Slashdot Mirror

Nuclear weapons create earthquakes, and you can roughly estimate the size of the bomb from the magnitude of the earthquake. In this case, we're looking at a 5.1 magnitude quake:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear...

There's an empirical law for calculating the size of an underground nuclear blast from the magnitude of the earthquake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This law is a little sketchy (earthquake size depends on how tightly the bomb is packed into the ground), but taking it at face value I calculate a 45 kiloton blast. That's nowhere near a true fusion H-bomb (typically hundreds of kilotons up to megatons): it's consistent with a large fission bomb, a boosted fission weapon, or a failed fusion test, where the fusion secondary failed to ignite.

This is remarkably similar to the 2013 test, which was also magnitude 5.1. The USGS has a nice summary plot of the 3 previous tests. All else being equal (namely, the coupling between the test tunnel and the surrounding rock), it looks like this test was about as big of a "pop" as the 2013 test.

Yucca Mountain was a no-brainer when we started looking into it and it's a no-brainer now. Those that oppose it are either (1) useful idiots, (2) financially interested in competing energy generation methods, or (3) actively and purposefully attempting to weaken or destroy the US.

So how do you apply your reasoning to the D.O.E who ruled it inappropriate to contain nuclear waste? Let's look at your points:

(1) useful idiots

Which Wikipedia defines as In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause., do you know who you are serving?

(2) financially interested in competing energy generation methods

You really don't know who is drinking who's milkshake do you? I suggest you read the 2005 Energy Act, Sec 638 onwards.

(3) actively and purposefully attempting to weaken or destroy the US.

Studies of Yucca mountain hydrology and the U.S Geological service's map of underground aquifers suggest that operating Yucca mountain would result in the gradual poisoning of the water supplies for Los Angeles and probably San Diego and Phoenix as well.

Sure, you can blind yourself to the facts, however if you do it in a way that ends up hurting a lot of people, it isn't a very good way to serve your country.

We should use the facility that has been built, instead of letting one lone-wolf senator prevent that from happening. Yes, a national repository would be much, much safer than the status quo.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was passed to create a national program to dispose of nuclear fuel safely. The bill arranged for utility companies to pay for the development of such a site, which technically was a fee payed for by customers, not taxpayers (though that's really not much of a difference). Congress in 1987 decided that Yucca Mountain was the site to use, and all that money was collected and spent to build the site.

I don't understand why Yucca Mountain even needs to be a permanent storage solution. At least storing our nuclear fuel in one location is magnitudes safer than storing it at hundreds of nuclear power facilities throughout the country. Because we all know how safe coastal power plants are, and there's no worry about rivers ever flooding them either. The only reason why we aren't in a panic about Yucca Mountain being shut down is because we haven't had an accident yet. But just getting lucky should be no basis of national policy.

I live below sea level too. Far in the midwest with dry feet.

Unless you think that Death Valley and the Salton Sea basin are in the "midwest", or you live in a hole several hundred feet below the surface-- no, you don't live below sea level in the midwest.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1...

Maybe he lived in the midwest of Jordan.

I live below sea level too. Far in the midwest with dry feet.

Unless you think that Death Valley and the Salton Sea basin are in the "midwest", or you live in a hole several hundred feet below the surface-- no, you don't live below sea level in the midwest.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1...

The issue of "proven reserves" seems almost always to be misunderstood by the random person doing a little Googling about resources. "Proven resources" are always tied to some price point. It is the amount of a resource that we know with assurance can be produced under a particular cost ceiling, usually closely tied to current market prices.

This figure is in in no way a measure of how much is available for future use on Earth, the implication that people almost always make. It is an extremely conservative figure for the amount that is available for supply at current prices. The effect of full exploiting this proven reserve is never to "run out" (the conclusion invariably drawn), it is instead to raise the price somewhat, and to lead to further exploration of reserves. The reason these reserve estimates are made is to forecast near term commercial activity, not long term potential.

It is a very common pattern for "proven reserves" to expand extremely fast with even modest price increases. There is often an enormous potential reserve that sets a ceiling on how prices might rise on a resource, since once that price point is reached "suddenly" there is an immense proven reserve available. For lithium (and some other elements, like uranium) this huge reserve is sea water. Modest increases of lithium (or uranium) prices makes mining the oceans, a supply good for thousands of years (or longer) practical.

