TFA says it is the more educated conservatives who distrust science. Perhaps the trip to oxymoronic for the term "educated conservative" is nearly complete.
Usually my stories start out at red in the firehose but this one started out blue today. Perhaps the pack of negative mods had an effect. Too bad. The Nuke Kooks could certainly clutter up that story with molten salt wet fantasies if it were accepted.
OK, looking a little deeper, it was nonburnable stuff with high water content. It needed natural gas to fire the kiln. So, extra high emissions. And, this may be a rare case of of coal burning leading to raising radiation levels above background around the plant. But this was done in service of the nuclear industry, a further nail in the coffin of the ORNL BS.
Actually, the ash containing uranium tends to stay at the plant. This has been studied. So, you've made a pretty basic error. Further, the ash that enters the atmosphere does not accumulate there, if falls to the ground, to become,
Chemical propulsion will be used for a manned Mars mission. What you use to power systems once you get there might be nuclear or solar. Solar tends to be the choice in the inner solar system.
These html commands can make your posts more clear: <br><br>
Better check that. It would be very unusual coal which produces more electricity from it's uranium content than from burning it. Include all the steps.
OK, then if you are happy with the soil argument, then your variability argument works both ways. Sometimes, coal ash with a lower concentration of uranium than local soil will screen the radiation from the local soil and reduce radiation. It works both ways, and the bulldozer analogy is correct. On average, the is no change at all in radioactivity except for the absence of carbon-14, which really does make a difference for our internal radiation burden owing to dilution of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in our food and so in our bodies.
I support nuclear propulsion for submarines as a military necessity. Solar tends to do better in the inner solar system (including Mars) than nuclear as a power source. Lower weight to power ratio. People have been looking at it as far out as Uranus as well. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/nov_2007_meeting/presentations/solar_power.pdf
Hardly. The carbon in coal is the diluting factor. You just return to normal low carbon soil uranium concentration when the coal is burned. You seem to be claiming that the ocean is wet only because you poured a bucket of water into it. But, the wetness did not change with your action.
The facts I stated are correct. Even the BS ORNL site agrees on the concentration and where the uranium ends up. You are living in a fantasy world. Very sad....
You are unprepared to demonstrate anything ridiculous claim that will hold up since the claim is true. Didn't make it up, it's just the way the world works.
But I don't make stuff up. You demonstrate your ignorance when you claim otherwise. That's part of the point of quoting. It makes it easy to weed out the ignorant like you.
Some soil has more uranium than other soil, but is is not radioactive waste. You need fission to get radioactive waste. Fission is very rare in nature.
And, I've never ever heard of coal being considered uranium ore and neither have you.
The radioactive part of coal is retained in the ash which has the same content as the soil it originally was. As I pointed out in my journal article, claiming coal spreads radioactivity is like claiming a bulldozer spreads radioactivity when it moves soil at a construction site. The claim isn't even wrong, it is just stupid.
I try to keep close to the original headline given the slashdot limit. Sometimes editors change the headline, but this time it went through. If you RTFA I think you'll agree that I caught their tone pretty well. And, certainly, there is no water where they expected it to be suggesting a major problem. I used to write my own summaries pretty often, but now, if the writing is not too atrocious, I just quote because nuts will claim I'm making stuff up either way, but it is quicker to reply when it is a quote. So, RTFHL before going off next time.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA says conservatives had the highest trust in science back in 1974. Ike liked science.
There was a conservative book not too long ago decrying modern approaches to Humanities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind#Summary
TFA says it is the more educated conservatives who distrust science. Perhaps the trip to oxymoronic for the term "educated conservative" is nearly complete.
Interestingly, posting something true and damaging to the nuclear industry gets you a lot of negative mods. I happened to submit a new story today : http://slashdot.org/submission/1999741/strange-weather-meets-new-analysis
Usually my stories start out at red in the firehose but this one started out blue today. Perhaps the pack of negative mods had an effect. Too bad. The Nuke Kooks could certainly clutter up that story with molten salt wet fantasies if it were accepted.
OK, looking a little deeper, it was nonburnable stuff with high water content. It needed natural gas to fire the kiln. So, extra high emissions. And, this may be a rare case of of coal burning leading to raising radiation levels above background around the plant. But this was done in service of the nuclear industry, a further nail in the coffin of the ORNL BS.
Actually, the ash containing uranium tends to stay at the plant. This has been studied. So, you've made a pretty basic error. Further, the ash that enters the atmosphere does not accumulate there, if falls to the ground, to become,
wait for it....
wait for it....
wait for it....
soil.
Chemical propulsion will be used for a manned Mars mission. What you use to power systems once you get there might be nuclear or solar. Solar tends to be the choice in the inner solar system.
These html commands can make your posts more clear: <br><br>
Better check that. It would be very unusual coal which produces more electricity from it's uranium content than from burning it. Include all the steps.
Clearly your education is lacking. We've been discussing the citation.
OK, then if you are happy with the soil argument, then your variability argument works both ways. Sometimes, coal ash with a lower concentration of uranium than local soil will screen the radiation from the local soil and reduce radiation. It works both ways, and the bulldozer analogy is correct. On average, the is no change at all in radioactivity except for the absence of carbon-14, which really does make a difference for our internal radiation burden owing to dilution of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in our food and so in our bodies.
I support nuclear propulsion for submarines as a military necessity. Solar tends to do better in the inner solar system (including Mars) than nuclear as a power source. Lower weight to power ratio. People have been looking at it as far out as Uranus as well. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/nov_2007_meeting/presentations/solar_power.pdf
Careful. If coal is the ore then nuclear power is a high carbon emissions power source.
Hardly. The carbon in coal is the diluting factor. You just return to normal low carbon soil uranium concentration when the coal is burned. You seem to be claiming that the ocean is wet only because you poured a bucket of water into it. But, the wetness did not change with your action.
Seems to me to be a mistake to say the INES 7 event is over and all future leaking is part of a new low level event. Sorry if you are mad about that.
Then if coal is the ore, nuclear is a high carbon emissions power source.
;-o
Usually I zap khallow, but you stepped into it first
The facts I stated are correct. Even the BS ORNL site agrees on the concentration and where the uranium ends up. You are living in a fantasy world. Very sad....
I think you are just uncomfortable being on the side of ignorance. It makes you make unsubstantiated claims out of anxiety.
You are unprepared to demonstrate anything ridiculous claim that will hold up since the claim is true. Didn't make it up, it's just the way the world works.
Was that coal as ore or ash as ore?
But I don't make stuff up. You demonstrate your ignorance when you claim otherwise. That's part of the point of quoting. It makes it easy to weed out the ignorant like you.
You've embarrassed yourself with your comment.
Some soil has more uranium than other soil, but is is not radioactive waste. You need fission to get radioactive waste. Fission is very rare in nature.
And, I've never ever heard of coal being considered uranium ore and neither have you.
The radioactive part of coal is retained in the ash which has the same content as the soil it originally was. As I pointed out in my journal article, claiming coal spreads radioactivity is like claiming a bulldozer spreads radioactivity when it moves soil at a construction site. The claim isn't even wrong, it is just stupid.
Cute.
Actually, it is adding to an INES Level 7 event so you're wrong there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents#2010s
I try to keep close to the original headline given the slashdot limit. Sometimes editors change the headline, but this time it went through. If you RTFA I think you'll agree that I caught their tone pretty well. And, certainly, there is no water where they expected it to be suggesting a major problem. I used to write my own summaries pretty often, but now, if the writing is not too atrocious, I just quote because nuts will claim I'm making stuff up either way, but it is quicker to reply when it is a quote. So, RTFHL before going off next time.