Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

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:Not a "clever" euphemism at all - just wrong (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49341527) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
No, a "troll" is someone who persists in a contrary position, no matter if they are proven wrong. If they cannot defend their position, they simply move to a new position while claiming they were "not answered" or that "wasn't the question they asked." Trolls will also claim that a response was given that was never made. You have engaged in all this behavior.

My first posting said quite clearly that the explosions at Fukushima were not inside the reactor but inside the building that housed it. I cannot make it simpler than that. Your willful ignorance as to the difference between those two is stunning.

When you raged that there was no difference, I tried a simple analogy, which you then criticized as not the same thing. This is the "not answered" claim.

I then proceeded to give another example, more simple than the analogy, namely "The explosion spread zero material." You then claimed this was impossible, and that I was now claiming the explosion was in the reactor. There was no possible way to read the answer that way, but that's the way you read it. This fulfills the "response given that was not made" troll logic.

Finally, I laid out, with scientific documents backing me, the difference between a pressure explosion from burning hydrogen and a true detonation explosive, and showed why the reactor vessel would have suffered no damage from the low overpressure at Fukushima.

In response, you claimed I was saying Fukushima was a "perfectly run site" and I was "endorsing nuclear power." This perfectly fulfills the "Not what I asked" and the "response not given" troll meme.

You have called me such wonderful names as "Coder Boy", "idiot", and "fucking stupid." You might note that, other than the now proven "troll" moniker, I did not use any such epithets towards you, even when you created a false dichotomy of "Saying it was perfect is either being an idiot or pretending to be one in the hope of tricking others..."

At this point, since you were the one who added the word "perfect" to the conversation, I'd almost agree with that statement, since I made no such claim. I merely said that the main cause of the Fukushima Daishi disaster was a lack of accessible backup generators.

It's interesting to note that the Fukushima Daini plant, a mere 11 miles away which had waterproofed generators survived the earthquake and tsunami without major incident because it was able to maintain cooling through the disaster, even though it was hit by the same earthquake and same 14.5m tidal wave. It uses the same BWR4 reactor cores as the Fukushima Daishi plant. Both plants SCRAMmed their reactors moments after the start of the earthquake, but F. Daishi lost all of its diesel generation capacity in the tidal wave. F. Daini did not. That was the critical difference.

So, as I said in the other message. I only pursued this chain to see just how far down this rabbit hole you'd go. I see now that there's no bottom. I'm sure you will reply to this so you can have the "Last Word" in the conversation. Enjoy it, because at this point you are Macbeth's, "poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage". Tell us your final tale.

Comment: Re:Not a "clever" euphemism at all - just wrong (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49341401) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
Five times I explained to you that the hydrogen did no explosion damage to the reactor. I have restated over an over as to why this is the case. I have corrected your misinformation repeatedly about the nature of what happened.

In return you have claimed that I said things that I did not say. You have mis-read or simply ignored information I've presented, including links to supporting data. You have created arguments out of whole cloth and resorted, even in your first message to ad-hominem attacks.

I've kept this up only because I wanted to see how far you would go trying to defend your invalid position. I am, frankly, amazed at the depths you have plumbed.

I've looked at your history and found claims that you are everything from a material engineer to a rocket scientist at SpaceX. Every one of your messages follows the same form of ad-hominem and shaky science. You attack science in dozens of threads and are almost always wrong, or simply throwing "verbal hand-grenades" into conversations.

Everyone who has bothered to follow this thread this far is quite clear about what happened. You are stubbornly denying it. And then calling me childish. If I've acted in any way childish, it was only because I was trying to talk down to your level of understanding. Yet even that has failed. That leaves only willful ignorance as your modus operandi. In that case, further discussion is pointless.

Comment: Re:Not a "clever" euphemism at all - just wrong (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49327719) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
Searching grandparent message chain for denial of subsequent meltdown and leakage of radiation through coolant leaks... Not Found.

Searching grandparent message for word "perfect".... Not Found.

Searching grandparent message chain for endorsement of nuclear power.... Not Found.

Searching grandparent message for endorsement of Fukushima Daishi as a model-run site.... Not Found.

Searching grandparent message for argument against the "explosion" at Fukushima Daishi 1, 3, and 4 being a core-related explosion releasing radioactive material to the environment... Cohesive argument found - the reactor was not involved in the explosive gas release at Fukushima Daishi site.

Searching parent message for straw-man arguments, off-topic commentary, misinformation, changing claims, claim that issues were not addressed, false dichotomies, and misquotes... FOUND FOUND FOUND FOUND FOUND FOUND FOUND.

Troll factor of dbIII... 99.97%

Comment: Re:Not a "clever" euphemism at all - just wrong (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49324277) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
Thanks to this page I can tell you your friend was in at most a 2.4 PSI overpressure situation, which is more than adequate to break bricks (2-3 PSI), without causing eardrum rupture ( > 2.4PSI). So there's your "Hydrogen Explosion" overpressure.

