Slashdot Mirror

Cosmic rays are much more than photons. The gamma rays and x-rays are photons, but the elements in the periodic table are well represented in cosmic rays, and they are the ones you need to worry about. The photons are relatively easy to shield, but the charged particles aren't.

The photon component is studied at some level in the cosmic ray field, but in the cosmic ray field in general, "cosmic rays" refers to the non-photon stuff (such as electron, protons, all the elements).

It is not the physical body of the earth that shields us per se, but the geomagnetic field of the earth as well as the relatively thick atmosphere. Unfortunately Mars has a very tenuous atmosphere and no magnetic field to speak of.

Lead is 11 times denser than water (which we'll assume is what a person is made up of). A particle is 11-times more likely to interact in lead than in a person (for a given thickness). There are, of course, the same kind of caveats on this as well, and the terminally curious can look it up in your friendly neighborhood particle data book.

YuccaFuckingMountain Project and the two big spook companies behind it; working hand-in-hand, synergistically to create the most highly secured place on earth where they and their friends can hide nuclear waste or anything else they want to hide.

What about these:

• Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository
• Yucca Valley earthquake surprised experts
• Desert Earthquake Hits Near Yucca Mountain, Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
• 4.4 earthquake hits near Yucca
• Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain
• Yucca Mountain Earthquake Today!

There's a number of other stories and articles about how earthquakes affect Yucca Mountain.

: P

That is correct. #113, 115 are undiscovered. #114, 116, 118 are un-named, unless it turns out that the data supporting their discovery was indeed incorrect, in which case they are also undiscovered.

CNN has an article which talks about the same phenomenon.

This link has not only a discussion of microclimates but pictures and graphs to to illustrate the effect.

If you really want to numb your mind you could read this research paper which goes into a whole bunch of details relating to microclimates.

The above should get you started. I didn't provide the proverbial link to a Wiki article since there are enough of other sources to provide the same information.

I agree, this did smell funny. So I went out and did some research.

It seems that the "scientist" in this story, Tad Patzek (a geologist), has been working for the oil industry quite a bit over the last few years. Odd that he should suddenly be switching his interest to agriculture and begin attacking Ethanol.

Or perhaps it all makes sense if you look at it from the correct prospective.

The tour is of the place where the separation of the uranium isotopes took place exactly 60 years ago. The Calutron technology has long since been replaced by other more efficient methods, so it's no longer a military secret. It may seem odd to you to expose one of your nation's major industro-military complexes to the public view, but I do not see it as strange for a nation to display any history changing facility on it's significant anniversary. The bomb itself was built at Los Alamos and finally assembled on the Pacific island called Tinian, btw.

I never knew that the simpsons also asked NASA for the the 40,000th digit of Pi. But I've known for a while that they asked David Bailey for it as well

Looks like David Bailey worked for NASA in 1993.

However, if you look at the interested of some of the founders (Jay Keasling http://www.lbl.gov/pbd/about/people/keasling.htm/, and Drew Endy http://web.mit.edu/endy/www/index.html/) my best guess is the the company is working on technologies to make large scale genetic alterations easier. Both of those guys have interests that require the manipulation of lots of genes at once, which is still rather difficult.

Hate to say it, but this sounds like a pipedream. They want to 'take the proteins and tweak them' an dthen have a computer program spit out the DNA required to make that protein.

Well whoop-de-do. I'd like to make a computer that can generate wormholes. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Can't promise much in the way of wormholes, but Homme Hellinga and David Baker's groups already make software for protein design.

Synthetic biology's been around for a while (see also e.g. Adam Arkin). This is just Drew's startup getting column inches in Forbes, and then getting eagerly lapped up by Zonk, as far as I can see.

> What these guys have done is found a novel
>application of a relatively well-known means of
>generating extremely high electric fields.

This article describes modern compact neutron
generators:

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html

and this article describes several patent pending
compact neutron generators:

http://www.lbl.gov/Tech-Transfer/techs/lbnl1764.ht ml

You can see similarities in the way they all work,
basically accelerating ions to slam them into
a target; they all use the accelerator
method to produce neutrons. So radtea is correct,
all that seems really new here is using a
temperature change driven crystal to generate
the potential difference to produce/accelerate
the ions which in other designs is supplied by a
power supply or RF generator.
I think that the reason none of these devices
(all of which use fusion reactions to produce
neutrons) are useful for producing power is
that none of the energy is directable
back to where the reactions are occuring. The
Farnsworth Fusor differs in that respect, but it
has the problem that introducing new fuel is
possible only by stopping the reaction.