For example - that 14 million ton reserve figure? Well, the USGS is currently estimating "identified lithium resources" at 40 million tons, almost tripling the available amount they record with hardly any actual exploration involved, it is simply a matter of classification of what we already know. And most resources that are relatively abundant are also not intensively prospected for (yet) since there is no need.

The technology for robots in space is immediately useful on Earth. Self driving cars, remote geographical exploration, space weather (you certainly wouldn't put people in a solar polar orbit to take pictures of the sun), remote mineral sensing.

I'm quite familiar with how fracking is performed, and works. While fracking close to a fault is linked to earthquakes, the process of injecting waste into into a disposal well is much more likely to cause earthquakes than extraction from an oil recovery well.
USGS Cite: https://profile.usgs.gov/mysci...

Over top of the Snake River Aquifer is to you a perfect place? Which is upstream of 3 different states and supplies water for significant percentage of the U.S. Agriculture.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/...

Oh, shut _up_ you whiny liberal bitches. 30 years of drinking the "...government IS the problem..." Kool-Aid has led us straight to this. Corporate America is able to buy anything they want, including the willing collaboration of "regulators" whose role was originally to look out for the interests of the citizens. We handed the reins of power to "our betters" years ago.

Over top of the Snake River Aquifer is to you a perfect place? Which is upstream of 3 different states and supplies water for significant percentage of the U.S. Agriculture.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/...

Well, looking at this I would not locate anything expensive or critical in that area:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/rescasp1.html
This particular gif is an attention grabber:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/graphic/a2.gif
The Pacific Northwest is one of those spots on earth where a lot of tectonic action (both thrust and subduction) mix with volcanic instability to churn the crust of the planet:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/map.html
I know every area has it's own hazards (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/) but making something flood and/or tornado proof is a lot easier than making it hover while the ground moves.

Well, looking at this I would not locate anything expensive or critical in that area:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/rescasp1.html
This particular gif is an attention grabber:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/graphic/a2.gif
The Pacific Northwest is one of those spots on earth where a lot of tectonic action (both thrust and subduction) mix with volcanic instability to churn the crust of the planet:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/map.html
I know every area has it's own hazards (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/) but making something flood and/or tornado proof is a lot easier than making it hover while the ground moves.

Well, looking at this I would not locate anything expensive or critical in that area:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/rescasp1.html
This particular gif is an attention grabber:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/graphic/a2.gif
The Pacific Northwest is one of those spots on earth where a lot of tectonic action (both thrust and subduction) mix with volcanic instability to churn the crust of the planet:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/map.html
I know every area has it's own hazards (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/) but making something flood and/or tornado proof is a lot easier than making it hover while the ground moves.

Well, looking at this I would not locate anything expensive or critical in that area:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/rescasp1.html
This particular gif is an attention grabber:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/graphic/a2.gif
The Pacific Northwest is one of those spots on earth where a lot of tectonic action (both thrust and subduction) mix with volcanic instability to churn the crust of the planet:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/map.html
I know every area has it's own hazards (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/) but making something flood and/or tornado proof is a lot easier than making it hover while the ground moves.

I have always been told that little quakes unload the pressure that creates big quakes.

You have always been lied to, at best being misled by people who thought they knew more than they did.

or see the USGS map.

Goto http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=136:1:0::::: and start typing-in presidential surnames.

Loads of stuff each for 'bush', 'clinton', 'Reagan', 'carter', 'ford', 'nixon', 'johnson', 'kennedy', 'eisenhower', et.al., but the only things listed for that useless dingdong are THREE elementary schools.

Really? It seems to me that Seward is in Alaska, not Tennessee.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php

I'm a bit surprised. I always thought that the New Madrid quakes in the early 1810s were rated 8+.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/lea...

"can't be felt"
"ignores magnitude"

The state of Oklahoma went from an average of ~2 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater per year, to almost 600 last year, and already nearly 300 this year (projected to reach almost 1000 this year). These are not minor quakes that no one cares about.

These are causing damage:
http://www.earthworksaction.or...
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/feat...

I myself live there, and a section of my brick siding collapsed a few months ago as a result of once of these "undetectable" quakes.

