" It is crucial for the place where the waste is put to remain geologically stable for a long time. For burial, a large depth is required."
Interesting that you mention this. Yucca Mountain is in one of the most geologically active areas of the country. It is near an actively forming rift more or less. There has been LOTS of volcanic activity in the region just within the past few million years even, stretching from Death Valley through Yucca Mountain and further up into Nevada.
Current plans are to turn the raw waste into a glass wasteform. Basically, it is mixed with a bunch of other stuff (like B, SiO2, P), melted, and turned into glass that pound for pound is nowhere near as nasty as the raw stuff. I think dirty bombs would require more concentrated radioactive material to be effective.
Actually, it is the scientific method. Instead of using lab tests to produce a result, your observations are the experiments.
For example, describing contrasting and similar features between several fossil species. It is possible and very scientific to use these observation to support and test a hypothesis.
Let's say there is a problem that has sparked debate on whether several species of horse within the past few million years up to the present come from the same evolutionary line. My hypothesis is that they are not. I collect fossils from the field, carefully observe and describe them, and discover that while they seem very different at first glance, the only real difference is increasing size, changes in their teeth, and a change from their feet having toes to a single hoof. Thus, I conclude that modern horses evolved along this line.
Going back to my plate tectonics example, I can test the hypothesis that the plates have constantly been moving by looking for rock types and structures that are indicative of plate boundaries.
I could go on and on with many more examples, but it would become redundant. The scientific method can be applied to just about anything. If someone tried to publish a paper in a journal just saying they thought X was true because they saw something that made them think that, they'd get ripped a new one real quick. You have to provide data to support X.
Many parts of the field of geology (yes evolution is part of geology since it deals mostly fossil critters) fall under your idea of not being scientific theories because they are untestable. This is due to time and/or not being able to set up the experiment. This is where the principle of uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past) and observational science come into play.
For example, is it possible to devise an experiment to disprove that the Earth's crust is divided into multiple plates that are moving, and that they have been continuously moving since the Earth was formed? Absolutely not! We can measure that they are currently moving, and can infer that they have moved in the past from various observational techniques, but we can't set up an experimental Earth and wait 4.6 billion years to see what would happen through time.
It is the same with evolution. We can look at various animal groups throughout the fossil record and see how features change as time goes on. We can look at the bone structures of a group of animals and see they are similar. We can even test for breeding compatibility. In the cats, a tiger and a lion are still compatible to produce offspring. But again, we can't set up an example Earth and wait for live to evolve.
I guess my point is that not every field of science is as simple and precise as a controlled lab experiment like mixing A with B to get C.
That is a possibility, however they haven't found any yet. Basically what they're saying now is that the maximum age based on data they have available. You can't scientifically say the universe is older based on data you don't have, and theories are *always* subject to change based on new data;)
"Charred wood inside a basalt lava flow: wood was C14 dated at ~45,000 years, basalt was K-Ar dated at 37,000,000 years."
It is possible the basalt was a product of mixing magmas of two different isotopic compositions. Basically on an isochron diagram (slope of which is the date of the rock), the line for initial crystallization is a flat line, the slope of which increases throughout time. However if mixing is occurring, the initial line will have a positive slope to begin with, yet the slope still increases the same rate throughout time. The result of this is a bogus age that is much older than the crystallization of the magma. A good example of this is some basalts from the East African Rift Valley.
Yes! This is the exact reason that you have to *carefully* select your sample. Any exchange with fluids of a different isotopic composition and/or any re-heating event can effectively completely change the age of the rock you get from dating.
Another thing you can do to reduce error in dating is careful sample preparation. For example, U-Pb dating using zircons from granite can be made more accurrate not only be separating out the zircons from the host rock using a good process, but by grinding away the outer, possibly altered layers of the crystal before analysis.