Don't forget the good old pulse neutron tubes.

Pulse neutron tubes are fusion-based neutron sources, most commonly used in circa 1970 atom bomb trigger mechanisms. They are also used for peaceful purposes, pretty much whenever one needs a 14 MeV neutron source. The vacuum tube uses very high voltage to accelerate deterium ions towards a target. Or something... In other words, achieving fusion at room temperature in a small apparatus is no big deal. The problem is that you always have to input way more energy into the device than you can get out. I don't see how any of these new advances in achieving fusion bring us closer to use of fusion as power source. Not to say that this new fusion neutron source is a wonderful scientific achievment, it is, it's just doesn't seem likely to be a potential power source technology.

In short, a "|" really means "power on", as in physically connected to the mains, while "0" means "power off", as in physically disconnected.

When combined with an unbroken circle, as found on older monitors, it's a power toggle switch. The button is supposed to be sunken in while in the on position, and popped out while off. But it is still a physical power switch.

The broken-circle with line, as found on newer stuff, is "stand-by". Functionally, on my monitor and where I can find it the key part about its behaviour is that it only signals the device to turn off or on; it does not physically disconnect the power.

Still no sign of that green exploding circle icon though, but with a bit more training we might all eventually be able to shut down a Longhorn machine with confidence...

the use of computers to generate proofs is causing mathematicians to 're-examine the foundations of their discipline.'

They should be concerned about the use of computers to generate new formulas and conjectures, which is where the creativity is.

critics of computer-aided proofs say that the proofs are hard to verify due to the large number of steps and hence, may be inherently flawed.

Bullshit. Computer-aided proofs are also computer-verified. And only computers generate useful computer-verified proofs, because most humans are too proud to submit themselves to such unforgiving examination. (And because it takes an awful lot of boring work, too).

What you loose is the elegance of a short proof. But a nice-looking proof can be incorrect too (e.g. a geometric figure which doesn't cover all cases.)

The article sounds a bit like Microsoft PR saying they are investing in state-of-the art techniques to produce bug-free software. Which is good. But be sure to read the full credits.

Well they don't actually take the sunlight energy and convert it into gowth, they convert it into chemical energy at nearly a 100%. http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-fo llow-the-energy.html is one of the recent articles on it and if you were to search around some more I am sure you could find tons of info on it. I know I have read it in Nature and Science as well.

I'm not a biologist either, but I do not think that the nucleis will react to the insertion of these probes in a way that they affect the observations. The nucleus is of 10-20 micrometres in size, whereas the inserted probes are made of a few hundred to thousand atoms.
The second thing is that I am quite sure that the guys at Berkeley Lab did think about interference with the intra-nucleus reactions. And if they can keep the things in there for hours and days, it's most likely not to interfere. It also says that the things are non-toxic (at the Berkeley Lab press relase) which IMO means that they did not cause any unusual reaction.
I also assume, that the illumination of the nucleus doesn't make any difference, as long as you do not use UV light. The cells of our skin are illuminated all day long, and they don't seem to bother as long as you protect then from excessive UV exposition.

After reading it over and over again, I still get from the article that Einstein's Cosmological Constant was added to the theory to explain the expansion. But didn't His theory already explain expansion? And if so, why would He "repudiate" something that was experimentally verified a few years later by Edwin Hubble? Then if His theory already predicted expansion, then the only purpose of introducing the Cosmological Constant that explains expansion would be to enhance the prediction in expansion rate, would it not?

Yes, Enstein saw that his model expanded, and added the constant to compensate for the expansion. This was because at that time, the current view was that the universe was static.

However, from what I've gathered, what we've been discovering in recent time is that the expansion is accelerating, and that this acceleration could be explained by re-introducing Einstein's constant. Here's a quote I found: "Unlike Einstein's famous fudge factor, the cosmological constant in its present incarnation doesn't delicately (and artificially) balance gravity in order to maintain a static universe; instead, it has "negative pressure" that causes expansion to accelerate."

