Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Once you get to know radioactivity a bit better most people start to think it's cute and cuddly because it isn't all that radioactive. This is the phase many
/. posters seem to be in. Next thing some find out is that uranium is toxic, as a chemical.
That's about the time they discover there is a difference between radiation and radio isotopes, that one is an emission and the later is an emitter. After that they find out that particular radio isotopes appear to be particular micro-nutrients to metabolisms and bio-accumulate in the foodchain. After that they discover there is multiple pathways for radio-isotopes to get into the body via inhalation/food/water. Then they discover that once the radio isotope is in the human body the energetic alpha/beta/gamma emissions take about six years to gestate cancer in the body.
Chemical problems, not radioactive.
Indeed. Though the science I've been reading says that the effects of radiation emitted from DU are unclear on humans. I'll refer you to my earlier post for my summary of the science. Apologies for some of the language dealing with the troll.
The type of radioactivity in nukes is not relevant if you're not busy getting the mass to critical. The DU in Iraq is spread over a large surface area. It's nowhere near going critical.
DU has an unusual property where it has spontaneous fission and its energetic emissions jump from 4 to 240Mev (I think its the alpha emissions) whilst it decays. However that is not the point I was trying to make.
Ergo the radiation source of a nuclear bomb is not relevant to the discussion.
The point I am trying to make is not the source of radiation but a source of radio isotopes. That a nuclear bomb lets its energy out all at once and leaves much less than the original mass (~50Kg) as fall-out in the form of radio-isotopes.
In comparison with DU of which there is almost 2 tons spread around the country as a ceramic aerosol.
The world is a playground and the US is the strongest kid.
Deep down Americans are also just people. I don't believe that American citizens would allow this behavior to continue if they understood the consequences would attach them to such shame.
Why do artists expect to be paid at all for recordings of their music?
For the same reason that anyone expects to get paid for their work. If a software house sells a license to a compiled version of their software, they expect to get paid. In the same way musicians should be paid for the music they record and *render* through a production process. The tracking, mixing, production and mastering of music is a very expensive time consuming process, even today. It used to be more so but now it's at least accessible and roughly the same effort as producing software.
The only difference is that musicians aren't seeking to engage in a contract with the listener because they want to listen. For a similar piece of software there are terms and conditions for you to be able to pay to use the result of the software developers performance. Why is music any different?
For a very brief period in history, making money off of recordings was made possible by a coincidental combination of technology and artificial scarcity caused by the cumbersome nature of physical media.
The process of recording the music is demanding. Just because the cumbersome media is gone doesn't mean the cumbersome production process is gone and someone has to pay for that. It was that delivery mechanism that enabled the music industry to be created. Now its relationship to the artist is parasitic.
The scarcity now, is music that is worth paying for and, that's why mp3s are good advertising. Part of the confusion is the industry has moved on from analogue production and distribution process to a new business model of digital production and distribution. As many in IT have said, the music industry is a failing business model that treats it's customers like thieves and it's talent like slaves.
Musicians and IT folk have a lot in common, many do IT because they love the work. The music industry would have you believe that they should profit on the rescue of that production system or that software you wrote because you love it to do it. They would have you believe that they own the copyright on the application you developed and are entitled to the profits of the software business you built.
Before the advent of physical recordings, musicians had to make money by performing.
This is the 21st century, why isn't a recorded work a performance?
I can most certainly assure you that when my friends record we are seeking a performance that is as close to perfect as we can possibly get. It's not just a performance, it's THE performance. However most people haven't been through a recording session, actually most musicians haven't so they can't tell you what it's like. The ones that can, without cracking under the pressure whilst producing a performance good enough to be recorded, mixed, produced and mastered deserve to be paid for it because it is really hard work. Much like any Agile software project.
The only difference is a software developer doesn't pay $50,000 for the privilege of working an agile project, to work harder than anyone does in their day job to produce a recording that most people might not pay for however, that is what musicians are being asked to do.
Like any other business, the musician takes a risk to build a music business out of a relationship with an audience. Why is that any different from any other business who has product to move trying to earn a return on their investment in a project?
After the advent of digital recordings, musicians will once again have to make money by performing.
Why? The logistics of live performance is another cost burden that should be offset by a bands music distribution business. Don't forget they have to pay to lug tons of equipment, hire venues, crew, security, accommodation, flights, airports, marketing so you can have an experience. So just how much are you prepared to pay for a concert ticket? If there is no profit from the business of producing music then why would any sane person want to tour a band, often for years? Performances where the artists are so exhausted from grueling tours and living in hotel rooms that it's little wonder they have to be drug addict to endure it, to come out in debt?