Just to defend radiometric dating somewhat here, I have actually taken a course on the subject so I know a bit about it. Depending on what isotopic system you are working with (U-Th-Pb, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, etc.), you have to make several assumptions about the rock you are trying to date. When dating lunar material, many of these assumptions are completely valid, the main one being a closed system. There is no water to leach elements from these rocks, and no atmosphere to speak of on the moon, therefore the system has effectively been closed to the exchange of parent and daughter products since their time of crystallization. Even if there was weathering going on at the Moon's surface, all it takes is very careful sample selection as well as picking the proper isotopic system in order to get a very good date. This is why we can date rocks on the Earth at all.
The other interesting thing is that the same date is found +- a couple millions years or so using different isotopic systems, which is a great check for accuracy.
Isn't this what science is about though? Learning something new that was previously unknown?
Application of the knowledge about Jupiter's magnetic field might be a different story, although you never know how this might be useful when (and if) we start exploring outside of our planet more and more.
Yes, and the pattern created is identicle to the devastation pattern a nuclear air-burst weapon creates. Obviously occurring before the advent of nukes, the only probable explanation is that some sort of extra-terrestrial object detonated in the atmosphere.
I distinctly remember seeing a show on this (Discovery channel, PBS, or some channel like that) that already discussed this quite a while back. They had already come to the conclusion the blast was either a comet or asteroid detonating in the atmosphere like a nuclear air blast. Anyone else remember seeing this?
I think air conditioning is a BAD idea. Minerals form because they are not soluble in the environment they form in, and they are only truly stable in that environment. You change the conditions and suddenly they're not stable anymore and begin to degrade. That goes for *anything*, diamonds included. Some are just harder to break down then others. If they truly want to preserve these wonderful crystals, I would keep the environment the way they found it.
I actually have not read the article, but I'm almost willing to bet undeniably they used Uranium-Lead dating. A certain amount of Uranium is present in all objects that cool out of a melt. The Uranium then eventual decays to a Lead decay product. As a result, the U/Pb ratio decreases at a set rate through time, which can be used to date the object.
I wonder if Metallica and Dr. Dre are aware that a great deal of the people that have been banned or will be banned can and will create a new Napster account after unsharing these bands mp3's. It seems like through the whole thing Metallica at least has been ignorant to how Napster actually works.
I would like to point out that being automatically reduced to -1 karma isn't censorship seeing as the message is not deleted and you can still click on it to read it even if you don't browse at -1.
I have heard several versions of how long this NetPD has been tracking people. At first I thought it was only over one weekend. Now I'm hearing it has been for several months. Does anyone have the actual facts on this?
Following your logic that Napster should be sued because they are the central company who allow for the distribution of Metallica mp3's, does it not also make sense to sue companies who make CD burners? I'm sure there are plenty of people who make burned copies of your music as well.
Umm, make did apply the download and apply the patches itself. Even then, the build failed more often then not for whatever reason. All I am saying is that I would like to be able to download a source tarball, unpack it, do a./configure and then a make and have it work correctly with no hitches. Also, the/usr/ports directory does not always contain the latest version of the software. I prefer to always get the brand new versions.
I actually did have success with that...but it had to download the file, apply freebsd patches, yadda yadda....I would rather be able to unpack a source tarball myself, do a configure, and then a make and have it work flawlessly as if linux;)
They've known for years that pollution can cause mental retardation, especially heavy metal contamination such as lead, cadmium, mercury, etc. In fact, I've heard of lead prospecting in areas of numerous cases of mental retardation;)
I really like compiling stuff for my own system too...however I don't go to the extreme of recompiling the whole system.;)
A while ago I tried FreeBSD...while it was really really fast and ran well, I couldn't get ANYTHING to compile, which is really a pain to someone like me who hates installing binaries. I had to download precompiled FreeBSD binaries for almost everything I wanted to install. I don't know if anything has changed since FreeBSD 3.2, but it was enough of a pain for me uninstall it after a week.
What version of Slackware are you using? 7.0 comes with rpm as well as Gnome. A note about rpm on slackware, you must use rpm -Uvh --force --nodeps whatever.rpm in order for it to work;)
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't think it's likely in the molten portions of the Earch"
You're right...but the inner core of the Earth is solid.
" It is crucial for the place where the waste is put to remain geologically stable for a long time. For burial, a large depth is required."