RDX, which is a real explosive, detonates at 25 times the speed of sound, or about 8500 m/s. It devolves about 900 liters of gas per kilogram during detonation, creating overpressures close to the detonation center that can exceed 3000PSI, which will reduce concrete to dust and melt metal to slag through compression heating.

This versus the H2 + 2O2 --> 2H2O reaction where three liters of gas at STP become 2 liters of gas, which expand to about 200 liters because of heating to 2800C (100:1 expansion). The flame speed of hydrogen/oxygen is about 50 m/s maximum. The expansion of the gas pressures the container until something breaks (a few bricks in the wall, some windows, or in the case of Fukushima Daishi, the failure of some corrugated metal siding and roofing materials.) Then the pressure escapes into the environment, and no further damage is done.

This is the difference between something burning, like a HydrOx reaction, and something exploding. This is what you can't seem to grasp here. There was an "explosion" in the colloquial sense that a surrounding building was rapidly disassembled. But in the pure physics sense, there was a contained burn that ruptured its container. The H/O reaction may seem fast in our everyday experience, but in the realm of explosives and explosions, it's moving at a snail's pace.

The BWR3/4 reactors were designed for operation in excess of 1000PSI operating pressures - in fact, the primary coolant loop in the U.S. PWRs typically runs at 2250PSI. Meaning that your "EXPLOSIONS" (caps doesn't make it true) wouldn't have had the slightest effect on the reactor or the coolant loops.

Additionally, the corrugated steel outer walls would have failed at a 2 PSI overpressure, which they did. Again, because this is a burn (deflagration) and not an explosion (detonation) there would be no point in the process where the reactor would have been exposed to a higher pressure than 2-3PSI in the containment building.

Much like putting a garbage bag filled with hydrogen/oxygen on a bank vault inside a glass building, you blew out all the windows, but you're no closer to the money.

So, again, there might be someone out of their depth in their conversation, but it's not me.

Comment: Re:Not a "clever" euphemism at all - just wrong (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49322121) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
To mis-read what I wrote to that point shows your ignorance. Your "friend" was inside the hydrogen explosion and escaped unharmed. The reactor was inside the hydrogen explosion and escaped unharmed. Everyone else who reads this understands it. Your willful mis-reading to try to make your story stand up crosses into the pathetic.

The only "fuckup" at Fukushima, other than the lack of backup emergency generators for cooling, was having a 9.0 earthquake strike a reactor designed to survive an 8.0 earthquake. The fact it survived as well as it did shows not a failure of engineering, but a survival of 10 times the destructive energy it was designed to withstand.

A "materials engineer" should realize that.

I say again, "Troll".

Comment: Re:Not a "clever" euphemism at all - just wrong (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49310779) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
Yes, a "coder boy" with a Federal High Explosives license and experience with everything from gas explosions up to C4 and RDX.. You might think you know high energy and "explosives" but you don't know the first thing about them. Even your example proves my point. Your "friend" lost eyebrows because he was "inside the box" -- same as the reactor vessel at Fukushima -- while the box was damaged by the expanding gas of the burning hydrogen/oxygen -- exactly the same as the building 3 super-structure at Fukushima.

Thanks for proving *EXACTLY* what I said.

Everyone here is laughing at your stupidity at this point. Go home troll.

Comment: Re:The genius of holes (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49301379) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
Okay, let's make this stupid-simple.

Imagine a steel ball, sitting inside a cardboard box.

The ball is filled with nasty stuff, but the ball contains it -- because steel. (Actually, layers of steel, concrete, and steel and concrete in reality, but I digress)

The nasty stuff in the ball is making hydrogen, rather than break the ball, the hydrogen is released into the box. The box fills with an air/hydrogen mix.

A spark is introduced. The hydrogen burns with the air, and the term "deflagration" is not just a clever euphemism for explosion, there is a very real difference between the two. In deflagration, a flame front travels through the material, usually causing expansion through heating and burning byproducts, but the flame-front travels slowly through the medium, far slower than the pressure wave. In an explosion also known as detonation the decomposition of the explosive occurs at the pressure wave, amplifying it and creating a shock wave or brisance. A detonation, therefore, is far more destructive than a deflagration. For example, you can deflagrate as much flammable material as you want on one side of armor plate, and the armor plate will not burn though (okay, if you did it for hours, or with a very focused deflagration, i.e. a cutting torch, you could get through it, but again, that's off topic.) On the other hand, even a small amount of an explosive can cut through, deform, or even shatter armor plate. I used the word deflagration very, very intentionally.

Now, back to the example.

