I thought the metal parts are already prone to energy loss from the eddy currents generated by the earths magnetic field and their relative speed. So they should come down automatically. Of course this doesn't apply to the non-metal parts which still can use this 'tether'.
I hear and see a lot of thing on RT about the USA that isn't covered by the MSM and I'm not sure that it's 'fake news'.
If you want facts about a foreign country, watch your national TV. If you want facts about your own country, watch foreign TV.
Now take that number, divide it by the ratio of Chinese and American colonists at the time of the extinction of the original Indians, and see how those numbers compare. You could do the same with Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.
You seem to be arguing that we have to have had more nuclear disasters than we've had.
No I wasn't. But I'm sure there will be if we continue with nuclear.
Fukushima's spent fuel rods stored in close approximity of the reactor core almost brought us there and I really don't want something like that to explode and contaminate half of the world and oceans, thank you.
I've stated my opinion clear and would like to move on to other topics, thanks.
Oh look, another slashdot poster who has never heard of conflict of interest or adversarial debate.
Well, we also don't know where you stand in this respect...
Or actually help tens of thousands live longer (radiation hormesis) .
Is that the new 'fallacy ad absurdum'?
I do recall you alleging misinterpretation, yes.
But anyway. I argued already why a 'scientific and technical approach' to make safe reactors can and always will be defeated by 'management decisions', so you won't be able to rationalize-away my fears for nuclear, hence you won't be able to change my opinion.
Thanks for the discussion, I'd like to move on now to other topics.
Yes, Microsoft agreed to take over Linux, but only on the condition there would be a registry-like mother-process.
By the way, how is it even possible that one person got so much power in the linux open source community?
They are incorrectly interpreting the research, completely disregarding the actual levels of risk and harm supposedly approximated by the study, and of course, misrepresenting their interpretation of the research as having come from the original research itself.
Yes, of course, they must be idiots.
Especially this Associate Professor Tilman Ruff of University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute for Global Health, who says there may be a threshold for some effects of radiation, but not for cancer. Ruff "...is also a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War."
Yeah, he must have totally missed the point.
Or this character Burns, a former chair of United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), former acting CEO of Australia's nuclear safety agency, ARPANSA, who on the one hand indeed says that "...the media lack[s]* scientific understanding and [that] coverage has tended to overplay the health effects from small amounts of radiation."
BUT that "...on the question of whether there is a safe threshold for exposure to radioactivity, Burns agrees with Ruff."
Or take 'the' (I think WHO) expert, Professor Robert Gale of Imperial College London who "...reported in The Australian this week [that] he would be happy to drink the water, even if it exceeded the maximum contamination levels set by the Japanese government."
""We live with radioactive water all the time," he was quoted as saying."
And of course, it wouldn't do him much harm if he came to Japan and took 1 or 2 gulps of that water. Statistics, you know.
Now in effect, "The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) question Gale's position."
"His position illustrates very neatly the divergence between individual and public health risk," says PSR's Dr Ira Helfand.
Oh, look here, that must be another expert who has made it her job but 'got it all wrong'?
"The risk to any one individual from drinking water with this much radiation is indeed very low. The problem comes when 40 million people in the Tokyo water district drink the water and get this much radiation."
So, what if you'd raise the background radiation level from contamination for the whole world population?
A little increase would 'only' kill a few tens of thousands of people.
Countries go to war for the death of a few thousand people (9/11, Pearl Harbour), a few hundred people (USA, WWII), or even (allegedly) 1 person (WW 1).
And we were still lucky that all these spent fuel rods didn't blow up in the air...
But no, here comes a 'khallow' stating that all those experts incorrectly interpret research, disregarding existing levels and even maliciously (my interpretation) misrepresent their knowledge on the matter.
Yeah right. Let me go with the real experts please, thank you very much.:)
(Text within [square brackets] are my edits of quotes from the abc.net.au article.)
You ignore that a mere single counter-example can falsify the theory that safe nuclear is possible.
Your remark that this sort of accident has only occurred once, oops, twice, is, sorry to say so, a poor excuse for the structural property of management and political systems, i.e.: they don't give a fuck about how complicated or dangerous or delicate things are. If they can 'save' money in the short time they will, regardless of possible consequences.
