Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Brittle (Score 1) 311

by Uecker (#49103803) Attached to: Nuclear Plant Taken Down In Anticipation of Snowstorm

Actually the price of electricity in Finland is among the lowest in Europe. This is one of the chief reasons how our system works. You see, we have a lot of traditionally extremely energy-intensive industry related to forestry (i.e. paper, carton and cellulose production), metalworks (both smelting and advanced machining such as shipbuilding) and so on. As a result, one of the primary goals of the entire country's energy policy is to ensure that electricity would be as cheap as possible. This kind of forward planning is what allows for those record profits. Not electricity prices, that are very cheap in Finland by European standards to the point that it was one of the chief reasons why most of the heavy industry stays in the country, and why modern energy intensive industries like heavy datacenters (i.e. Google) find Finland so interesting for their European operations.

The thing is: Cheap electricity prices make nuclear (and everything else) less economical. So the question still is why should nuclear plants be more profitable in Finland than elsewhere. Weren't the current plants not build by a government-owned power company (Imatran Voima Oy) which was then privatized later? Considering this, I assume that the existing nuclear plants in Finland were probably not really economical, but if nobody does an audit of how much this government-owned power company actually has spent when building these plants this will never become apparent. Looking at old press articles about how Loviisa started out has a hybrid of Sowijet and Western technology and needed costly repairs and changes, I somehow doubt that it was so economical as claimed.

Some other things you should understand before arguing on the topic of "eating profits".

....
Ok. But my point was that you should not sectively pick the successful projects while ignoring the cost of the failures when discussing the overall economics of nuclear. If the French tax payers pick up the bill for that disaster this is certainly good new for Fins, but does not really make nuclear more economical in the overall scheme of things.

Comment: Re:Brittle (Score 1) 311

by Uecker (#49067641) Attached to: Nuclear Plant Taken Down In Anticipation of Snowstorm

Olkiluoto #3 is, as the name implies, the THIRD unit. Other two are the most profitable endeavours ever, after two units at Loviisa.

I can't find you the source right away, however this was a part of investigative story made by YLE, our state broadcaster. They were doing an analysis of profitability of investments, I believe as a part of their story on which of our traditional industries are competitive and which are not, and then they hit the fact that there were four extreme outliers in their statistics which were extremely profitable. Loviisa unit 1, Loviisa unit 2, Olkiluoto unit 1 and Olkiluoto unit 2.

Maybe this is true - but is rather irrelevant. I don't doubt that some nuclear power plant built at sometime somewhere was/is profitable. Those plants have been build at a time where electricity market was highly regulated in Finland. The price of electricity is determined by the least efficient plant (in terms of marginal cost) which is needed to satisfy demand. In the past, and without much competition this may have been a rather expensive source of power. Nuclear power plants only needed to be cheaper than this plant to be a good investment. Nowadays, this is unlikely to be true even in Finland.

Olkiluoto unit 3 is the experimental new reactor Areva was selected to build, and they failed at it. It's fairly obvious to even a casual observer that I could not have been talking about Olkiluoto unit 3 because it's not operating yet - as a result it can post no revenue.

But I guess it eats all profts from the other plants.

Comment: Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change (Score 1) 755

by Uecker (#49063957) Attached to: Removing Libsystemd0 From a Live-running Debian System

But text log files are a big SECURITY RISK. Example? I want to hack into server and hide my presence. 1st thing I do is edit your /var/log files when I install a rootkit.

You are deeply confused. Binary log files can be changed by a hacker as easily a text log files.

You can protect yourself against this by cryptographically sealing the logs, but this works for text log files too.

Binary log files are simply insane.

Comment: Re:The real disaster (Score 1) 224

by Uecker (#49012189) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

Although I have a lot of difficulty to connect the reporting about this study which you have linked to with the actual conclusions from the published study. The study rules out a certain mechanism for damage from low-dose radiation which has been hypothesized, but does not say that damage does not exist. Quite the opposite:
"We note that despite the minor direct impact of radiation on redox status of the cell and on antioxidant concentrations, it is well known that even low dose ionizing radiation can cause negative effects via DNA damage. Such damage is direct—caused by strand breaks and deletions—or indirect, from the free-radical products of water radiolysis in the immediate vicinity of nucleotides. At dose rates of order of 417 Gy h1 (representing the most contaminated parts of the Chernobyl exclusion zone), radiation effects on organisms would be expected, and have indeed been observed [16,17]. The present study shows that observed effects are unlikely to be due to radiolysis products directly causing oxidative stress, significantly clarifying discussions about low-level radiation and oxidative stress."

Also note the clear statement "it is well known that even low dose ionizing radiation can cause negative effects via DNA damage". Which is indeed well known, but disputed for example by Mr D.

Anyway, wildlife near Chernobyl certainly benefits a lot from not having humans close by anymore, so probably is better off now than before Chernobyl - despite increased radiation levels.

Comment: Re:The real disaster (Score 1) 224

by Uecker (#49011783) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

Sorry, if you look at those studies, they are predicted cancers based on the never validate LNT model from the war era studies. None of those observe actual statistical associations. You simply are not looking at the details.

Nonsense. Both studies provide direct empirical evidence.

Pearson et al., The Lancet:

- "We did a study to directly assess the question of whether cancer risks are increased after CT scans in childhood and young adulthood."
- "In this retrospective cohort study, we show significant associations between the estimated radiation doses provided by CT scans to red bone marrow and brain and subsequent incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours."
- "We noted little evidence of non-linearity of the dose-response, using either linear-quadratic or linear-exponential forms of departure from linearity (leukaemia exponential p=02672 and quadratic p=04683, brain tumour exponential p=09203 and quadratic p=08993)."

