Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How would that be even helpful? (Score 1) 110

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) 287

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) 287

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) 956

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) 956

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?

Comment: Re:Some studies on Tritium (Score 1) 230

by MrKaos (#47498689) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

Not the same AC, and unfortunately I don't have time to look up the sources, but I remember distinctly coming across studies before showing that there is not much distinction between external and internal sources when dealing with cells (not to be confused with external vs. internal sources for the body, which have a huge difference).

Sounds interesting. Was there any data about a radioisotope that was organically bound? The studies I read show radio isotope analogues became more mutagenic in that scenario.

This actually came as a surprise. It was supposed to be a test that some sources of radiation had a higher biological effectiveness due to being in the cell and especially with elements that are components of DNA, but results came up the opposite. While DNA is sensitive, it doesn't have a particularly high concentration of the composing elements compared to other parts of the cell, and the multiple induced ionization over some short distance made it not matter much if the atom was actually in the DNA when there was a bunch outside too.

Perhaps the low energy characteristics of the radioisotope trick the cell into duplicating more errors in the DNA that it normally would. Still mutagenic radioisotopes inside the body - doesn't make for a happy ending.

I don't remember if it specifically included tritium though, which has a rather low energy decay, and it excluded effects of other isotopes that due concentrate in the nucleus (some heavy metals and elements not normally used in biology).

Perhaps another low energy beta emitter, it seems the low energy beta characteristics of tritium make it a prime cause of transgenic disease. Like I said, I would really like to see that study - if you find it - you know who/where to find me.

Comment: Re:Fukushima (Score 1) 151

by MrKaos (#47494223) Attached to: Mt. Fuji Volcano In 'Critical State' After Quakes

Ah, yes. Your hypocritical ad hominems are quite pointless, you should know. And what "science and reality" went into you going off your rocker here?

It's called - being sarcastic - and having a laugh. There is nothing ad hominem about that post, it's modded troll because people feel threatened by something they don't understand. Including you.

It's so peculiar a failure mode...

When you encounter something so absurd, sometimes an equally absurd response is the only sane thing.

You really need to learn how to reason with someone who doesn't fully share your worldview. Free association babble just doesn't work.

Well I learn a little more every day. I don't have any animosity to you personally, and I actually agree with some of your posts unrelated to nuclear things. I just wish you would post some evidence to support your position, because you never do.

I don't expect you to understand parody, however it is a great cherry on the cake of my day that you read it - because that's how I feel when I read every one of your posts.

Comment: Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score 1) 230

by MrKaos (#47494117) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened.

In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.

Here you go. The story is discussing Tritium and here is some studies that you can go an examine yourself. I've copied the post for you to read.

These scientific studies are on the effects of tritium on living beings.

Some of them show that Triated water's effect is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter and it's characteristics makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;

Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)

Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.

(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.

It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.

Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)

First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)

References;

Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.

Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.

Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.

Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6) :657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]

Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.

Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...