Recent content by KateB

I am in my second year as a Biochemistry undergrad. The goal is a PhD in BioChemistry or Molecular Biology. I am really interested in the Cytochrome p450 family, particularly how they relate to symbiotic bacteria and their beneficial metabolites, as well as pathogens and their toxic...

You can develop cancer if only one side is compromised. In transcription, only one side of the DNA is used, called the template strand. If this strand has one or more base pair substitutions/deletions/etc., it could code for the wrong amino, making an incorrect protein (proteins are the major...

Sorry, as this is my forte, I have to interject here. Double strand breaks ARE repairable. It is more complex, requires more energy, and correct conditions (terrain) but it can be done. Generally by non-homologous end joining. Also free radicals are not always oxygen; they say free radicals...

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference that the government believes that the meltdown was only temporary. http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81431.html Hm.

could it just be variance in the samples? I am also wondering about the Ba-140. It increased in the new testing, and I wonder if the size is within a normal margin of variability? Ba-140 is a direct fission yield, as far as I understand.

I think I figured it out. I am assuming that B+ emission was the forebearer (as they would have the same outcome) I looked and you need a 1.022 or more MeV change between Co-56 and the daughter for positron (which there isn't), any less is electron capture. Thanks for being my sounding board :)

So basically, it's possible that the initial readings were a conglomeration of I-134 and Co-56, and only after a second reading when decay energies had transitioned,were they able to discern between the two?

Odd. This site reports Co-56 decay as positron: http://www.periodictable.com/Isotopes/027.56/index2.p.full.dm.prod.html While the chart of nuclides does indeed report electron capture as mode of decay: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/decaysearchdirect.jsp?nuc=56CO&unc=nds I guess the .gov...

Are they solely relying on gamma spectroscopy? Co-56 decays through positron emissions, while I-134 decays through traditional beta decay... It seems it would hard to confuse the two, though I am no physicist.

(pps: at a half life of under an hour, unless there are some odd isotopes in there...)

Ha! Oops, silly me, I was still zeroed in on the possibility of fission and interpreted your question as being in regards to it; I guess I should have supposed that the integrity of the system under that kind of water load may be just as important.

I am not sure that the rate is all that important, just that it is there at all, but I am not an expert. My reasoning is that it is because it means the control rods are useless if fission is happening, which it might well not be, and water present would just act like a neutron moderator more...

Ba-140 12.8 days -> La-140 1.6 days -> Ce 140 Tc-99m 6 hours -> Ru-99 Tc-99m only occurs as a product of fission of Uranium, one way or another, as far as I know. Edit: NOT an expert. Just a student.

Anyone else concerned about the large quantities of Barium nuclides in 2 and 3? Seems like a lot of that should be gone. Granted, it's only a little over one half life, but still a sizable amount. The Tc-99m is concerning also... Edit: for the Barium, I was thinking we should be seeing more...

If they are withholding information, that is really too bad; considering hundreds of brilliant minds are better than their relatively small amount. The world has a stake in this too.