This is exactly why NASA generally puts forward, the most likely candidates for a mission to Mars is their older crews. The logic being, older crews, should they actually develop cancer, will miss out on less of their lifespan. Likewise, it's possible the older guys may simply die of old age before cancer becomes a significant risk. Now, how much of that is NASA "cooler" talk or reality, I don't know. Just the same, I've read it in many different places over the years.
Te long of the short is, we just don't have good, viable plans for radiation protection for our Mars crews readily at hand.
I always wonder about the destruction of items we spent so much money on launching into orbit. It just seems stupid.
The keyword there is, "seems". In reality, there are very good reasons to do destroy stuff.
For example, Skylab and Mir. Especially Mir. It had air scrubbers and all the other stuff you need for a space station.
Mir is a flying hunk of junk and serious fire risk. Its air scrubbers are of no value to the ISS as they are not compatible. That means you would have to connect the two stations, which puts ISS at risk...plus, probably poses some stability issues and increases fuel requirements everytime ISS needs to increase its orbit.
Why not arrange to have it join up with ISS. It could be refurbished and be a seperate entity as an emergency shelter, with all it's own systems. Even if you only used the solar panels? Just doesn't make sense when getting stuff up there in the first place is so expensive.
For what it would cost to refurbish Mir, they would probably be close to finishing the ISS.
For example, the large tank on the shuttle. Couldn't it be taken right into orbit and parked there?
No. The tanks do not have the volocity to make it into a safe, stable, high orbit.
Huge, presumably air tight, cylinders? Even if you didn't (or couldn't) convert them into some sort of habitat or storage attached to ISS, why not strap on some boosters and fire them off to the moon. Sure would be nice to have a bunch of scrap metal to play with when we finally get there?
The fuel tanks are very toxic. Thusly, taking them into space makes them useless. Taking them back to the ground means recovery and cleaning. Or, they can simply let it burn up on reentry.
Windows constantly pages because that's how the kernel works. Under windows, EVERYTHING is dynamically loaded via paging from the page file. Yes, that means it's initially loaded directly to the page file. They do this to back-store, on demand paging. The way Linux does it is to load from a shared lib on demand. To do this, they load from the shared lib, into the VMM, where it can later be written out to the page file. On windows, they directly load it to the page file, loading to the VMM as needed. I hate to say this, but the Window's solution actally has some advantages.
Thusly, no matter what you do under Windows, the pagefile is heavily used. I highly recommend the use of sysinternels Page Defrag utility. Otherwise, your page file can become very fragmented. If you're a Windows user, check it out! It also helps defrag various system registries which is normally left untouched; which causes it suffer from heavy fragmentation too.
Not true. There are many ways to distribute a python application without providing the source code. Simply providing the.pyc or.pyo file does it. Granted, that is still the byte code, but that's not source. On top of that, there are many installers which can turn a python application into a single binary application; where, the python runtime, standard library and code (possibly byte code), are all bundled.
Long story short, distributing a python application does not always translate into providing source.
That is 2800 cycles per ray for a single frame. (BTW Intels figures in the article are bullshit. 100mil rays at 30fps = 3 billion rays per second.
Ahh....this to me says you screwed up the math. 100m rays at 30f/s = 3.333333m rays per frame not 3b r/s. You multiplied when you should have divided. In other words, it looks like Intel got it right and your math is in the south pasture.
I still agree with the mods...your post is interesting.
Agreed. On the other hand, that's why they constantly offer Iran support on different nuclear designs (making it much harder to enrich material) and a steady supply of fuel. Iran doesn't want this because it would give the world leverage on them in the future...and oh, much, much harder to make a nuke.
The toilet set has been around since at least 1000bc in Egypt. The generally looked like a lattice-box. People of importance and wealth often had one made of stone. People of moderate wealth often had one made of of wood. Everyone else simply squated. All wiped with their fingers.
Because personal history is not a factor until one is established. And even after one is established, statistics are still the primary focus for insurance companies.