Mathews et al., BMJ:

- "In this paper, we derived direct estimates of the increased cancer risk in the first decade or so after CT scan exposure by comparing cancer incidence in over 680000 people exposed to CT scans at ages 0-19 years with cancer incidence in a comparison cohort of over 10 million unexposed persons of similar age."
- "Our results are also generally consistent with the linear no threshold theory (that is, there is no threshold dose below which there is a zero risk)."

Comment: Re:The real disaster (Score 1) 224

by Uecker (#49011613) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

First, the first citation is published under "Reviews and Commentary". I added it because I thought it might be easier to understand. This means you are critizing the Lancet study because somebody commenting on it in a seperate publication does not mention "margin of error" or "control groups". The purpose of this commentary is to put it into perspective, not to repeat the data. If you want to critize this study, you should go to the original (it is the second link I gave). You will find all the data there, and also the results are in agreement with the LNT model:

"We noted little evidence of non-linearity of the dose-response, using either linear-quadratic or linear-exponential forms of departure from linearity (leukaemia exponential p=02672 and quadratic p=04683, brain tumour exponential p=09203 and quadratic p=08993)."

And to make this clear, I am not going to discuss the merits of these studies with some random person on the internet. If you find problems with these studies, please write letters to the editors of Lancet and BMJ etc.

Finally, nobody is using "scare tactics" here. I am myself not arguing with you because I think the health impact from nuclear power is serious problem. In my opinion, nuclear power is very safe. I am arguing with you, because you clearly misrepresent what the current scientific consensus is,
based on some questionable information you found on the internet when googling for things which could confirm your existing opinion. This is a dangerously misleading way to build an opinion.

Comment: Re:The real disaster (Score 1) 224

by Uecker (#49006479) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

What you don't realize is that those all base their 'predicted' cancer rates on a data model that was only validated for very high acute exposures, with an assumption of proportional rates for lower doses.

Two of the studies I quoted were not predictions. The cancer from CT has been predicted a *long time* ago. These are the studies *confirming* the predictions using large scale statistical studies.

The study about Fukushima was a prediction based on the LNT model, I cited it because it is relevant in the context of this discussion and to show that the LNT is taken seriously by many different people (including researchers at Stanford - a respected scientific institution).

Those models stem from post war Japan bomb research, but all physical evidence to date shows those models NEVER stand up and rates are ALWAYS much lower than predicted.

You may read such nonsense on the internet - but the scientific consensus is actually in favor of the LNT model. Allmost all evidence we have (and this does not only include the Japan bomb research, but for example the studies I cited about CT) is in argreement with the LNT model.

So, citing a bunch of studies that based prediction on the old, inaccurate model is really of no help.

Again, the CT studies are not predictions - but large scale statistical studies which confirm the effect predicted by the LNT model.

Comment: Re:The real disaster (Score 1) 224

by Uecker (#49006365) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

"that statistical real world evidence of actual cancer cases attributable to CT scans is non-existent"
I gave you empirical studies published in highly regarded journals which provide exactly such evidence. You counter this with some blog post (which I didn't read) you found on the internet. You don't see what is wrong here?

Comment: Re:The real disaster (Score 2) 224

by Uecker (#48955681) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

Since you are obviously cherry-picking your sources again (which I have pointed out to you before), let me add some recent sources from highly respected journals about the risk of low-dose radiation. Ofcourse, according to Mr. D. all these journals just publish pseudo-science. Reminds me of the old joke with the wrong-way driver.

"... First, it is clear that we have now passed a watershed in our field, where it is no longer tenable to claim that CT risks are "too low to be detectable and may be non-existent" (5). A large well-designed epidemiologic study has clearly shown that the individual risks are small but real..."
Journal: Radiology
Link: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/...

"...We noted a positive association between radiation dose from CT scans and leukaemia (...) and brain tumours (...)."
Journal: The Lancet
Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

"Conclusions The increased incidence of cancer after CT scan exposure in this cohort was mostly due to irradiation. ..."
Journal: British Medical Journal
Link: http://www.bmj.com/content/346...

"The study supports the extrapolation of high-dose rate risk models to protracted exposures at natural background exposure levels."
Journal: Leukemia
Link: http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...

And with respect to Fukushima there were recent estimates from a Stanford guy:
"We estimate an additional 130 (15â"1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24â"1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposureâ"dose and doseâ"response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. .... Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidities. An additional [similar]600 mortalities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations."
Journal: Energy & Environmental Science
Link: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content...

Comment: Re:not the point (Score 1) 375

by Uecker (#48933285) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

Yes, and isn't great that you can do this?

But should Linux drop X many applications will stop supporting X properly. They will then not run properly on any X server anymore, neither on Mac, Windows, or Linux or elsewhere. Or in other words, your X server on Windows or Mac OS X is only useful, because there is currently a large ecosystem based around X.

If Linux switches to Wayland, this ecosystem will be gone. X currently offers compatibility across different architectures, along time (currently, you can still run decades-old X application just fine), and space (network transparency). X as a standard provides as much value as POSIX. Why do you want to break this?

On the few new Linux-based mobile platforms which currently use Wayland, X compatibilty is alread lost. Just sad.

And what do we gain if we replace X? Will it be faster? No, Wayland has basically the same design as X: Message passing using a UNIX domain socket and buffer sharing for direct rendering. Performance wise, there is not really anthing to gain. X is bloated? Do you really think a few kilobytes of old and unused rendering code needed for backwards compatibility are bloat? The design of X is unfixable? Nonsense, X was designed from the beginning on to be extensible. It would be very easy to add a special screensaver extension, if really needed.

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.

Working...