OK, so they are right and Wald reported accurately. NRC already agrees with the report. It hardly seems late if it is a report requested by congress with a particular scope. NAS is usually pretty thorough. It hardly seems wrong for congress to want to know about this since the US shoulders nearly all the risk for an accident through the huge Price Anderson subsidy.
But isn't that what the National Academy of Sciences is saying in the report? Platts reports he same. http://www.platts.com/latest-n... "US nuclear regulators and industry officials must do more to protect reactors from extreme, but unlikely, events like the earthquake and tsunami that caused the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, the National Academy of Sciences recommended in report issued Thursday."
It really harms the credibility of the NRC when their risk calculation come to a accident every ten thousand years while the real world rate is one every 18 years. There are ten or more near misses each year http://www.ucsusa.org/news/pre... so nuclear plants are operating far outside the claimed safety envelope.
I was thinking about Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria as an indication of where the thinking is coming from. That kind of balancing is used to assess counterespionage efforts. We're not looking for people who might be exploited by spies I think.
So, the SSC was to have 40 TeV collisions for protons while when this project upgrades to protons it will be less than 70 TeV. Guess the physics of energy loss just hasn't changed that much. It is good that the SSC science now has a chance to get done.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not per reactor, that is 1 in over in a million in the generic approach.
So, your claim that the margin is already there is false.
OK, so they are right and Wald reported accurately. NRC already agrees with the report. It hardly seems late if it is a report requested by congress with a particular scope. NAS is usually pretty thorough. It hardly seems wrong for congress to want to know about this since the US shoulders nearly all the risk for an accident through the huge Price Anderson subsidy.
What?
It was shuttered because it was not built to withstand the earthquake risk. The margin was not there.
But isn't that what the National Academy of Sciences is saying in the report? Platts reports he same. http://www.platts.com/latest-n... "US nuclear regulators and industry officials must do more to protect reactors from extreme, but unlikely, events like the earthquake and tsunami that caused the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, the National Academy of Sciences recommended in report issued Thursday."
An NRC inspector had a very hard time waking a guard up at Indian Point a few years back.
Accounted for that.
Not so for Humboldt Bay Reactor.
Matthew Wald does his homework and reports pretty accurately. Perhaps you should give some examples where he has misread the report.
It really harms the credibility of the NRC when their risk calculation come to a accident every ten thousand years while the real world rate is one every 18 years. There are ten or more near misses each year http://www.ucsusa.org/news/pre... so nuclear plants are operating far outside the claimed safety envelope.
By all means, repeal the Price Anderson subsidy and require market insurance rates be paid.
You condone murder.... King George felt that way too.
You should look at the second part of their name. They oppose violence.
Didn't catch the murder in there I guess.
So you support state sponsored terrorism. Tyranny, fun for the whole country....
They did anticipate renewable energy making nuclear power uneconomic though. https://will.illinois.edu/nfs/...
Maybe you don't know their history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I was thinking about Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria as an indication of where the thinking is coming from. That kind of balancing is used to assess counterespionage efforts. We're not looking for people who might be exploited by spies I think.
Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.
So, the SSC was to have 40 TeV collisions for protons while when this project upgrades to protons it will be less than 70 TeV. Guess the physics of energy loss just hasn't changed that much. It is good that the SSC science now has a chance to get done.
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.
Those are circumferences, not diameters.
This is starting to get close to the Superconducting Super-Collider size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
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.