Also, no driving record does not equate to high risk. By default, what makes them a high risk, first and foremost, is the fact that they are a teenager. Not that they have don't have a driving history. Commonly, insurance companies are starting to give discounts to teenagers with high grades. This is because, statistically, kids with good grades are not as high a risk as others. Also, in some states, teens can start driving as early as 13 or 14. These kids still pay high teenage rates until they fall outside the bracketed age group. This means they are not discounted for their experience. This, again, invalidates your position. Furthermore, drivers which start driving later in life (e.g. 30-40s, etc.), do not pay higher rates. I know this because I've had two neighbors where their wifes fit this situation. One was from another country where women didn't drive and the other was from New York. You may think this is odd, but people that grow up in places which have mass transit and move elsewhere, are often forced to obtain a driver's license to get around by driving. Again, this invalidates your position.
Your rant contains more insults than facts, as you provide almost no external source.
I decided to actually engage you. If you have the balls, feel free to do the same. And to correct your statement above, my rant was both insulting and factual. You go on to state I provide almost no external source. How lazy are you? You scared you'll have to admit what you already know? Learn to friggen google! Everything I stated above is EASILY confirmed.
You will note that i quoted exclusively mainstream news material but still you chose to answer what arranges you most. We still lack your deepfull analysis of nuclear security on this one [cnn.com].
I responded to this in other posts. Hopefully you'll understand why the link you provided is nothing but a joke from fear monger central. Heck, even the likes of John Stewart has started making fun of their ability to spin and fear monger just about any topic; all the while they actually claim others do it and they don't. It's a huge friggen joke for those that actually bother to use their brain versus allowing the media to think for them. Seriously, I'm not making this up.
In the end you are the delluded one, calling everything you can up to "good old forth of july" to justify your insanity.
You might need to work on your reading comprehension skills. "good old forth of july" was called into question to highlight how insane your position is. In other words, the facts are, coal kills LOTS of people every year. Heck, this year alone there have been no less than four or five hugely publicized coal mine accidents in the US alone. Several more were reported in both China and some small, European country. Lots of deaths, needless to say. Since obviously, coal = lots of death people...every friggen year...and you insist on absolute zero deaths for your source of energy, you can ONLY mean that coal should never be used. This means the "good old forth of july" BBQ must come to an end. Obviously, I don't mean that...and hopefully you're not so dumb to think I did...but it wonderfully shows how irrational your position is on the subject. To get more information, google the friggen subject. Do I have to spoon feed you too? Can you not analyze, learn, and think for your self?
You realize that the pro nuclear stand is way dominant in the mass media, don't you ?
That's news to me. The ONLY pro-nuclear people I'm aware of are the ones that actually know what they're talking about. This almost immediately excludes most mass media. Seriously, I never see pro-nuclear stuff in the news. NEVER. I do, periodically see fear mongering articles, like the one you linked to. Perhaps this is a difference in states or the media we read/watch. But I can honestly say, all the media I commonly see is very anti-nuclear. And of course, this makes perfect sense too. It's hard to sensationalize, "nothing to see here...move along." Rather, it makes for better ratings to spin and mislead, exactly like the article to which you linked does.
Nonetheless i will note that in your last post you finally acknowledge the fact that nuclear has non zero risk, which is quite different from your first answer. Keep on thinking, maybe logic still can reach you.
Of course it does. And whatever that risk is, it's lower than that associated with coal power plants. That was my entire point. How could you have missed that. Simple fact is, NOTHING humans do has a zero-risk associated with it. It's completely impossible and insanely unrealistic to think otherwise. After all, yes, it's certainly possible a giant metor will fall from outspace, hit a nuclear power plant, and cause some radiation from the reactor's core to be released. That doesn't mean it's plausible nor a reasonble position to hold in attempting to justity an anti-nuclear position.
I will answer one point. As almost all nuclear mongers you threaten that it is either nuclear power or the end of our life style, de
Statistically, the noob is far more risky... Did you really have to be told that?
Here's the facts: Females are the absoluete worst drivers, by far. They have more accidents than males. Having said that, male drivers drive much more aggressively than female drivers. So when a male driver is involved in an accident, it tends cost a lot more and the injurry and death rate tends to be much, much higher. Likewise, statistically, teenage drivers are second ONLY to elderly, post retirement age, in their rate of accidents.
Noobs have no history so you can't judge their abilities
So you are actually very incorrect in your assement of the facts. Insurance companies use statisitcs as the basis of their rates. Statistically, the three categories which cost insurance companies the most are: elderly driver (I don't think gender comes into play here), teenage male driver, teenage female driver, all other drivers (assuming all other things being equal).