And the more safety the technicians will build into their designs, the more they will economize and put humanity at risk because after all, what could ever happen to those 'safe' reactors?
It's not just a technical problem that can be solved, it's a psycho-socio-path problem that will never be solved given the human nature.
That's about the main reason I'm against it, because it simple cannot be made safe.
Odd things happen, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, yes. This does not mean we can't make risk assessments. Modern airliners go down only through sequences of odd events, and companies are still willing to sell insurance. Statistics is the mathematical discipline that covers risk assessment when you don't know all the basic causes but do know some of the effects. It works.
Yes, odd things happen, and one of the strangest/oddest things is that it doesn't matter how good a risk assessment has been carried out, management and politics will always find a way to defeat it. And this is historically proven. That space shuttle Columbia and the choice of the location of the reactors in Fukushima are only a few examples.
I'm not trying to make fun of your fears. I'm saying that irrational fears are a bad basis for decisions, and that you're not going to get me to share them without showing me you know what you're talking about.
Wow thanks for your consideration, I appreciate that a lot more than the aggressive demeaning approach of other respondents.
Yet fears are what keep people alive and out of trouble a lot, and rationalizing-away of fears is something that I'm a bit apprehensive about when it comes to this kind of destructive potential.
Yes, I am afraid.
You have constructed an incredibly unlikely scenario for nuclear power. Let me do the same for solar or wind: a nifty new process is developed to produce solar panels/wind generators. As a side effect, it produces a harmless-looking chemical that disperses all over the globe and can't be cleaned up. It turns out that ten years of exposure to this causes permanent and complete sterility in humans. We've already got one for coal: increasing surface temperatures put strains on species we rely on, resulting in massive food shortages; this could involve massive methane releases triggered by warmer surface temperatures to emphasize the warming.
You mean as in Glyphosate?;)
Nice one.
Nuclear power is pretty darn safe.
That's not sufficient for me. The destructive potential is too big, thanks.
Q: "Why are women pretty dumb?"
A: "Women are pretty so men will like them, they are dumb so they will like men."
I think you can get this effect by replacing the sucrose part in sugar with fructose. That would make ik double fructose, instead of fructose--sucrose.
And don't worry about your obesity, fructose contributes a lot to that, so that problem will increase also.
They are so clever in sugarland...
The EU is only fighting Russia because America says so. The reason is American fear to lose the geopolitical dominance once Russia and Europe would form one Eurasian economic and military power which would destroy the current American world hegemony.
Really, that's all.
Read Brzezinsky's book.
And there is such a thing as a completely unsubstantiated statement too.
Sorry, I think you're a blathering idiot who has no idea what he is talking about and for some reason just wants to have nuclear energy with a reckless disregard and a blind eye for the dangers that it entails.
Let me refer you to the Australian National Academy of Sciences:
"According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual's risk for the development of cancer."
Good, I think I've had it with you.
Goodbye.
Well, the problem is that odd things do happen and make the current probabilistic risk assessments on which the safety estimates of the whole nuclear industry are based totally worthless. This combined with the potential scale of destruction and devastation 'nuclear' can cause, I'd say there's no good reason to go on with nuclear.
There is no way we're going to get a world-wide disaster out of a nuclear power plant, except possibly if it's hit by a nuke (and if the nukes are flying we have bigger problems to worry about).
Didn't we already agree that 'odd things' do happen? (BTW, I have no idea where the following whitespace is coming from.)
...irrational fears...
Everybody has the right to his own fears or the total lack thereof. That doesn't change the fact that nuclear is proven to be uncontrollably unsafe.
Also your assertion that "There just isn't enough radioactive material in them." is based on the wrong assumption that not all reactors that are based on the same design, built by the same company, running the same software, will not one day blow up all by themselves. And the next day a batch from another company because just that one single guy that created the flaw at the first company went to work for the other, or whatever infinite number of other possibilities may exist.
There's no way you can rule that out, and the devastation would be enormous.
Try that with solar or wind, I dare you.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the metal parts are already prone to energy loss from the eddy currents generated by the earths magnetic field and their relative speed. So they should come down automatically. Of course this doesn't apply to the non-metal parts which still can use this 'tether'.
Modding you up would delete my comments, but I think this is a very good contribution!
