"You only leak what you need to leak in order to expose the bad acts and bad actors, but no more than that." Okay so it would be okay for someone to post that you are cheating on your mate, downloading porn, and or that you like to dress up as a little girl and have Rupert Murdoch spank you with a fish? I am sure that many people would find thing that you do to be bad acts.
"The point of redacting the leaked material was to limit collateral damage to those who had not acted poorly." And you trust a private group with no public oversight to do this more than a democratically elected government? Really? Even using your own rules Wikileaks fails I will go back to your rules. "You only leak what you need to leak in order to expose the bad acts and bad actors, but no more than that." So why did wikileaks leak a list of locations of important contractors? I am talking about parts makers. What bad act and bad actors where exposed? Why did they release pager data from 9/11 of private people paging their loved ones that they where ok? What bad acts and actors where involved in those? Wikileaks has failed. They failed by your rules. They failed in basic security by giving out a password to sensitive data. They have failed to redact data that could get people hurt. They have failed to present the data without bias.
" But oh, to live in your simple world..." it seems that you do as well.
Dinosaurs and not birds. Birds are not reptiles, Dinosaurs are not reptiles WHAT????
Here I will do my best to spell it out for you.
Reptiles
Dinosaurs Mammals
Birds
That is how it goes in a second grade level explanation or evolution. BUT BIRDS ARE NOT REPTILES reptiles do not have feathers, are cold blooded and have a three chambered heart. Bad science post! Bad! No go read a biology book before you post on here again!
What idiot gives a journalist or anyone outside of an organization a password to an sensitive encrypted file? I think you do not see the real idiots here. If you are going to pass a file of data to a journalist you should only pass them what YOU want them to publish and no more. Anything else is stupid.
Because Stallman is from MIT. MIT was a hot bed of LISP back when LISP was the end all and be all. People don't remember but LISP was one of the first buzz words. It was in the same category as Object Oriented, Agents, and XML. It was going to solve all our problems. The language even influenced hardware development several companies made 36-bit machines because they worked so well with LISP and some even made LISP machines.
It is funny but looking back I am sure that there where people that that dreamed that the perfect world would just be around the corner if all large systems where written in LISP and all small system where written in Forth.
From your link "But Tcl syntax seems strange to most users." Because Scheme is so popular and everyone already uses it and languages like it. Really if they where going to reject Tcl because of it's syntax then they should have done the same with Scheme.
We have yet another poor sad finger counter. Do you really think that then they put boiling and freezing 180 units apart and called it degrees that it was just an accident? Yet another poor little finger counter.
Because the word degree is used for the unit of measure. 360 degrees in a circle and 180 degrees are on opposite sides of a circle. 100 and degrees makes no sense.
Yet another person that doesn't know math, history, or science. Both are based on some science. C 0 freezing point of pure water 100 degrees between boiling point and freezing point. Which is just bad math. F 0 freezing point of brine. 180 degrees between freezing and boiling which is good math.
They not based on the how people "feel" at one time they used body temp, another reference point but not a very good once since there is a good amount of variability. Then again the boiling point of water also varies based on location and even day to day but you adjust to get a usable reference. The scale that is really the most scientifically based and mathematically correct is the Rankine Scale. 0 is 0 and 180 degrees between freezing and boiling. Celsius is just fashionable but just as flawed by human convence as Fahrenheit. It is easer for people that have to count on their fingers so I guess that is a plus. Too bad some many ignorant elitists take the adoption of such a flawed standard as a source of pride.
Yes combine it with carbon and make it into Methane. Actually what I was wondering is if you could make this into a better solar cell. With modern solar cells the hotter they get the less power they make. That is an issue because the more sun you shine on them the hotter they get. I would have to do the math but if you made a closed loop out of this where the metal makes hydrogen and oxygen you then feed that into a fuel cell and get power out and then put the water back into cell. The other question is how pure does the water have to be? Could you use brackish or sea water in the system. If so then you could get a double bonus using it as a power source and as a source of fresh water. Salt water in-> Hydrogen+oxygen->fuel cell-> fresh water plus power. In places like California, Florida, Texas, The middle East, parts of Africa, and Australia this could be a huge benefit. Of course it may not work better than PVs , be more expensive, and or salt water may destroy the cells so these are all just maybes
Sorry but the Celsius scale is not better than the Fahrenheit scale in any way but zero point. The increment size is in fact too coarse and was created with a 4th grad mentality. Celsius zero point freezing point of water which is Okay but not great. Increment size 100 DEGREES between freezing and boiling. WHAT? 100 Degrees? Fahrenheit scale freezing "the coldest they could get to at the time not so good" Increment size 180 degrees between freezing and boiling. Now that makes sense. So Celsius makes sense only to those that do not know what a degree is. No to mention that around half the resolution of Fahrenheit without going to points.