You obviously don't have kids. Trust is earned. Period. Lack of trust is not always an issue of the relationship. Often, it's an issue of the child's behavior and track record. If a child is lacking trust in the parent/child relationship, more than likely, it's because the child has been screwing up...and often they know it. At the same time, since they are a teenager (16, as you cited), while they know they have to earn that trust back, doesn't mean they understand how to do it or always have that in the forefront of their mind while they are plotting how to screw up again.
When you have good parents, a lack of trust is almost always because of a child's previous performance. Generally speaking, a child has to have been trusted to be in a position where (s)he is no longer trusted. And no surprise, teenagers suffer from a form of brain damage until they hit 20-25. So it's no real surprise that issues like this pop up.
I read the link. It completely met my expectations. Seriously! They are shooting 100 at fear mongering and you're right there to be spoon fed! Ignorance and fear mongering are its key elements. In other words, their position is, nuclear is unsafe because the technology which drives it, safely detected a problem which caused them to turn off the reactor. After following procedures, they turned off the reactor so they could follow up and safely bring the reactor back on line. Meanwhile, other reactors, based on the same design were brought offline pending the results of further investigation and review. I hate to tell you, but that's 100% validation of both the safety of the technology and the process which its built around. This is good news. Leave it to the stupidity at CNN to spin it into bad news.
Are you really unable to analyze what you're reading? How is the technology safely operating and identifying a problem, causing it to shutdown, before there was ever any risk, and bad thing? Contrary to the stupidity of the spin provided in the article, that's a 100% pro-nuclear article, once you bother to peel away CNN's stupidity and fear mongering.
I'm generally not a link kind of guy. Having said that, finding these is not hard at all. Google for "Yucca Mountain Survey". Also, wikipedia has a number of links. I can honestly say I do not know exactly what you will find as I tend to read as I stumble on things and rarely bookmark.
You'll find that Yucca Mountain is known as the "most heavily studied real estate on earth."
Obviously, this link is a "position" page (pro-nuke, which I found by simply googling on the topics provided), but it does seem to provides hard facts: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=907
You need to keep in mind, earthquakes, in of themselves, are not always a problem. If it's on a fault line...which it is not...that could be a problem. Man has a lot of experience creating stable structures which can easily withstand earthquakes. This works so long as the earth doesn't move out from under it; which is why it's important for it to not be on a fault line. Which, in this case, it's not. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_constructi on or do a google search on earthquake structures. Heck, we can make high rises which can withstand magnatude 7 and 8 quakes. If we can do that, I'm fairly sure we can safely reinforce a friggen mountain.
Again, ignorance creates fear. Believe it or not, technology can solve a lot of problems.
We still lack your deepfull analysis of nuclear security on this one [cnn.com].
LOL! You're using CNN as your source for "deepfull analysis"? LOL. Are you trying to be funny? That place is fear mongering central and rarely even provides real news.
You missed the boat and went out into left field. Yuca Mountain is NOT on a fault line. The storage site, according to EVERY site survey says it's one of the best places to store such materials in the US. Period. This includes studies paid for by anti-Yuca Mountain groups.
In other words, the technology and process worked and this is a problem? A 34 year old reactor, probably based on 40+ year old plans worked safely and reliably. I fail to see the position this article supports...other than it being a very pro-nuclear article. Is that your point? Seriously, I'm not sure. The article seems very pro-nuclear to me. Despite the age of the reactor and the age of the technology involved, the supporting process was to shut down the reactor to ensure it can continue to operate safely. This following the safe shutdown of another reactor when a mechanical failure was detected; again proving the safety of the technology. The single article seems to only bolster support for how excellent nuclear technology and process is when run by safe, sane, technologically competent people.
The last few reports I've read all say Yuca is stable and the ideal spot for nuclear waste. Last I heard, the only REAL concern was the people of Nevada don't want it there. Even the link you provided seems to confirm it; reading between the lines. Yuca is not on a major fault line. In other words, the area is stable enough to not have issues with collapse, etc. Believe it or not, even with man made structures, built with earthquakes in mind, a 4.4 is nothing. And you can bet, Yuca has been reinforced to withstand earthquake activity. I know because I've seen a documentary talking about what they've done to reinforce the internal structure that they've made within. Many studies all say the same thing; Yuca is safe! The only thing stopping the safe desposal of waste is politics.
