I agree that you should perform regular periodic inspections. I think that twenty years is probably too long of an interval. If you look at the BWR VIP recommendations vessels are actually inspected on a two year frequency, with more in depth inspections on a 20 year frequency.
Everything in nuclear cost a huge pile of money. The 2 year inspection costs about $500,000. The technical analysis to support 20 years of continued operation contingent on satisfactory inspection results cost $3 - 4 million.
The process currently requires that licensee demonstrate using technical analysis that the vessel is fully capable of performing its design function for the entire licenses period. As long as technical analysis demonstrate that the vessel will continue to function, why not allow the plants to extend their license indefinitely? If the stress on the vessel due to cooldowns, heatups, and neutron flux is less than the margin for performing its design function, then preventing a extending license is an action based on fear not science.
A common misconception is that plants were only initially licensed for 40 years due to technical concerns. As it turns out the AEC (the predecessor to the NRC) just picked an arbitrary amount of time to issue operating licenses. There was not a technical basis to the 40 year time period. That being said, some manufactures may have used the 40 year time period as a design input for reactor designs. However there is no mysterious phenomenon that causes the reactor to turn into a pumpkin.
First, the title is very misleading. This is not a nuclear power plant. This is a chemical processing facility, that works with uranium (a fairly stable isotope with a half life of 704 million years). That is a big difference. If you leave a chemical processing facility in a safe condition, it tends to remain in a safe condition. If you walk away from a nuclear power plant that has had any significant power operation, then the decay heat continues to heat the core until it melts or action is taken to remove the heat. The risks of walking out on a chemical processing plant are far less than walking out on a nuclear power plant. This is just another example of yellow journalism, trying to sensationalize a story. Slashdot is better than that.
Next, this is not the only site that produces enriched uranium for use in nuclear power in the United States. As a worker in the industry I personally interviewed at two other site which do this kind of work: USEC inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services. In fact a quick search at www.nrc.gov provides a list of several fuel cycle facilities in the US: www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle.
I live in Big Lake, MN which is just a few miles away from Monticello, MN. The story misses a few things. First of all Monticello approached the Bridgewater to build the fiber network, and Bridgewater decided not to. So Monticello went ahead and decided to do itself. The second thing people should know is that Monticello does not have a normal small town finance system. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant provides a huge cash influx to the city, allowing it to pursue large projects.
I like free software as much as the Slashdot reader. I have a linux box at home. When I go to work half the boxes I work on are Slackware, and the other half are BSDI.
That said, I think that Richard Stallman is rabid. I mean after taking a *quick* look at the APSL it's not that bad. You get the source code, and your allowed to edit it. I mean, really, what more do you want?
One of Richard Stallman's main points was the termination clause, is no good. Can you really blame Apple for having a termination clause? I mean Apple is a company, it has to watch out for itself on some level, after all they are accountable to their stock holders. This said Apple went so far as to change the clause from a termination clause to a suspension clause.
Apple is basically doing the right thing, they are only trying to insure that they don't get screwed for it. In my opinion, Richard Stallman should be congratulating Apple, not shooting them down. This is a major step towards open source/free software, becoming an industry standard.
Anyway that's just my two cents, if anyone wants to set me straight feel free.
Nathan Porter
PS. To all of you have read the Wheel of Time series, Richard Stallman is looking an awful lot like the prophet. Hmmm, I wonder who the Dragon Reborn is....
Education reform seem to be a major topic in the presidential campaigns. I would like to know how you plan to fix America's currently failing system. Do you plan to create standards for schools, and if schools fail, how do you intend on raising those standards?
I've heard the call for school vouchers, but it doesn't make since to me. First of all funding for failing schools would be taken away, which would seemingly push the schools into further disarray. Secondly private schools aren't accountable. The major campaigns demand that public schools be accountable. If they fail then students should be sent to private schools, which aren't accountable, and can't ever be made accoutable. So my second question is, if you agree with school vouchers how would you make them work effectivly?
I'm not going to pay $4.95 so that other people that i don't know can steal my bandwith... if napster intends on charging for their service, their service better become more than just a listing of other peoples files... right now it's based on sharing, i get free mp3's if other people let me get mp3's from them... however if i'm going to have to pay for it, napster had better post the mp3's on their servers, and actually provide more of a service than just listing other peoples archieves.. if 20 million users start paying $4.95 a month, their is going to be a lot of money coming in.. more than enough for the RIAA and napster to split.. that's only every month too, draw it out to a year, and your talking about 1.2 billion, yes with a b, dollars gross profits..
first off i would like to say that i like linux more than mac os... however i do think that mac os deserved to win the contest... they have better office applications, and it's a hell of a lot easier to use.. except for those god damn one button mice.. those have to be the most annoying thing about macs.. it's hardware support is also better, even if you have to buy stuff specifically designed for macs.. onto my main beef with the article.. how could mac have beaten linux in internet applications?? i mean come on.. excluding freeBSD nothing out their has better net support than linux.. nothing.. macs net support is probably it's worst feature.. the pages load slowly, it's tcp/ip stack is weak.. so what if linux requires a little more fine tuning.. you get more than your bucks worth, when it comes down to it.. i still can't believe that cnet put mac above linux in the internet category.. what where they thinking?!?
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Where does Borland get off thinking they can tell me what I can, and can't publish? I remember a court ruling a while back saying that source code is protected, because it's free speech. This seems to be in pretty clear violation. I mean what's next, I can't distribute anything I write in notepad, without further license agreements with Microsoft? If I'm missing something here someone please enlighten me.
This could end up opening up Windows to major virus attacks. Open sourcing a program/OS is good only if you their is a community of programers in the real world willing to improve the code on their own time. In other open source programs (linux, apache, sendmail) security flaws are addressed quickly, and fixed. This is because their is a large informed community that wants to improve the program for their own use. However the majority of the Windows community is uninformed at best, and have little or no knowledge of computer programing. Even if their was a large pool of programers willing to work on the source code, Microsoft doesn't have the mechanisms in place to implement their bug fixes.
yes we should let that kid go.. why should we waste tax money on an idiot that left the keys in his car with the motor running.. the government should have attacked mircro$ft for incompetent software, and left mr. smith alone.. after all his virus didn't cause that much damage.. maybe a few server went down, but that was the system adm. fault FOR BEING AN IDIOT!!
this guy was obviously good with computers... he made one of the "best" virus's of yet. he made use of holes in micro$ft, so he had to know a bit about micro$ft.. he probably knew about the id tags, and when he was arrested he waved his rights and flat out admitted to doing it!! the guy just wanted his 15 min.
the problem is that there won't be enough bird samples. they will start out with a very limited population, and they will have to inbreed. after they start inbreeding genetic disease will start poping up, and in a few years you'll have toothless bango playing birds.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that you should perform regular periodic inspections. I think that twenty years is probably too long of an interval. If you look at the BWR VIP recommendations vessels are actually inspected on a two year frequency, with more in depth inspections on a 20 year frequency.
Everything in nuclear cost a huge pile of money. The 2 year inspection costs about $500,000. The technical analysis to support 20 years of continued operation contingent on satisfactory inspection results cost $3 - 4 million.
The process currently requires that licensee demonstrate using technical analysis that the vessel is fully capable of performing its design function for the entire licenses period. As long as technical analysis demonstrate that the vessel will continue to function, why not allow the plants to extend their license indefinitely? If the stress on the vessel due to cooldowns, heatups, and neutron flux is less than the margin for performing its design function, then preventing a extending license is an action based on fear not science.
A common misconception is that plants were only initially licensed for 40 years due to technical concerns. As it turns out the AEC (the predecessor to the NRC) just picked an arbitrary amount of time to issue operating licenses. There was not a technical basis to the 40 year time period. That being said, some manufactures may have used the 40 year time period as a design input for reactor designs. However there is no mysterious phenomenon that causes the reactor to turn into a pumpkin.
First, the title is very misleading. This is not a nuclear power plant. This is a chemical processing facility, that works with uranium (a fairly stable isotope with a half life of 704 million years). That is a big difference. If you leave a chemical processing facility in a safe condition, it tends to remain in a safe condition. If you walk away from a nuclear power plant that has had any significant power operation, then the decay heat continues to heat the core until it melts or action is taken to remove the heat. The risks of walking out on a chemical processing plant are far less than walking out on a nuclear power plant. This is just another example of yellow journalism, trying to sensationalize a story. Slashdot is better than that.
Next, this is not the only site that produces enriched uranium for use in nuclear power in the United States. As a worker in the industry I personally interviewed at two other site which do this kind of work: USEC inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services. In fact a quick search at www.nrc.gov provides a list of several fuel cycle facilities in the US: www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle.
Oh no! I better not forget to turn of the oven!
I live in Big Lake, MN which is just a few miles away from Monticello, MN. The story misses a few things. First of all Monticello approached the Bridgewater to build the fiber network, and Bridgewater decided not to. So Monticello went ahead and decided to do itself. The second thing people should know is that Monticello does not have a normal small town finance system. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant provides a huge cash influx to the city, allowing it to pursue large projects.
I like free software as much as the Slashdot reader. I have a linux box at home. When I go to work half the boxes I work on are Slackware, and the other half are BSDI.
That said, I think that Richard Stallman is rabid. I mean after taking a *quick* look at the APSL it's not that bad. You get the source code, and your allowed to edit it. I mean, really, what more do you want?
One of Richard Stallman's main points was the termination clause, is no good. Can you really blame Apple for having a termination clause? I mean Apple is a company, it has to watch out for itself on some level, after all they are accountable to their stock holders. This said Apple went so far as to change the clause from a termination clause to a suspension clause.
Apple is basically doing the right thing, they are only trying to insure that they don't get screwed for it. In my opinion, Richard Stallman should be congratulating Apple, not shooting them down. This is a major step towards open source/free software, becoming an industry standard.
Anyway that's just my two cents, if anyone wants to set me straight feel free.
Nathan Porter
PS. To all of you have read the Wheel of Time series, Richard Stallman is looking an awful lot like the prophet. Hmmm, I wonder who the Dragon Reborn is....
Education reform seem to be a major topic in the presidential campaigns. I would like to know how you plan to fix America's currently failing system. Do you plan to create standards for schools, and if schools fail, how do you intend on raising those standards?
I've heard the call for school vouchers, but it doesn't make since to me. First of all funding for failing schools would be taken away, which would seemingly push the schools into further disarray. Secondly private schools aren't accountable. The major campaigns demand that public schools be accountable. If they fail then students should be sent to private schools, which aren't accountable, and can't ever be made accoutable. So my second question is, if you agree with school vouchers how would you make them work effectivly?
I'm not going to pay $4.95 so that other people that i don't know can steal my bandwith... if napster intends on charging for their service, their service better become more than just a listing of other peoples files... right now it's based on sharing, i get free mp3's if other people let me get mp3's from them... however if i'm going to have to pay for it, napster had better post the mp3's on their servers, and actually provide more of a service than just listing other peoples archieves.. if 20 million users start paying $4.95 a month, their is going to be a lot of money coming in.. more than enough for the RIAA and napster to split.. that's only every month too, draw it out to a year, and your talking about 1.2 billion, yes with a b, dollars gross profits..
first off i would like to say that i like linux more than mac os... however i do think that mac os deserved to win the contest... they have better office applications, and it's a hell of a lot easier to use.. except for those god damn one button mice.. those have to be the most annoying thing about macs.. it's hardware support is also better, even if you have to buy stuff specifically designed for macs..
onto my main beef with the article.. how could mac have beaten linux in internet applications?? i mean come on.. excluding freeBSD nothing out their has better net support than linux.. nothing.. macs net support is probably it's worst feature.. the pages load slowly, it's tcp/ip stack is weak.. so what if linux requires a little more fine tuning.. you get more than your bucks worth, when it comes down to it.. i still can't believe that cnet put mac above linux in the internet category.. what where they thinking?!?
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Where does Borland get off thinking they can tell me what I can, and can't publish? I remember a court ruling a while back saying that source code is protected, because it's free speech. This seems to be in pretty clear violation. I mean what's next, I can't distribute anything I write in notepad, without further license agreements with Microsoft? If I'm missing something here someone please enlighten me.
This could end up opening up Windows to major virus attacks. Open sourcing a program/OS is good only if you their is a community of programers in the real world willing to improve the code on their own time. In other open source programs (linux, apache, sendmail) security flaws are addressed quickly, and fixed. This is because their is a large informed community that wants to improve the program for their own use. However the majority of the Windows community is uninformed at best, and have little or no knowledge of computer programing. Even if their was a large pool of programers willing to work on the source code, Microsoft doesn't have the mechanisms in place to implement their bug fixes.
yes we should let that kid go.. why should we waste tax money on an idiot that left the keys in his car with the motor running.. the government should have attacked mircro$ft for incompetent software, and left mr. smith alone.. after all his virus didn't cause that much damage.. maybe a few server went down, but that was the system adm. fault FOR BEING AN IDIOT!!
this guy was obviously good with computers... he made one of the "best" virus's of yet. he made use of holes in micro$ft, so he had to know a bit about micro$ft.. he probably knew about the id tags, and when he was arrested he waved his rights and flat out admitted to doing it!! the guy just wanted his 15 min.
the problem is that there won't be enough bird samples. they will start out with a very limited population, and they will have to inbreed. after they start inbreeding genetic disease will start poping up, and in a few years you'll have toothless bango playing birds.