Well it's not like they're purposely missing the target here... They've tried to make isotopes with a higher n/p ratio near the island of stability it's just that it's hard to find two high n/p isotopes to smash together to make a larger one. As you go toward higher elements the n/p ratio needs to be larger to afford more stable isotopes. This means that you'd effectively need to smash two isotopes together that have n/p ratios ideal for higher elements but markedly unstable for lower elements. THen there's the problem that when you smash two isotopes together to make these higher elements, it often knocks out a few neutrons from the composite nucleus due to the sheer high energies involved. This means that you'd probably have to use lower isotopes that have even higher n/p ratios that just don't last very long. (they're very unstable) Of course you'd think that you could just keep adding neutrons or tritium nuclei repeatedly to get higher elements but that doesn't work either as it usually ends up causing a fission reaction. In fact, the vast majority of any reactions attempted so far to produce higher elements has resulted in an inordinate number of composite nuclei undergoing fission immediately. Out of 10^12 reactions, you'd be fairly lucky to find one of them actually producing an isotope of a higher element.
The last administration isn't around any more. This administration could set its self apart from the old one by requiring all voting system code be open-sourced. But I agree; the chances of that happening are not any better than under the old overlord.
My post did not contain that information because I was responding to his concerns that irradiating food causes the food to be radioactive and to me it goes without saying that if something is already radioactive it will cause problems.
objects do not become radioactive unless they are bombarded with neutron radiation, high energy protons or extremely high energy gamma radiation capable of ejecting a proton or neutron to form a radioactive isotope. Simply irradiating an object does not necessarily make the object radioactive. Now in so far as plants having a higher growth rate due to radiation, I haven't heard much on the subject other than radiotropic melanized fungi living near Chernobyl having a substantially increased growth rate.
If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.
My argument for algae+coal is that you can use existing fossil fuel resources without increasing the CO2 release nearly as much as plain coal. my argument against it if I had one would be that algae biofuel isn't developed enough yet to be economical without a few advances/carbon taxes/CO2 market; that's where nuclear comes in- as a bridge allowing us to reduce our emissions *now* in a reasonably economical fashion.
The feds had no problem bailing out the banks, starting two costly wars and spending even more money bloating the military and now it is suddenly too expensive to do anything for students,, It's true that the government should be tightening its belt to avoid spending what we don't have but frankly the excuses for why we only decided to draw the line at something potentially beneficial to lower income groups is getting mighty old.
I'm pretty sure Congress has msot of the blame here. Congress had to vote to pass these and only then did Bush have the power to veto these bills. The democrat controlled congress had the power to change the system but they did not.
If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.
So what you're saying is that even though the system is broken it is your own damn fault for having put up with it to get a college education? That's not solving anything.
I wondered how they stayed in business especially these days.
I am not 100% confident on this but I'd guess it's either 1) They cater to high income families and/or 2) subsidies. That's a lot of the difference between in and out of state tuition costs to students; the out of state costs are horrifying to behold.
The problem isn't finding a new fangled way for college student to be able to pay the enormous costs of college, it is to find ways to educate them more cheaply tha nwe do now. Online learning, competition, utilisation of open source textbooks... Be creative.
I wonder what the death toll is going to be/has been from the global warming and pollution put out by coal plants because people are so afraid of using nuclear power.
It's safe because the risk of using nuclear technology is a lot lower than the alternative of building a bunch of new coal plants that spew carcinogens, green house gases and far more radioactive material into the air than any nuclear reactor accident ever has.
Malthus thought that population growth would essentially keep up with or outstrip any production increases and thus keep humanity in a state of perpetual subsistence poverty. He didn't take into account advances in farming tech nor did he understand that as wealth increases the population growth doesn't explode like he thought it would. Western countries in particular have low enough birth rates that it is nearly getting to the point where population starts declining as is happening in Germany and a few other places.
suggested that anyone was an idiot who didn't fully believe in evolution purely on the basis of a controlled group of bacteria,
That isn't quite true. The individual that you responded to did not suggest that our evidence for evolution was solely this experiment. That would be extraordinarily ignorant. We have in fact enough evidence of evolution that the books written on the subject alone would crush any creationist standing underneath their shear mass.
Yes. You are missing the fact that this experiment has been running for the last 20+ years. Time is the major factor here. Furthermore, they did a bit more than simply comparing the DNA from the current strain to the original strain. THey kept samples of strains of the bacteria every 500 generations or so and compared them. Even running parallel experiments using these stored strains allowing them to effectively repeat the experiment in order to understand the evolution of the new metabolic pathway allowing for the utilisation of Citrate.
After all, the reasons the public gets nervous when it hears the words "nuclear" and "power" in the same sentence are related to the checkered history of commercial nuclear power generation.
nonsense. The public is afraid because of two reactor accidents; the first one was caused in large part because the reactor in question was little more advanced than the graphite/uranium pile we used in the 40's and that the reactor's safety mechanisms and proper procedure were ignored by a quota happy communist state. The second was contained. The incident at three mile island was also caused by ignoring the safety mechanisms in the reactor *again*. You want an example of an industry with a checkered past? Try Coal for once. The number of people killed mining coal and all the mercury, uranium and thorium release not to mention that it's fraking up our atmosphere and climate with excess CO2 and you're worried about nuclear energy? Where the only problems with nuclear power involved two incidents with 30 and 40 year old reactor designs where even then didn't come close to the kill score that coal has. Not even an order of magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
The work done *suggests* that Shakespeare collaborated with Kyd on the work but it's not the slam dunk that the title would have you believe.