And you fucking American cowards sleep at night knowing this shit exists?
This.
Who says they are terrorists?
He is accountable now...
Not quite yet...
I think it would be a bit naive to get objective Western news from Western MSM news channels.
Yes, like ABC, BBC also.
Oh, and I don't agree with your last statement.
For me the value in RT is that they give some news about the USA that the USA media do not give.
If I'd moderate you 'funny' I'd lose the comment that you're replying to, so let me just tell you you are funny. :)
I'd quickly save that wikipedia page if I were you, because it will soon be deleted, 'fake news' as it is...
I hear and see a lot of thing on RT about the USA that isn't covered by the MSM and I'm not sure that it's 'fake news'.
If you want facts about a foreign country, watch your national TV. If you want facts about your own country, watch foreign TV.
That's the solution. That will bring prosperity, not war.
Now take that number, divide it by the ratio of Chinese and American colonists at the time of the extinction of the original Indians, and see how those numbers compare. You could do the same with Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.
Yes it is, that's what the separation of powers is for.
Do you really think the NSA hasn't already created your social score, based on all you digital data available?
You seem to be arguing that we have to have had more nuclear disasters than we've had.
No I wasn't. But I'm sure there will be if we continue with nuclear.
Fukushima's spent fuel rods stored in close approximity of the reactor core almost brought us there and I really don't want something like that to explode and contaminate half of the world and oceans, thank you.
I've stated my opinion clear and would like to move on to other topics, thanks.
Oh look, another slashdot poster who has never heard of conflict of interest or adversarial debate.
Well, we also don't know where you stand in this respect...
Or actually help tens of thousands live longer (radiation hormesis) .
Is that the new 'fallacy ad absurdum'?
I do recall you alleging misinterpretation, yes.
But anyway. I argued already why a 'scientific and technical approach' to make safe reactors can and always will be defeated by 'management decisions', so you won't be able to rationalize-away my fears for nuclear, hence you won't be able to change my opinion.
Thanks for the discussion, I'd like to move on now to other topics.
Yes, Microsoft agreed to take over Linux, but only on the condition there would be a registry-like mother-process.
By the way, how is it even possible that one person got so much power in the linux open source community?
They are incorrectly interpreting the research, completely disregarding the actual levels of risk and harm supposedly approximated by the study, and of course, misrepresenting their interpretation of the research as having come from the original research itself.
Yes, of course, they must be idiots.
:)
Especially this Associate Professor Tilman Ruff of University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute for Global Health, who says there may be a threshold for some effects of radiation, but not for cancer. Ruff "...is also a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War."
Yeah, he must have totally missed the point.
Or this character Burns, a former chair of United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), former acting CEO of Australia's nuclear safety agency, ARPANSA, who on the one hand indeed says that "...the media lack[s]* scientific understanding and [that] coverage has tended to overplay the health effects from small amounts of radiation."
BUT that "...on the question of whether there is a safe threshold for exposure to radioactivity, Burns agrees with Ruff."
Or take 'the' (I think WHO) expert, Professor Robert Gale of Imperial College London who "...reported in The Australian this week [that] he would be happy to drink the water, even if it exceeded the maximum contamination levels set by the Japanese government."
""We live with radioactive water all the time," he was quoted as saying."
And of course, it wouldn't do him much harm if he came to Japan and took 1 or 2 gulps of that water. Statistics, you know.
Now in effect, "The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) question Gale's position."
"His position illustrates very neatly the divergence between individual and public health risk," says PSR's Dr Ira Helfand.
Oh, look here, that must be another expert who has made it her job but 'got it all wrong'?
"The risk to any one individual from drinking water with this much radiation is indeed very low. The problem comes when 40 million people in the Tokyo water district drink the water and get this much radiation."
So, what if you'd raise the background radiation level from contamination for the whole world population?
A little increase would 'only' kill a few tens of thousands of people.
Countries go to war for the death of a few thousand people (9/11, Pearl Harbour), a few hundred people (USA, WWII), or even (allegedly) 1 person (WW 1).
And we were still lucky that all these spent fuel rods didn't blow up in the air...
But no, here comes a 'khallow' stating that all those experts incorrectly interpret research, disregarding existing levels and even maliciously (my interpretation) misrepresent their knowledge on the matter.