Of course I could be very wrong on the last part, I just enjoy reading about these things. Exciting times! :)

If this were an engineered system, you would have a single point of failure with these type Ia supernovae observations.

You're quite right, and because it was a single technique, it is vulnerable to this problem. I found an article written by the head of one of the supernova search teams, and it does a much better job than my /. post:

http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.p df

Other methods that independently point towards the existence of a dark energy term include results from the WMAP explorer (looking at the microwave background from the Big Bang):

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/co smic_darknrg_020115-1.html

I was wrong in my last comment to you - dark energy can describe the observations we see, and it ties in neatly with other independent checks, but I'm not sure I can call it an 'observed phenomenon' in the sense of something I can point to and say 'there it is!'

As for the Pioneer craft, that anomaly is way too large to be caused by 'dark energy' acceleration. The dark energy term is directly proportional to separation of objects (and not inverse square like gravity) and it is only marginally apparent in measurements that look back over half the universe's current age! I suspect that in the Voyager case there will be something pretty mundane that explains it.

Dr Fish

Because the research suggests it.

Light is an "EM wave". A phonton is a messager particle for electromagnetic force. Visible light is very high frequency compared to radio transmissions like cellphones. But it's just a different energy level. You can look at this chart for more info.

...patent protection can apply to the method or process. Remember that copyright protection does not protect the method, but the expression of the method. Patent law, on the other hand, can protect the method as well.

Explaination

Actually- it many areas of the country- it is illegal to use duct tape on ducts. You have to use foil tape. See the explaination on this one.

Ok Mr. Smarty pants-- I don't have more than 2 cans of WD40- but where the hell else am I going to store all of these old computer parts either?

Yeah, http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/

Enjoy.

No.... the prefer to measure in Smoots.

"Now if it were a gamma emitter, well that's a very different story"

Right. That's what I'm saying. It IS a gamma emitter too.

You seem to know alot about the materials end of photovoltaics so let me ask you this. WTF ever happened to the multijunction GaN on sapphire systems that were supposed to achieve full solar spectrum conversion? This stuff came out like 3 years ago complete with huge fanfare and gushing mediagasm and then....nothing. Haven't heard a peep about it since. Sooo tired of this pattern of science by press release then nothing to show for it...

Well I found a secret government baby making factory.

http://kamland4pi-cam1.lbl.gov/axis-cgi/mjpg/video .cgi?camera=&resolution=640x480

Oops, forgot the link about the Berkeley work.

• Ever have trouble starting your car on a really cold day? Now imagine if you had to use those batteries to drive around.
• Ever want to go on a trip?
• Excited about the idea of replacing thousands of dollars in batteries every N years?
• Want a car that handles well? That means it needs to be light. Batteries just do not have the energy density of gasoline.
• I've never seen a electric car with very good crash protection. There's no way my dad is going to give up his Volvo for something that doesn't even have real side doors, let alone an acutally safe passenger compartment.

Also

http://www-nsd.lbl.gov/LBL-Programs/nsd/user88/cyc greenbook.html

I think most folks in the /. world consider IT to be the 'tech' industry. Not surprising due to the backgrounds of the people who read/post here. As for 'tech' jobs, there are quite a few in my region of the technology world:

LLNL has 20 open S&E positions.

INEEL in the middle of transitioning contractors, but will undoubtedly need S&Es to complete missions for DOE and the Navy.

LBL has 95 open S&E positions.

BNL has 7 open S&E positions.

SNL has 20 open S&E positions.

LANL has 107 open S&E positions.

ORNL has 28 open S&E positions.

PNNL has 36 open S&E positions.

ANL has 32 open S&E positions.

There complete list of laboratories is here. All of them have job postings in the S&E categories. These just happen to be the largest insitutions.

I haven't even started searching Monster.com

As you know (but others may not), high temperatures contribute to smog formation. Smog goes up by about 3% for each degree over 70 fahrenheit.

The Annual Energy Review offers a fascinating graph of our energy sources and destinations. We use about 1e+15 BTU, or 300 terawatt hours. We get roughly 8% of our energy from splitting atoms. We get about 75% from dinosaurs, of which roughly 30% is imported oil.