Well it's not like they're purposely missing the target here... They've tried to make isotopes with a higher n/p ratio near the island of stability it's just that it's hard to find two high n/p isotopes to smash together to make a larger one. As you go toward higher elements the n/p ratio needs to be larger to afford more stable isotopes. This means that you'd effectively need to smash two isotopes together that have n/p ratios ideal for higher elements but markedly unstable for lower elements. THen there's the problem that when you smash two isotopes together to make these higher elements, it often knocks out a few neutrons from the composite nucleus due to the sheer high energies involved. This means that you'd probably have to use lower isotopes that have even higher n/p ratios that just don't last very long. (they're very unstable) Of course you'd think that you could just keep adding neutrons or tritium nuclei repeatedly to get higher elements but that doesn't work either as it usually ends up causing a fission reaction. In fact, the vast majority of any reactions attempted so far to produce higher elements has resulted in an inordinate number of composite nuclei undergoing fission immediately. Out of 10^12 reactions, you'd be fairly lucky to find one of them actually producing an isotope of a higher element.
The last administration isn't around any more. This administration could set its self apart from the old one by requiring all voting system code be open-sourced. But I agree; the chances of that happening are not any better than under the old overlord.
My post did not contain that information because I was responding to his concerns that irradiating food causes the food to be radioactive and to me it goes without saying that if something is already radioactive it will cause problems.
objects do not become radioactive unless they are bombarded with neutron radiation, high energy protons or extremely high energy gamma radiation capable of ejecting a proton or neutron to form a radioactive isotope. Simply irradiating an object does not necessarily make the object radioactive. Now in so far as plants having a higher growth rate due to radiation, I haven't heard much on the subject other than radiotropic melanized fungi living near Chernobyl having a substantially increased growth rate.
If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.
that's why I used the plural form not the singular.
My argument for algae+coal is that you can use existing fossil fuel resources without increasing the CO2 release nearly as much as plain coal. my argument against it if I had one would be that algae biofuel isn't developed enough yet to be economical without a few advances/carbon taxes/CO2 market; that's where nuclear comes in- as a bridge allowing us to reduce our emissions *now* in a reasonably economical fashion.
If it's the NSA losing the data than it's a feature for the public; illegal domestic spying considered.
The feds had no problem bailing out the banks, starting two costly wars and spending even more money bloating the military and now it is suddenly too expensive to do anything for students,, It's true that the government should be tightening its belt to avoid spending what we don't have but frankly the excuses for why we only decided to draw the line at something potentially beneficial to lower income groups is getting mighty old.
I'm pretty sure Congress has msot of the blame here. Congress had to vote to pass these and only then did Bush have the power to veto these bills. The democrat controlled congress had the power to change the system but they did not.
Maybe so but don't you think that it is worth looking into ways to improve the system we have now?
If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.
So what you're saying is that even though the system is broken it is your own damn fault for having put up with it to get a college education? That's not solving anything.
I am not 100% confident on this but I'd guess it's either 1) They cater to high income families and/or 2) subsidies. That's a lot of the difference between in and out of state tuition costs to students; the out of state costs are horrifying to behold.
The problem isn't finding a new fangled way for college student to be able to pay the enormous costs of college, it is to find ways to educate them more cheaply tha nwe do now. Online learning, competition, utilisation of open source textbooks... Be creative.
If you want to know what the real cost of using coal instead of nuclear is- just look at China's environment.
I wonder what the death toll is going to be/has been from the global warming and pollution put out by coal plants because people are so afraid of using nuclear power.
It's safe because the risk of using nuclear technology is a lot lower than the alternative of building a bunch of new coal plants that spew carcinogens, green house gases and far more radioactive material into the air than any nuclear reactor accident ever has.
Malthus thought that population growth would essentially keep up with or outstrip any production increases and thus keep humanity in a state of perpetual subsistence poverty. He didn't take into account advances in farming tech nor did he understand that as wealth increases the population growth doesn't explode like he thought it would. Western countries in particular have low enough birth rates that it is nearly getting to the point where population starts declining as is happening in Germany and a few other places.
That isn't quite true. The individual that you responded to did not suggest that our evidence for evolution was solely this experiment. That would be extraordinarily ignorant. We have in fact enough evidence of evolution that the books written on the subject alone would crush any creationist standing underneath their shear mass.
Nonsense. Evolution is nothing more than organisms adapting genetically to their environment. These bacteria are doing exactly that.
Yes. You are missing the fact that this experiment has been running for the last 20+ years. Time is the major factor here. Furthermore, they did a bit more than simply comparing the DNA from the current strain to the original strain. THey kept samples of strains of the bacteria every 500 generations or so and compared them. Even running parallel experiments using these stored strains allowing them to effectively repeat the experiment in order to understand the evolution of the new metabolic pathway allowing for the utilisation of Citrate.
nonsense. The public is afraid because of two reactor accidents; the first one was caused in large part because the reactor in question was little more advanced than the graphite/uranium pile we used in the 40's and that the reactor's safety mechanisms and proper procedure were ignored by a quota happy communist state. The second was contained. The incident at three mile island was also caused by ignoring the safety mechanisms in the reactor *again*. You want an example of an industry with a checkered past? Try Coal for once. The number of people killed mining coal and all the mercury, uranium and thorium release not to mention that it's fraking up our atmosphere and climate with excess CO2 and you're worried about nuclear energy? Where the only problems with nuclear power involved two incidents with 30 and 40 year old reactor designs where even then didn't come close to the kill score that coal has. Not even an order of magnitude.
When two or more isotopes fuse together it is fusion, neutrons are not isotopes of anything.
By that reasoning Uranium + neutron is fusion because you're combining a neutron with something not specifically breaking Uranium by its self.