Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:already done (Score 1) 130

by MrKaos (#47571751) Attached to: Report: Nuclear Plants Should Focus On Risks Posed By External Events

If your definition of "reasonable" is "one millionth" you'd be right, but also perfectly unreasonable. There is such a thing as natural radioactivity, it is everywhere. And if you demand that "artificial" radiation must be less than 1/10.000th of natural radioactivity in the worst contaminated areas to be "reasonable", then you suffer from a gross form hubris. Your claims about Iodine-129 neglect to mention that is has 1/ of the activity of I-131.

This statement is confusing. Regardless of the activity of the radioisotope, the issue is not radioactivity in the environment it is the release of radioisotopes *into* the environment. They didn't exist naturally, they are mutagenic to life and cause cancers to gestate when they are inside a living being.

This is further compounded by the fact that Iodine is highly mobile, most of all, it is water soluble. This means that it will be dispersed in the environment at a much greater rate than it will be concentrated in humans. In fact, it is not even detectable around Fukushima Daiichi.

That's not right. The water solubility and the fact that it is a micronutrient analogue will mean it actually concentrates in the foodchain. This is called bio-concentration because the radioisotope presents to a metabolism as something it can use. On uptake it is incorporated into the biological systems in the body and becomes organically bound. It's alpha, beta or gamma emissions are absorbed into the surrounding tissue and depending on the energetic levels of the radio isotope causes a cancer to gestate. In humans this process takes about 6 years.

You also neglect to say that the total radiotoxicity of all longlived fission isotopes is less than the radiotoxicity of the natural uranium before it went through the reactor. It is LESS than what was naturally there anyway. I know you don't care about such facts, lots of other people do.

Which longlived fission isotopes? pu-239 is a long lived fission isotope and it is highly toxic. It presents as an iron micronutrient so it also bioconcentrates readily, it's chloride is highly soluble and it's oxide is toxic when inhaled. Oppenheimer's research found it was toxic to humans in concentrations of 1-10 micrograms.

So yes, other people care about such facts. Can you clarify what you mean?

Your body is full of potassium-40, carbon-14, thorium, uranium and their decay products. If you're so scared of radioactivity that you must demand Cs-137 to decay to one-millionth of the current concentrations before you feel safe, then go commit suicide. There is no place in the solar system that will satisfy your demands. You, sir, are a lunatic.

That is not relevant. At issue is radioisotopes, not radiation and it is completely valid to try to prevent Nuclear Industry effluents into the environment because they are toxic and mutagenic. I'm not so afraid of radiation however I think it is completely sane and rational, to be concerned about radio isotopes acting as nutrient analogues in the foodchain as they a factor that affects human health.

At the same time, your original point re WASH-1400 is interesting. I'm not sure if it is one I've read and I commend you for highlighting it. So whilst I don't agree with what you have said here, on points of fact, I think the polarization of this debate has been destructive and hasn't really led to an increased level of understanding of the issues that matter.

Comment: Re:Stylized (Score 1) 130

by MrKaos (#47563939) Attached to: Report: Nuclear Plants Should Focus On Risks Posed By External Events

But that sounds like a theoretical rate for a limited class of failure modes under ideal maintenance and regulation conditions. Can't say any more about that until I find out what he's speaking of.

The report in question actually refers to (something we've previously discussed) the metrics used to report on reactors by the NRC, specifically accident sequence precursors and licensee event reports. They are actual events that generated a reactive inspection by the NRC or a formal report to the NRC under the Reactor Oversight Process because the risk of damage to the reactor core exceeded a factor of 10, or there was an accident.

These are the metrics used by the NRC so they're not theoretical or limited failure modes, they are actual failures caused by an incident that could damage the core of the reactor.

Comment: Re:Stylized (Score 1) 130

by MrKaos (#47563473) Attached to: Report: Nuclear Plants Should Focus On Risks Posed By External Events

Still, be careful with the terminology of 'accident' and 'near miss' and the statistics behind them, as they get applied and represented in a very inconsistent manner by the anti-nuke lobby.

That is incorrect.

Specifically the term 'near miss' is referred to (in the report) when the NRC sends a special, augmented or incident investigation team, under the Reactor Oversight Process, to a reactor site because the risk of reactor core damage has exceeded a factor of 10. NRC classifies these as 'reactive inspections' as response to a Accident Sequence Precursor.

Accidents come under a different class which results in a formal written report (called a Licensee Event Report) to the NRC because a failed or degraded component caused a change in the operational characteristics of the reactor.

So the statistics are not inconsistent, nor are they misrepresented by calling them a 'near miss' or 'accident' any more than it is calling a 'spade' a 'Soil Moving Device' under the ROP.

Comment: Re:already done (Score 1) 130

by MrKaos (#47563253) Attached to: Report: Nuclear Plants Should Focus On Risks Posed By External Events

Exactly my point, the plant should never have been placed where it could get hit by a tsunami, because it was not designed to withstand one.

I agree with the premise, though I'm not certain that is something you can do with any degree of certainty, certainly not in Japan where earthquake activity is more frequent. The driver of placing them is the availability of cooling water, so this generally means they will be located next to large bodies of water.

I'm satisfied with the approach of making sea walls, and the like, however the external risk we are talking about is if the operator actually complies with the rules, as is the case with Tepco.

Comment: Re:already done (Score 1) 130

by MrKaos (#47555511) Attached to: Report: Nuclear Plants Should Focus On Risks Posed By External Events

it was assumed a tsunami would never breach the protective wall and reach the plant

Tepco ignored geological evidence and relied on historical data when evaluating the height the sea wall *should* have been.

