Well I'll be damned
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I've been harping on the idea of using nuclear batteries in cell phones and laptops for the past year or so. To date I've been called a variety of names for it, the least of which is "crazy". Yet here we are. Researchers are SERIOUSLY talking about using radioisotopes as power sources!
In case anyone is wondering how these work, the idea is that the radiation from a small amount of radioactive material (NOT fissable material!) is captured and converted into electricity or other forms of energy. There is very little radiation emitted by these devices, because the radiation IS the power! Letting it escape would be poor economy.
NASA has used these sorts of devices in spacecraft for 40+ years, starting with the Apollo missions. NASA's earlier designs produced about 75 watts utilizing a few pounds of Plutonium-238. Pu-238 was an excellent choice because it is useless for bombs, and has a short half-life (~80 years). With the public finally calming down about nuclear technology, NASA is now developing a more efficient device called an SRG. These devices get about 55 Watts per 600 grams of PU-238. This is way more efficient than current RTGs, like the ones used on Apollo.
The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.
As for anyone who's worried about dirty bombs, I suggest you read this and this. The threat has been greatly overstated, and is actually less effective than a regular bomb. The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills. Even today, there's a big problem with Lead, Cadium, and other dangerous materials ending up in landfills. Radioisotopes wouldn't be much worse, but there is an upper limit on how much you want to add to the sub-soil.
Re:Well I'll be damned
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In all seriousness, there are larger RTGs. The Cassini probe started off with a few kilowatts of power at its disposal. Over time that has dropped, but the probe still has a significant amount of power to pull from. According to Wikipedia, the craft will still be producing ~628 watts at the end of its 11 year mission.
Re:Well I'll be damned
by
discontinuity
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.
Actually, the point of this article is batteries that scale *down* rather than up. One of the stumbling blocks for miniturized mechanics (MEMS,e tc.) has been the lack of a comparably sized power source. Sure, you can have MEMS accelerometers powered off of your car battery (to sense when to deploy your airbags). But if you want to sever the tether and keep things at a micro scale, you must scale the power to that scale.
Also worth noting, the batteries mentioned in the article actually operate on a different principle than RTGs. The T in RTG stands for "thermoelectric." The article talks about generating power using peizioelectrics. See the figure (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeatur e/sep04/0904nucf1.html).
There also is an interesting sidebar comparing the amount of radioisotope needed for such batteries to current commercial applications in which radioisotopes are used (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeatur e/sep04/0904nucsb1.html). Individual devices sound tame enough, but I think the real problem will be disposal - especially when everyone has one in their cell phone.
Re:Well I'll be damned
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I am a former officer in the USN, stood many an engineering watch, and have some background with radiation protocol. I also am about as far from a Nader fan as you can get.
Anyhow, ingestion is rarely a problem with plutonium because plutonium is rare.
The article you linked is nearly worthless because nowhere does it describe what amount the plutonium was, nor the isotope (which is critical for knowing what type of particle emissions we're talking about).
In particular, note the inverse relationship between half-life and specific activity. Shorter half-life = more particles emitted.
That means it is actually far safer to ingest a small quantity of bomb-grade Pu-239 than it is to ingest "depleted" Pu-238, which is what would most likely be used in the batteries referred to in this article, if plutonium were used at all.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Yup, you're right. If you even read the article, it says that the thin layer of dead skin on your body is enough shielding.
The emitted particles only travel 25 micrometers (!) once they hit humans.
They just need a good PR department to call it something benign. Maybe PATRIOT batteries?
Re:but...
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What happens when they blow up?
They're not explosive. Most nuclear batteries use a radioisotope that's already "burned". i.e. Pu-238 oxide is used in RTGs so that there's no chance of it burning. It still emits plenty of radiation once it's chemically stable, so the only thing you have to worry about are rednecks who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper. Even then, I rather doubt it will have much effect on them.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act?
by
phlegmofdiscontent
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Or he could buy several thousand smoke detectors today, which also contain radioisotopes (americium, I believe) for about the same price and have even more radioactive material. What's your point?
Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Some kind of reverse Peltier gizmo can't be used to create a solid-state nuclear battery?
You know, they used to use these things in pacemakers before Chernobyl happened. After Chernobyl, everyone got scared about "nuclear" anything. Now dead batteries in a pacemaker are a very real concern, whereas they used to be good until you were dead from other causes.
Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl
by
iMaple
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The U238 wasnt used in the stabilizer but as a counter weight. Check out the google results
Re:"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-)
by
topynate
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Google for thermeonics. Two entires.
Spell it right - thermionics. You get over 5K. And if you add up the results for googling different sub-fields I bet you get way more.
Re:but...
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I wouldn't worry about that too much. Manufacturers would tend to be smart enough to choose materials that are not water soluble. In addition, they'd probably melt the materials inside a block of non-reactive metal to make sure the materials stay in a solid form.
As long as the materials are treated with respect by the manufacturer, consumers shouldn't have too much to worry about. Even if the manufacturer DOES screw up, it's doubtful that so little material could cause much of a problem. You might be interested in this link.:-)
Re:Random thought here...
by
cybercuzco
·
· Score: 2, Informative
RTFA, that should clear up your questions.
--
Re:Random thought here...
by
jerometremblay
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A similar principle is used by Focus fusion reactors. It is basically a reverse particle accelerator.
"A focus fusion reactor would produce electricity very differently. The energy from fusion reactions is released mainly in the form of a high energy pulsed beam of helium nuclei. Since the nuclei are electrically charged, this beam is already an electric current. All that is needed is to capture this electric energy into an electric circuit. This can be done by allowing the pulsed beam to generate electric currents in a series of coils as it passes through them. This is much the same way that a transformer works, stepping electric power down from the high voltage of a transmission line to the low voltage used in homes and factories. It is also like a particle accelerator run in reverse. Such an electrical transformation can be highly efficient, probably around 70%."
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
Aglassis
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You said: " The layer of dead skin blocks it outright. The radiation can only travel 25 micrometers through most liquids."
This is correct, but misleading. An alpha particle (a helium nucleus) has a charge of +2e. This makes it difficult to travel through dense matter as it will quickly loose its kinetic energy (typically about 5 MeV range--normal matter on Earth has about 0.025 eV) by being scattered by electrons in the absorbing material (note that chargeless particles like neutrons or neutrinos have very large ranges in matter). Therefore, it's energy will be dispersed throughout the matter that slowed it down. For living cells this amount of energy is enough to kill the cell or cause some reaction that will cause the cell to mutate (where it may survive on mitosis or die). Obviously this is not a concern for dead cells.
If the alpha emitter is volatile or made into a dust, it can be inhaled. In this case, your respiratory system is affected. Additionally if it is ingested, your gastrointestinal system is affected. So obviously the greatest concern in the design of this battery is how its containment prevents it from being released. Logically if the alpha particle can't penetrate your dead skin cells, it won't penetrate a thin containment shield. If the containment breaks down and particles are easily disolved in water or break up and become dust easy, there is more concern about the safety of this device.
-- Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Irradiation
by
LadyVirharper
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I bet the consumer reaction would be similar to how I recall people reacting to Irradiated foods in biology class (link for the use of it). Here's a link against the use of it.
It is cool and it works
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Being at Cornell and working next to Amit Lal's group I have seen this thing actually work. It is definitely one of the coolest idea using MEMS. In the beginning I was concerned about radioactivity etc too, but the levels of radiation are way too low.
Traveller's troubles ahoy
by
nxtr
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Many countries, if not all, have tight security measures on importing radioactive substances. They often require special permits for such importation. I can imagine a law abiding citizen coming into a country with an electronic device with a radioactive battery, declaring that they have something radioactive and only be laughed at by customs officials and turned away from that country.
