Comment Obligatory (Score 1) 129
42
For a three-body slingshot to work...
Yikes! Do not google that at work without safety settings
Damn, I wish I could mod that comment funny - and informative!
Absolutely. Distances withing the cluster would be interesting, considering the black holes compressed them together.
Not so ; the suggestion is that the black hole interactions stripped the outer parts of the cluster off, leaving the most-tightly bound core region.
The distances between the stars within the most-tightly bound core region, ejected is what I was interested in.
I read the main article however the summary says (compressed into a space just a few dozen light-years apart) I must have missed where the suggestion was made about stars being striped off, but it's very interesting. You can only imagine what that would look like over millions of years. Thanks for pointing it out.
This is one of the reasons I love about being a geek and getting excited about these epic galactic movements that make our lives look completely insignificant.
You forgot that the plutonium is FUEL and should go into a reactor, not the ground.
No I didn't. If you knew anything about what I actually thought you would know that it includes the storage AND use of the fuel.
You forgot that DU is a toxic metal that can be bread into valuable fuel, but it is not a radiological hazard.
No I didn't. I actually support the development of reactor technology. As for being a radiological hazard it is an alpha emitter and probably an iron analogue (IIRC)
Those shock pix you posted were a wide variety of birth defects caused by a wide variety of things.
I regret to inform you that they are not. This is the consequence of DU weapon use. It's been said that soldiers were also exposed to the dust and tried to warn children away from the exposed areas.
Your posts have the ring of the nutter about them.
Yeah well, sooner or later the pro-nuclear fanboi drops an ad-hom attack.You guys are pretty predictable.
You could easily verify each and every statement I have made but won't because that would gore your sacred cow.
You are approximately correct with some things you said however, it's ok to understand the reactor technology, but to get an understanding of the entire industry you have to go a lot further.
Biological concerns are real as we are biological human beings. It's just common sense to understand how the consequences manifest and affect the human condition rather than just believe they don't exist.
If I was satisfied that you knew the difference between radiation and radionuclide and had sent me something that would be informative I would read it.
For example, do you dispute my claim that about 95% of 'spent fuel' is actually viable fuel if reprocessed?
No. I just think that if you are going to attempt to use that 95% you had better do it once and you had better do it properly. The entire nuclear industry needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up because in its current form it is a mess in every step of the industrial process and building safe reactors is un-economical for this version of the Nuclear Industry.
I support a spent fuel containment, with reactors and fuel reprocessing facilities grouped in the belly of a geologically stable granite mountain. Reactor facilities that last 100-600 years and then are encased into the mountain to dispose of the entire reactor facility and the fissile ash it burnt the spent waste you are talking about into. I just don't know if the bold America that built the Apollo, that had the imagination to engineer really large nation building projects like that, exists any more.
If you have a pragmatic, unemotional evaluation of the nuclear industry you would see there are many structural issues, like management of radionuclides, CFC114 emissions from enrichment, energetic expenditure of mining and reactor disposal, that is in such a mess it needs a legal construct such as The Price Anderson Act to keep it financially viable from insurance liability.
The difference is I think we have no choice but to do it because it's irresponsible to hand a radionuclide legacy to future generations the way a carbon legacy was handed to ours. Humans generations after ours will suffer the consequences of what we face in this age, simply because we were ignorant of them and refused to take the proper actions to deal with it.
Look it up. If true, multiply the humongoud number in the article you linked by 0.05 and get the true figure.
humongoud number?
I think I'll stick with Accident Sequence Precursors and Basis Design Issues as my guide. We could also go into research on post-Chernobyl Thyroid cancer rates in children. What about the 2005 Energy Act funding allocations for Carbon, Nuclear, Renewables and the revokation of PUCHA.
I will reply to no more of your messages.
ok
I have no doubt that you will somehow rationalize that into claiming victory in your own mind, but I don't care.
Victory? Until this issue is dealt with the entire human race will, over time, be exposed to radioactive isotopes that modify our genome.
I can't fix mental health issues like that over the net.
Groan, more ad hom groan.
Sorry you feel that way. Hang on to your hate of the other N word, perhaps it will comfort you in the future when you don't have enough electricity to run the ever more important air conditioner.
Wow, another belief. I don't hate nuclear power. The available evidence and science shows us that Nuclear power not only has no net energy return it also requires artificial legal constructs to make it economically viable.
If it was done better it might have a chance but with guys like you arguing against any improvements Nuclear power has an uncertain future.