This is not an incentive for good musicians to make good music.
Anything else will prove to have been historically anomalous.
The distribution mechanism to get music performance out there and it isn't going away. So I would argue that the artist making money from live performances is what is historically anomalous. The only question is will the distribution mechanism evolve?
Making and distributing recordings will still be in artists' interest, because they will serve as a way to generate demand for performances.
The cashflow constraints imposed by the upfront costs will ensure this is not a viable business model for any professional musician.
That is, recordings will become a form of advertising, which will be distributed for all intents and purposes for free, or even at the expense of artists.
For a distribution of a FM radio quality MP3 piece of music this is where I would agree. If that creates demand for any of the other higher resolution performances that renders THE performance closer to you, so that everytime you listen you hear a nuance you never noticed before, and enhances your life, then send the money to the artist who created the music, not to the record company that is ripping them off.
Art, especially music, is works for sale and will probably cost you less than a meal at a cafe, however no one expect the chef to buy, prepare and present all of the ingredients for free.
Can we quit wringing our hands about this now? Art will survive just fine.
Sure, it just won't be very good. Art will survive, artists my have a difficult time though.
Uranium is a heavy metal. Don't ingest those.
Friend, you say that as if these people have a choice. They don't. It burns at 3000-6000 degrees and oxidizes into an insoluble ceramic aerosol. As an aerosol it is in their air and it is in their drinking water. How do you suggest they avoid ingesting them?
Also a heavy metal. Nothing to do with radioactivity,
Yes, others have pointed that out. However you also said the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead when its toxicity is still being evaluated in veterans and proving to be quite a serious issue for those exposed to it. So whilst your claim of no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops might be true I'm sure people would feel differently about it being in their air and water supply. Wouldn't you?
I'm sure this is one of the reasons the UN does not sanction their use.
because U238 isn't meaningfully radioactive.
Well I checked this and the science I read doesn't say anything about 'meaningfully radioactive', it says that the effects of U238 radioactivity as an emitter in the body are unclear and there hasn't been a large enough sample size of human beings exposed to U238 to understand the effects it has, on humans.
And to what isn't U238 'meaningfully' radioactive to? How do you know? Did you check the evidence? Because I did.
In the independent research with the most citations it seems that one of the cruelest deception played on the veterans is that uncovering *which* of the symptoms are caused by DU because they were also exposed to other heavy metals in pesticides and herbicides; in vaccines, including anthrax and botulinum toxin; in nerve agents: sari n, cyc losari n, tab un, som an, VX, multip le se ven, and no vac huks (nov ich oks); and in chemicals released from the Kamasiyah toxic chemical depot, which was destroyed by bombing and also subjected to petroleum products from the oil well fires.
So what has this got to do with u283 radiation? It turns out that because veterans were exposed to so many sources of heavy metal toxins it is preventing legal recognition of the harm caused by radiation, not that it isn't 'meaningfully radioactive'. A particularly salient and sobering paragraph from that paper:
Influential papers by physicists and several semi-official governmental organizations have attempted to eliminate DU from consideration by just such analyses (4â"8). These studies are not really independent, since each follows the guidelines, methodology, and risk estimates recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (9).
As usual, I'll do the thinking here and join the dots to make it easier to understand the ramifications. As a final act of contemptuous betrayal of the soldiers what the ICRP was attempting to do was set up a research framework that led to the conclusion that the veterans suffering was all in their head. This is news to me too, even I didn't think the Nuclear Industry was that fucking despicable.
That is where your 'claim' that du is not 'meaningfully radioactive' comes from, so perhaps you should check the papers you read for ICRP influence.
How incredibly fortunate for us then, to have such a large sample size to study over the coming years in the populations of Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan and establish what the true radiological effect of depleted uranium is on a population.
No, I'm not going to teach you basic science. This is
/., you're expect to do that work yourself.
That sounds like usual cop out for those suffering the effects of of social proof not being able to challenge their belief system with any evidence. I present the science, you say its is bogus, you refuse to present any of your own and then, you insult me for doing so. Same old story.
However the science isn't the only thing you have to study. The legislation, Insurance arrangements, funding bills, mining, operating procedures of the plants, the way regulatory boards interact, reactor decommissioning, spent fuel containment, net energy return, this list goes on. Over the years I have amassed a significant library of information from doing exactly that work, it is quite a fascinatingly complex industry.
Fortunately for you, you only have to look at my previous post that references the US Library of Medicine information on how DU deposits in the body. If you understand the 'basic science' of how radioisotopes analogue nutrients in the metabolism then it will make sense.
If you don't you may wish to consult the work on how the weak beta emitter tritium effects transgenic disease in the human genome precisely *because* it is a weak emitter and the radiation is absorbed in the body from the tritium that tends to accumulate in stomach fat near the reproductive organs.
It was a common myth that the weak beta emission from tritium was also harmless. As it turns out it is harmful - to the next generation of those exposed, i.e. their children.
So the jury is still out on the effects of radioactive uranium compounds like U-238 an alpha emitter with rare spontaneous fission that undergoes 12.4 atomic transformations (submicroscopic explosions) every second, each giving off one alpha particle with energy between 4.15 and 4.2 MeV (million electron volts) in random directions, that when it decays by spontaneous fission releases approximately 40 times more energy than in nuclear decay, will do to DNA that only requires 10 electron volts to break, but I doubt the news is good.
It is certainly not something I'd like hanging around in my testes. Would you?
You're scare-mongering about an imaginary boogieman and need to be shunned from polite conversation,
You haven't provided a good example of polite conversation only moral superiority and dogmatic skepticism.
Maybe I'm wrong about veteran suffering toxicity over radiation poisoning however I doubt it. I just think it hasn't been identified yet. You think it is less toxic than lead and there are no effects from the radiation. I think that there is an effect from the toxicity and a subsequent transgenic affect caused by the radiations of U238 being absorbed in the human body that affects the offspring of those exposed.
Considering the models are only for death from cancer under ideal circumstances and not reproductive damage then it would seem it might be a worthwhile place for investigation.
Frankly, I can't see how anyone can support these weapons considering the suffering they impose. You have to be specially qualified to handle it and isolate it from the environment in the US so why is it ok to spread it elsewhere?
just like the anti-Vaxxers, the anti-GMO crowd, the "no irradiated food" crowd and the rest of them.
Just the same way I might put you in with evengelical christian or extremist muslims who will scream and abuse you for questioning their god. I'm open to having my position challenged when presented with the right information but that is not what you have been able to achieve here.
I do feel a bit foolish for upmodding you in the past though, for subjects we agree on and hope you are able to return to form soon. I find the cuntishness disappointing, a little tedious and juvenile. If you have some useful information to share we may be able to have a more civilized conversation.
Depleted uranium is not meaningfully radioactive.
First of all we are talking about depleted uranium's behavior as a radio isotope once its absorbed in the body, not the radiation it emits when it is outside the body - where it is harmless.
Not to mention those "on the receiving end" of a 10 kg projectile travelling at ~1000 meters per second don't suffer for long at all. When you start comparing bullets to nuclear bombs, you should really stop and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Once the projectile has hit its target (or not) the du doesn't cease to exist. It is smashed and burned into varying size chunks of du all the way down to dust. So those targeted don't suffer for very long however those who breath in the dust do, including those who fire the weapons. I could say the same for your discussion of radiation vs radionuclide, however I choose to politely point out the facts, rather than launch into a rant.
Science more; don't come back till you do.
Ok, There is plenty of science. It is a commonly held myth that because du is harmless outside the body, it is harmless *inside* the body but it isn't.
I took this from the U.S Library of Medicine describing the effects of radionuclides in the body and it applies to a range of radionuclides, including u-238. From my understanding the main vector for absorbing u238 is inhalation, specifically uranium oxide however there are others. Only 10 electron volts of energy is required to break DNA or other molecules in the body. U238 is a alpha particle emitter of 4.2 million electron volts (MeV) per particle there is very little doubt as to the damage it does:
Systemic contamination will occur following ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption, or wound contamination of radioactive material. Following absorption, a radionuclide crosses capillary membranes through passive and active diffusion mechanisms and then is distributed throughout the body. Rate of distribution to each organ is dependent on organ metabolism, ease of chemical transport, and the affinity of the radionuclide for chemicals within the organ. The organs with the highest capacities for binding radionuclides are the liver, kidney, adipose tissue, and bone due to their high protein and lipid makeup. Each radionuclide has a unique half-life, with half-lives ranging from extremely short (fraction of a second) to millions of years. Samples of some radionuclides and their half-lives are: Tc-99m: 6 hours; I-131: 8.05 days; Co-60: 5.26 years; Sr-90: 28.1 years; Pu-239: 24,400 years; U-238: 4,150,000,000 years.
That makes the rest of your screed lies, bullshit, and stupidity. you should really stop and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're an embarrassment to Slashdot, and that's a really low bar.
I was polite to you yet you feel perfectly justified in being a cunt to me. I just thought you didn't know and it was a difference of opinion. I've come to expect this as a fairly typical response from someone without much in the way of fact available to counter my arguments and they just attack me instead. If you can't back up what you say with fact, or change my mind, then why be a cunt to me instead?
Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
As a weapon depleted uranium is one of the most insidious and makes landmines look positively benign in comparison. It may be ok when used in crockery or bench tops when kept sealed up however when it is fired from a tank its pyrophoric properties make it particulate in the environment and it becomes a serious threat.
Veterans of both gulf wars suffering 'Gulf War Syndrome' are, in reality, suffering from inhaling radioisotopes, i.e. radiation poisoning. A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome. So they may not be casualties of the war in Iraq, but they suffer for the rest of their lives when they get home due to their own government's policy to deploy du weapons, which is a war crime under UN conventions. That's the effect on the soldiers just for firing the weapons.
However the people on the receiving end of the weapons will suffer for much longer. That is because it is not immediately toxic to full grown adults who ingest it, only to their children. Since du's half life is measured in billions of years Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer these deformities for all subsequent generations. So will Veteran's families.
For a comparison, about 50 kilograms of uranium were used to bomb Japan and over one thousand tons of DU in Iraq. This is how nuclear waste is being used and what a 'dirty' nuclear war looks like. I don't think the claim that there is no grounding in science has a basis however the effects are plain to see. I agree that it is political theater, based on concealing and deceiving people into what is being done in their name.
Chuck Norris is a religious nut, can we please stop these jokes about how tough he is. He has no sense of humor and actively sues people using his memes on joke products.
Yep, I see what you mean. He's a bit of a jerk.
Many people have bought into the myth that the nuclear event at Fukushima was a human disaster of epic proportion,
The official report from the Japanese government says that it was a "wholly man made disaster". That's from the chairman in the introduction. That's the flaw core to your OP.
The second is you fail to see that the Nuclear disaster is still unfolding and that its scope is still undefined. No one is ignoring those outside the exclusion zone or giving them the finger. What you fail to appreciate is that the situation at Fukushima is so dire and immediate, that it threatens the entire northern hemisphere with a plutonium fire from the fuel rods stored there. Were you to understand that, you wouldn't have said your OP because you would realize that it is the workers at Fukushima that are still working to avoid that, that *you* are giving the middle finger to them after they have lost so much.
What the ignition of 6000+400 fuel rods in unit 3 cooling pool (at last count) means to people is plutonium fire that releases enough plutonium oxide and chloride to be an extinction level event. Comparable to an asteroid hitting the earth. Hard to get your head around it, isn't it? So go ahead - trivialize it.
That is why it is completely appropriate to obsess with this disaster. You are ignorant of the true scale of this MAN-MADE disaster, its origins, threats, consequences and continue to show why your OP was made in complete ignorance of the actual facts.
Which you refer to as FUD.
You continue to say things to provoke an emotive response instead of speaking in facts, evidence or available science. Then, instead of discussing the characteristics of the materials you launch into the moral superiority that come from evoking such a response.
You were provided the Japanese Government's official report into the accident that countered your OP and then accused me of spreading FUD when I took the time to explain what radionuclides were and why your assumptions were flawed.
Even then, no fact from you. No counter argument, no facts of your own, just more trolling. I was kind to you by offering you the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion because I thought I may have been unreasonable to call your OP bollocks. Instead you responded to with more trolling.
None of which will help fix the Nuclear Industries problems, especially if you don't believe there are any. That is why you are complicit in the softening the regulations that would have improved safety to prevent another accident. If you spent anytime examining this massive subject you would understand why it is important. Another accident will mean the end of the Nuclear Industry and the we will have all of its problems but none of its benefits. Have you ever lobbied to *improve* nuclear industry safety? Are you prepared to say there won't be another accident? Thought not.
I've already demolished your argument, debunked your claims, you made, at the expense of those who are suffering the effects of the Fukushima Nuclear fallout exclusion zones. I offered you an opportunity to back away from those comments gracefully in the hope you would discuss things intelligently.
You say "Nobody expects exact numbers" but won't accept that it is an unknown, that it *is* a uncertainty but that the impact isn't. You say I'm long winded but fail to make the connections required to discuss specifics.
Your trolling pretty much shows people, like me who think it might be possible to fix the Nuclear Industry, that the problem is a human one, every time.
I understand perfectly that you either simply don't understand the real world risks relative to things we experience in our daily lives, or simply refuse to acknowledge them.