Also, I should mention the fact that many airlines prohbit radioactive substances on their flights for many obvious reasons.
Re:Want some Tritium? It's already started...
by
mindstrm
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Traser watches are commonplace.... they are in no way banned in the US.
I would imagine a tritium gas light over a certian size would fall under some regulation.. but a small traser poses far less health risk than, say, a AA battery does.
Tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years... meaning your tritium gas lights will still be quite visible 25 years later.
Google for Luminox.
Tritium is a low level beta emitter... which means it produces electrons, and not very high energy ones. Very easy to contain.. the only health risk to tritium is if it is ingested.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
Free_Meson
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you assume that the thumb rule holds for nickel-63, everything in 25 micrometers would receive a dose rate of 1.6 million rem/hr. Obviously the thumb rule has to break down (because at 0 meters the dose is infinite), but a significant dose will still be received at the penetration distance nonetheless.
Nickel by itself is a pretty bad substance for people, at least in its pure form. Some ridiculous portion of the population would have a severe allergic reaction to pure nickel (I forget the exact number, I think it's around 5% of the population). A "terrorist" or polluter or evil-doer or whatever would likely do more damage with Nickel powder than would occur from the availability of Ni63 through this battery.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
ArbitraryConstant
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Coal contains significant amounts of Thorium and Uranium. Burning it releases large quantities of these into the environment.
Thorium and Uranium are both in the multiple billions of years. They'll still be there when the Earth is a scorched cinder circling a long dead star.
Tritium (one of the isotopes they discussed using) has a half life of 12 years. Most of it will decay to helium and the helium will blow away in the solar wind within your lifetime.
-- I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
carlos92
·
· Score: 4, Informative
But this won't explode. It stores a lot of energy, but the POWER (energy/time) is very low. It's not like the wall outlet, which can give large amounts of energy in a very short time.
The article says that it could be used to trickle charge rechargeable batteries. Think of it as a battery "helper".
Re:Random thought here...
by
Quantum+Jim
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In short, you take a small amount of the radioactive substance and wrap all but one face in a lead shield, only allowing alpha particles out one face.
One possible problem, to form a narrow alpha-particle beam for small devices, a small slit or hole has to be used. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows that the range of (normalized) highly probable momenta will be large since the range in location is small. This means that some particles will be fast and some will be slow; however, the actual event is hard to predict.
Since kinetic energy is proportional to the momentum (squared), your device will produce energy in hard-to-predict spirts. You can calculate an average energy; however, that applies only after a large number of particles go through your device. That's one reason why these kind of devices work well as trickle-chargers yet poorly as generators.
Another problem is that you lose 5/6th of the particles from the device, or more. This is because the probability of a radioactive atom emitting a particle in a specific direction is relatively uniform. However, only one face of the material is unshielded to the device. So particles most will hit the shielded face. One one face, 5/6th of the total area, will have a flux out.
Place a wire coil around that face, voila... moving charge (alpha particle) induces voltage and current in a conductor (coil). Insulate the coil, and draw power off it's ends.
When you extract energy from the particle's kinetic energy, it will slow down. When it does, it will emitt electromagnetic energy, breaking it furthermore. All this energy is not converted into electrical energy in your device.
In the article, two methods are getting energy were tried. In the first device, the scientiests use a material that emitts beta particles - electrons - and injected them directly into a pn-junction of a semiconductor device. Normal semiconductor devices (i.e. diodes) work by moving electrons to unfilled energy levels in one substance (p-material) from filled energy levels in another substance (n-material). Moving electrons means a current forms.
This is usually induced by thermal or EM energy. In this case, the radioactive element emitts electrons directly into the semiconductor. The imbalance causes a current to form through the junction. This can be miniaturized well. It also is not as sensitive to the direction that beta particles are emitted as your device.
