Aye, that's what I meant by "via the detour". However, no such requirement exists regarding free speech. That's a pure defensive right against government intrusion, not touching private contracts.
Nope. As multiply stated, then NDAs would be impossible. Government can make no law to restrict free speech. No problem enforcing a voluntarily entered contract that would hit you with a financial penalty when you say something in particular. Government can enforce such a contract just fine via the legal system.
In part. Constitutional law in general - I am not talking about the particulars of the American constitution here, with which I am not overly familiar - knows defensive rights against the government. That, for example, would be freedom of speech, which can not be abrogated by the government (within certain limits, e.g. classifying documents). On the other hand, you have more general human rights, e.g. the right to life. Those are not only protective against the government, those apply to every contractual relationship. I can't legally sign away my life or liberty in a contract - even voluntarily, I could not enter a contract that made me a slave. That's certainly a constitutional limit on individuals - via the detour that the constitution requires government to establish laws that make such contracts impossible and that require government to not enforce and nullify such contracts.
That's the problem, isn't it? In that context I point you to the "stress test" of european reactors afterwards. For decades, they told us that our containment buildings in germany where buildt to withstand a plane crash. Turns out, not a single containment would withstand the impact of a large passenger plane, most not even that of a small plane. Lies, lies and more lies again.
It is true that thyroid cancer is probably the best choice if you get to select which cancer you get. Survivability is very good. I don't want to discourage you, but I have a couple of friends who lost their thyroid, which may or may not be related to us growing up in on of the fallout hotspots of Chernobyl and getting a healthy dose of rain at exactly the wrong time. They all survived, but having to adjust and readjust your thyroid hormone medication all the time can be pretty shitty. Mood swings, depression, life-long dependency on medication. So, even though a vast majority survives it, the impact on your life is not exactly fun. Regardless of our differences on certain matters, you have my best wishes for getting through that if it should strike you. Regarding coal - there are alternatives. I am not saying to abandon all nuclear power overnight - but a controlled phasing out over 2-3 decades leaves ample room for replacement by natural gas, solar thermal, geo thermal, biomass, smart grid demand control and so on, and so on.
Fuel damage is not necessarily meltdown. The story was that the fuel damage was damage to the zirkalloy cladding, which they hardly could deny after the hydrogen explosions. In a suffciently cooled environment, that means that your fuel pellets drop out of the rods and collect at the bottom of the RPV, but do not necessarily melt. So far, that was the official story regarding the damage. Given the water coverage data, I completely agree that melting was a given from the first days, they just did not admit it.
Nope. Pure decay heat without criticality is mostly caused by decay of fission products - going via alpha/beta/gamma decay routes. For example 131I -> 131Xe + beta + gamma + antineutrino. Free neutrons are only involved in the fission itself - be it at the natural rate, which will not be influenced by boron, or by a chain reaction. If you inject boron, you at least suspect the possibility of a chain reaction going on.
True, but core damage does not necessarily mean meltdown. The story at the point was that the damage was partial loss of the zircalloy cladding. This counts as first containment level, basically. That the local temperatures were high enough for actually melting the fuel was not admitted at that point, but pretty much clear from the reactor status.
Of course. No seriously impact. Except for thousands of evacuees and a massive economic damage. That is now. The thyroid cancers come later. Dude, the whole you dug yourself into is so deep by now that you might get your personal china syndrome here. Sometimes the point is reached where simply admitting to be wrong instead of digging on might be the best solution.
They do have a history of covering things up - a history that spans decades. While it is conjecture, there is quite some historical support to it. At least enough to trust them no farther than you can throw them.
Mate, give it up. Criticizing the holy nuclear industry will get the bury brigade into full motion. Fastest way to get a troll mod, even faster then posting goatse.
If you look at their temp gauges over at the TEPCO website, this is definitely not the case here. Especially at unit 3 there are still temperatures over 200 ÂC and they do not really get them down, even with constantly increasing water injection rates. For some reason, they started borating the water again last week - wonder why that is, if recriticality is not even remotely possible, as by their statements.
Well, if you followed the discussion over at physicsforum.org, which is populated by quite a lot of nuclear engineers, it seemed to be relatively clear from the onset that the cores at 1-3 had at least partially melted down. Reported water levels left not much room for speculation there. TEPCO is not exactly known for playing it straight, so yeah, I would call that downplaying.
As I said down below, I didn't read the whole subthread and didn't see your later post when I wrote this. I can totally agree that some particular green organizations are pretty far in the nutcase territory. Just got riled up on the generalization, but that's out of the way anyway. The sheer amount of strawmen getting burned when it comes to environmental issues on/. has me on a hair trigger some days.
Contrary to popular assumptions, this is actually the stance of a pretty wide segment of the environmental movement - in particular amongst those who have their eyes firmly on resource depletion problem. See the forums at theoildrum.com for example. Urbanization is indeed energy efficient - if you do it right.
You forgot that the evil green conspiracy hates YOU. Personally. They are out to get you, drive you out of your SUV, out of your flat and force you to live in a cave. Did I miss anything?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd still like to have his typewriter. I got some, erm, ideas, to type up....
You gotta admit that in some cases, it's hard to tell these days.
Indeed. We have some positively heretic shit going on here. Burn em at the stake!
Aye, that's what I meant by "via the detour". However, no such requirement exists regarding free speech. That's a pure defensive right against government intrusion, not touching private contracts.
Nope. As multiply stated, then NDAs would be impossible. Government can make no law to restrict free speech. No problem enforcing a voluntarily entered contract that would hit you with a financial penalty when you say something in particular. Government can enforce such a contract just fine via the legal system.
In part. Constitutional law in general - I am not talking about the particulars of the American constitution here, with which I am not overly familiar - knows defensive rights against the government. That, for example, would be freedom of speech, which can not be abrogated by the government (within certain limits, e.g. classifying documents). On the other hand, you have more general human rights, e.g. the right to life. Those are not only protective against the government, those apply to every contractual relationship. I can't legally sign away my life or liberty in a contract - even voluntarily, I could not enter a contract that made me a slave. That's certainly a constitutional limit on individuals - via the detour that the constitution requires government to establish laws that make such contracts impossible and that require government to not enforce and nullify such contracts.
That's the problem, isn't it? In that context I point you to the "stress test" of european reactors afterwards. For decades, they told us that our containment buildings in germany where buildt to withstand a plane crash. Turns out, not a single containment would withstand the impact of a large passenger plane, most not even that of a small plane. Lies, lies and more lies again.
It is true that thyroid cancer is probably the best choice if you get to select which cancer you get. Survivability is very good. I don't want to discourage you, but I have a couple of friends who lost their thyroid, which may or may not be related to us growing up in on of the fallout hotspots of Chernobyl and getting a healthy dose of rain at exactly the wrong time. They all survived, but having to adjust and readjust your thyroid hormone medication all the time can be pretty shitty. Mood swings, depression, life-long dependency on medication. So, even though a vast majority survives it, the impact on your life is not exactly fun. Regardless of our differences on certain matters, you have my best wishes for getting through that if it should strike you. Regarding coal - there are alternatives. I am not saying to abandon all nuclear power overnight - but a controlled phasing out over 2-3 decades leaves ample room for replacement by natural gas, solar thermal, geo thermal, biomass, smart grid demand control and so on, and so on.
Fuel damage is not necessarily meltdown. The story was that the fuel damage was damage to the zirkalloy cladding, which they hardly could deny after the hydrogen explosions. In a suffciently cooled environment, that means that your fuel pellets drop out of the rods and collect at the bottom of the RPV, but do not necessarily melt. So far, that was the official story regarding the damage. Given the water coverage data, I completely agree that melting was a given from the first days, they just did not admit it.
Nope. Pure decay heat without criticality is mostly caused by decay of fission products - going via alpha/beta/gamma decay routes. For example 131I -> 131Xe + beta + gamma + antineutrino. Free neutrons are only involved in the fission itself - be it at the natural rate, which will not be influenced by boron, or by a chain reaction. If you inject boron, you at least suspect the possibility of a chain reaction going on.
True, but core damage does not necessarily mean meltdown. The story at the point was that the damage was partial loss of the zircalloy cladding. This counts as first containment level, basically. That the local temperatures were high enough for actually melting the fuel was not admitted at that point, but pretty much clear from the reactor status.
Of course. No seriously impact. Except for thousands of evacuees and a massive economic damage. That is now. The thyroid cancers come later. Dude, the whole you dug yourself into is so deep by now that you might get your personal china syndrome here. Sometimes the point is reached where simply admitting to be wrong instead of digging on might be the best solution.
They do have a history of covering things up - a history that spans decades. While it is conjecture, there is quite some historical support to it. At least enough to trust them no farther than you can throw them.
Nice way of instrumentalizing the tsunami victims for your agenda. The mark of a great personality.
Mate, give it up. Criticizing the holy nuclear industry will get the bury brigade into full motion. Fastest way to get a troll mod, even faster then posting goatse.
If you look at their temp gauges over at the TEPCO website, this is definitely not the case here. Especially at unit 3 there are still temperatures over 200 ÂC and they do not really get them down, even with constantly increasing water injection rates. For some reason, they started borating the water again last week - wonder why that is, if recriticality is not even remotely possible, as by their statements.
Well, if you followed the discussion over at physicsforum.org, which is populated by quite a lot of nuclear engineers, it seemed to be relatively clear from the onset that the cores at 1-3 had at least partially melted down. Reported water levels left not much room for speculation there. TEPCO is not exactly known for playing it straight, so yeah, I would call that downplaying.
Machine propaganda!
Don't forget the machines...
This is the metaphor department. The pun department is down the hallway, on your right.
As I said down below, I didn't read the whole subthread and didn't see your later post when I wrote this. I can totally agree that some particular green organizations are pretty far in the nutcase territory. Just got riled up on the generalization, but that's out of the way anyway. The sheer amount of strawmen getting burned when it comes to environmental issues on /. has me on a hair trigger some days.
Contrary to popular assumptions, this is actually the stance of a pretty wide segment of the environmental movement - in particular amongst those who have their eyes firmly on resource depletion problem. See the forums at theoildrum.com for example. Urbanization is indeed energy efficient - if you do it right.
Apologies for the flame above. Should have read the whole subthread before unleashing my wrath.
You forgot that the evil green conspiracy hates YOU. Personally. They are out to get you, drive you out of your SUV, out of your flat and force you to live in a cave. Did I miss anything?
It also makes the occasional strawman go up into flames.