I understand the risk's impact enough however, I'm not prepared to accept your invitation to guess at other factors because there is not enough data being collected to make that assessment. Can you tell me the which radio isotopes are in the water leaked from Fukushima daily? I thought not. How can you possibly discus the risk if you can't demonstrate you have an understanding of the basic principles involved? I don't know if you do. uuuhhhh radiashun, you fraid! Get real.
NO, you present FUD with no real world implication, risk, probability, or any relevant comparison to anything. That is what FUD mongers/followers do. You either buy into it due to ignorance, or willingly distribute it due to an agenda.
So you say that explaining the difference between radiation and a radionuclide, and what bio-accumulation is, is FUD. Well I suppose it is for you because the gap in your understanding has been replaced with quite a simple explanation. I can assure you the effect is quite real and unless you scan every meal, you will never know. So let's examine your statement at bit further.
You're suggesting I answer a question with a massive scope, a huge amount of variables, no context and many vectors. Which vector should we discuss? The spent fuel pool of fukushima reactor 3? A fire in the wood not decaying around Chernobyl? Russia's Plutonium lake? Palo Verde? Tritium effluent? Which of the many 'real world implication' vectors should we discuss? All of them combined?
I've explained the impact of the risk in general terms.
As for the potential or probability - it is already started occurring. Google "du babies, iraq" this is what u-238 does to children forming in the womb and what they look like when they are born. The source doesn't matter, it doesn't discriminate who it affects once it is in the environment.
Perhaps you can compare this suffering to pregnancies just failing for those affected. Japan and some of the US now faces the impact of risk from the fallout from Fukushima. Perhaps you can just call it Nuclear war Lite, I don't know how to compare it to anything because it will go on for as long as it takes to decay through its halflives. So it's probably worse.
However, you missed the magnitude of the impact. To re-iterate, I made it clear that there wasn't enough data collected on how much radionuclide effluent was in the environment OR how much was leaking daily. So since I have to join the dots for you, what that means is it is not possible to determine the magnitude of the risk to be anything more than 'above zero risk' for these impacts, we need more data to be collected and published. It's not an unreasonable request.
As for my agenda, it's to learn and share all I can. I don't know everything, however I am not stupid and I have learned everything I can because I believe it is an important topic which, unfortunately, you treat trivially. The Nuclear Industry is extremely complex in many ways. Fascinating, complexly interesting technology that is ultimately pointless if it kills us.
As for your agenda, it looks like you are a garden variety Nuclear troll fanboi, and not a very interesting one at that.
So, how much risk to you think there is...surely you have some sense?
You ask me 'If I have a "sense" for the risk, and I have shown the impact of *one* radionuclide (U-238). Show me the data for the rest and then we can talk. A rational examination of the impact is concerning enough for me to have these conversations. If you can't connect to your humanity enough for you to see why, then you have bigger problems than I can help you with.
So I re-iterate, not enough data is being collected and distributed on what quantity of which radio isotopes have been released. This is a big problem that needs to be resolved.
Answering such a deliberately resource intense question becomes a question of, would it even matter to you and I don't think it would. This is because you have demonstrated that you are a dogmatic skeptic by not acknowledging the official report and answering in relation to your comments. If an actual Japanese government report is not enough for you, no proof is possible with you, you'll just call if FUD anyway, then, try to provoke an emotional response to attempt to discredit what facts have been presented whilst producing none of your own. The troll agenda to frustrate. This is the division people like you cause in such an important subject. Way to go asshole.
Either way, it makes this discussion a waste of time.
Indeed. Your troll was exposed for what it was and rendered ineffective. Your emotive points made at the expense of people you don't even know shows that there is no despicable point you won't make to promote confusion and ill will amongst this discussion.
I even gave you several opportunities to redeem yourself. Why?
Because I'm not even anti-nuclear, you just assumed I am. I'm just not your brand of pro-nuclear and I support the right type of reactor development. I don't say "shut them down" I say if you have to have them run them safer and do it properly publish the right data so the appropriate decisions can be made. Build the right spent fuel containment facility. People like you really highlight the fact of why there have been so many nuclear accidents and that maybe, the issue isn't the technology. Your one line trolls and the US push for softening of Nuclear Safety demonstrate that maybe humanity just isn't mature enough to handle Nuclear Power.
One still notes that Charon isn't actually bigger than Texas, though it could be one of Chuck Norris' turds! Now we will find out for sure.
Thank you NASA. Thank you American taxpayer, this is one of the most inspiring things I've seen for a long time.
I wish NASA a long mission!!