We would need to add a capacity of 276 terawatt hours, but because we've only seen 90% capacity from the existing plants, we need about 300 terawatt hours. Building "advanced nuclear" plants cost about $2117 per kwhr [1], so we would expect to pay about $600 trillion for the plants. (If we started building in 2002 and finished in 2007.) Economies of scale would likely cut that number by a significant factor - let's guess 10 - and we're still looking at $60 trillion, or about 30 years' worth of the federal budget at present spending rates.

Further calculations - the costs of converting virtually all our energy to electricity, losses related to storage, and so forth are left as an exercise to the reader.

Lawrence-Berkeley Labs also runs NEMS and has produced some reports that may be of interest.

"There is a thermonuclear fusion reactor operating 24/7 about 93 million miles from here. Why don't we just use that? If the solar energy that falls on the Shara Desert or many other deserts of the world could be harvested, stored and transported, the world's energy needs would be met for as long as anyone alive today could even imagine."

...It so reminds me of the "water is scarce" argument. No, turning off my shower after 3 mins doesn't do dick about water elsewhere, because the combined cost of transport/storage/safety/distribution would be too much. Same goes for solar energy, but in the reverse direction: building solar cells in the whole desert (and mantain them: the weather can be forbidding at times over there) would probably not be a practical proposition.

....Unless, of course, we're talking about ambient temperature superconductors. Better yet, water-cooled...water going in, energy going out...can I patent that? ;-)

That's not that big of a deal, we all know that Clifford Stoll started his famous chase after a mere 75 cent discrepency in the accounting system of Lawrence Berkley Laboratories.

-Mikey P

The key is fertilizer. The plants chosen must come with a means for recycling the unused plant fiber and the astronaut's own waste in such a way that the process yields compounds suitable for additional growth cycles.

See: "To Get To Mars, Use Wheat".

Furthermore, this issue isn't limited only to the mission to the planet, but also food production after landing on the surface. Even with a faster means of getting to Mars (for example, mag-beam propulation as discussed recently on slashdot), you still need a way to produce food after you get there.

here's another perspective on the whole size and safety thing. The folks at LBL summarized their study with a nice graph that shows the relationship between safety and size is pretty complicated. For example, a Toyota Camry is safer for its occupants than a large SUV like a Chevy Suburban. While a Corolla scores better than a Dodge Ram. (And that's ignoring the fact that the Dodge Ram is five times more likely to kill somebody else.)

The main message of the study is that, in the real world, design trumps mere weight advantage (an Escort is twice as dangerous as a similarly light Civic) - something to warm the heart of every real geek ...

here's another perspective on the whole size and safety thing. The folks at LBL summarized their study with a nice graph that shows the relationship between safety and size is pretty complicated. For example, a Toyota Camry is safer for its occupants than a large SUV like a Chevy Suburban. While a Corolla scores better than a Dodge Ram. (And that's ignoring the fact that the Dodge Ram is five times more likely to kill somebody else.)

The main message of the study is that, in the real world, design trumps mere weight advantage (an Escort is twice as dangerous as a similarly light Civic) - something to warm the heart of every real geek ...

I stand somewhat corrected. Though here is a source that suggests wikipedia is downplaying its danger somewhat. Excerpts are below.

I guess I'll chalk my wrongness up to media and public antipathy to nuclear power. But that antipathy rose for a couple pretty good reasons. Fission reactors have in fact proven very dangerous numerous times so no one trusts them any more, or the people that build them and advocate them. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl killed fission reactor credibility. Three Mile Island was noteworthy because they came close to a Chernobyl scale accident and the people involved were lieing about the danger and what was happening throughout. Chernobyl's left a dead zone that shows what Three Mile Island could have done if it had gone only slightly further.

The problem is maybe the new designs are safer but at this point no one believes it or is going to trust them. The nuclear industry assured us the old ones were safe and they weren't so they've burned their credibility. The fact is most existing reactors are complex systems, they are extremely fallible and they've proven themselves to be extremely dangerous. How are you going to convince people they are safe at this point. China can do it because they don't have to convince anyone, they can just build them and deal with anyone that complains.

From the LBL source above:

Ingestion of plutonium

For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation of plutonium dust

For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is estimated to be about 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms. [1] Thus botulism toxin is over a thousand times more toxic. The statement that plutonium is the most dangerous material known to man is false. But it is very dangerous, at least in dust form.