I see no point in arguing with someone
You have no argument, you just have 'true believer' statements which have been debunked without me even having to refer to my research so I don't really care what you do.
who can't remember what was said 2 posts back anyway.
I'm not willing to guess which one of your posts you are referring to. Be specific and I will debunk them for you.
I read that as they always fail and the reason that they always fail is because people cut corners.
No.
Well how many do you need?
For nuclear to actually be less safe than the alternatives---many many many more.
An ridiculous assertion. Solar, wind, wave and geothermal are many orders of magnitude safer as their radioactive inputs come from the sun.
If you're thinking I disbelieve in radioactivity you are wide of the mark.
I realize its about what you believe and not about what you understand.
Most of the fear abouy nuclear activity is hype.
No, most of the hype about Nuclear activity is PR double speak.
Indeed, 3000sqKms at Chernobyl sure is a lot of land, a pity there are others.
Well done, intentionally misinterpreting an argument to pretend you've won. Clap clap you win here, have an internet for the day.
What a foolish thing to say. No one wins from coal or nuclear industry effluents. We all loose.
For minimising deaths per kwh, Nuclear is better than all other forms of energy.
No.
For minimising the taking land out of use for other things, nuclear is better than all other forms of energy.
No
Yeah, Chernobyl blah blah. You have no idea how much land coal mining uses and contaminates. And renwables for a country sized amount of energy need to be country sized. That takes a lot of land just for the energy collecting devices, never mind the land used and contaminanted in the mining and manufacturing process.
No. That has nothing to do with creating a proper place to store Nuclear Industry waste products. However it does show that you know very little about renewable energy technology.
We don't? What about PWRd sunning aat about 45 GWd/ton, versus coal plants at about 2.5MWh per ton. There's about 7 orders of magnitude in there. So we do.
No, we don't. Try to produce an estimate for the amount of energy used to decommission the reactor and the availability of the reactor over its lifetime and then you will understand why current nuclear reactors are obsolete. So no, we don't.
Perhaps your browser is broken, try refreshing.
I looked 'a few posts back' and found you didn't actually present any facts. It said 404: argument doesn't exist. Try refreshing your belief system.
You mean in a "burner" reactor like IFR?
No, I mean a conventional reactor that we already have. A Candu is well suited for that but we do know how to purify the result enough for any current reactor.
CANDU reactors which have a notorious reputation for being difficult to operate and some serious safety issues:
Additionally CANDU has a lower burnup rate than PWR. So it's completely inappropriate for that task even before we start talking about all of the other issues.
Radon is already in nature. Menu people had to put vent fans in their basement to deal with natural radon. With a half-life of 3.x days, the radon isn't going to travel far.
True, it also causes lung cancer when breathed so that's why people use fans to extract it. If the half-life negated the threat then people wouldn't need to use the fans.
They extract the gas because the decay products that result after its half life is complete are still carcinogenic, stick to dust and can be inhaled.
Weren't we talking about waste in America? However, you can still use the heat from the distillation, so it's not like it's wasted.
So, in other words, it's not a "bit of energy" as you said, it's actually "a lot" of energy that you would attempt to recover. As for the liquid waste effluents in America I doubt it's as simple to deal with them as simply as you believe - even if you could specify what they were.
So, what your saying is, just leave them in the lockers and bins where they are stored now scattered across the country side where anyone can access it. No need for any waste facility and centralized access control because you think everything is perfectly fine where it is and we don't really need a waste facility at all?
It wouldn't do much harm to just leave them where they are, but if it makes you feel better, bury them with the radioactive fly-ash from the coal plants in the conventional landfill. Or just throw them in the trash.
Well as long as you maintain an attitude where you think the Nuclear Industry doesn't require any improvements it is difficult to talk your arguments seriously. The airline industry doesn't shirk from it's responsibilities to protect peoples live. The U.S Nuclear Submarine fleet has extensive safety procedures to protect submariners. Even the coal industry is constantly improving the efficiency of the power plants.
From what you're saying further investment in the Nuclear Industry is not therefore warranted and increased lobbying, pointing to the lack of a properly constructed waste management facility, will provide further justification to shut it down the Nuclear Industry completely. I thought anyone who supported the Nuclear industry would praise additional infrastructure as a sign of a healthy industry.
It would seem your your efforts to sabotage the Nuclear industries progress is as effective as the anti-nuclear campaigners - I am certain they will applaud your efforts.
Not really. 2 million MPH is only like
.003c, and the nearest galaxy to us is Andromeda, 2.5 million light-years away. You'd still be looking at a good 833 million years to get there.
