Actually, once it's reprocessed using existing technology, it is suitable for any existing reactor. Some existing designs such as Candu would work well with a simplified and cheaper re-processing.
No, I mean a conventional reactor that we already have. A Candu is well suited for that but we do know how to purify the result enough for any current reactor.
Radon is already in nature. Menu people had to put vent fans in their basement to deal with natural radon. With a half-life of 3.x days, the radon isn't going to travel far.
Really, how much energy do you think that would take at Fukushima?
Weren't we talking about waste in America? However, you can still use the heat from the distillation, so it's not like it's wasted.
So, what your saying is, just leave them in the lockers and bins where they are stored now scattered across the country side where anyone can access it. No need for any waste facility and centralized access control because you think everything is perfectly fine where it is and we don't really need a waste facility at all?
It wouldn't do much harm to just leave them where they are, but if it makes you feel better, bury them with the radioactive fly-ash from the coal plants in the conventional landfill. Or just throw them in the trash.
I didn't claim there is no nuclear waste, just that it's nowhere near as bad as the NG article would have you believe. Meanwhile, the properties of U238 are public knowledge, look it up in any reputable source and see if what I said about it is true.
Here's one that can be resolved by logic alone. The mixed U cam out of mines. Then the active U235 was concentrated leaving depleted uranium (DU) consisting of the much more stable U238. If we simply re-oxidise that and shove it back into the natural rock formations we got it from, how have we created a hazard that wasn't there since man evolved? It would actually be a bit LESS radioactive than it was before.
Meanwhile, weapons grade Pu239 is also known as high quality nuclear fuel. As CrimsonAvenger points out, it is now being used as such.
Pick any reputable source and look up the composition of 'spent' fuel rods. You'll see that it is about 95% usable fuel (after reprocessing). So when you read about all those tons of spent fuel, note that only 5% of it is actual nuclear waste. Also note the composition of that waste. None of it has the huge half-life that leads to the horror stories about needing to store it long after nobody can read English anymore and all that crap. It will be less radioactive than the background levels in about 500 years. It will be reasonably safe after 250 years. Those figures are on the web as well.
As for the last part, note that the leftover slag and sludge from coal and oil will still be carcinogenic in 500 years. If we treated the coal and oil industries like we treat nuclear, they would be forced to find a way to destroy it or prove that they could store it until the end of time. We would certainly not let them pile it up outside and then put it in a landfill.
Obamacare is mandatory insurance with assistance for those who can't afford it. That plus some reforms in the health insurance industry is helpful to the poor and to those who were un-insurable before, but it really doesn't get at the fact that we pay way too much for healthcare in the first place and so pay too much for the insurance (due to the failure of the market). Arguably, it actually increases the overall cost by adding an additional layer of management to the process.
But not really radioactive waste. It is no more dangerous than other metals such as sodium, lead, or mercury. Coal plants have released a lot of mercury into the environment. It's why pregnant women are advised to avoid tuna.
Up a few posts in the thread, I enumerated them showing that most of that waste is either not actually waste, not radioactive, or not radioactive enough to warrant such concern.
That while that 'sobering article' wasn't quite a lie, it was edging very close to the line to make the nuclear waste situation look much worse than it actually is.
By that standard, every normally operating coal plant is much worse than Three Mile Island during it's incident, but since it's not the N word, it's all A-OK.
Most of that 'Waste' is fuel that should be 'burned' in a reactor. The tailings came out of the ground in a mine and when the mine is depleted, they can go back in. The area will be less radioactive than it was before we started. The depleted uranium is just metal, nothing special about it except that it's density makes it a pretty good material for armor piercing rounds. We can use it for things like that, bury it, or breed it into fuel (or particalize it and blow it into the air like coal plants do, but I don't recommend that one). The liquid waste is mostly water, if we apply a bit of energy to it (perhaps from a nuclear reactor), we can diminish that considerably and have a more manageable waste. The tools and such are low level waste. We don't want kids playing with it, but it's not worse in general than the various carcinogenic waste from coal and oil.
It's amazing how bad you can make anything look if you're willing to stretch the truth. Just think of the many gallons of toxic waste created when you build a solar thermal plant (and by toxic waste, I mean in the porta-pottys).
The AC pretty well covered it, but if you have a good enough reason to paw through their phone, you can get a warrant. This means you either don't tip your hand until you have the warrant or you arrest them on the spot while the warrant comes in (presumably that includes not letting them have their phone).
If you don't have enough evidence to make that happen, leave them alone.
Do you think the sort of person who would have evidence of a serious crime on their phone would hesitate for a moment to present a fake ID to the ever vigilant and eagle eyed clerk at the slurp and gulp? Or just steal one?
No, they can't. Eventually they have to communicate over the network or meet someone face to face. Somehow they have to get their payment and put it somewhere where they can use it. If nothing is happening that looks like criminal activity, the police have no business looking at their phone at all. If it is, they can get a warrant, they're being passed out like candy these days.
Not necessarily. For example, an economy where most necessities and many nice-to-haves are produced by state owned companies but individuals and non-state groups are permitted to compete if they can would have an element of capitalism and would be a market economy, but not really capitalism as a whole.
I don't know of a country that does that with everything, but several handle healthcare that way.
Nor is it Netflix's job to subsidize Comcast. That's why they were willing to meet them half way. Why would Netflix want to pay Comcast for the privilege of saving Comcast money?
I am not a Netflix customer and have little knowledge of their prices etc.
Netflix wasn't involved in the routing decisions. They were paying Cogent to take care of that. If Comcast didn't like where Cogent was dumping the traffic onto their network, they should have adjusted the routes they advertised to the peering routers.
They could also have taken Netflix up on their standing offer to provide cache servers.
Not really: Comcast subscribers are not paying for any particular quantity of Netflix or any other content and may not even be subscribers of. Flat monthly rates are based on bulk average costs plus markups where the low-volume users "subsidize" the high-volume users so the ISPs can meet their gross profit margin target.
Comcast made the offer freely and the customers accepted. It's a bit late for Comcast to be complaining about it. There are transfer limits involved even though the original offer was 'unlimited'. In reality, transfer rate is the driving factor in infrastructure costs.
I thought it was Cogent they were arguing with. The answer to that for Comcast is to restrict the routes they announce at the various peering points. It's a bit low class to drag Netflix directly into what was a dispute between two network providers, especially when Netflix already made a standing offer to provide cache servers within Comcast's network.
Slashdot Mirror
The concern is that with A. aegypti gone, the asian tiger mosquito will fill the niche and be as bad or worse since it also carries dengue.
Yes. The 95% consists of U235 and Pu.
I wasn't asked to prove it, just to point out areas of interest. Google is your friend if you'd like to fact check.
Actually, once it's reprocessed using existing technology, it is suitable for any existing reactor. Some existing designs such as Candu would work well with a simplified and cheaper re-processing.
Says the stupid dude that could have verified my statements with 5 minutes worth of Googling?
You mean in a "burner" reactor like IFR?
No, I mean a conventional reactor that we already have. A Candu is well suited for that but we do know how to purify the result enough for any current reactor.
Radon is already in nature. Menu people had to put vent fans in their basement to deal with natural radon. With a half-life of 3.x days, the radon isn't going to travel far.
Really, how much energy do you think that would take at Fukushima?
Weren't we talking about waste in America? However, you can still use the heat from the distillation, so it's not like it's wasted.
So, what your saying is, just leave them in the lockers and bins where they are stored now scattered across the country side where anyone can access it. No need for any waste facility and centralized access control because you think everything is perfectly fine where it is and we don't really need a waste facility at all?
It wouldn't do much harm to just leave them where they are, but if it makes you feel better, bury them with the radioactive fly-ash from the coal plants in the conventional landfill. Or just throw them in the trash.
I didn't claim there is no nuclear waste, just that it's nowhere near as bad as the NG article would have you believe. Meanwhile, the properties of U238 are public knowledge, look it up in any reputable source and see if what I said about it is true.
Here's one that can be resolved by logic alone. The mixed U cam out of mines. Then the active U235 was concentrated leaving depleted uranium (DU) consisting of the much more stable U238. If we simply re-oxidise that and shove it back into the natural rock formations we got it from, how have we created a hazard that wasn't there since man evolved? It would actually be a bit LESS radioactive than it was before.
Meanwhile, weapons grade Pu239 is also known as high quality nuclear fuel. As CrimsonAvenger points out, it is now being used as such.
Pick any reputable source and look up the composition of 'spent' fuel rods. You'll see that it is about 95% usable fuel (after reprocessing). So when you read about all those tons of spent fuel, note that only 5% of it is actual nuclear waste. Also note the composition of that waste. None of it has the huge half-life that leads to the horror stories about needing to store it long after nobody can read English anymore and all that crap. It will be less radioactive than the background levels in about 500 years. It will be reasonably safe after 250 years. Those figures are on the web as well.
As for the last part, note that the leftover slag and sludge from coal and oil will still be carcinogenic in 500 years. If we treated the coal and oil industries like we treat nuclear, they would be forced to find a way to destroy it or prove that they could store it until the end of time. We would certainly not let them pile it up outside and then put it in a landfill.
Obamacare is mandatory insurance with assistance for those who can't afford it. That plus some reforms in the health insurance industry is helpful to the poor and to those who were un-insurable before, but it really doesn't get at the fact that we pay way too much for healthcare in the first place and so pay too much for the insurance (due to the failure of the market). Arguably, it actually increases the overall cost by adding an additional layer of management to the process.
It's not hard in broad terms to rank the quality and cost of healthcare in the 1st world.
No doubt, the countries with socialized medicine could do better but none do as badly as the U.S.
But not really radioactive waste. It is no more dangerous than other metals such as sodium, lead, or mercury. Coal plants have released a lot of mercury into the environment. It's why pregnant women are advised to avoid tuna.
Up a few posts in the thread, I enumerated them showing that most of that waste is either not actually waste, not radioactive, or not radioactive enough to warrant such concern.
However, practically all examples work better than allowing the failed market to continue.
That while that 'sobering article' wasn't quite a lie, it was edging very close to the line to make the nuclear waste situation look much worse than it actually is.
points 3 and 5 are why the figures about waste in production of meat are misleading. The cattle eat things we can't or won't.
By that standard, every normally operating coal plant is much worse than Three Mile Island during it's incident, but since it's not the N word, it's all A-OK.
Most of that 'Waste' is fuel that should be 'burned' in a reactor. The tailings came out of the ground in a mine and when the mine is depleted, they can go back in. The area will be less radioactive than it was before we started. The depleted uranium is just metal, nothing special about it except that it's density makes it a pretty good material for armor piercing rounds. We can use it for things like that, bury it, or breed it into fuel (or particalize it and blow it into the air like coal plants do, but I don't recommend that one). The liquid waste is mostly water, if we apply a bit of energy to it (perhaps from a nuclear reactor), we can diminish that considerably and have a more manageable waste. The tools and such are low level waste. We don't want kids playing with it, but it's not worse in general than the various carcinogenic waste from coal and oil.
It's amazing how bad you can make anything look if you're willing to stretch the truth. Just think of the many gallons of toxic waste created when you build a solar thermal plant (and by toxic waste, I mean in the porta-pottys).
The AC pretty well covered it, but if you have a good enough reason to paw through their phone, you can get a warrant. This means you either don't tip your hand until you have the warrant or you arrest them on the spot while the warrant comes in (presumably that includes not letting them have their phone).
If you don't have enough evidence to make that happen, leave them alone.
Do you think the sort of person who would have evidence of a serious crime on their phone would hesitate for a moment to present a fake ID to the ever vigilant and eagle eyed clerk at the slurp and gulp? Or just steal one?
Ahhh, yes, a WARRANT! That seems like a good idea. Perhaps they should get one for the phone.
You want the police to be able to snatch your stuff at random for no good reason? I'd like them to have to show a good reason to a judge first.
No, they can't. Eventually they have to communicate over the network or meet someone face to face. Somehow they have to get their payment and put it somewhere where they can use it. If nothing is happening that looks like criminal activity, the police have no business looking at their phone at all. If it is, they can get a warrant, they're being passed out like candy these days.
Not necessarily. For example, an economy where most necessities and many nice-to-haves are produced by state owned companies but individuals and non-state groups are permitted to compete if they can would have an element of capitalism and would be a market economy, but not really capitalism as a whole.
I don't know of a country that does that with everything, but several handle healthcare that way.
Nor is it Netflix's job to subsidize Comcast. That's why they were willing to meet them half way. Why would Netflix want to pay Comcast for the privilege of saving Comcast money?
I am not a Netflix customer and have little knowledge of their prices etc.
Netflix wasn't involved in the routing decisions. They were paying Cogent to take care of that. If Comcast didn't like where Cogent was dumping the traffic onto their network, they should have adjusted the routes they advertised to the peering routers.
They could also have taken Netflix up on their standing offer to provide cache servers.
Not really: Comcast subscribers are not paying for any particular quantity of Netflix or any other content and may not even be subscribers of. Flat monthly rates are based on bulk average costs plus markups where the low-volume users "subsidize" the high-volume users so the ISPs can meet their gross profit margin target.
Comcast made the offer freely and the customers accepted. It's a bit late for Comcast to be complaining about it. There are transfer limits involved even though the original offer was 'unlimited'. In reality, transfer rate is the driving factor in infrastructure costs.
I thought it was Cogent they were arguing with. The answer to that for Comcast is to restrict the routes they announce at the various peering points. It's a bit low class to drag Netflix directly into what was a dispute between two network providers, especially when Netflix already made a standing offer to provide cache servers within Comcast's network.