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles. In contrast, the lethal dose for anthrax is estimated to be 10,000 particles of a similar size. Thus plutonium dust, if spread in the air, is more dangerous than anthrax Ð although the effects are not as immediate.

This source also has an interest section on breeder reactors:

Breeder reactors

The Pu-239 is usually not considered nuclear waste, because it can be used itself to run a nuclear reactor. It is nuclear fuel. Moreover, if you put it in a nuclear reactor, you get three neutrons per fission instead of two. In a reactor, operating at constant (not exponentially growing) power, you want only one neutron per fission to produce another fission. What do you do with the extra two neutrons? Answer: put U-238 in the reactor, and make more plutonium.

Thus a reactor can make (out of U-238) more Pu-239 fuel than it consumes! Such a reactor is called a breeder reactor. It has the potential of turning all uranium, not just 0.7% of it, into nuclear fuel, and thereby increase the available fission fuel by a factor of 140.

There has been public opposition to breeder reactors. The two most common objections are:

1. The plutonium economy. Breeder reactors would allow much greater use of nuclear power, but it means that plutonium would be widespread. Besides the fact that plutonium is ra

Strangely, Duct tape is not all that good for ducts.

http://ducts.lbl.gov/ducttape/

Toxic Lucille Pane Sunflow R.I.S.E. RenderPark Radiance and of course. POV-Ray

The above link is dated, try this

http://dsd.lbl.gov/~hoschek/colt/

RAY-TRACERS:
YASRT Yet Another Simple Ray Tracer
Raja Ray-tracer in Java
Radiance raytracer free for non-commecial use

MODELERS:
YAPRM Yet Another Pov-Ray Modeler

OTHERS:
LeoCAD Not a ray-tracer but can plug-in to many ray tracers. It allows you to take virtual LEGO bricks and make things out of them. Neat!
LDraw Another LEGO modeler

See Physics Today -- the site is down right now and I cannot get the articles's URL. Just one example which I remember from the article. To supply 10% of the current US energy consumption from solar cells, one would need enough collectors with an area equal to the state of Massachusetts.

if you mean http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

- new solar cells will have efficiency 40 - 60 percents not 10 -20 as mentioned in the article ( these are already working technologies tested this year or that are in development for use (but are developed theoretically)) ( seen references on the cite devoted for power from space conference (SPS 2004)on working test of 40 percent efficient solar cells) and also see link http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html

- the article has also contradict statements on nuclear energy

----- the estimated US uranium resources2 would be exhausted in about 3558 years--less than a human lifespan. -----

while later

Advanced fission technologies that involve breeder methodologies and the use of thorium, as envisioned by Edward Teller,15 could extend that timeline to many hundreds of years. Controlled nuclear fusion remains a unique energy alternative of vast magnitude. Moreover, nuclear technologies are not dependent on location and land area. At the moment, public concern over potential risks has virtually stopped the pursuit of this energy source.

And taking into account that advanced technologies would use much wider available uranium isotopes and will not require enrichment then the first statement is just wrong.

And again though it is OK to agree with - advanced nuclear energy could provide earth population with energy for hundred of years

it is incorrect that advanced nuclear stations are as dangerous as current one nuclear stations . They are not. They could times safer that current nuclear stations and new nuclear station projects with passive safety include that safety improvements which make Chernobyl like catastrophes just impossible - there are no fluid elements at stations to vaporize.

So basically - even reading such honorable magazine one should have an eye open ;)

What we know is that higher income and education reduces number of children.

The question is actually how much people with income approx equal to US or that one in Europe the earth could sustain?

from my memory the estimation was about 10-15 billions people. And estimation of the population we have in hands say that earth population will not exceed 15 billions at least for coming 100 years.

as for sustaining energy for every one of 15 billions. There are alternatives see for example solar power from moon idea.

