Re:What about radioactive water?
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
I took radioactive water intravenously a few months ago.
Then the doctor ran a scanner around my body for several minutes, photographing the radiation density coming from my cardiac muscle.
Turns out my heart is fit as a Ferrari engine and needed no invasive intervention. Chalked the chest pains up to esophageal reflux. So now when I get one now, I eat half a Tums and immediately feel better.
Radioactive water is good for your health. So is Calcium, which not only strengthens your bones but tops off the stoichiometry of your neural and muscular depolarization channels.
Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Fruits are loaded with sucrose, glucose, fructose, and dextrose.
Are you telling people not to eat fruit? or are you saying that crystallizing the sugars from it somehow makes sugar molecules poisonous?
MSG is just crystallized glutamate from seaweed. You get glutamate from lots of places.
All you're saying here is that people shouldn't eat food.
Now, if you want to modify it to say people shouldn't eat large quantities of something that they can only get in small quantities in nature, you might have a point. But otherwise you sound like a nutritional Chicken Little.
This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Calling sugar "toxic" is probably a plot to demean the word "toxic" and make tobacco less regulated.
Either that, or he's fallen for a more subtle form of the Dihydrogen Monoxide troll, perpetrated by the chemistry of sugar itself.
England had a parliament, but an elected house subservient to an unelected house that is ultimately and openly subservient to the crown is no democracy at all. They still make a mockery of it.
1. The neutrons hit the nuclei of the atoms in the plate.
2. When the nuclei are lined up nicely the neutrons are absorbed or glance-off in a more regular fashion; when the nuclei are in lumpy bumps, they are absorbed or glance off in more random fashion.
3. The piezo is only used as a motor to move the plate. The fact that it's piezoelectric is irrelevant and should have been left out. It could have been a servo or a twisted rubber band.
According to the links, one plate is smooth, and the other is rough. so a neutron will glide over the smooth plate or be scattered at small angles but if it hits the rough plate it will be scattered more, on average. Why the difference? So that they have a different effect and you can tell if perturbing their course causes more to hit the smooth plate or the rough one.
The neutron's course can be perturbed by gravity. In the steady state, this means the neutron just drops in a parabolic arc following gravity, which at these length scales (microns) can be more determined by massive nearby objects (1/r^2 is huge) than by the distant center of the Earth (1/r^2 is tiny). (You might even get a setup where the top plate gravity is equal and opposite to the Earth's gravity, for objects that are close enough.)
Moving one plate nearer or farther away makes the arc change shape, changing how many neutrons are scattered for a given beam intensity and launch angle. Moving the plate in an oscillating motion at a given magnitude should give you an oscillating scattering measurement with a fairly constant magnitude. You would expect the number of neutrons scattered to be irrelevant of the frequency, when averaged over many cycles of the oscillation, if you considered gravity to be purely Newtonian (i.e., Newtonian gravity, f = GmM/r^2, is monotonic with changes in r, even when r is changing with time).
But they don't see that. They see distinct frequencies of plate oscillation that result in bumps or sharp bends in the average scattering.
That says they're seeing non-monotonic, quantized, time-dependent effects that Einsteinian gravity suggests.
According to the second link, the resonance was at about 705 Hz.
The plate would have to be fairly wide and floppy to resonate at that frequency, but then it wouldn't have much gravitational attraction, so the plate is probably thick and chunky, and not very flexible. And it would have to be made of rubber to have any body resonance at that frequency.
The "do something ridiculous" method is more like what those dopes in the drilling business call intervention. Golf balls? Walnut shells? They were buying time and mocking the world with that crap.
People have argued the roads were out. But It's only a couple of hours by boat from Tokyo harbor, where there are ships and floating cranes and probably ten thousand spare generators, or even some non-spare ones that could be ripped out and moved because someone thinks stopping a nuclear meltdown is more important than flashing the Hitachi sign on the Ginza.
Instead they spent weeks unspooling cable from another grid. Retarded.
Not for America, maybe, certainly not for the UK or Russia.
But for the Germans, who should have been asking why they were shooting us instead of Hitler, it was a psychological minefield. Italy and Austria, too.
You would hope. But given that they don't seem to have been prepared for foreseen circumstances*, I'm not betting on their team until I see management make some trades.