They are not minor.
They are causing damage.
They are directly attributable to a particular human activity.

Ergo, the humans performing that activity are responsible and owe a debt to the persons who have suffered damages. Except that getting restitution is nearly impossible, it being a david and goliath, only goliath has an army of lawyers and a lot more financial resources.

and its funny you mention courts and regulation, since they're pretty much in the pocket of the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and Texas. the legislature too. only recently was the Oklahoma geologist in charge of studying the link allowed to even say it was linked....mostly because it was finally revealed that a fracking company owner who funded his job personally "requested" he be "cautious" about what he said in any of his official reports.

and did I mention that they made it illegal in OK for local municipalities to restrict fracking?
or that there is legislation proposed to grant the industry immunity from damage claims resulting from these quakes?

you're a fool, a shill, and a troll.

Now keep in mind how slow ground water spreads 'Water at very shallow depths might be just a few hours old; at moderate depth, it may be 100 years old; and at great depth or after having flowed long distances from places of entry, water may be several thousands of years old', http://water.usgs.gov/edu/eart.... Families of tomorrow poisoned by the psychopathic greed of today because that water from the centre of contaminating fracking fields with thousands of wells will move over time and it will end up killing thousands.

"since global ore reserves of current substrates such as silicon and aluminum dioxide are rare and almost depleted."

That could not be more untrue. Pure silica sand (which is silicon dioxide) that is the source of silicon is in such abundance that it sells for less than $50 per ton, after cleaning and grading. The raw material is a minor part of the cost. Aluminum ores such as bauxite are some of the most common minerals on the planet. The USGS actually describes bauxite reserves as "essentially inexhaustable."

http://minerals.usgs.gov/miner...

This is great news. For those who haven't been following it, white nose syndrome is an emergent disease affecting bats. It's caused by a fungus that grows on the skin of the animals, and has been killing millions of bats across many parts of the eastern United States (map). A decontamination protocol has been established for researchers and cavers who come into contact with the animals. This is the first really optimistic piece of news about the disease that I've seen.

Trying to induce ambiguity into American - where none actually exists (see the hijacked airplane example) - is obfuscation for no apparent benefit. Forcing Americans to use more syllables to describe themselves is increasing the number of syllables - lowering signal to noise - for no benefit.

If an American wishes to describe himself based on continent, he would say he's a North American. A South American or Central American would do the same. Here's the USGS list of continents.

If they wish to describe themselves by country, there are already clear methods to convey that.

Lowering the signal to noise ratio of verbal communications won't help anyone it seems to me.

I'd take any claims China makes about its rare earth quantities with a few tonnes of NaCl. They've been restricting their output to boost prices, and using "limited reserves" as an excuse - but they're certainly not the only source. There's plenty more reserves which are being opened up now that China's prices aren't so cheap.

The Visual Capitalist infographic is pretty, but is apparently based solely on current mines & sources, as far as I can tell. It mentions the existence of undeveloped and undiscovered reserves, but doesn't try to estimate depletion rates of those. While of course I wouldn't claim we'll "never run out", we can clearly go a lot further than the infographic shows before the price per unit extracted gets excessive - in most cases long enough to find alternate sources as I mentioned above (we've already started eyeing the asteroid belt).

Plus of course, few individual minerals are absolutely essential anyway. Most have alternatives that can be substituted, and demand for more than one mineral has waxed and waned as technology developed a use for it, then replaced it with something more effective. I looked up the USGS report on Antimony, for example, and it makes interesting reading.

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/san-francisco-bay-could-lose-marshes-to-sea-level-rise-by-2100-2/

I think you're trying to bait me on the "should EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant" news item, but the relevant point is that fuel usage (and CO2 emissions) was one of the submitter's complaints, about New York, along with solid waste, which New York state produces the least of of any state, and domestic water use, in which it's merely below average.

I take it no one on Slashdot's esteemed editorial team has every lived in an earthquake area? As a former northern CA resident, I'm here to agree with the others that anything less than a 5.0 is not news. Seriously, if I felt a 4.0 at night, I probably wouldn't even mention it to friends the next day. If they're going to start posting about every 4.0 earthquake, I'll have to leave. There are a lot of those. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear...

yes. 18 responses, according to the mouseover, at intensity V, moderate shaking, very light damage.