Frankly we should just use absolute zero as zero for the system and then use 180 degrees between freezing and boiling. What other system of measure that uses negative values? Celsius is worse in that case since it does so more often than Fahrenheit. Next thing you know the French will want to make it 100 degrees in a circle!
"Was I upset? I don't think so - that seemed to be you. As for your description. of what I posted - hey everybody gets an opinion including you. But since you are so focussed on it being a reactor let's remember that the original point of this was the danger of flying radioactive material on rockets - it doesn't have to be a reactor to present the same problem." This is not opinion but facts and safety. And yes the difference between an RTG and a reactor is significant to the discussion of the safety. The fact that one is fueled with Plutonium and one with Uranium is also significant. The Plutonium in the RTG is a very strong alpha emitter with a very short half life while the Uranium in a reactor is much less radioactive and much less chemically toxic. Not all radioisotopes are the same chemically or radiologically. Tritium is used in wristwatches and as a tracer. You consume Carbon 14 everyday of your life. Strontium 90 on the other hand you don't really want consume. The fact that an RTG survived a worst case intact is also significant.
Your opinion is that a launching a reactor is unsafe. If you said that you just didn't like it that is one thing but when you say it is because of X and X is pure fiction then the reasoning is invalid because the supporting data is invalid. So if you think it is unsafe because you just have a feeling well that is your right. It is irrational but lots of people have irrational fears. Society should dismiss those fears as far as policy and public safety goes. If you have data to back up your premise that it is unsafe then present it. But if that data is false then don't expect people to not point out that it is false. But I simply want to know why add "I kind of remember x" to a discusion on safety. Do you feel that false and inaccurate statements should just be left to stand? Simply put I feel that your concerns about the risks involved have no valid supporting data. It was you that challenged my statement about the minimal risk involved with false data and then take offense. Remember it was you that commented on my post and not the other way around.
I thinking that you are giving Wikileaks too much credit and the people of those nations not enough. Also we do not know if this will be a good thing in the end. It may be good but it may just bring even more brutal dictators to power. That is the problem with revolution, you don't really know how it will work out for a good while.
We already do this a lot on many OS. This is software as a component. For instance today most APIs offer a lot of really high end functions some of which would have been entire programs in the past. A good example is text areas that are in effect a simple text editor. Video and audio codec systems like the ones on Windows, the Mac, and Linux are other examples. If you want to play back video you do not need to have very codec known to man supported in your program but instead can use the installed codecs on your OS. In theory it should increase security and productivity. Ideally if a security issue or other bug was located in a component then only that component would need to be fixed and then every program that uses that component would also be fixed. The downside is that every program that uses that component is has that bug until it is fixed. I find the concept very interesting.
"Perhaps it wasn't Apollo that I was remembering so your search on Apollo isn't the be all and end all of the possibly relevant information. " Be my guest. If you look you will find that the wikipedia linked to many support references. "Try not to be so quick to try and shut down anyone who isn't singing your tune or investing the energy you think they should be, or documenting things the way you think they should be, or is putting forth partial information because they think that is better than no information because you don't like it. For example I know more than one person who would just laugh at you for citing Wikipedia as a reliable source of information."
But you put forth not partal information but no information. In fact you produced negative information. You kind of remembered this or that which was wrong. The Apollo program is well documented as is the the SNAP program and RTGs in general. But if you can find ANY proof of a reactor flying on Apollo I would love to see it because there is none because it never happened. There was NERVA but that never flew. You do not have to sing my tune but don't get upset when you post something that is totally in error and where no fact checking was done at all. If you have any INFORMATION to post please feel free. Here is my final question for you? Did you find any documentation that any of my facts and sources are false? Any at all?
Nope because the again there will be very little if any dust. The average rocket if it explodes tends to be a "soft" explosion and not a high explosive. Challenger if you remember was blowen to pieces but some of the crew survived until impact. It was not reduced to dust. A reactor will be much tougher than a human body or even the shuttle. So again no fears.