True, at least you would be traveling in style, if you could live that long.
Interstellar distances are huge. Intergalactic distances are brain-destroyingly huge.
Absolutely. Distances withing the cluster would be interesting, considering the black holes compressed them together.
Well then hop to it! In what way do you find depleted uranium to be a NUCLEAR waste problem?
Because it is the by-product of attaining fissionable nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors.
How would it compare to beryllium for example or mercury released into the environment?
Do I really have to show you another google image of DU babies in Iraq. That is how it compares.
Do you deny that we know how to reprocess 'waste' into fuel and a hotter but shorter lived waste?
No.
On what basis?
The very article this whole discussion is about. There is no where to put fissile ash after it's made.
Showing everyone your ass isn't much of a debunking.
Highly toxic radioisotope have certain properties that exist, even when you believe they don't. Apart from being Alpha, Beta and Gamma emitters at varied energy levels, at microscopic levels they act like nutrients in the environment that are toxic when ingested. As a carcinogen in the body it is delivered to whatever organ uses that nutrient, as it's analogue, where it continues to decay, emitting radiation in the body until after some years cancer begins to form.
For those babies, that I doubt you have the courage to look at, their mothers ingested DU, which is the by product of creating fuel for nuclear reactors. While those babies grew insider their mothers they were exposed to alpha emissions from u238 circulating in the blood or other body fluids where it was deposited into their own bodies as they mutated before they were even born.
It is a most indiscriminate form of warfare that actually makes land mines look like a preferable option. Still if you want to completely destroy a population over time that would certainly be a great way to do it as there is plenty of DU in dust form there to last generations. but hey, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
DU is the non-fissionable part of uranium. Fissionable uranium does not come from the Uranium fairy it comes from an industrial process called "enrichment" which is the industrial activity of the Nuclear Industry.
THAT is how it is a NUCLEAR waste problem.
It will take a lot more than OMG it's got atoms in it! to debunk my debunking of an alarmist article.
The only problem is you didn't actually present any fact to debunk the article with. You did, however, show that you don't know very much about the subject, like all true believers. I suggest that you actually read it and from there try to discover something about the facilities they are talking about.
I didn't claim there is no nuclear waste, just that it's nowhere near as bad as the NG article would have you believe.
Yeeeeaaaahhh, Naaaahhh, I think they have more credibility than you do.
Meanwhile, the properties of U238 are public knowledge, look it up in any reputable source and see if what I said about it is true.
This is the truth you are referring to.
U238. If we simply re-oxidise that and shove it back into the natural rock formations we got it from, how have we created a hazard that wasn't there since man evolved? It would actually be a bit LESS radioactive than it was before.
You would provide a radionuclide source that would introduce carcinogenic radioisotopes nutrient analogues into the food chain.
Meanwhile, weapons grade Pu239 is also known as high quality nuclear fuel. As CrimsonAvenger points out, it is now being used as such.
It's also a source of extreme toxicity when a reactor has an accident, as shown in Unit 4 Fukushima. You see the toxicity is a different property from radioactivity.
Pick any reputable source and look up the composition of 'spent' fuel rods. You'll see that it is about 95% usable fuel (after reprocessing). So when you read about all those tons of spent fuel, note that only 5% of it is actual nuclear waste. Also note the composition of that waste. None of it has the huge half-life that leads to the horror stories about needing to store it long after nobody can read English anymore and all that crap. It will be less radioactive than the background levels in about 500 years. It will be reasonably safe after 250 years. Those figures are on the web as well.
Not according to Oppenheimer, you know, the guy that invented the nuclear bomb. I've read some of his work on the toxicity of pu-239 which finds it to be fatal to humans in the 1 - 10 MICROGRAM range so it's not the big lumps that concern me. As far as your wild fantasy about the half life of pu-239 designed to ignore the physical properties of radioisotope decay into its daughter products, it's just stupid.
As for the last part, note that the leftover slag and sludge from coal and oil will still be carcinogenic in 500 years. If we treated the coal and oil industries like we treat nuclear, they would be forced to find a way to destroy it or prove that they could store it until the end of time. We would certainly not let them pile it up outside and then put it in a landfill.
Well they are both poisonous industries, but guys like you are unwilling to challenge your belief systems with the actual facts and science to see past it. Until you do you will parrot the same mindless groupthink that afflicts all dogmatic skeptics.
Any time you can present some actual *facts*, I'll be happy to evaluate them. In the meantime there is very little credibility in your arguments.
"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel
