The cell dos not die, it just can not successful split anymore, so well, it dies at its final splitting.

Wow, the first time in the history of /. (at least the decades I'm aware about it) when throwing in some well measured sentences about Thermodynamics would be adequate.

However people avoid it like the plague and instead bring up the "ideal gas law" ... pretty funny.

We are talking here about 6th grade physics, or depending on your country and education system perhaps 8th grade, and yes it is Thermodynamics, and yes it is so simple EVERYONE should grasp it.

Pretty surprising that one of the first posters explained the problem correctly and then we have a bunsh of posters who either contradict him or try to convice each other that he either 'may' be right or 'may' be wrong.

I don't know how much 'gate' is involved in the original topic ... but that a ball loses pressure aka deflates if the temperature drops is such a no brainer, I really wonder that people are capable of typing but reject this idea/fact.

I doubt there are commericial test labs that test no brainers.

Customer: "Dude, if we put this kettle of water on a flame of gas, would it become warmer?"

Tester: "No idea, but we can set up a test environment and do some tests! Wanna pay for it?"

The ideal gas law is useable at all temperatures, except you consider 30 degrees Kelvin a high temperature.

The properties of the hull, in this case the skin of the ball are irrelevant. The 'volume' of the skin is the thickness times area. It is related to the enclosed volume inside of the skin by a factor of r^3.

So sinking temperature lets first of all shrink the volume of the skin and not the volume of the sphere it surrounds.

Actually a no brainer if you ever had held a ball used for sports in your hands.

Same foro Uranium, the poisoning in Iraq etc. is manly based on its chemical properties, not on its radioactivity. Nevertheless the later is not to underestimate.

Your idea about gamma radiation is wrong. A percentage is always absorbed.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Scroll down Shielding and Matter interaction.

A dirty bomb is a nuclear bomb.
So: true!

Also refining the material which likely would be used in a car is for some fanatics a piece of cake.

For that we only need technology from the 1940s ...

You cannot turn nuclear material/waste into military grade fissile material without oparating the reactor in a particular mode, providing it is of the right type in first place. Turning nuclear reactors into bombs is Hollywood blockbuster's bullshit.

You don't need a reactor for that. Sigh ... if you have enough of the "raw" stuff, regardless in what chemical composition, you can simply "refine" it with chemical means (happens in every reprocessing plant) and enrich it to weapon grade.

The point is if you sleep a few nights besides an unshielded 1kg bunch of Uranium, you likely die from it.

So your claim Uranium is harmless: is wrong.

Why should Radium be million times more radioactive than Uranium? The only difference I see is that Radium has a short half life and decays in a combination of Alpha and Gamma decay. Unfortunately I find no table in either becquerel or sievert.

What I said was correct
No, your definition is not correct.

Capital is only stuff that either *is* money or can be converted into money on a very short term basis.

So a car and a house are both not capital. Nor is your millions worth painting in your living room capital.

You figure that quickly when you try to found an LTD or a stock company.

You can not simply use your house as capital to found the company ... however you can take a loan on it or sell it and invest the "real capital" (and there are other ways to use it, however the keyword is *not simple*).

Sorry, I don't have the power to make up for your lifetime of bad education in just 5 minutes.

You had, if what you claimed would be correct and you understood it. There is basically nothing in my briefcase of knowledge I can not explain to anyone in less then 5 mins. If you understand what you want to talk about you find a perfect analogy you can do that in a minute even.

In your examples you mix up capital with wealth or an asset ... and other stuff, depending what you want to do with the "asset".

Pfft ... if you or the parent want to talk about fast breeders mention that before hand.

Now we only need to build a few more fast breeders, or?

Actually there are not many running on the planet.

So: the depleted uranium we have right now is useless.

But thanx for pointing out the obvious ;D

I don't think the broken window fallacy applies.

Anyway, you should perhaps read up the definition of the word "capital" or use a different word :D

Further: when and where got which cars destroyed and why? You still did not elaborate on that.

ALL of the cars that were traded in for the program were required to be destroyed. All of them, without exception. The theory being that they're now gone and new cars that produce less carbon waste replaced them.

AGAIN: about what "program" are you even talking? I asked now 3 times, I believe.

Only the actual reduction in CO2 output after this program dropped by such a small amount that it wasn't anywhere near being worthy of the effort (some environmentalists even estimated that it was way more than offset by the "carbon cost" of producing new cars to replace ones that were already made and didn't need destroying.)
That is a no brainer. Replacing a car with "high" CO2 output with another one with "less" means you produce a lot of CO2 to produce the replacement car. That replacement car needs to be in use for far over 100,000km to compensate this. Don't remember the actual number ... but as long as your old car does not burn absurd amounts of fuel on a "global" perspective it mostly makes no sense to replace it for CO2 reasons.
However if people buy a new car anyway, a lower CO2 output is important.

Nuclear cars did not happen because I only need to steal X cars (and X is a relatively low number) to craft a nuclear bomb from it.

I doubt your body knows the difference between the radiation from uranium versus plutonium.

You post is utter nonsense.

Marie Curie died due to much radiation (not only from uranium, mainly likely from radium) her notebook is so highly contaminated that it is kept in a save and you can not read it with ordinary means.

Actually we can not do _anything_ with the _depleted_ uranium as it is not useable in a fission reactor.

Or what you think why it is "sitting around" at the first place?

For a reactor you need the opposite: _enriched_ uranium!

We have ion thrusters since decades. Nearly every modern satellite uses them for station keeping.

Plenty of deep space probes used ion thrusters to reach their target.

Try to keep up with news or your next claim might be we had no plasma engines.

No, it is 'personal' between a person and artificial person, a company.

Den Haag is for stuff covering international entities, like states and supra national organizations like WHO or UNO.

I can not sue you or Uber in Den Haag. Unless they commited war crimes, but that is AFAIK another court or at least another branch.