A 4.0 in CA is not news, but the 4.2 we just had in MI is damn near interesting.

According to the USGS Earthquake Facts and Statistics, there are 13,000 4.0 - 4.9 earthquakes every year (so about 1 every 40 minutes).

We have a federal agency to study dirt and rocks - the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They claim to be "a science organization that provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information."

We have a federal agency to study the atmosphere and the oceans - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They claim their mission is "Science, Service, and Stewardship. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. "

BOTH claim to study the Earth and its climate. NEITHER claims to advance aviation of spaceflight or exploration beyond the Earth

We HAD an agency to study and advance aviation - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) whose mission was "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions." After Russia launched Sputnik, the US government went into panic mode and in 1958 transformed the agency into a new organization which we now have called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The 1958 law that created NASA gave it the following duties: (which I will quote directly)

"(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"

"(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;"

"(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;"

"(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes."

"(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere."

"(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"

"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and"

"(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment."

NASA's study of the Earth and its atmosphere was ONLY for the purpose of advancing flight in, out of, and back into, the atmosphere. In the 1970s as the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations were messing NASA up and trying to appeal to voters they tainted NASA with eco-related tasks that actually belong at NOAA and USGS (and other agencies) and over time various entrenched interests (like the earth-sciences employees at Goddard who SHOULD apply for jobs at NOAA) have made the problem worse. NASA spent more money studying climate change in 2014 than it spent launching men into space (NASA

I'll let you split hairs about processing vs refining.

And yes, China, along with Europe, push for the DIRTY mining of Lithium. They are pretty bad, but they want it cheap.

If it isn't cheap it's not economical.

OTOH, Here in America, we are finding the lithium from heated brine solutions down below. In particular, we are bringing up brine solutions for geo-thermal electricity and then pulling the lithium out after the fact, and then re-injecting the cleaned up water back into the hole.

Which is why we don't have enough to supply our need.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/miner...

Here in America, we are recycling our lithium batteries. It is Europe that is dirty WRT to not recycling it. Sadly, Europe would rather scream about somethings, while ignoring the real damage that they do to the earth.

Nobody recycles batteries for the lithium. A small amount get recycled for cobalt That will change as the price of lithium rises, of course as that happens we are back to economics..

Fascinating

You should also see this http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear...

611 quakes in 2014
111 in 2013
40 in 2012
77 in 2011
65 in 2010
22 in 2009

Something is going on and it's definitely looking like the oil industry is involved, especially when you compare the above map with this one, http://strangesounds.org/wp-co...

Water usage in California is a bit higher than 7 billion gallons per year. Per the USGS, usage was 38 billion gallons per day (i.e., nearly 13 trillion gallons per year) in 2010. Nestle's usage appears to be a drop in the bucket.

We can still get at least some oil with 1800's tech. In some places oil still seeps out of the ground.

I don't remember them diverting lava to miss villages at all.

And yet that doesn't mean it didn't happen

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcano...

Try living in the area and building in the area before you start speaking of things you seem to know nothing about.

Well, my home is within 10 miles of the San Andreas Fault, and my work is built entirely within the historical San Andreas fault zone (my office lies less than 1/2 mile from the current southern branch). I am a native Californian and have ridden out many earthquakes, both in and out of school.

And to address other concerns, the Field Act is insufficient for the high end for potential quakes. It it designed to handle M7 quakes, while historical data shows that a M7.9 has occurred in California. Note that the strongest quakes since 1933 were 2 M7.3. My research in getting my BA in geology showed that up to about a M9 could theoretically be possible, and that the historical data may be underestimated (the 1812 Wrightwood-area earthquake had one report suggesting a possible M9.2).

Also, I was generally estimating the design, but I was also referring to low one story buildings, as opposed to multiple floor structures. Larger buildings require a very different approach to their foundations (in order to reduce oscillation). The original statement said "withstand a 8.0 without structural damage" and while a M8.0 off a subduction zone is no where near as powerful as a M8.0 off a transverse zone at the surface, I seriously doubt that any country has the economics to build to such a high standard across the board.

