And one more thing -- everybody says "20 years" but that's not quite correct. A patent is only valid for 20 years for its "earliest effective filing date." Here, this patent was filed in 2001, but it claims priority from an application that way filed October 5, 2000 -- so the 20 year date started then, and the patent will expire October 4, 2020, not sometime in 2024.
Hopefully that info will make the wait less excrutiating!
"So, if I took a car wash, and used it to wash, say, trailers, without any mechanical differences in the device that was patented, I haven't created a new implementation. I've used the existing implementation of the patented device for a new purpose."
But that's because the implementation for washing trailers would ikely to be found to be an obvious "improvement," not because different implementations can't be patented.
If you had, say, a patent for a plastic box, if I found that your plastic box could be used to, say, catalyze a chemical reaction, I could patent the method of using a plastic box for catalyzing a reaction. If my patent were otherwise "patentable subject matter" and not anticipated by your patent, the fact that I am using your patented box without any modifications doesn't mean that I am unable to obtain a patent.
It does mean that I could possibly get sued for infringement by you if I actually tried to use your box to catalyze a reaction, but it would prevent me from getting a patent.
I think the disconnect comes in the previous example because a washing machine to car wash may not be far-fetched enough to avoid "anticipation."
It's more than just protecting the inventor from others. The main purpose of the patent is to give inventors the incentive to invent AND share their inventions so that others can build upon them -- it's the making of things public so that others don't have to constantly "reinvent the wheel" that promotes "science and the useful arts."
You can always invent something and keep it secret -- no patent required, and it'll remain "yours" until someone steals your secrets. A patent makes a deal with the inventor -- you get to decide who gets to practice your invention for 20 years (actually, 20 years from the date the patent was filed, not issued, subject to even more restrictions that can effectively shorten the period), but you have to tell the public enough about your invention so that they could make it themselves, and then improve upon it. That's the bargain the Government is making -- you let the public know, and we've got your back. For a while, at least.
For an example, look at Coke. Coke's got this secret recipe that they've had for, what, 100 years or so? Nobody else can make Coke because they don't know how -- which means Coke has a monopoly, and, in principle at least, the price for a can of Coke is higher than it would be if there was competition (I know Pepsi is competition, but bear with me here). Had Coke patented their secret formula, they would have had it exclusively for 20 years (actually 17 years from issue date, back in those days), but then the public would have known the secret recipe, and once the patent expired, their would be competition and maybe even someone would have developed an "advanced" Coke based on the formula.
But, Coke forgo the patent, and kept it secret. So, that means no competition, and nobody has been able to use the secret recipe to develop an advanced Coke. On the other hand, trade secrets can only be protected if they are, in fact, secret. If the secret recipe somehow gets out, Coke would not be able to keep others from making it.
So, while protecting the "sweat of the brow" of the inventor is certainly a positive aspect of patents, the trade of government protection for public disclosure is how patent "advance the useful arts."
If you read the actual patent, the claims -- especially the one independent claim -- are so poorly written that you would probably need to sit down with a lawyer to figure out how to infringe this patent. The scope of the independent claim is so narrow, it would be hard NOT to design around it, if you wanted to open your own Wa-My like surroundings in your own home.
The only purpose of this patent, as far as I can see, is to show off to the investment community that "hey, we're developing IP assets, our stock should be worth more." This patent is so narrow as to be almost uninfringeable, and was probably written that way specifically because there is so much prior art out there.
While the "one-click" patent, and a lot of biotech patents, may very well be a sign that the USPTO is going crazy, this patent certainly isn't. It's worthless, so why not grant it -- the fees they pay can be used to examine some really good patents...
"You can't patent a concept - only its implementation. I don't think I can wash a car in a dishwasher. Different implementations. However, if I took a washing machine and, without any mechanical changes whatsoever, tried to patent it as a money-laundering machine, I would not have a valid patent:-)"
That's not necessarily true. You CAN patent the new implemenation, if it is not anticipated or described in the original patent.
However, the original patent holder could very likely prevent you from practicing your new patent, so it may not do you any good...
"Last I checked, the USPTO didn't have jurisdiction over Canadian patents"
You're right, but, in general, prior art anywhere in the world (subject to some limitations) can prevent the grant of a patent in the U.S., event hough U.S. doesn't have "jurisdiction" over patents and art elsewhere.
Actually, the reason you register a copyright is not to prove a creation date, as that can easily be done like you suggest. There are three important reasons for registering a copyright with the copyright office:
1. You can't sue anyone for copyright infringement unless the copyright is registered;
2. If the copyright is registered BEFORE infringement occurs, you can sue for statutory damages and injunctive relief. If you wait to register until after infringment occurs, then all you can sue for is actual damages and profits. This is key because the majority of copyrighted works aren't profitable, so it's not worth suing -- but if you can collect $10,000 or more in statutory damages, then maybe its worth it.
3. If a copyright is registered, everyone in the U.S. is "on notice" that the copyright exists, and therefore makes it much easier to prove "willfulness" in a copyright infringement suit, which is where the big money is (and the only was to get your attorney's fees paid for). It's very difficult to prove that an infringer knew a copyright existed unless its registered.
I know we were mainly talking patents here, but I thought I would toss that in to clear things up (or confuse things mroe, depending on your point of view).
What does this get you? A copyright doesn't protect an "idea," it only protects an expression of an idea. And you can't protect an idea with a patent either. The original poster was right -- just publish the material into the public domain if you want to keep others from patenting the work.
However, remember that in the U.S. you can file for a patent as long as the material hasn't been publically known for a year, so there is still some danger involved. In the rest of the world, however, publication before submitting an application for a patent absolutely bars a patent being issueds.
"But for me to be able to give you somethign, I already have to have the copy and then give it to you."
Look at it this way -- if you steal a book, then leave the book in a place where someone else can take it and make a copy of it, yes you've stolen the book, but it is the person who made the copy who is violating the right to control reproduction.
When you copy a file off of someone else's computer, their computer doesn't first make a copy and then send it to you. If ti did, then your analogy would be correct. What really happens is your computer assembles a copy of the work from information it obtains from the other computer. That's a violation of the copyright owner's right to control reproduction under 17 USC 106(1), and there is a long list of cse law that supports this.
"Simply downloading something doesn't violate the law"
This simply isn't true. It may not be a criminal act, but it is still against the law, and the copyright holder can enforce his or her rights in civil court. Sharing violates the distribution rights under 17 USC 106(3), and downloading violated reporoduction rights under 17 USC 106(1). Furhter, sharing also probalby violates 17 USC 512 (or whatever section it is that makes it infringement to digitally transfer a copyrighted work).
Copyrights don't expire through nonenforcement, but there is still a concept called laches, which basically says if you know someone is infringing and you don't do anything about it, after a while it is no longer fair to go after them. Essentially, there is a statute of limitations on when you can bring a copyright infringement suit, and I think it is 3 years from the date that the copyright owner should reasonably have been aware of the infringing activity.
So, in a sense, you do lose the right to enforce your copyright, but there will be a seperate "clock" keeping track of each infringing activity. Just because you fail to follow up on one doesn't mean you can't go after another one later.
I guess I don't understand your point here. If you purchase something by mail order from a store in CA to be shipped to a CA address, you pay CA sales tax. This law would just bring Internet sales in line with mail-order transactions. You buy on the Internet froma store with a CA presence, ship to a CA address, pay CA sales tax. If any of the above don't apply, don't pay sales tax.
Not that I like it, mind you, but it does make sense.
"You equate the GPL with RIAA's use of market dominance to enforce a copyright?"
This was brought up as a defense in A&M Records, et.al. v. Napster, but was dismissed by the judge in that case. So it's not happening [/sarcasm]
"Filesharing copyrighted material is - to me - a form of public protest; civil disobedience. And it's already at critical mass"
Be careful, though, that you don't end up in jail -- Copyright violations do have a criminal penalty attached to them. And with Summary Judgment being awarded to Grokster and Morpheus, if the RIAA and MPAA can't go after the companies, they'll come after the users -- see RIAA v. Verizon...
"The only new law the RIAA has lobbied for in recent history concerning copyright infringements has been a law allowing it to hack into computers"
Actually, the RIAA was also behind the Copyright office's adoption of licensing fees for webcasters. But overall, I agree with your point -- just thought I would nitpick...