Interesting that you mention this. Yucca Mountain is in one of the most geologically active areas of the country. It is near an actively forming rift more or less. There has been LOTS of volcanic activity in the region just within the past few million years even, stretching from Death Valley through Yucca Mountain and further up into Nevada.
Just some food for thought.
I'm don't think that will be possible actually.
Current plans are to turn the raw waste into a glass wasteform. Basically, it is mixed with a bunch of other stuff (like B, SiO2, P), melted, and turned into glass that pound for pound is nowhere near as nasty as the raw stuff. I think dirty bombs would require more concentrated radioactive material to be effective.
Heh...I never said there wasn't any problems with studying evolution, just said we can apply the scientific method to do so. ;)
Actually, it is the scientific method. Instead of using lab tests to produce a result, your observations are the experiments.
For example, describing contrasting and similar features between several fossil species. It is possible and very scientific to use these observation to support and test a hypothesis.
Let's say there is a problem that has sparked debate on whether several species of horse within the past few million years up to the present come from the same evolutionary line. My hypothesis is that they are not. I collect fossils from the field, carefully observe and describe them, and discover that while they seem very different at first glance, the only real difference is increasing size, changes in their teeth, and a change from their feet having toes to a single hoof. Thus, I conclude that modern horses evolved along this line.
Going back to my plate tectonics example, I can test the hypothesis that the plates have constantly been moving by looking for rock types and structures that are indicative of plate boundaries.
I could go on and on with many more examples, but it would become redundant. The scientific method can be applied to just about anything. If someone tried to publish a paper in a journal just saying they thought X was true because they saw something that made them think that, they'd get ripped a new one real quick. You have to provide data to support X.
Many parts of the field of geology (yes evolution is part of geology since it deals mostly fossil critters) fall under your idea of not being scientific theories because they are untestable. This is due to time and/or not being able to set up the experiment. This is where the principle of uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past) and observational science come into play.
For example, is it possible to devise an experiment to disprove that the Earth's crust is divided into multiple plates that are moving, and that they have been continuously moving since the Earth was formed? Absolutely not! We can measure that they are currently moving, and can infer that they have moved in the past from various observational techniques, but we can't set up an experimental Earth and wait 4.6 billion years to see what would happen through time.
It is the same with evolution. We can look at various animal groups throughout the fossil record and see how features change as time goes on. We can look at the bone structures of a group of animals and see they are similar. We can even test for breeding compatibility. In the cats, a tiger and a lion are still compatible to produce offspring. But again, we can't set up an example Earth and wait for live to evolve.
I guess my point is that not every field of science is as simple and precise as a controlled lab experiment like mixing A with B to get C.
That is a possibility, however they haven't found any yet. Basically what they're saying now is that the maximum age based on data they have available. You can't scientifically say the universe is older based on data you don't have, and theories are *always* subject to change based on new data ;)
"Charred wood inside a basalt lava flow: wood was C14 dated at ~45,000 years, basalt was K-Ar dated at 37,000,000 years."
It is possible the basalt was a product of mixing magmas of two different isotopic compositions. Basically on an isochron diagram (slope of which is the date of the rock), the line for initial crystallization is a flat line, the slope of which increases throughout time. However if mixing is occurring, the initial line will have a positive slope to begin with, yet the slope still increases the same rate throughout time. The result of this is a bogus age that is much older than the crystallization of the magma. A good example of this is some basalts from the East African Rift Valley.
Yes! This is the exact reason that you have to *carefully* select your sample. Any exchange with fluids of a different isotopic composition and/or any re-heating event can effectively completely change the age of the rock you get from dating.
Another thing you can do to reduce error in dating is careful sample preparation. For example, U-Pb dating using zircons from granite can be made more accurrate not only be separating out the zircons from the host rock using a good process, but by grinding away the outer, possibly altered layers of the crystal before analysis.
Just to defend radiometric dating somewhat here, I have actually taken a course on the subject so I know a bit about it. Depending on what isotopic system you are working with (U-Th-Pb, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, etc.), you have to make several assumptions about the rock you are trying to date. When dating lunar material, many of these assumptions are completely valid, the main one being a closed system. There is no water to leach elements from these rocks, and no atmosphere to speak of on the moon, therefore the system has effectively been closed to the exchange of parent and daughter products since their time of crystallization. Even if there was weathering going on at the Moon's surface, all it takes is very careful sample selection as well as picking the proper isotopic system in order to get a very good date. This is why we can date rocks on the Earth at all.
The other interesting thing is that the same date is found +- a couple millions years or so using different isotopic systems, which is a great check for accuracy.
Isn't this what science is about though? Learning something new that was previously unknown?
Application of the knowledge about Jupiter's magnetic field might be a different story, although you never know how this might be useful when (and if) we start exploring outside of our planet more and more.
Yes, and the pattern created is identicle to the devastation pattern a nuclear air-burst weapon creates. Obviously occurring before the advent of nukes, the only probable explanation is that some sort of extra-terrestrial object detonated in the atmosphere.
I distinctly remember seeing a show on this (Discovery channel, PBS, or some channel like that) that already discussed this quite a while back. They had already come to the conclusion the blast was either a comet or asteroid detonating in the atmosphere like a nuclear air blast. Anyone else remember seeing this?
I think air conditioning is a BAD idea. Minerals form because they are not soluble in the environment they form in, and they are only truly stable in that environment. You change the conditions and suddenly they're not stable anymore and begin to degrade. That goes for *anything*, diamonds included. Some are just harder to break down then others. If they truly want to preserve these wonderful crystals, I would keep the environment the way they found it.
Ya know...a fission bomb is the detonator for an
H-bomb actually. Therefore you are getting fission
and fusion products in one package.
I actually have not read the article, but I'm almost willing to bet undeniably they used Uranium-Lead dating. A certain amount of Uranium is present in all objects that cool out of a melt.
The Uranium then eventual decays to a Lead decay product. As a result, the U/Pb ratio decreases at a set rate through time, which can be used to date the object.
I wonder if Metallica and Dr. Dre are aware that a great deal of the people that have been banned or will be banned can and will create a new Napster account after unsharing these bands mp3's. It seems like through the whole thing Metallica at least has been ignorant to how Napster actually works.
I would like to point out that being automatically reduced to -1 karma isn't censorship seeing as the message is not deleted and you can still click on it to read it even if you don't browse at -1.
Just a little rant I've had for a while.
I have heard several versions of how long this NetPD has been tracking people. At first I thought it was only over one weekend. Now I'm hearing it has been for several months. Does anyone have the actual facts on this?
Following your logic that Napster should be sued because they are the central company who allow for the distribution of Metallica mp3's, does it not also make sense to sue companies who make CD burners? I'm sure there are plenty of people who make burned copies of your music as well.
Umm, make did apply the download and apply the patches itself. Even then, the build failed more often then not for whatever reason. All I am saying is that I would like to be able to download a source tarball, unpack it, do a ./configure and then a make and have it work correctly with no hitches. Also, the /usr/ports directory does not always contain the latest version of the software. I prefer to always get the brand new versions.
I actually did have success with that...but it had to download the file, apply freebsd patches, yadda yadda....I would rather be able to unpack a source tarball myself, do a configure, and then a make and have it work flawlessly as if linux ;)
They've known for years that pollution can cause mental retardation, especially heavy metal contamination such as lead, cadmium, mercury, etc. In fact, I've heard of lead prospecting in areas of numerous cases of mental retardation ;)
I really like compiling stuff for my own system too...however I don't go to the extreme of recompiling the whole system. ;)
A while ago I tried FreeBSD...while it was really really fast and ran well, I couldn't get ANYTHING to compile, which is really a pain to someone like me who hates installing binaries. I had to download precompiled FreeBSD binaries for almost everything I wanted to install. I don't know if anything has changed since FreeBSD 3.2, but it was enough of a pain for me uninstall it after a week.
What version of Slackware are you using? 7.0 comes with rpm as well as Gnome. A note about rpm on slackware, you must use rpm -Uvh --force --nodeps whatever.rpm in order for it to work ;)