"OK loooong time ago so I may be misremembering but it seems to me there were arguments about this with one or more of the Apollo missions because a tiny reactor was going to be taken along and the statistical analysis was provided for detonation at altitude and the resulting expected increase in number of cancer deaths. The reactor might not have been uranium based - like I said looooong time ago. " So why post it as it is all wrong information. The Apollo missions never carried a reactor, no reactor was ever flown on a US manned mission. They did carry the SNAP 27 which was an RTG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_for_Nuclear_Auxiliary_Power During Apollo 13 they did make sure that the SNAP 27 would fall in deep water since it was going to hit the Earth at a very high speed. All tests show that it survived and frankly that was a lot rougher than any launch vehicle failure mode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator. So just to make it clear. 1. It was not a reactor. 2. It was not fueled with Uranium. 3. It was very tough and didn't fail even under worst case.
I have no doubt that NASA did do a study to figure out, If it did completely fail at different altitudes just how bad it could be that would just be prudent but then they did everything they could to make sure that didn't happen again because that is the prudent thing to do. So why did you waste time with that fear and missinformation packed paragraph? We have the internet and can look things up. Google is great because if you had just typed in Apollo nuclear reactor it would have taken you to the first like I supplied.
That is just it. Wikileaks is not in any way unbiased or frankly professional. Wikileaks was never a good thing. It is like a guy that goes around punching people in the face. When he punches a bully you don't like it is great. When he punches you or your buddy it sucks.
There is a good reason why diplomatic cables are usually kept secret.
Well it will be unpleasant. Actually most information about nuclear reactors work is available on the internet and your high school physics class. I left out one thing about the Uranium dust. Don't use rock phosphate in your garden. It has a good amount of uranium in it.
So going head to head with IBM in the enterprise space seems like a good idea? IBM never fell as far into the consumer space as HP did with it's computers. In fact the Think-pad was they business laptop for a long time. "And a really good one at that". No I am all for they blew it. Had they pushed to make WebOS enterprise friendly that would have made a lot of sense. Android and IOS are getting better at that, Blackberry is the best but it is dropping from favor, and WP7 is really lagging in that respect. WebOS really could have been a strong contender if HP had supported and pushed it.
It all comes down to Passion IMHO. Wasn't there anyone in HP that has made a career at HP that could have become CEO? It seems to me that if you stay at one company you are looked down on because you are not a shark. HP used to mean excellence now they are the cheap plastic Laptop at Best Buy. So they will be? What was that name of that company that was so big? Nokia seems to be following the same business plan as well.
What? Do you not know the difference between safe and harmless? Anyway just more fear mongering. Enriched uranium is not significantly more radioactive than natural uranium as long is it is sub critical. A launch vehicle exploding will not convert reactor fuel into powder. Have you ever seen what is left after a rocket fails? It is pretty big chunks.
Combine the facts that very little uranium dust will be formed with the fact that it will not be near people AKA a few miles away and you have pretty harmless and nothing to fear. Well fear any more than any rocket. That is why they don't let people stand next to them.
Actually not really. The people that live near the Cape will be fine with it. The protesters tend to come from out of town. As someone that lives near the cape and has for my entire life I can say. IMBY.
No you are wrong. Do you know how much naturally accuring uranium is in the ocean? The answer is many tons. If you eat sea salt on your food you are eating Uranium along with Boron and Strontium, Uranium is natural and is found in many places all over the earth. A few kg of uranium falling into the sea or burning up in the atmosphere would be as close to harmless as modern math can get you. Unless you get hit by a piece. That is assuming they use uranium like most other reactors use. Spent fuel is dangerous if not contained. If they do not "turn on" the reactor until it is on the moon it will be very close to harmless. Second, solar is not readily available on the moon. Maybe you have never looked at the moon but it doesn't get continuous sun light. In fact it is in darkness for about 50% of the time. Anything left on the moon will have days of no light lots of cold to deal with.
Why do people post in authoritative, fear and ignorance so quickly. I would love to see someone post, "is there any increased danger to doing this", verses this type of fear mongering.
Very little. Uranium is actually natural. They will not "turn on" the reactor until it is far from earth. You can stand next to uranium all day long and it will not hurt you. The main problem is when it decays it produced Radon gas "again this is natural" which can cause lung cancer. So this as actually safer than an RTG and really very safe. The thing is that people will yell in fear first and then ignore research. BTW. I do not work for NASA or any Aerospace firm and the launch pad is pretty near my home so it is sort of in my back yard so I have ZERO interest in down playing any danger.
Slashdot Mirror
"You only leak what you need to leak in order to expose the bad acts and bad actors, but no more than that."
Okay so it would be okay for someone to post that you are cheating on your mate, downloading porn, and or that you like to dress up as a little girl and have Rupert Murdoch spank you with a fish? I am sure that many people would find thing that you do to be bad acts.
"The point of redacting the leaked material was to limit collateral damage to those who had not acted poorly." And you trust a private group with no public oversight to do this more than a democratically elected government? Really?
Even using your own rules Wikileaks fails I will go back to your rules.
"You only leak what you need to leak in order to expose the bad acts and bad actors, but no more than that." So why did wikileaks leak a list of locations of important contractors? I am talking about parts makers. What bad act and bad actors where exposed? Why did they release pager data from 9/11 of private people paging their loved ones that they where ok? What bad acts and actors where involved in those?
Wikileaks has failed.
They failed by your rules.
They failed in basic security by giving out a password to sensitive data.
They have failed to redact data that could get people hurt.
They have failed to present the data without bias.
" But oh, to live in your simple world..." it seems that you do as well.
And you just flunked biology.
Dinosaurs and not birds. Birds are not reptiles, Dinosaurs are not reptiles WHAT????
Here I will do my best to spell it out for you.
Reptiles
Dinosaurs Mammals
Birds
That is how it goes in a second grade level explanation or evolution. BUT BIRDS ARE NOT REPTILES reptiles do not have feathers, are cold blooded and have a three chambered heart. Bad science post! Bad! No go read a biology book before you post on here again!
What idiot gives a journalist or anyone outside of an organization a password to an sensitive encrypted file? I think you do not see the real idiots here.
If you are going to pass a file of data to a journalist you should only pass them what YOU want them to publish and no more.
Anything else is stupid.
Because Stallman is from MIT. MIT was a hot bed of LISP back when LISP was the end all and be all. People don't remember but LISP was one of the first buzz words. It was in the same category as Object Oriented, Agents, and XML. It was going to solve all our problems. The language even influenced hardware development several companies made 36-bit machines because they worked so well with LISP and some even made LISP machines.
It is funny but looking back I am sure that there where people that that dreamed that the perfect world would just be around the corner if all large systems where written in LISP and all small system where written in Forth.
From your link "But Tcl syntax seems strange to most users."
Because Scheme is so popular and everyone already uses it and languages like it.
Really if they where going to reject Tcl because of it's syntax then they should have done the same with Scheme.
We have yet another poor sad finger counter. Do you really think that then they put boiling and freezing 180 units apart and called it degrees that it was just an accident?
Yet another poor little finger counter.
Because the word degree is used for the unit of measure. 360 degrees in a circle and 180 degrees are on opposite sides of a circle. 100 and degrees makes no sense.
Yet another person that doesn't know math, history, or science.
Both are based on some science.
C 0 freezing point of pure water 100 degrees between boiling point and freezing point. Which is just bad math.
F 0 freezing point of brine. 180 degrees between freezing and boiling which is good math.
They not based on the how people "feel" at one time they used body temp, another reference point but not a very good once since there is a good amount of variability.
Then again the boiling point of water also varies based on location and even day to day but you adjust to get a usable reference.
The scale that is really the most scientifically based and mathematically correct is the Rankine Scale.
0 is 0 and 180 degrees between freezing and boiling.
Celsius is just fashionable but just as flawed by human convence as Fahrenheit. It is easer for people that have to count on their fingers so I guess that is a plus. Too bad some many ignorant elitists take the adoption of such a flawed standard as a source of pride.
Yes combine it with carbon and make it into Methane. Actually what I was wondering is if you could make this into a better solar cell.
With modern solar cells the hotter they get the less power they make. That is an issue because the more sun you shine on them the hotter they get. I would have to do the math but if you made a closed loop out of this where the metal makes hydrogen and oxygen you then feed that into a fuel cell and get power out and then put the water back into cell.
The other question is how pure does the water have to be? Could you use brackish or sea water in the system. If so then you could get a double bonus using it as a power source and as a source of fresh water. Salt water in-> Hydrogen+oxygen->fuel cell-> fresh water plus power. In places like California, Florida, Texas, The middle East, parts of Africa, and Australia this could be a huge benefit.
Of course it may not work better than PVs , be more expensive, and or salt water may destroy the cells so these are all just maybes
Sorry but the Celsius scale is not better than the Fahrenheit scale in any way but zero point. The increment size is in fact too coarse and was created with a 4th grad mentality.
Celsius zero point freezing point of water which is Okay but not great. Increment size 100 DEGREES between freezing and boiling. WHAT? 100 Degrees?
Fahrenheit scale freezing "the coldest they could get to at the time not so good" Increment size 180 degrees between freezing and boiling. Now that makes sense.
So Celsius makes sense only to those that do not know what a degree is. No to mention that around half the resolution of Fahrenheit without going to points.
Frankly we should just use absolute zero as zero for the system and then use 180 degrees between freezing and boiling. What other system of measure that uses negative values? Celsius is worse in that case since it does so more often than Fahrenheit.
Next thing you know the French will want to make it 100 degrees in a circle!
"Was I upset? I don't think so - that seemed to be you. As for your description. of what I posted - hey everybody gets an opinion including you. But since you are so focussed on it being a reactor let's remember that the original point of this was the danger of flying radioactive material on rockets - it doesn't have to be a reactor to present the same problem."
This is not opinion but facts and safety. And yes the difference between an RTG and a reactor is significant to the discussion of the safety. The fact that one is fueled with Plutonium and one with Uranium is also significant. The Plutonium in the RTG is a very strong alpha emitter with a very short half life while the Uranium in a reactor is much less radioactive and much less chemically toxic. Not all radioisotopes are the same chemically or radiologically. Tritium is used in wristwatches and as a tracer. You consume Carbon 14 everyday of your life. Strontium 90 on the other hand you don't really want consume. The fact that an RTG survived a worst case intact is also significant.
Your opinion is that a launching a reactor is unsafe. If you said that you just didn't like it that is one thing but when you say it is because of X and X is pure fiction then the reasoning is invalid because the supporting data is invalid.
So if you think it is unsafe because you just have a feeling well that is your right. It is irrational but lots of people have irrational fears. Society should dismiss those fears as far as policy and public safety goes. If you have data to back up your premise that it is unsafe then present it. But if that data is false then don't expect people to not point out that it is false.
But I simply want to know why add "I kind of remember x" to a discusion on safety. Do you feel that false and inaccurate statements should just be left to stand?
Simply put I feel that your concerns about the risks involved have no valid supporting data. It was you that challenged my statement about the minimal risk involved with false data and then take offense. Remember it was you that commented on my post and not the other way around.
I thinking that you are giving Wikileaks too much credit and the people of those nations not enough. Also we do not know if this will be a good thing in the end. It may be good but it may just bring even more brutal dictators to power. That is the problem with revolution, you don't really know how it will work out for a good while.
We already do this a lot on many OS. This is software as a component. For instance today most APIs offer a lot of really high end functions some of which would have been entire programs in the past. A good example is text areas that are in effect a simple text editor.
Video and audio codec systems like the ones on Windows, the Mac, and Linux are other examples. If you want to play back video you do not need to have very codec known to man supported in your program but instead can use the installed codecs on your OS. In theory it should increase security and productivity. Ideally if a security issue or other bug was located in a component then only that component would need to be fixed and then every program that uses that component would also be fixed. The downside is that every program that uses that component is has that bug until it is fixed. I find the concept very interesting.
"Perhaps it wasn't Apollo that I was remembering so your search on Apollo isn't the be all and end all of the possibly relevant information. "
Be my guest. If you look you will find that the wikipedia linked to many support references.
"Try not to be so quick to try and shut down anyone who isn't singing your tune or investing the energy you think they should be, or documenting things the way you think they should be, or is putting forth partial information because they think that is better than no information because you don't like it. For example I know more than one person who would just laugh at you for citing Wikipedia as a reliable source of information."
But you put forth not partal information but no information. In fact you produced negative information. You kind of remembered this or that which was wrong. The Apollo program is well documented as is the the SNAP program and RTGs in general.
But if you can find ANY proof of a reactor flying on Apollo I would love to see it because there is none because it never happened. There was NERVA but that never flew.
You do not have to sing my tune but don't get upset when you post something that is totally in error and where no fact checking was done at all.
If you have any INFORMATION to post please feel free.
Here is my final question for you? Did you find any documentation that any of my facts and sources are false? Any at all?
Nope because the again there will be very little if any dust. The average rocket if it explodes tends to be a "soft" explosion and not a high explosive. Challenger if you remember was blowen to pieces but some of the crew survived until impact. It was not reduced to dust. A reactor will be much tougher than a human body or even the shuttle. So again no fears.
"OK loooong time ago so I may be misremembering but it seems to me there were arguments about this with one or more of the Apollo missions because a tiny reactor was going to be taken along and the statistical analysis was provided for detonation at altitude and the resulting expected increase in number of cancer deaths. The reactor might not have been uranium based - like I said looooong time ago.