Re:Impact on the environment (and the ground)
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
No, that IS mere gravity alone -- where do you think the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration comes from anyway?
Fantastic post. If I had mod points, you would get them.
I think the natural criticality event you are talking about is the one that occured in deepest darkest Africa, and basically was an area with high enough U-235 concentration to start a chain reaction, which lasted for something like 50,000 years...
Also, it should be pointed out that there is a world of difference between this level of criticality -- which will create lots of heat, and has enough neutron flux to create or activate other elements -- and the level of criticality that results in a nuclear explosion. There isn't enough U-235 (or other elements of isotopes that decay via spontaneous fission) in nuclear waste (or even nuclear fuel!) to support a chain reaction that will lead up to a nuclear explosion.
Plus water is a pretty damn good shield for radiation -- the radiation would end up getting absorbed pretty fast, so any contamination would be very localized.
The lethality of plutonium (1 gram could kill a million people) is based on somehow get finely-ground plutonium into peoples lungs (not that hard to do, really -- finely ground plutonium (and uranium) is pyrophoric, so it will spontaneouslu burn and create smoke containing plutonium oxides, which can be deposited in the lungs -- this is the main reason why reactor fires suck). Then, once it is in the lungs, allowing the radiation to develop into cancer. So, even if plutonium gets into your lungs, it kills you by developing a cancer in your lungs -- not everyone who has plutonium in their lungs will get the cancer, or will die from the cancer if they get it. There can be other effects, but only the canerous effects are generally life-threatening.
Finely-divided plutonium or uranium is really only hazardous if it gets into your lungs -- if it gets into your body by eating or whatever, your body will just get rid of it (since is causes cancer and it not simply poisonous, it is only dangerous if it hangs out in your body for a long time).
SNAP-9A burned up at a pretty high altitude, so the plutonium, even when divided, was spread over a huge amount of area, so by the time the plutonium got to the ground, the density of plutonium dust in the air was probably extremely low, making the chances of breathing in enough plutonium to cause cancer extremely low.
Lung cancers caused by uranium or plutonium inhalation are pretty easy to diagnose, since you can easily detect the radioactive material. As far as I know, there are no cases in the literature of increased deaths due to lungs cancers as a result of radionuclide inhalation in Madagascar following the SNAP-9A incident, so chances are the density of plutonium dust in the air at ground level in Madagascar was too low to have a reasonable chance of infecting anyone.
Last thing -- plutonium and uranium are wicked heavy -- even though the "dust" was in the air, it won't stay suspended for long, so the low density of particulate matter at ground level combined with the limited amount of time the dust remained suspended is likely the reason why their weren't excess cancers due to radionuclide inhalation in Madagascar.
Nulear power is safer than any other method of mass-producing electrical power when measured as deaths\MWH produced.
Just for some perspective on how bad Chernobyl actually was, here is something I wrote for a friend of mine in response to an article he had read:
Basically, however, the worst-case scenario -- if a plane crashed into a reactor, destroyed the containment dome and set fire to the core -- has
essentially already happened in Chernobyl. How bad was Chernobyl? Pretty bad. Did it leave huge areas uninhabitable for all time? Hardly. Check out World Nuclear.Org for some up-to-date info on the aftereffects of Chernobyl. It was a really bad
accident, but not even close to being the end of the world.
Some quick point and counter-point:
"...the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl."
-- First off, it is physically impossible -- no way it can happen -- that a reactor could explode like a nuclear weapon, so the comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is right out. Three Mile Island? Less radiation was released from the TMI event than you would receive from a single chest x-ray. See the above link about Chernobyl. And what would make us think that a U.S. reactor with a similar output level to Chernobyl would create a bigger crisis than Chernobyl? If anything, our reactors are MORE efficient than the Russian reactors, so they would have LESS radioactive material, and therefore cause less of a problem in a similar situation...
"Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even
modest security tests over the years."
-- This is absolutely true. Roughly 50% of the plants tested failed security tests. Of course, 50% passed -- and what they fail to tell you is
that the tests were conducted by the same people who invented the security systems and put them is place -- which means they KNEW exactly how best to
defeat the security measures -- even then 50% still passed. Unless we need to worry about these guys blowing up plants...
"Without continuous monitoring and guaranteed
water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into
super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. The
radioactive clouds would then enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again."
-- First off, TMI did suffer a meltdown, yet the containment dome did what was expected -- it kept the melt from going down into the earth. Even if
the top of the containment dome were breached by an airplane or explosion or something, the containment UNDER the core would still be itact. Yeah, there would be some radiation leakage, but it is not like it would fry everything within a fifty mile radius or anything. If we could assume that the containment under the core did fail (not likely), then it is theoretically possible that the material could hit a water table and create a large amount of radioactive steam -- but would it contaminate the world?
Back in the fifties and sixties, we detonated hundreds of megatons worth of nuclear weapons in the ocean -- nuclear weapons are far, far hotter than a melted nuclear core (especially the fusion reactions from thermonuclear weapons), yet we didn't see huge clouds of radioactive steam eveloping the earth. Of course, we set these bombs off far out in the Pacific -- but there were witnesses within a few miles of these explosions who somehow survived. Even then, the story above suggests that these clouds would reach
Europe -- if a cloud from the East Coast generated by a melted nuke core in New York could reach Europe, certainly a cloud from a 25 megaton
thermonuclear explosion could have reached California or Mexico -- but it didn't. The only way radioactive fallout can travel appreciable distances is when you have high-altitude airbursts of very large nuclear weapons --
like the multi-megaton bombs set off in the upper atmosphere to test the effects of the electromagnetic pulse effect -- even the airbursts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were insufficient to send radioactive material flying
around the globe.
And another thing -- we have set off many, many weapons buried deep in the earth -- yet the explosions underground did not cause the water table to boil up in a huge cloud of radioactive steam.
The fact is is that the very worst possible nuclear reactor accident smallest nuclear weapon detonation. The U.S. alone has set off more than 350 nuclear weapons over the years, with an equal number set off by Russia
and dozens (if not hundreds) set off by other nuclear powers. To suggest that the destruction of a single nuclear power plant would result in an
environmental catastrophe that nearly a thousand nuclear weapon detonations has failed to create is just right out.
And finally, reactors are designed to fail safe -- we've learned a lot since TMI.
Ahhhh, this stuff drives me crazy. In the U.S., nuclear power has never killed anyone. Worldwide, even considering Chernobyl, nuclear power is the safest method of generating power on a per-megawatt basis. And it's plenty
green compared to many of the alternatives. And -- unlike most of the alternatives -- it actually has the potential to generate enough power to
actually support our economy...
Who cares whether the half-life is 24,000 years or 35,000 years anyway? The stuff to worry about (from a radiological sense) is the stuff with really short half-lives, years and shorter -- reason being is that the longer-lived stuff is much less radioactive than the shorter-lived stuff.
If you have a thousand atoms of a material with a half-life of a thousand years, a round number is one decay every other year. For a thousand atoms of a material with a half-life of a year, you would expect 500 decays over a year (note that these are averages, I don't feel like doing the integrals right now). So, the shorter half-life material is a thousand times more radioactive than the longer half-life material.
Second, the decay mode of the material is also of interest. Uranium and plutonium largely decay through alpha emission -- alpha particles are not dangerous (they cannot penetrate your skin) unless they are inhaled or injested -- which is bad, of course, and could happen -- but just having these materials around doesn't create much of a radiological hazard.
Uranium and plutonium are also hazardous if injested because they are heavy metals -- but this has to due with their chemical composition, and not really due to their radilogical effects.
The point being, the very-long half-life materials aren't a big deal from a radiological sense -- it would make much more sense to use a facility like Yucca Mountain to house the far more dangerous (radiologically) materials with half-lives in the hundreds of years range, and just treat the very-long lived materials -- like uranium and plutonium -- as we do any other heavy-metal industrial waste.
Slashdot Mirror
And one more thing -- everybody says "20 years" but that's not quite correct. A patent is only valid for 20 years for its "earliest effective filing date." Here, this patent was filed in 2001, but it claims priority from an application that way filed October 5, 2000 -- so the 20 year date started then, and the patent will expire October 4, 2020, not sometime in 2024.
Hopefully that info will make the wait less excrutiating!
"So, if I took a car wash, and used it to wash, say, trailers, without any mechanical differences in the device that was patented, I haven't created a new implementation. I've used the existing implementation of the patented device for a new purpose."
But that's because the implementation for washing trailers would ikely to be found to be an obvious "improvement," not because different implementations can't be patented.
If you had, say, a patent for a plastic box, if I found that your plastic box could be used to, say, catalyze a chemical reaction, I could patent the method of using a plastic box for catalyzing a reaction. If my patent were otherwise "patentable subject matter" and not anticipated by your patent, the fact that I am using your patented box without any modifications doesn't mean that I am unable to obtain a patent.
It does mean that I could possibly get sued for infringement by you if I actually tried to use your box to catalyze a reaction, but it would prevent me from getting a patent.
I think the disconnect comes in the previous example because a washing machine to car wash may not be far-fetched enough to avoid "anticipation."
It's more than just protecting the inventor from others. The main purpose of the patent is to give inventors the incentive to invent AND share their inventions so that others can build upon them -- it's the making of things public so that others don't have to constantly "reinvent the wheel" that promotes "science and the useful arts."
You can always invent something and keep it secret -- no patent required, and it'll remain "yours" until someone steals your secrets. A patent makes a deal with the inventor -- you get to decide who gets to practice your invention for 20 years (actually, 20 years from the date the patent was filed, not issued, subject to even more restrictions that can effectively shorten the period), but you have to tell the public enough about your invention so that they could make it themselves, and then improve upon it. That's the bargain the Government is making -- you let the public know, and we've got your back. For a while, at least.
For an example, look at Coke. Coke's got this secret recipe that they've had for, what, 100 years or so? Nobody else can make Coke because they don't know how -- which means Coke has a monopoly, and, in principle at least, the price for a can of Coke is higher than it would be if there was competition (I know Pepsi is competition, but bear with me here). Had Coke patented their secret formula, they would have had it exclusively for 20 years (actually 17 years from issue date, back in those days), but then the public would have known the secret recipe, and once the patent expired, their would be competition and maybe even someone would have developed an "advanced" Coke based on the formula.
But, Coke forgo the patent, and kept it secret. So, that means no competition, and nobody has been able to use the secret recipe to develop an advanced Coke. On the other hand, trade secrets can only be protected if they are, in fact, secret. If the secret recipe somehow gets out, Coke would not be able to keep others from making it.
So, while protecting the "sweat of the brow" of the inventor is certainly a positive aspect of patents, the trade of government protection for public disclosure is how patent "advance the useful arts."
If you read the actual patent, the claims -- especially the one independent claim -- are so poorly written that you would probably need to sit down with a lawyer to figure out how to infringe this patent. The scope of the independent claim is so narrow, it would be hard NOT to design around it, if you wanted to open your own Wa-My like surroundings in your own home.
The only purpose of this patent, as far as I can see, is to show off to the investment community that "hey, we're developing IP assets, our stock should be worth more." This patent is so narrow as to be almost uninfringeable, and was probably written that way specifically because there is so much prior art out there.
While the "one-click" patent, and a lot of biotech patents, may very well be a sign that the USPTO is going crazy, this patent certainly isn't. It's worthless, so why not grant it -- the fees they pay can be used to examine some really good patents...
"You can't patent a concept - only its implementation. I don't think I can wash a car in a dishwasher. Different implementations. :-)"
However, if I took a washing machine and, without any mechanical changes whatsoever, tried to patent it as a money-laundering machine, I would not have a valid patent
That's not necessarily true. You CAN patent the new implemenation, if it is not anticipated or described in the original patent.
However, the original patent holder could very likely prevent you from practicing your new patent, so it may not do you any good...
"Last I checked, the USPTO didn't have jurisdiction over Canadian patents"
You're right, but, in general, prior art anywhere in the world (subject to some limitations) can prevent the grant of a patent in the U.S., event hough U.S. doesn't have "jurisdiction" over patents and art elsewhere.
You're right. I didn't explain things so well, now, did I? Oh well, at least I got the Euro patent stuff right...
