

        There's the other homophone "expatriate", for someone who lives in another country to that of their allegiance, but that's a completely different concept. For example, I mostly earn my income as an expatriate, but it would be impossibl

        • I think the OP's whole (non explicit) point was that people write "ex-patriot" when they mean "expatriate".

          It's not really a grammatical error, more a sign that the writer doesn't read much, and hence indicative of illiteracy. It's like using "to all intensive purposes" instead of "to all intents and purposes", or "should of" instead of "should've": it shows that you've only ever heard it said, not written down

        • What tehcyder said...sorry I wasn't clearer. A lot of people (at least, in online fora) would indeed call you an ex-patriot out of semiliteracy. And it's misleading as to what the motivations of an expat are.

          • Reading someone's motivations from their actions has always been a pretty fraught guessing game. It's not as if people are reknowned for their consistency or lack of hypocrisy in general.
  • The method described did not help them find the plutonium. The method helped them identify it as being the right piece once it was found.

  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @04:06PM (#48782799)
    Is the gradual re-purposing of the Lawrence Hall Of Science from a museum explaining the history of nuclear research to just another science museum presenting dinosaurs, earthquakes and global warming. LHS used to be a unique historical resource. "Concerns about radiation" and political correctness turned it into a generic and politically correct science museum.
  • by berchca ( 414155 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @04:10PM (#48782813) Homepage

    Aren't such things illegal in Berkeley because of the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act (Chapter 12.90):
    http://codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/cgi/NewSmartCompile.pl?path=Berkeley12/Berkeley1290/Berkeley1290.html

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No, since none of the sections apply.

  • >the sample is now expected to go back on display at Seaborg's old office at Berkeley.

    Because every self-respecting academic has the odd bit of plutonium lying about. It really helps with the mad scientist cred.

  • Lump? 2.7 micrograms, I'd call it a small speck.
  • We went to check on Seaborg's plutonium, only to discover it had been replaced with a piece of uranium-235!!

  • by Cliff Stoll ( 242915 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @08:01PM (#48783809) Homepage

    I was honored to know Glenn Seaborg while working at Lawrence Berkeley Labs in the 1980's. By then, Manhattan Project was long behind him, as was his Nobel prize, the Atomic Energy Commission work, and his chancellorship of the University of California. Yet he was still a kind and supportive scientist who was deeply interested in any research - whether in physics, astronomy, chemistry, or biology. He recognized the need to teach music and art alongside science and math, and would visit local high schools to encourage students.

    I once met him at the Lawrence Hall of Science, walking around the old cyclotron. When I asked him about it, he said that he'd been wondering how the field magnets had been mounted (it was perhaps 40 years after the Manhattan Project). After a short chat he invited a few 12 year old kids over, and told stories about using the beast to create new elements. Amazing guy.

  • TFA says the sample was removed from a display for safety concerns. According to this source [ieer.org], Pu 239 has a specific activity of .063 curies/g. For a 2.7ug sample, that's 0.175 uC. I don't get why anyone thought safety was an issue for such a tiny source.
    • Alpha emissions are easily shielded too. On the other hand, if the sample is broken and dispersed they can't avoid closing the whole place down. Small amounts of plutonium function great in dirty bombs.

  • It was correctly labelled, at the correct institution, in the place you would expect it to be stored, and it weighed the correct amount.

    But that wasn't good enough. They had to wait and see if it wouldn't decay in a particular way.

    I am never going to let these guys tidy up my lab or do the filing.

  • I now have a headache and my cheeks hurt from laughter. Thanks everyone for all the great comments. It was refreshing to hear all the jokes and not all the anger and hatred that usually comes with public sites. Who said nerds aren't funny? Cheers and keep moving forward Science On!

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...