Did you stop to think that the article I quoted means "The coal that is burnt in Germany" not "coal that is mined in Germany"? You're too quick to dismiss the source data. Why would an article quote radiation figures for coal that's not being used, as you state? You've repeated this over and over, but I hoped you'd figure out your misunderstanding yourself and that I wouldn't have to point it out to you.

As for the "You started with an insane amount of "radiation" spread by coal plants. Now -- after 3 or 4 posts -- you accept that perhaps maximum 1%" --- I have done no such thing. I used the MOST CONSERVATIVE numbers to prove my point. Even using the lowest figure of 1% you still have to reconcile these facts:

"In the USA, 850 million tonnes of coal was used in 2009 for electricity production. With an average content of 1.3 ppm uranium and 3.2 ppm thorium, US coal-fired electricity generation in that year gave rise to 1100 tonnes of uranium and 2700 tonnes of thorium in coal ash."

If 1% is lost to the atmosphere, simple math (so simple you might be bothered to verify it) shows 11 tonnes of U and 27 tonnes of Th are released. My previous post was indeed in error. I was off by a factor of ten, but not the way you claim - I previously said "2.7 tonnes of Thorium" when the actual number is 27 tonnes.

As for your mercury numbers, you're the one that's way off. this paper sampled US coal for 25 years and came up with a mean mercury value of 0.17ppm. As stated above, US coal has 1.3 ppm U and 3.2 ppm Th. There is 7.6x as much U as Hg, and 18.8x as much Th as Hg.

Besides, the original argument was "Thirdly, the 'idea' that coal emits noticeable radioactivity is a myth from the 1960s/1970s" - I've proven that clearly there is noticeable radiation released on a continuous basis.

If you are too lazy to do any research, then I'm done with you. Continue with vague hand-waving and accusations of bad math and maybe someone will believe you.

Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm per USGS.

yeah why don't you go tax a volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels... [...]

I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.

http://www.usgs.gov/

Yay UCSD and Roger Revelle! More charts of the Keeling Curve, which passed 400 three months ago. "1700 to Present" is my favorite.

I'm still totally amazed people can't look at a before and after of the summer ice in the Arctic or glaciers in Patagonia and Glacier National Park and make the leap that, "Okay, releasing carbon from long-dead dinosaurs in the form of petroleum and coal results in atmospheric carbon dioxide which warms and expands oceans and makes ice melt."

Okay, fine, here's a link to pictures of glaciers melting over the last century.

I still think it's of quite low relevance. Do you know how much radioactive material leaves a coal plant during normal operation?

A coal plant requires massive amounts of coal. Most are connected to waterways, twin railways or conveyor belts with a direct line from a coal mine. Trucks don't cut it.
The first coal powerplant I could find consumed 9.1 million tonne of coal in 2011.

About a part per million of that coal is uranium. That means that that plant produced about 9 tonnes of uranium. That single plant.
Now that plant captures fly and bottom ash (where that uranium goes). That ash is then sold as a component in gypsum and concrete. As a building material.

So stop worrying about the limited amount of radioactive materials from a nuclear plant and worry about the large amount of radioactive materials from coal plants. The radioactive material from nuclear plants is small in physical size. It can be stored safely, far safer than the uranium from the coal plants is stored. An accident now and again doesn't change that.

No,

Deer -> Dice.

Stick with the program, man.

A number of animals do not have plurals, they have a group name:

Deer --> herd
Fox--> skulk
Rabbits --> warren
Sheep --> Flock

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/abou...

telling NASA they should turn a blind eye to the environment of our own planet is insanity.

Why? That's what NOAA is supposed to be doing. If I were elected philosopher-king of NASA, I'd be more then happy to tell the climatologists to take their politics next door. We'll be more then happy to put a satellite up for you. But that's about the extent of it.

And then there's the USGS. And a bunch of other agencies all poking and prodding the planet. It's really starting to look like everyone is having their funding held up pending the publication of a pro-AGW study. And that's a part of what makes the associated politics stink like hell.

There is even new evidence that DDT was not the cause of the egg shell thickness problem. It could have been environmental acidification. Even with much lower use of DDT egg shell thickness is still down.

Some studies show that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.

DDE is the metabolite of DDT that is thought to cause egg shell thinning.

It looks like this might be another correlation is not causation problem.

Everything tends to look smaller when you cube root it :
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/eart...