(Slashdot had an article on solar power energy report to congress last year, later I found the link to report of the author of idea see http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/d efault/tech_papers/17th_congress/4_1_33.asp )

Coupled with possible space elevator http://www.spaceelevator.com/ and new advances in solar panels with higher efficiency such as for example approach here http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html the paper http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets /images/2004/Mar-24/Multiband%20Semiconductor.pdf it will cost to develop even less than estimated in original suggestion and thus cost of power will be even less.

also even though we are far from fusion power - but nuclear power on fast neutrons ( as we call it here in Russia not sure what is the proper call for the approach in English) ( so not that well known nuclear power stations on slow neutrons but that power stations based on new approaches with greater efficiency) could provide energy for the earth ( with the already known resources of uranium) for 2500 years! ) to reduce nuclear pollution it is possible to use such things as http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/reacto rs/ifr.html with recycling of nuclear waster.

That is - I think that rather than try to control growth of population it is better to devise and pursue clean ways to get power and provide better living standards for everybody - then there will be less pollution and the growth of population will stop.

What we know is that higher income and education reduces number of children.

The question is actually how much people with income approx equal to US or that one in Europe the earth could sustain?

from my memory the estimation was about 10-15 billions people. And estimation of the population we have in hands say that earth population will not exceed 15 billions at least for coming 100 years.

as for sustaining energy for every one of 15 billions. There are alternatives see for example solar power from moon idea.

(Slashdot had an article on solar power energy report to congress last year, later I found the link to report of the author of idea see http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/d efault/tech_papers/17th_congress/4_1_33.asp )

Coupled with possible space elevator http://www.spaceelevator.com/ and new advances in solar panels with higher efficiency such as for example approach here http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html the paper http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets /images/2004/Mar-24/Multiband%20Semiconductor.pdf it will cost to develop even less than estimated in original suggestion and thus cost of power will be even less.

also even though we are far from fusion power - but nuclear power on fast neutrons ( as we call it here in Russia not sure what is the proper call for the approach in English) ( so not that well known nuclear power stations on slow neutrons but that power stations based on new approaches with greater efficiency) could provide energy for the earth ( with the already known resources of uranium) for 2500 years! ) to reduce nuclear pollution it is possible to use such things as http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/reacto rs/ifr.html with recycling of nuclear waster.

That is - I think that rather than try to control growth of population it is better to devise and pursue clean ways to get power and provide better living standards for everybody - then there will be less pollution and the growth of population will stop.

Wrong. Solar gain from radiation is a significant factor in design. See for instance this, or this, or this, or this.

Convection/Conduction are certainly at issue when there isn't sun (say, Seattle or Syracuse), but when there is, the radiation transmission is a major factor. This new technology sounds very promising. And yes, deciduous trees planted in good spots are a good low-tech approach.

-dB

Hyper-focus? I have no idea what you mean. I simply made note of apparent misunderstanding on your part and then used that to question the validity of your conclusion. Perhaps you're being a little hyper-sensative?

By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.

I do agree designs are better. Are they perfect? Hardly. Every engineer will tell you there's no such thing as a perfect system. For example, the nuclear power industry tried quite hard from the get go to build "safe" reactors, Here is the result:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/nwa/index.h tml
http://www.ieer.org/reports/accident.html
http://www.ccnr.org/CANDU_Safety.html
http://www.lbl.gov/nsd/education/ABC/wallchart/cha pters/15/7.html
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/cndscot/trisaf/ch4.ht m
http://www.clemson.edu/ep/radiat3.htm
http://www.sea-us.org.au/no2reactor/rr-oops.html

Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk. In the interm, perhaps you should trust me when I say, it can't safely be done.

As well, the economics are not as good as you've been led to believe. See:

Nuclear Power is Uneconomical

Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.

Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.

According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.

Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.h tm

I think the key phrase in your response is, "with today's technology" - and that's where your reply is a non-sequitur.

So we shouldn't bother just because we can't do it today? That's absurd. Nobody, even people who believe every word Robert Zubrin writes, thinks it can happen tomorrow. That doesn't reduce the urgency of getting it done. Estimates of the risk may vary, but the risk is real. Even the otherwise reactionary insurance industry recognizes the ecological risks (1, 2) of the near future.

Ingestion of plutonium

For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation of plutonium dust

For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is estimated to be about 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms. [1] Thus botulism toxin is over a thousand times more toxic. The statement that plutonium is the most dangerous material known to man is false. But it is very dangerous, at least in dust form.

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles. In contrast, the lethal dose for anthrax is estimated to be 10,000 particles of a similar size. Thus plutonium dust, if spread in the air, is more dangerous than anthrax - although the effects are not as immediate.