Yeah right. Let me go with the real experts please, thank you very much.
(Text within [square brackets] are my edits of quotes from the abc.net.au article.)
You ignore that a mere single counter-example can falsify the theory that safe nuclear is possible.
Your remark that this sort of accident has only occurred once, oops, twice, is, sorry to say so, a poor excuse for the structural property of management and political systems, i.e.: they don't give a fuck about how complicated or dangerous or delicate things are. If they can 'save' money in the short time they will, regardless of possible consequences.
And the more safety the technicians will build into their designs, the more they will economize and put humanity at risk because after all, what could ever happen to those 'safe' reactors?
It's not just a technical problem that can be solved, it's a psycho-socio-path problem that will never be solved given the human nature.
That's about the main reason I'm against it, because it simple cannot be made safe.
Odd things happen, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, yes. This does not mean we can't make risk assessments. Modern airliners go down only through sequences of odd events, and companies are still willing to sell insurance. Statistics is the mathematical discipline that covers risk assessment when you don't know all the basic causes but do know some of the effects. It works.
Yes, odd things happen, and one of the strangest/oddest things is that it doesn't matter how good a risk assessment has been carried out, management and politics will always find a way to defeat it. And this is historically proven. That space shuttle Columbia and the choice of the location of the reactors in Fukushima are only a few examples.
I'm not trying to make fun of your fears. I'm saying that irrational fears are a bad basis for decisions, and that you're not going to get me to share them without showing me you know what you're talking about.
Wow thanks for your consideration, I appreciate that a lot more than the aggressive demeaning approach of other respondents.
Yet fears are what keep people alive and out of trouble a lot, and rationalizing-away of fears is something that I'm a bit apprehensive about when it comes to this kind of destructive potential.
Yes, I am afraid.
You have constructed an incredibly unlikely scenario for nuclear power. Let me do the same for solar or wind: a nifty new process is developed to produce solar panels/wind generators. As a side effect, it produces a harmless-looking chemical that disperses all over the globe and can't be cleaned up. It turns out that ten years of exposure to this causes permanent and complete sterility in humans. We've already got one for coal: increasing surface temperatures put strains on species we rely on, resulting in massive food shortages; this could involve massive methane releases triggered by warmer surface temperatures to emphasize the warming.
You mean as in Glyphosate? ;)
Nice one.
Nuclear power is pretty darn safe.
That's not sufficient for me. The destructive potential is too big, thanks.
Q: "Why are women pretty dumb?"
A: "Women are pretty so men will like them, they are dumb so they will like men."
I think you can get this effect by replacing the sucrose part in sugar with fructose. That would make ik double fructose, instead of fructose--sucrose.
And don't worry about your obesity, fructose contributes a lot to that, so that problem will increase also.
They are so clever in sugarland...
The EU is only fighting Russia because America says so. The reason is American fear to lose the geopolitical dominance once Russia and Europe would form one Eurasian economic and military power which would destroy the current American world hegemony.
Really, that's all.
Read Brzezinsky's book.
There is no such thing as a safe threshold.
And there is such a thing as a completely unsubstantiated statement too.
Sorry, I think you're a blathering idiot who has no idea what he is talking about and for some reason just wants to have nuclear energy with a reckless disregard and a blind eye for the dangers that it entails.
Let me refer you to the Australian National Academy of Sciences:
"According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual's risk for the development of cancer."
Good, I think I've had it with you.
Goodbye.
There is no way we're going to get a world-wide disaster out of a nuclear power plant, except possibly if it's hit by a nuke (and if the nukes are flying we have bigger problems to worry about).
Didn't we already agree that 'odd things' do happen? (BTW, I have no idea where the following whitespace is coming from.)
...irrational fears...
Everybody has the right to his own fears or the total lack thereof. That doesn't change the fact that nuclear is proven to be uncontrollably unsafe.
Also your assertion that "There just isn't enough radioactive material in them." is based on the wrong assumption that not all reactors that are based on the same design, built by the same company, running the same software, will not one day blow up all by themselves. And the next day a batch from another company because just that one single guy that created the flaw at the first company went to work for the other, or whatever infinite number of other possibilities may exist.
There's no way you can rule that out, and the devastation would be enormous.
Try that with solar or wind, I dare you.