The key is not placing a plant that cannot withstand a tsunami where it can be hit by one, because designing to withstand a tsunami suddenly inundating the site it really not practical.

Another key issue is not grouping all of the backup generators on the sea facing side of the reactor with an inadequate sea wall was a disaster waiting to happen. Tepco had ample time to prepare but colluded with the regulator to prevent such changes in regulations which, according to the official report into the accident, was caused by an inherent belief that nuclear power was safe.

While your hindsight is all well and good now, this was all predicted and ignored. Worse still the report to the Diet highlights that these external events were human nonfeasance and "Wholly man made" - to quote the report. Criminal negligence through nonfeasance is an external threat the modelling is trying to predict.

Even with diesel failures at a unit, it could still have been safely shut down had the tsunami not hit.

You are incorrect, it could not have been safely shutdown with diesel failures. Design basis issues with the Generation 1 reactor mean that it must *always* have access to electricity. Specifically S and B class facilities in the installation must always be powered otherwise they are exposed to these design issues. Exposure to these issues are why the Fukushima plant exploded, as predicted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Comment: Re:How would that be even helpful? (Score 1) 130

Well, If we are talking about shuttered plants that are not operating, with no fuel, then they have plenty of margin, believe me. Anyone reading this thread to this point will clearly see how ridiculous your contention is, so I don't need to continue, but for your own edification, if HB were operating and were hit with a large quake, it would still likely withstand it due to the margin.

Wow, you just can't concede that you are wrong. Plus all of your posts are upmodded so I wonder if you are using a sock-puppet

Comment: Re:Status quo vs The Future (Score 4, Insightful) 296

Renewable energy and "sustainable transportation" were largely tried in the 19th century and abandoned because they were too limiting. This isn't the real future, this is what reactionary conservatives like yourself want to take us back to.

Wow, that's interesting, I would have described myself as a radical technologist. I think left and right politics have consistently failed to deliver the important structural changes our society needs to adapt and prosper. We devalue science and engineering and try to over-over simplify things when it's just not appropriate.

Instead of good quality debate we get low quality politicians driven by funding from corporate sources, and they want what they pay for. In reality I think that the alternative energy sources like wind, solar and geo-thermal are appropriate sources of technological development for the next 100 years while we get nuclear power engineered properly for the next 1000-5000 years. But that's close to impossible now because the debates about all of these things has become so polarized that people have forgotten things like compromise, wisdom, truth and fact.

And the science of anthropogenic global warming was reported right here at /. before it was trendy to talk about it. The debate was considerable different too, considering the merits of the science as opposed to how convincing the lobby groups are.

And alternative energy will mean an explosion of activity in IT to deploy control systems to manage energy. The cruel irony is countries like America and Australia are so abundantly rich with wind and solar resources that the future is practically begging us to lead the way, yet we choose to dig our heals in and forget that we used to do difficult things and solve hard problems.

You call me a conservative, but what does that mean any more? What does a liberal mean anymore? I like capitalism because when an idea is bad or has had it's turn, it collapses and something new takes over. Well the music industry is one of many examples that show us all that the vested interests CAN halt change, so what we have isn't capitalism at all, it's corporatism.

New ideas and thinking don't stand a chance against that sort of money.

Comment: Status quo vs The Future (Score 3, Informative) 296

I watched Krauss on Q&A and WOW, what a great scientist he is. I thought to myself, this is one of the reasons people look up to America, because they have all these great thinkers that we can learn from.

Unfortunately Australia sometimes takes the lead in being backwards thinking and it's no secret here that many of our accomplished leaders in creating solar energy are now in America. Now it seems American politician are looking to Australia for methods to embed the status quo. This looks a lot like the Australian government scrapping the independent Climate Commission (made up of scientists), but legislating to avoid, what happened here, a relaunched Commission funded by the public as citizens instead of as taxpayers,.

And like a dying animal the status quo tries to kill the future. This is not a generational issue because some of the older generation know what the issues are and trying to make things better to minimize the consequences and costs the younger generations that will experience. However, the people controlling energy and its future, now, will be dead by the time the effects are here, so for them why wouldn't they have all the benefits of cheap power when they will never experience the downside of it.

They struggle for 50's thinking to be relevant in the 21st century, but have compunction imposing it and since the science is so convincing the only thing left to do is muzzle the scientists. It's madness.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 2) 962

by MrKaos (#47512375) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

The basic point is: when you're threatening a violent crime against a person who may well have been a victim of such, and even if they haven't, very likely has friends who have and is more than aware of their vulnerability in this regard, that's taking it to a whole different level.

Unfortunately, I have encountered women and men with such experiences and you are right.

I think we also have to look at the kind of people issuing those threats in the gaming forums. Realistically they're unlikely to have social interaction beyond gaming and their life experiences is gaming. I doubt they have the compassion or sensitivity to understand the damage they do and are taking out their pent up frustrations on women.

Their lack of confidence when faced with a real woman would more than likely make them fumble and stutter and I doubt they would have the confidence to approach a beautiful woman at all. So when a woman is in this deodorant lacking, personal hygiene optional, gaming world, those barriers are eliminated and they somehow feel entitled to vent and direct their frustrations.

Gamers live in the game world, where such threats are meaningless, flesh wounds are repaired with a healing pack and a new life is just a game away.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 5, Insightful) 962

by MrKaos (#47511821) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

She's not talking about comments like "nice ass" as much as she's talking about comments like "die, you fucking cunt!"

Why is this moderated troll?

The very first paragraph of the article says she got a death threat and that they know where she lives. Do people even read the articles before moderating anymore?

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright