Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Nuclear Power (Score 1) 104

by ssam (#47419951) Attached to: How Japan Lost Track of 640kg of Plutonium

Do you have a reference for that? All I see is him pointing out that the linear no threshold model its unproven and inappropriate for low radiation doses.

High doses of radiation (and pretty much anything else) will obviously kill you. I bet the are 10s or hundreds of substances of which there is enough in your house to kill you consumed it all at once.

(Also worth noting that the plutonium in the article was not actually lost)

Comment: Re:Nuclear Power (Score 1) 104

by ssam (#47419831) Attached to: How Japan Lost Track of 640kg of Plutonium

He was pointing out that we attach irrational levels of fear to some substances, while are completely unconcerned about consuming significant (if not deadly) amounts of other toxins. I don't know what the 'most deadly substance on earth' is, but there are plenty of things that will kill you at the mg level.

If you define 'renewable' to mean it will never run out then there is no such thing as renewable energy.

Comment: Re:Thanks for pointing out the "briefly" part. (Score 1) 461

by ssam (#47319333) Attached to: Half of Germany's Power Supplied By Solar, Briefly

Fear of nuclear power is part of the reason we still burn so much coal, oil and gas. This is why thousands die every year in mining, drilling, fuel transportation, domestic gas explosions, and millions die every year from air pollution.

Even using big numbers for deaths at chernobyl (by estimating unmeasurable small risks and multiplying them by large populations (linear no threshold model)), nuclear is historically far safer than fossil fuels, and even safer than renewable. Reactors from the 70s are an order of magnitude safer than chernobyl (water cooled, graphite moderated is a terrible design) and modern designs are safer still (passive safety beats complex systems).

Comment: Re:How low can you go?(power density) (Score 1) 152

Some people believe that rates of radioactive decay have changed with time, to allow the isotopic abundances that we see to be consistent with a 6000 year old universe and in order to be able to discount any archaeological or palaeontological result they don't like. Showing that nuclear physics was the same 2 billion years ago is unlikely to change their minds.

+ - Hackaday offers trip into space for best DIY hardware

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "SupplyFrame is launching The Hackaday Prize, a challenge to create open connected devices judged by Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, and Limor "Ladyada" Fried, among others. The grand prize is an all-expense-paid trip to space on a carrier of your choice or $196,418 if going into space isn't your thing. 'We launched The Hackaday Prize because we want to see the next evolution of hardware happen right now, and we want it to be open,' said Mike Szczys, managing editor of"

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer