>> And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt. There are some lakes upriver. A tsunami is definitely possible, if unlikely : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... There is also the possibility of a normal flood, which nearly destroyed a few nukes already.
Yeah, vitrification. With no venting of the gasses generated from isotopic decay. And with material fatigue from the radiation. The question is not if this containment will fail, but when.
Yes it makes sense. No, it doesn't make that much sense. If you store waste on a contaminated area, you cannot really measure if there are small leaks.
Also, an area like this will only be habitable again if there are no leaks. if there are leaks, it will never recover. And there will be leaks. There's no known working containment system as of today.
Major US Carriers Open Free Calls And Texts To Brussels. All your calls and texts will be rerouted to Utah, though, with no chance of them arriving at Brussels.
And electricity is about 23% of the consumed energy. So 0,6% of energy is about 2,6% of global electrical consumption. So, 5 years from now, solar electricity from china will represent approx. 25% of global electricity production. Nuke is at 10% today, and falling.
>> The study is based on correlations; you cannot infer causation from those correlations. Yeah, sure. Give weapons to everybody, "just in case". people will never shoot at each other.
As long as it does not explode. As long as it does not leak.
Yes it will explode at the neighbour's plant, ours are much much safer. Everybody says that. Yes it will leak, but only when our children will benefit from those leaks. At least that was the assumption. Often it leaks earlier.
But hey, there's at least one really safe nuclear plant : Zwentendorf
>> Here's a better question. Why don't we build nuclear power plants that simply cannot meltdown? because physics. Nuclear reactors that simply cannot meltdown are those who are already melted. And those are even much more dangerous than the actual consensus. It's not more dangerous from the reactor itself, but from the chemical processing plant that it permanently has to flows through.
OK, let's see that : "In 2012, there were an estimated 8.2 million deaths from cancer in the world" so according to you, there were all in all only 8200 cancer deaths from nuke accidents. Nukes exist since roughly 65 years, that would make 126 deaths/year. It's probably more, much more than that.
Not really. it does not take into account the local concentration in the body. Inhale a very small but alpha emitting dirt particle (such as dust emitted by exploding and melting nuclear reactors), it won't give you a big dosis ( because that's averaged on the whole body), but it will damage the few cubic millimetres around it in the lungs, and will kill you slowly and surely.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Dump it into the Mariana Trench
Does not work
>> shoot it into the sun
Does not work
>> actually *develop* the reuse of fuel systems.
Does not work
Nope. There are other landslides causes than eruptions.
>> Every gasoline car on the road has a subsidy, and the right way to address that is with a carbon tax
That's not correct.
The right way to do that is a fuel tax. Also for aviation and ocean shipping, which currently pay nearly no taxes.
>> And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.
There are some lakes upriver. A tsunami is definitely possible, if unlikely :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is also the possibility of a normal flood, which nearly destroyed a few nukes already.
Nothing new here.
The rotten apple.
>> Xbox 360 game servers will also remain functional
mmmh Yeah. Does the 360 run Linux ?
>> With a flight time of 32 seconds is this more of a jump jet than a jet pack?
No, it's a Dumb Jet.
An accident waiting to happen. Any unforeseen difficulty, needing a few more seconds of fuel, and you're toast.
>>When a jet pack looses power you're always fucked.
Not if you have enough altitude and a parachute.
Some people do it right :
www.jetman.com
>>Are Communications Records of Americans Retained Forever?
The official answer is yes :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The communication records of everybody are retained forever.
Yeah, vitrification. With no venting of the gasses generated from isotopic decay. And with material fatigue from the radiation.
The question is not if this containment will fail, but when.
Where is the related hitler parody ?
Yes it makes sense. No, it doesn't make that much sense.
If you store waste on a contaminated area, you cannot really measure if there are small leaks.
Also, an area like this will only be habitable again if there are no leaks. if there are leaks, it will never recover. And there will be leaks. There's no known working containment system as of today.
Major US Carriers Open Free Calls And Texts To Brussels. All your calls and texts will be rerouted to Utah, though, with no chance of them arriving at Brussels.
And electricity is about 23% of the consumed energy.
So 0,6% of energy is about 2,6% of global electrical consumption.
So, 5 years from now, solar electricity from china will represent approx. 25% of global electricity production. Nuke is at 10% today, and falling.
the humans built up a water distributionm system for 2500 ans, and put a lot of effort into it, only for morons to go carry water in bottles.
You have no clue how the rest of the world works.
No.
Ethernet is a successful standard.
Don't change it. Don't.
I like the design of the old slim but fragile XJACK ethernet receptacles : https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
>> The study is based on correlations; you cannot infer causation from those correlations.
Yeah, sure. Give weapons to everybody, "just in case". people will never shoot at each other.
>>It's a slapdash bunch of crap stuck together
That's the definition of a system.
Upgrade to Linux is recommended...
As long as it does not explode.
As long as it does not leak.
Yes it will explode at the neighbour's plant, ours are much much safer. Everybody says that.
Yes it will leak, but only when our children will benefit from those leaks. At least that was the assumption. Often it leaks earlier.
But hey, there's at least one really safe nuclear plant : Zwentendorf
>> Here's a better question. Why don't we build nuclear power plants that simply cannot meltdown?
because physics. Nuclear reactors that simply cannot meltdown are those who are already melted. And those are even much more dangerous than the actual consensus. It's not more dangerous from the reactor itself, but from the chemical processing plant that it permanently has to flows through.
OK, let's see that :
"In 2012, there were an estimated 8.2 million deaths from cancer in the world"
so according to you, there were all in all only 8200 cancer deaths from nuke accidents.
Nukes exist since roughly 65 years, that would make 126 deaths/year.
It's probably more, much more than that.
hmm. Dead people don't overflow and resurrect.
Not really. it does not take into account the local concentration in the body. Inhale a very small but alpha emitting dirt particle (such as dust emitted by exploding and melting nuclear reactors), it won't give you a big dosis ( because that's averaged on the whole body), but it will damage the few cubic millimetres around it in the lungs, and will kill you slowly and surely.