* - the 10-meter tsunami was the unforeseen circumstance. Everything after it was foreseeable, and there were design choices that guaranteed a destructive cascade once the power went out. Allowing the buildings to explode and damage the systems used to keep the buildings from exploding more is a pretty major fuckup in the realm of reliability engineering. The use of zinc cladding, the lack of effective venting for the hydrogen, the proximity of the explosion to components that could be damaged in a hydrogen explosion, blockage of access by debris from the explosion... Someone 40 years ago said that having backup generators would prevent these things from happening, and didn't consider what if the generators simply broke and couldn't be replaced. Even though they may have known what could be done.
Oh, and there's the part about how they did get generators rushed to the site, but the electrical connections didn't match up so they couldn't use them. I'm still not sure that's been reported right, because what the fuck?
Sure. Do you want to see my rate sheet for that kind of work, first?
I'd have locked this shit down on day 1. But it would have been a much messier day than day 1 was, and you might have been conscripted as wadding for a valve core.
And no, I'm not saying they haven't done anything, or haven't done anything heoric. I'm saying they don't really have to do anything else, and basically aren't, besides keeping stasis until the thing cools off. And it's literally about the half-life. They're just running water over it until the low-level radiation within the individual fuel rods has decayed to where they aren't generating water-boiling levels of heat.
It's above 100C. The coolant is constantly flowing, and under pressure; or, if the pressure vessel is breached, it's just flowing and there's steam being generated constantly.
When the temperature stays below 100C, presumably when the water is standing and not flowing, then the reactor is considered cold.
That's in six months, when the low-level reactions in the fuel have run through their half-lives enough that they don't generate heat faster than non-boiling water can pull it away.
Slashdot Mirror
I took radioactive water intravenously a few months ago.
Then the doctor ran a scanner around my body for several minutes, photographing the radiation density coming from my cardiac muscle.
Turns out my heart is fit as a Ferrari engine and needed no invasive intervention. Chalked the chest pains up to esophageal reflux. So now when I get one now, I eat half a Tums and immediately feel better.
Radioactive water is good for your health. So is Calcium, which not only strengthens your bones but tops off the stoichiometry of your neural and muscular depolarization channels.
If only I had mod points...
you'd be sporting a shiny -1 Redundant right now...
None of the results for Aspartame are conclusive.
Fruits are loaded with sucrose, glucose, fructose, and dextrose.
Are you telling people not to eat fruit? or are you saying that crystallizing the sugars from it somehow makes sugar molecules poisonous?
MSG is just crystallized glutamate from seaweed. You get glutamate from lots of places.
All you're saying here is that people shouldn't eat food.
Now, if you want to modify it to say people shouldn't eat large quantities of something that they can only get in small quantities in nature, you might have a point. But otherwise you sound like a nutritional Chicken Little.
Calling sugar "toxic" is probably a plot to demean the word "toxic" and make tobacco less regulated.
Either that, or he's fallen for a more subtle form of the Dihydrogen Monoxide troll, perpetrated by the chemistry of sugar itself.
Who else was revolting against their colonial masters at the time?
From whom did America get the idea to replace monarchy with democracy?
And, other than pirate ships, who was doing democracy at the time?
England had a parliament, but an elected house subservient to an unelected house that is ultimately and openly subservient to the crown is no democracy at all. They still make a mockery of it.
1. The neutrons hit the nuclei of the atoms in the plate.
2. When the nuclei are lined up nicely the neutrons are absorbed or glance-off in a more regular fashion; when the nuclei are in lumpy bumps, they are absorbed or glance off in more random fashion.
3. The piezo is only used as a motor to move the plate. The fact that it's piezoelectric is irrelevant and should have been left out. It could have been a servo or a twisted rubber band.
Actually, the links point to enough information that having the article could only help you replicate their setup exactly.
But it'd be better if you just replicated the idea in another fashion, to remove systematic bias their setup may have had.
So save your $18; you're going to need it to pay postage for your grant application.
If it doesn't talk about Metatrons, it's sure not going to go there.
According to the links, one plate is smooth, and the other is rough. so a neutron will glide over the smooth plate or be scattered at small angles but if it hits the rough plate it will be scattered more, on average. Why the difference? So that they have a different effect and you can tell if perturbing their course causes more to hit the smooth plate or the rough one.
The neutron's course can be perturbed by gravity. In the steady state, this means the neutron just drops in a parabolic arc following gravity, which at these length scales (microns) can be more determined by massive nearby objects (1/r^2 is huge) than by the distant center of the Earth (1/r^2 is tiny). (You might even get a setup where the top plate gravity is equal and opposite to the Earth's gravity, for objects that are close enough.)