The second device uses a (really small!) lever attached to a piezoelectric material. Piezoelectric crystals produce electric current when stressed or vibrating. (The reverse is also true; hense why the crystal in your digital watch creates the ticks for the clocks.) The lever gets hit by - and absorbs - beta particles emitted from the radioactive element. Since beta particles are charged, the lever aquires a negative charge and the element aquires a positive charge. This pulls the lever toward the radioactive element. When they get close, electron tunnel over the gap and return their charge to the radioactive element. Once uncharged, the lever spings back to its origional position. The movement of the lever causes the piezoelectric material to generate current.
This things scientists and engineers create are truely fascinating! (...to me at least!)
-- It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. - Jerome Klapka Jerome
Re:Have you actually looked at the word 'nuclear'?
by
uberdave
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I have never heard it pronounced the way you suggest. The dictionary has it listed as either new-klee-ur or newk-you-lur.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
jshine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There's actually a fundamental difference between the behavior of a reactor (moderated critical) and a bomb (fast super-critical). The reactor cannot behave like a bomb because the critical-mass required is different for the two designs -- especially considering how poorly enriched reactor fuel is. You'd have to have a huge core and yank the control rods out insaneley fast. I doubt it could be done with any reactors now in existance.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission
by
Stephen+H-B
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Look up the MSDSs for nickel 63, and, oh, let's say "methyl mercury". You will be enlightened.
Sorry to contradict you, but pure mercury and methyl-mercury are two quite different things. At the uni where I study, if we break a thermometer it's "lock the drawer and clean up later". If 1/2mL of methyl mercury was spilt, we would evacuate the building and send in the HAZCHEM team. Mercury alkyls are nasty shit, messing with DNA, cellular functions, etc. Dimethyl-mercury is so toxic that a few drops on your hand will probably kill you.
Note that I actually agree with your point that these batteries are not as "OMG, it's radioactive! we're all dead!" as some would have us believe, I just had to correct a minor misrepresentation.
-- Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
Slashdot Mirror
I've been harping on the idea of using nuclear batteries in cell phones and laptops for the past year or so. To date I've been called a variety of names for it, the least of which is "crazy". Yet here we are. Researchers are SERIOUSLY talking about using radioisotopes as power sources!
In case anyone is wondering how these work, the idea is that the radiation from a small amount of radioactive material (NOT fissable material!) is captured and converted into electricity or other forms of energy. There is very little radiation emitted by these devices, because the radiation IS the power! Letting it escape would be poor economy.
NASA has used these sorts of devices in spacecraft for 40+ years, starting with the Apollo missions. NASA's earlier designs produced about 75 watts utilizing a few pounds of Plutonium-238. Pu-238 was an excellent choice because it is useless for bombs, and has a short half-life (~80 years). With the public finally calming down about nuclear technology, NASA is now developing a more efficient device called an SRG. These devices get about 55 Watts per 600 grams of PU-238. This is way more efficient than current RTGs, like the ones used on Apollo.
The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.
As for anyone who's worried about dirty bombs, I suggest you read this and this. The threat has been greatly overstated, and is actually less effective than a regular bomb. The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills. Even today, there's a big problem with Lead, Cadium, and other dangerous materials ending up in landfills. Radioisotopes wouldn't be much worse, but there is an upper limit on how much you want to add to the sub-soil.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yup, you're right. If you even read the article, it says that the thin layer of dead skin on your body is enough shielding.
The emitted particles only travel 25 micrometers (!) once they hit humans.
They just need a good PR department to call it something benign. Maybe PATRIOT batteries?
What happens when they blow up?
They're not explosive. Most nuclear batteries use a radioisotope that's already "burned". i.e. Pu-238 oxide is used in RTGs so that there's no chance of it burning. It still emits plenty of radiation once it's chemically stable, so the only thing you have to worry about are rednecks who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper. Even then, I rather doubt it will have much effect on them.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Or he could buy several thousand smoke detectors today, which also contain radioisotopes (americium, I believe) for about the same price and have even more radioactive material. What's your point?