"
So why post it as it is all wrong information. The Apollo missions never carried a reactor, no reactor was ever flown on a US manned mission. They did carry the SNAP 27 which was an RTG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_for_Nuclear_Auxiliary_Power
During Apollo 13 they did make sure that the SNAP 27 would fall in deep water since it was going to hit the Earth at a very high speed. All tests show that it survived and frankly that was a lot rougher than any launch vehicle failure mode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator.
So just to make it clear.
1. It was not a reactor.
2. It was not fueled with Uranium.
3. It was very tough and didn't fail even under worst case.
I have no doubt that NASA did do a study to figure out, If it did completely fail at different altitudes just how bad it could be that would just be prudent but then they did everything they could to make sure that didn't happen again because that is the prudent thing to do.
So why did you waste time with that fear and missinformation packed paragraph?
We have the internet and can look things up. Google is great because if you had just typed in Apollo nuclear reactor it would have taken you to the first like I supplied.
That and the area around the Cape has one of the highest average education levels in the nation. They do not tend to be taken in by false FUD.
That is just it. Wikileaks is not in any way unbiased or frankly professional. Wikileaks was never a good thing. It is like a guy that goes around punching people in the face. When he punches a bully you don't like it is great. When he punches you or your buddy it sucks.
There is a good reason why diplomatic cables are usually kept secret.
Well it will be unpleasant.
Actually most information about nuclear reactors work is available on the internet and your high school physics class.
I left out one thing about the Uranium dust. Don't use rock phosphate in your garden. It has a good amount of uranium in it.
So going head to head with IBM in the enterprise space seems like a good idea?
IBM never fell as far into the consumer space as HP did with it's computers. In fact the Think-pad was they business laptop for a long time. "And a really good one at that".
No I am all for they blew it. Had they pushed to make WebOS enterprise friendly that would have made a lot of sense. Android and IOS are getting better at that, Blackberry is the best but it is dropping from favor, and WP7 is really lagging in that respect. WebOS really could have been a strong contender if HP had supported and pushed it.
It all comes down to Passion IMHO. Wasn't there anyone in HP that has made a career at HP that could have become CEO? It seems to me that if you stay at one company you are looked down on because you are not a shark. HP used to mean excellence now they are the cheap plastic Laptop at Best Buy. So they will be? What was that name of that company that was so big?
Nokia seems to be following the same business plan as well.
What? Do you not know the difference between safe and harmless?
Anyway just more fear mongering.
Enriched uranium is not significantly more radioactive than natural uranium as long is it is sub critical.
A launch vehicle exploding will not convert reactor fuel into powder. Have you ever seen what is left after a rocket fails? It is pretty big chunks.
Combine the facts that very little uranium dust will be formed with the fact that it will not be near people AKA a few miles away and you have pretty harmless and nothing to fear. Well fear any more than any rocket. That is why they don't let people stand next to them.
Actually not really. The people that live near the Cape will be fine with it. The protesters tend to come from out of town. As someone that lives near the cape and has for my entire life I can say. IMBY.
No you are wrong.
Do you know how much naturally accuring uranium is in the ocean? The answer is many tons. If you eat sea salt on your food you are eating Uranium along with Boron and Strontium, Uranium is natural and is found in many places all over the earth. A few kg of uranium falling into the sea or burning up in the atmosphere would be as close to harmless as modern math can get you. Unless you get hit by a piece. That is assuming they use uranium like most other reactors use. Spent fuel is dangerous if not contained. If they do not "turn on" the reactor until it is on the moon it will be very close to harmless.
Second, solar is not readily available on the moon. Maybe you have never looked at the moon but it doesn't get continuous sun light. In fact it is in darkness for about 50% of the time. Anything left on the moon will have days of no light lots of cold to deal with.
Why do people post in authoritative, fear and ignorance so quickly. I would love to see someone post, "is there any increased danger to doing this", verses this type of fear mongering.
Very little. Uranium is actually natural. They will not "turn on" the reactor until it is far from earth. You can stand next to uranium all day long and it will not hurt you. The main problem is when it decays it produced Radon gas "again this is natural" which can cause lung cancer. So this as actually safer than an RTG and really very safe. The thing is that people will yell in fear first and then ignore research. BTW.
I do not work for NASA or any Aerospace firm and the launch pad is pretty near my home so it is sort of in my back yard so I have ZERO interest in down playing any danger.
Hey it is all good so what if Obama killed the man space program, he closed Guantanamo, repealed the patriot act, and got our troops out of Iraq.