Moving one plate nearer or farther away makes the arc change shape, changing how many neutrons are scattered for a given beam intensity and launch angle. Moving the plate in an oscillating motion at a given magnitude should give you an oscillating scattering measurement with a fairly constant magnitude. You would expect the number of neutrons scattered to be irrelevant of the frequency, when averaged over many cycles of the oscillation, if you considered gravity to be purely Newtonian (i.e., Newtonian gravity, f = GmM/r^2, is monotonic with changes in r, even when r is changing with time).
But they don't see that. They see distinct frequencies of plate oscillation that result in bumps or sharp bends in the average scattering.
That says they're seeing non-monotonic, quantized, time-dependent effects that Einsteinian gravity suggests.
According to the second link, the resonance was at about 705 Hz.
The plate would have to be fairly wide and floppy to resonate at that frequency, but then it wouldn't have much gravitational attraction, so the plate is probably thick and chunky, and not very flexible. And it would have to be made of rubber to have any body resonance at that frequency.
The U.S. wasn't here first, but is the best hope for the future survival of the planet.
Think about it. Without America's example, how much of the world would have actual democracy?
The Swiss were not attacked and did not attack anyone in WW2.
That's a lot different from not participating.
And, in the face of Hitler's plans for the world, what does it mean not to attack him?
Played imperfectly, it's a scam.
There, is that better?
Oh, and in the long run, you're both going to end up playing it perfectly. So at what point less than perfect isn't it gambling?
I didn't say they couldn't try for lack of legal sense. But that right there is illegal, and the first person to call them on it wins.
The "do something ridiculous" method is more like what those dopes in the drilling business call intervention. Golf balls? Walnut shells? They were buying time and mocking the world with that crap.
People have argued the roads were out. But It's only a couple of hours by boat from Tokyo harbor, where there are ships and floating cranes and probably ten thousand spare generators, or even some non-spare ones that could be ripped out and moved because someone thinks stopping a nuclear meltdown is more important than flashing the Hitachi sign on the Ginza.
Instead they spent weeks unspooling cable from another grid. Retarded.
WW2 was morally ambiguous.
Not for America, maybe, certainly not for the UK or Russia.
But for the Germans, who should have been asking why they were shooting us instead of Hitler, it was a psychological minefield. Italy and Austria, too.
And then there's France...and Switzerland...
N2 is as close to inert as you're going to get, in that kind of quantity, for the nickel Tepco has left to its name.
It takes some interesting lock-picking to pry those two N's apart and fix them to hydrogen. Mere banging won't do it.
They didn't say they're waiting for it to be safe enough to hug.
They're just waiting for it to be cool enough to dismantle.
It's still going to be a radioactive nightmare when they have to do that.
Nope. Bearer bonds.
Sigh.
N2 is inert, unless they're planning on planting peanuts in the reactor room...
You would hope. But given that they don't seem to have been prepared for foreseen circumstances*, I'm not betting on their team until I see management make some trades.
* - the 10-meter tsunami was the unforeseen circumstance. Everything after it was foreseeable, and there were design choices that guaranteed a destructive cascade once the power went out. Allowing the buildings to explode and damage the systems used to keep the buildings from exploding more is a pretty major fuckup in the realm of reliability engineering. The use of zinc cladding, the lack of effective venting for the hydrogen, the proximity of the explosion to components that could be damaged in a hydrogen explosion, blockage of access by debris from the explosion... Someone 40 years ago said that having backup generators would prevent these things from happening, and didn't consider what if the generators simply broke and couldn't be replaced. Even though they may have known what could be done.
Oh, and there's the part about how they did get generators rushed to the site, but the electrical connections didn't match up so they couldn't use them. I'm still not sure that's been reported right, because what the fuck?
Sure. Do you want to see my rate sheet for that kind of work, first?
I'd have locked this shit down on day 1. But it would have been a much messier day than day 1 was, and you might have been conscripted as wadding for a valve core.
And no, I'm not saying they haven't done anything, or haven't done anything heoric. I'm saying they don't really have to do anything else, and basically aren't, besides keeping stasis until the thing cools off. And it's literally about the half-life. They're just running water over it until the low-level radiation within the individual fuel rods has decayed to where they aren't generating water-boiling levels of heat.
It's above 100C. The coolant is constantly flowing, and under pressure; or, if the pressure vessel is breached, it's just flowing and there's steam being generated constantly.
When the temperature stays below 100C, presumably when the water is standing and not flowing, then the reactor is considered cold.
That's in six months, when the low-level reactions in the fuel have run through their half-lives enough that they don't generate heat faster than non-boiling water can pull it away.