Actually, the reason you register a copyright is not to prove a creation date, as that can easily be done like you suggest. There are three important reasons for registering a copyright with the copyright office:
1. You can't sue anyone for copyright infringement unless the copyright is registered;
2. If the copyright is registered BEFORE infringement occurs, you can sue for statutory damages and injunctive relief. If you wait to register until after infringment occurs, then all you can sue for is actual damages and profits. This is key because the majority of copyrighted works aren't profitable, so it's not worth suing -- but if you can collect $10,000 or more in statutory damages, then maybe its worth it.
3. If a copyright is registered, everyone in the U.S. is "on notice" that the copyright exists, and therefore makes it much easier to prove "willfulness" in a copyright infringement suit, which is where the big money is (and the only was to get your attorney's fees paid for). It's very difficult to prove that an infringer knew a copyright existed unless its registered.
I know we were mainly talking patents here, but I thought I would toss that in to clear things up (or confuse things mroe, depending on your point of view).
What does this get you? A copyright doesn't protect an "idea," it only protects an expression of an idea. And you can't protect an idea with a patent either. The original poster was right -- just publish the material into the public domain if you want to keep others from patenting the work.
However, remember that in the U.S. you can file for a patent as long as the material hasn't been publically known for a year, so there is still some danger involved. In the rest of the world, however, publication before submitting an application for a patent absolutely bars a patent being issueds.
"But for me to be able to give you somethign, I already have to have the copy and then give it to you."
Look at it this way -- if you steal a book, then leave the book in a place where someone else can take it and make a copy of it, yes you've stolen the book, but it is the person who made the copy who is violating the right to control reproduction.
When you copy a file off of someone else's computer, their computer doesn't first make a copy and then send it to you. If ti did, then your analogy would be correct. What really happens is your computer assembles a copy of the work from information it obtains from the other computer. That's a violation of the copyright owner's right to control reproduction under 17 USC 106(1), and there is a long list of cse law that supports this.
Downloading is just as illegal as sharing.
"Simply downloading something doesn't violate the law"
This simply isn't true. It may not be a criminal act, but it is still against the law, and the copyright holder can enforce his or her rights in civil court. Sharing violates the distribution rights under 17 USC 106(3), and downloading violated reporoduction rights under 17 USC 106(1). Furhter, sharing also probalby violates 17 USC 512 (or whatever section it is that makes it infringement to digitally transfer a copyrighted work).
Great post. Wish I had mod points to spare...
Copyrights don't expire through nonenforcement, but there is still a concept called laches, which basically says if you know someone is infringing and you don't do anything about it, after a while it is no longer fair to go after them. Essentially, there is a statute of limitations on when you can bring a copyright infringement suit, and I think it is 3 years from the date that the copyright owner should reasonably have been aware of the infringing activity.
So, in a sense, you do lose the right to enforce your copyright, but there will be a seperate "clock" keeping track of each infringing activity. Just because you fail to follow up on one doesn't mean you can't go after another one later.
Just puts you on the same footing as mail-order businesses. At least your customers don't have to pay postage to order from you!
How about Portland, Oregon? You need to get permission to live there (ostensibly to control the huge influx of Californians).
Wouldn't this be unconstitutional?
I guess I don't understand your point here. If you purchase something by mail order from a store in CA to be shipped to a CA address, you pay CA sales tax. This law would just bring Internet sales in line with mail-order transactions. You buy on the Internet froma store with a CA presence, ship to a CA address, pay CA sales tax. If any of the above don't apply, don't pay sales tax.
Not that I like it, mind you, but it does make sense.
"You equate the GPL with RIAA's use of market dominance to enforce a copyright?"
This was brought up as a defense in A&M Records, et.al. v. Napster, but was dismissed by the judge in that case. So it's not happening [/sarcasm]
"Filesharing copyrighted material is - to me - a form of public protest; civil disobedience. And it's already at critical mass"
Be careful, though, that you don't end up in jail -- Copyright violations do have a criminal penalty attached to them. And with Summary Judgment being awarded to Grokster and Morpheus, if the RIAA and MPAA can't go after the companies, they'll come after the users -- see RIAA v. Verizon...
"The only new law the RIAA has lobbied for in recent history concerning copyright infringements has been a law allowing it to hack into computers"
Actually, the RIAA was also behind the Copyright office's adoption of licensing fees for webcasters. But overall, I agree with your point -- just thought I would nitpick...
No, that IS mere gravity alone -- where do you think the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration comes from anyway?
Fantastic post. If I had mod points, you would get them.
I think the natural criticality event you are talking about is the one that occured in deepest darkest Africa, and basically was an area with high enough U-235 concentration to start a chain reaction, which lasted for something like 50,000 years...
Also, it should be pointed out that there is a world of difference between this level of criticality -- which will create lots of heat, and has enough neutron flux to create or activate other elements -- and the level of criticality that results in a nuclear explosion. There isn't enough U-235 (or other elements of isotopes that decay via spontaneous fission) in nuclear waste (or even nuclear fuel!) to support a chain reaction that will lead up to a nuclear explosion.
You're probably right, heavy metals tend to be pretty toxic in the blood steam -- guess I was focusing too much on the radiological aspects.
Plus water is a pretty damn good shield for radiation -- the radiation would end up getting absorbed pretty fast, so any contamination would be very localized.
The lethality of plutonium (1 gram could kill a million people) is based on somehow get finely-ground plutonium into peoples lungs (not that hard to do, really -- finely ground plutonium (and uranium) is pyrophoric, so it will spontaneouslu burn and create smoke containing plutonium oxides, which can be deposited in the lungs -- this is the main reason why reactor fires suck). Then, once it is in the lungs, allowing the radiation to develop into cancer. So, even if plutonium gets into your lungs, it kills you by developing a cancer in your lungs -- not everyone who has plutonium in their lungs will get the cancer, or will die from the cancer if they get it. There can be other effects, but only the canerous effects are generally life-threatening.
Finely-divided plutonium or uranium is really only hazardous if it gets into your lungs -- if it gets into your body by eating or whatever, your body will just get rid of it (since is causes cancer and it not simply poisonous, it is only dangerous if it hangs out in your body for a long time).
SNAP-9A burned up at a pretty high altitude, so the plutonium, even when divided, was spread over a huge amount of area, so by the time the plutonium got to the ground, the density of plutonium dust in the air was probably extremely low, making the chances of breathing in enough plutonium to cause cancer extremely low.
Lung cancers caused by uranium or plutonium inhalation are pretty easy to diagnose, since you can easily detect the radioactive material. As far as I know, there are no cases in the literature of increased deaths due to lungs cancers as a result of radionuclide inhalation in Madagascar following the SNAP-9A incident, so chances are the density of plutonium dust in the air at ground level in Madagascar was too low to have a reasonable chance of infecting anyone.
Last thing -- plutonium and uranium are wicked heavy -- even though the "dust" was in the air, it won't stay suspended for long, so the low density of particulate matter at ground level combined with the limited amount of time the dust remained suspended is likely the reason why their weren't excess cancers due to radionuclide inhalation in Madagascar.
Nulear power is safer than any other method of mass-producing electrical power when measured as deaths\MWH produced.
Just for some perspective on how bad Chernobyl actually was, here is something I wrote for a friend of mine in response to an article he had read:
Basically, however, the worst-case scenario -- if a plane crashed into a reactor, destroyed the containment dome and set fire to the core -- has
essentially already happened in Chernobyl. How bad was Chernobyl? Pretty bad. Did it leave huge areas uninhabitable for all time? Hardly. Check out World Nuclear.Org for some up-to-date info on the aftereffects of Chernobyl. It was a really bad
accident, but not even close to being the end of the world.
Some quick point and counter-point:
"...the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl."
-- First off, it is physically impossible -- no way it can happen -- that a reactor could explode like a nuclear weapon, so the comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is right out. Three Mile Island? Less radiation was released from the TMI event than you would receive from a single chest x-ray. See the above link about Chernobyl. And what would make us think that a U.S. reactor with a similar output level to Chernobyl would create a bigger crisis than Chernobyl? If anything, our reactors are MORE efficient than the Russian reactors, so they would have LESS radioactive material, and therefore cause less of a problem in a similar situation...
"Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even
modest security tests over the years."
-- This is absolutely true. Roughly 50% of the plants tested failed security tests. Of course, 50% passed -- and what they fail to tell you is
that the tests were conducted by the same people who invented the security systems and put them is place -- which means they KNEW exactly how best to
defeat the security measures -- even then 50% still passed. Unless we need to worry about these guys blowing up plants...
"Without continuous monitoring and guaranteed
water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into
super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. The
radioactive clouds would then enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again."
-- First off, TMI did suffer a meltdown, yet the containment dome did what was expected -- it kept the melt from going down into the earth. Even if
the top of the containment dome were breached by an airplane or explosion or something, the containment UNDER the core would still be itact. Yeah, there would be some radiation leakage, but it is not like it would fry everything within a fifty mile radius or anything. If we could assume that the containment under the core did fail (not likely), then it is theoretically possible that the material could hit a water table and create a large amount of radioactive steam -- but would it contaminate the world?
Back in the fifties and sixties, we detonated hundreds of megatons worth of nuclear weapons in the ocean -- nuclear weapons are far, far hotter than a melted nuclear core (especially the fusion reactions from thermonuclear weapons), yet we didn't see huge clouds of radioactive steam eveloping the earth. Of course, we set these bombs off far out in the Pacific -- but there were witnesses within a few miles of these explosions who somehow survived. Even then, the story above suggests that these clouds would reach
Europe -- if a cloud from the East Coast generated by a melted nuke core in New York could reach Europe, certainly a cloud from a 25 megaton
thermonuclear explosion could have reached California or Mexico -- but it didn't. The only way radioactive fallout can travel appreciable distances is when you have high-altitude airbursts of very large nuclear weapons --
like the multi-megaton bombs set off in the upper atmosphere to test the effects of the electromagnetic pulse effect -- even the airbursts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were insufficient to send radioactive material flying
around the globe.
And another thing -- we have set off many, many weapons buried deep in the earth -- yet the explosions underground did not cause the water table to boil up in a huge cloud of radioactive steam.
The fact is is that the very worst possible nuclear reactor accident smallest nuclear weapon detonation. The U.S. alone has set off more than 350 nuclear weapons over the years, with an equal number set off by Russia
and dozens (if not hundreds) set off by other nuclear powers. To suggest that the destruction of a single nuclear power plant would result in an
environmental catastrophe that nearly a thousand nuclear weapon detonations has failed to create is just right out.
And finally, reactors are designed to fail safe -- we've learned a lot since TMI.
Ahhhh, this stuff drives me crazy. In the U.S., nuclear power has never killed anyone. Worldwide, even considering Chernobyl, nuclear power is the safest method of generating power on a per-megawatt basis. And it's plenty
green compared to many of the alternatives. And -- unlike most of the alternatives -- it actually has the potential to generate enough power to
actually support our economy...
Who cares whether the half-life is 24,000 years or 35,000 years anyway? The stuff to worry about (from a radiological sense) is the stuff with really short half-lives, years and shorter -- reason being is that the longer-lived stuff is much less radioactive than the shorter-lived stuff.
If you have a thousand atoms of a material with a half-life of a thousand years, a round number is one decay every other year. For a thousand atoms of a material with a half-life of a year, you would expect 500 decays over a year (note that these are averages, I don't feel like doing the integrals right now). So, the shorter half-life material is a thousand times more radioactive than the longer half-life material.
Second, the decay mode of the material is also of interest. Uranium and plutonium largely decay through alpha emission -- alpha particles are not dangerous (they cannot penetrate your skin) unless they are inhaled or injested -- which is bad, of course, and could happen -- but just having these materials around doesn't create much of a radiological hazard.
Uranium and plutonium are also hazardous if injested because they are heavy metals -- but this has to due with their chemical composition, and not really due to their radilogical effects.
The point being, the very-long half-life materials aren't a big deal from a radiological sense -- it would make much more sense to use a facility like Yucca Mountain to house the far more dangerous (radiologically) materials with half-lives in the hundreds of years range, and just treat the very-long lived materials -- like uranium and plutonium -- as we do any other heavy-metal industrial waste.