Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Data beyond the standard model (Score 2) 187

by mdsolar (#47515115) Attached to: China Plans Particle Colliders That Would Dwarf CERN's LHC
The origin of the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe is something that people try to solve using the standard model and indications that charge-parity symmetry breaking occurs in some interactions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... Much larger collides could explore this beyond leptons as well as ideas beyond the standard model such as supersymmetry and string theory and their connection with vacuum energy.

Comment: Re:Fossil fuels cut radiation exposure (Score 1) 223

by mdsolar (#47502921) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
Radon is important when it collects. Carbon-14 free carbon is important when it dilutes. You've gotten mixed up again. The dilution of carbon-14 is not about external radiation or even what we breath but about what ends up in our food in solid form. You should just admit that you are carrying water for a corrupt industry that is always trying to deceive the public and regulators. Your method of argument is part of that it would seem from the pattern of misrepresentation we are seeing here. Use of fossil fuels cuts radiation exposure. It has also prevented about 24 serious nuclear accidents, about 16 of which would have resulted in large exclusion zones like Chernobyl and Fukushima under typical accident rates and sizes. So, fossil fuels have also prevented increased exposure, though renewable energy can do the same job.

Comment: Re:Fossil fuels cut radiation exposure (Score 1) 223

by mdsolar (#47500719) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
You seem to have the radon situation backwards too. "The emanation of radon gas from fly ash is less than from natural soil of similar uranium content. " http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/f...

You are getting thing backwards and mixed up. You don't seem to be able to understand the sources you've cited. There are many reasons not to burn fossil fuels, but their use does cut radiation exposure. The nuclear industry has marred its credibility by claiming otherwise. It does the same thing when it claims there are no pipes under Vermont Yankee. You should come to understand that they can't be trusted. That they have been entrusted with the safekeeping of nuclear power plants is a very grave mistake.

Comment: Re:How stupid (Score 1) 223

by mdsolar (#47498671) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
Of course it is relevant. You are making the claim that using a bulldozer on a construction site increase background radiation in essence.

That fossil fuels have contributed to cutting the amount of bomb carbon-14 in our diets is a good thing. You are looking at the math all wrong on that. The dilution applies to whatever carbon-14 is out there. Our food comes from this year's atmospheric carbon, not some tree ring record, so don't let yourself get confused.

Comment: Re:Fossil fuels cut radiation exposure (Score 1) 223

by mdsolar (#47498655) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
Confusing mercury chemistry with the essentially glassy behavior of uranium is a problem for you I think. As the USGS points out "The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks." http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/f... So, your claim of extra radioactivity as a result of coal burning would have to be the same as a claim of extra radioactivity from using a bulldozer on a construction site. Just moving stuff around with the same uranium content does not change the background level of radiation,

, You've misread the table you cited. Notice that in the first column Fe is already greater than 10% yet it is a minor constituent in table 2.

Comment: Re:Fossil fuels cut radiation exposure (Score 1) 223

by mdsolar (#47497377) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
Think for just a moment. Does coal have a high uranium concentration? It's mostly carbon.... When it burns it just reduces to the concentration of the soil of the forest that made the coal. Since the uranium prefers to stay at the bottom, the escaping fly ash has a reduced concentration compared to even that soil, so when it lands, it may even screen people from the soil background radiation below it more than that soil self-screens.

There is quite a lot of uranium in the crust of the Earth, but we are not subject to radiation from any of it except from that mixed with a very thin layer at the surface. Fly ash is just like that layer or even less concentrated. So, nothing is really changed in terms of radiation from that.

Comment: Re:How stupid (Score 1) 223

by mdsolar (#47496841) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
You forgot also to account for the screening effect of piling the coal ash as well. That makes the change in radiation zero. You may also be confusing permil with percent. We know about 30% of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels so that is about the dilution amount presently. We really only care about the atmosphere since that is where the carbon in our food comes from.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys

Working...