Some kind of reverse Peltier gizmo can't be used to create a solid-state nuclear battery?
Congratulations, you've just described an RTG.
You know, they used to use these things in pacemakers before Chernobyl happened. After Chernobyl, everyone got scared about "nuclear" anything. Now dead batteries in a pacemaker are a very real concern, whereas they used to be good until you were dead from other causes.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The U238 wasnt used in the stabilizer but as a counter weight. Check out the google results
I wouldn't worry about that too much. Manufacturers would tend to be smart enough to choose materials that are not water soluble. In addition, they'd probably melt the materials inside a block of non-reactive metal to make sure the materials stay in a solid form.
:-)
As long as the materials are treated with respect by the manufacturer, consumers shouldn't have too much to worry about. Even if the manufacturer DOES screw up, it's doubtful that so little material could cause much of a problem. You might be interested in this link.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
RTFA, that should clear up your questions.
A similar principle is used by Focus fusion reactors. It is basically a reverse particle accelerator.
"A focus fusion reactor would produce electricity very differently. The energy from fusion reactions is released mainly in the form of a high energy pulsed beam of helium nuclei. Since the nuclei are electrically charged, this beam is already an electric current. All that is needed is to capture this electric energy into an electric circuit. This can be done by allowing the pulsed beam to generate electric currents in a series of coils as it passes through them. This is much the same way that a transformer works, stepping electric power down from the high voltage of a transmission line to the low voltage used in homes and factories. It is also like a particle accelerator run in reverse. Such an electrical transformation can be highly efficient, probably around 70%."
You said: " The layer of dead skin blocks it outright. The radiation can only travel 25 micrometers through most liquids."
This is correct, but misleading. An alpha particle (a helium nucleus) has a charge of +2e. This makes it difficult to travel through dense matter as it will quickly loose its kinetic energy (typically about 5 MeV range--normal matter on Earth has about 0.025 eV) by being scattered by electrons in the absorbing material (note that chargeless particles like neutrons or neutrinos have very large ranges in matter). Therefore, it's energy will be dispersed throughout the matter that slowed it down. For living cells this amount of energy is enough to kill the cell or cause some reaction that will cause the cell to mutate (where it may survive on mitosis or die). Obviously this is not a concern for dead cells.
If the alpha emitter is volatile or made into a dust, it can be inhaled. In this case, your respiratory system is affected. Additionally if it is ingested, your gastrointestinal system is affected. So obviously the greatest concern in the design of this battery is how its containment prevents it from being released. Logically if the alpha particle can't penetrate your dead skin cells, it won't penetrate a thin containment shield. If the containment breaks down and particles are easily disolved in water or break up and become dust easy, there is more concern about the safety of this device.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
I bet the consumer reaction would be similar to how I recall people reacting to Irradiated foods in biology class (link for the use of it). Here's a link against the use of it.
Original news http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/02/11.7.02/t iny_battery.html
Amit Lal's homepage: http://sonicmems.ece.cornell.edu/amit/
Many countries, if not all, have tight security measures on importing radioactive substances. They often require special permits for such importation. I can imagine a law abiding citizen coming into a country with an electronic device with a radioactive battery, declaring that they have something radioactive and only be laughed at by customs officials and turned away from that country. Also, I should mention the fact that many airlines prohbit radioactive substances on their flights for many obvious reasons.
Traser watches are commonplace.... they are in no way banned in the US.
I would imagine a tritium gas light over a certian size would fall under some regulation.. but a small traser poses far less health risk than, say, a AA battery does.
Tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years... meaning your tritium gas lights will still be quite visible 25 years later.
Google for Luminox.
Tritium is a low level beta emitter... which means it produces electrons, and not very high energy ones. Very easy to contain.. the only health risk to tritium is if it is ingested.
Coal contains significant amounts of Thorium and Uranium. Burning it releases large quantities of these into the environment.
Thorium and Uranium are both in the multiple billions of years. They'll still be there when the Earth is a scorched cinder circling a long dead star.
Tritium (one of the isotopes they discussed using) has a half life of 12 years. Most of it will decay to helium and the helium will blow away in the solar wind within your lifetime.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
But this won't explode. It stores a lot of energy, but the POWER (energy/time) is very low. It's not like the wall outlet, which can give large amounts of energy in a very short time.
The article says that it could be used to trickle charge rechargeable batteries. Think of it as a battery "helper".
One possible problem, to form a narrow alpha-particle beam for small devices, a small slit or hole has to be used. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows that the range of (normalized) highly probable momenta will be large since the range in location is small. This means that some particles will be fast and some will be slow; however, the actual event is hard to predict.
Since kinetic energy is proportional to the momentum (squared), your device will produce energy in hard-to-predict spirts. You can calculate an average energy; however, that applies only after a large number of particles go through your device. That's one reason why these kind of devices work well as trickle-chargers yet poorly as generators.
Another problem is that you lose 5/6th of the particles from the device, or more. This is because the probability of a radioactive atom emitting a particle in a specific direction is relatively uniform. However, only one face of the material is unshielded to the device. So particles most will hit the shielded face. One one face, 5/6th of the total area, will have a flux out.
When you extract energy from the particle's kinetic energy, it will slow down. When it does, it will emitt electromagnetic energy, breaking it furthermore. All this energy is not converted into electrical energy in your device.
In the article, two methods are getting energy were tried. In the first device, the scientiests use a material that emitts beta particles - electrons - and injected them directly into a pn-junction of a semiconductor device. Normal semiconductor devices (i.e. diodes) work by moving electrons to unfilled energy levels in one substance (p-material) from filled energy levels in another substance (n-material). Moving electrons means a current forms.
This is usually induced by thermal or EM energy. In this case, the radioactive element emitts electrons directly into the semiconductor. The imbalance causes a current to form through the junction. This can be miniaturized well. It also is not as sensitive to the direction that beta particles are emitted as your device.
The second device uses a (really small!) lever attached to a piezoelectric material. Piezoelectric crystals produce electric current when stressed or vibrating. (The reverse is also true; hense why the crystal in your digital watch creates the ticks for the clocks.) The lever gets hit by - and absorbs - beta particles emitted from the radioactive element. Since beta particles are charged, the lever aquires a negative charge and the element aquires a positive charge. This pulls the lever toward the radioactive element. When they get close, electron tunnel over the gap and return their charge to the radioactive element. Once uncharged, the lever spings back to its origional position. The movement of the lever causes the piezoelectric material to generate current.
This things scientists and engineers create are truely fascinating! (...to me at least!)
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
I have never heard it pronounced the way you suggest. The dictionary has it listed as either new-klee-ur or newk-you-lur.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
There's actually a fundamental difference between the behavior of a reactor (moderated critical) and a bomb (fast super-critical). The reactor cannot behave like a bomb because the critical-mass required is different for the two designs -- especially considering how poorly enriched reactor fuel is. You'd have to have a huge core and yank the control rods out insaneley fast. I doubt it could be done with any reactors now in existance.
Sorry to contradict you, but pure mercury and methyl-mercury are two quite different things. At the uni where I study, if we break a thermometer it's "lock the drawer and clean up later". If 1/2mL of methyl mercury was spilt, we would evacuate the building and send in the HAZCHEM team. Mercury alkyls are nasty shit, messing with DNA, cellular functions, etc. Dimethyl-mercury is so toxic that a few drops on your hand will probably kill you.
Note that I actually agree with your point that these batteries are not as "OMG, it's radioactive! we're all dead!" as some would have us believe, I just had to correct a minor misrepresentation.
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online