The cardboard box is torn apart by the increasing pressure. If it were a balloon, it would puff up, but cardboard, like the thin corrugated steel walls (think every cheap warehouse you've ever seen in the movies) does not stretch. Thus it tears apart. This is an "explosion" of the building.

The steel ball sits happily at the bottom of the now shredded box. No "nasty stuff" has been released.

That, in the simple-stupid version, is what happened at Fukushima. The "steel ball" is the reactor vessel, unbroken, and not leaking. The cardboard box was the surrounding building. The fact that everyone else gets this and not you, means you have no idea how a reactor is designed, how it works, or what actually happened. To answer your, "what matters" question -- The explosion scattered *ZERO* material, The area around it was not contaminated by *ANY* radiation from the explosion.

All of the leakage of radiation came from leakage from the cooling tanks in the primary loop coolant water. No one has ever said, or ever believed that the reactor vessels suffered any major breaches. (Yes, there were some minor cracks and seal breaks that leaked contaminated coolant, but no one has shown or believes that any of the primary fuel melt escaped the containment vessel.)

Comment: Re:The genius of holes (Score 1) 234

by jnaujok (#49294835) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1
Because all of the explosions that occurred at Fukushima were hydrogen/oxygen explosions caused by bleeding the built up hydrogen from the pressure vessel. The hydrogen was being thermally separated from the oxygen because of the high temperatures in the core. Rather than let pressure build up in the pressure vessel (and exposing the core) emergency relief valves bled it into the environment -- the environment in this case being the mostly sealed building around the reactor. Hydrogen built up near the roof until an electrical spark -- or just something hot enough -- caused it to ignite.

The result was the "explosion" (rapid deflagration) of the hydrogen/air mix which rapidly disassembled the thin steel building around the reactor vessel. The reactor itself was never open to the air, and no one has ever claimed it was.

Educate yourself on what happened before making wild claims.

This site used to have a complete, day-by-day discussion of everything going on at Fukushima.

Comment: Re:BALEFIRE! (Score 1) 148

by jnaujok (#49076011) Attached to: Wheel of Time TV Pilot Producers Sue Robert Jordan's Widow For Defamation
Jordan was asked that question at a reading and confirmed it was just Lews Therin drawing too much of the One Power to hold. So much power, in fact that he vaporized himself and a large portion of the ground (down to the mantle?) resulting in DragonMount.

He specifically stated it was not balefire.

Comment: So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading (Score 0, Insightful) 247

by jnaujok (#47202363) Attached to: Mayday Anti-PAC On Its Second Round of Funding
This "Anti-PAC" is just a PAC supporting the two largest Democrat campaign finance bills which are more properly termed the "Silence Dissent Acts" or "Incumbent Protection Act" then any kind of real campaign finance reform.

So, all they are is another Democrat PAC masquerading under a fake name. Oh, they claim to support three other bills with bi-partisan support, which are bills sponsored by four back-benchers (Tom Petrie anyone? 30+ years in Congress and I don't think he's successfully sponsored one bill.) that will never make it out of sub-committee.

So, two hyper-left (Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein type) proposals, and three non-events.

Anti-PAC, it's another way of saying "Democrat".

Makes you wonder why they feel they have to lie about their intentions.

Comment: Maybe... stop growing food in a desert? (Score 5, Insightful) 545

by jnaujok (#46444911) Attached to: Meat Makes Our Planet Thirsty
In case no one has noticed, California is a desert (or nearly one) for most of its area. Before the farm subsidy act of the 1950's, no one grew food crops in California, and no one raised cattle. Then, after subsidies were based on your distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where they get 30-40" of rain a year, suddenly California became *the* address for raising food. When you can raise dairy cattle at a loss, milk them at a loss, and produce a gallon of milk for $6, and still sell it for $2 wholesale -- and the government ensures you're making a profit by handing you a $5 a gallon subsidy, of course you're going to raise cattle and farm in California.

California has to drain the Colorado river, and the showsheds of something like 1,000,000 hectares of mountains to even get close to their water needs on a good year. In the meantime, farms in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and the rest of the heartland are all collapsing into bankruptcy, unable to compete with the ever-increasing subsidies bought by the legislatures of California with its 50+ congressmen and electoral votes.

Comment: Re:Oh noes.... (Score 1) 358

by jnaujok (#45086627) Attached to: 90% of Nuclear Regulators Sent Home Due To Shutdown
Assuming, of course, the Captain Planet model of industry, where the moment the Federal Regulator steps away, the CEO pulls the lever to dump the toxic waste into the nearby river.

Or, maybe the guys running the plant (and likely living nearby) don't want to die in a nuclear waste spill either.

I'd think that one regulator on-site, one shift a day, would be more than enough to catch any worrisome behaviors. Maybe with a surprise inspection once a week on an off-shift time if you really think "Mr. Slimeholio" runs the plant.

A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done. -- Fred Allen