If you have a link which actually says otherwise, I'm happy to look at it.
Wow have you been misinformed. I guess I can expect as much as most people close their eyes and fear monger the second someone mentions nuclear.
Wow, talk about denial. "It's not us, it's those damn russians. Our technology is safe, don't worry. These are the facts" .
What the hell are you talking about? Did you actually read the post? The point being, countries which agree to conform to nuclear standards, including inspections don't have problems. Countries which willfully cut corners and do things half ass (Russia, time and time again), are of course going to have serious problems. Had you actually bothered to read my post, you would have understood we're talking about safe designs...not something some punk thought of in his backyard (e.g. Russian design during the cold war, rushed into service because they have something to prove, and Iran's efforts).
Well, as you must know, there is a history of hundreds of examples of disfunctions, even in todays's most "modern" nuke plants. But you are right. These are not facts. Let's keep our eyes wide shut.
Paranoid delusion much? Ever heard of manual controls? Three mile island can be dismissed AND IS NOT CONSIDERED MODERN! Three Mile Island was considered behind the technology curve when the event took place. Heck, that design was based on information we were still trying to figure out. This was compounded by the fact that they cut a couple of corners in instrumentation. That design was one of the very early designs and was lacking both instrumentation and some cross control checks which were starting to become common practice, even back then. Long story short, despite the failure, loss of containment did not occur and the designs have been improved many, many, many times over. But, only ignorant, scared children refuse to believe that man has improved on things. According to your backass logic, we should all be walking, living in caves, and trading/bartering for goods. You do realize even going to sleep carries a, "non-default zero"? Right? If you seriously think anything humans do carries a zero chance of risk, you need to find the termination booth because you're not dealing with reality. At least not the reality most humans live in.
Are you able to read and comprehend? The other links you included are not even about nuclear plants! It's about radioactive contamination...which is not from a plant...it's from poor desposal. If it were not for fear mongering fools like you, places like Yuca Mountain would already be in use and would have already prevented radioactive contamination; such as you happily pointed out. Not to mention, if it were not for fear mongering fools, we would have technology in our plants which allows the plants to refine, on site, the nuclear material allow for reuse and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less waste. But we're all safer, thanks to the likes of you because you prevent us from having safe displosal and prevent us for vastly reducing the amount of waste which requires disposal. And yes, many of Europe's nuclear plants have such technology in place.
You do realize that we have many plants here in the US? All running without problem...ALL OF WHICH fall behind the state of art by several decades? Why? Thanks to people like you! Despite the technological gap, none of which are posing hazzard to anyone! You do realize that countries around the world are using nuclear power plants...all (excluding Russia and Russian designs) of which are chugging along happily? Yet according to you, we are all seconds from a mass extension event, thanks to these reactors.
Do you have any idea how many people are killed by black lung, mine accidents, coal transportation accidents, and health issues imposed by coal plants? Coal is much more dangerous to the popular than is nuclear....should we shutdown all these power plants too? How about the 'ol Forth of July BBQ? We should stop that too? What are you afraid of...imaginary mon
Filing a claim does not make it the property of the insurance company. Agreeing to surrending the car for it to be totaled is completely different than making a simple claim.
But that doesn't really change anything...which was my point. When I need to go, I need to go...I often don't have time to delay my trip so I can load crap on a stick/card/whatever. The point stands and has zero to do with reading TFA. Like I said...real value will exist when it can do both WiFI and highspeed data connections with cellular networks.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly why NASA generally puts forward, the most likely candidates for a mission to Mars is their older crews. The logic being, older crews, should they actually develop cancer, will miss out on less of their lifespan. Likewise, it's possible the older guys may simply die of old age before cancer becomes a significant risk. Now, how much of that is NASA "cooler" talk or reality, I don't know. Just the same, I've read it in many different places over the years.
Te long of the short is, we just don't have good, viable plans for radiation protection for our Mars crews readily at hand.
I always wonder about the destruction of items we spent so much money on launching into orbit. It just seems stupid.
The keyword there is, "seems". In reality, there are very good reasons to do destroy stuff.
For example, Skylab and Mir. Especially Mir. It had air scrubbers and all the other stuff you need for a space station.
Mir is a flying hunk of junk and serious fire risk. Its air scrubbers are of no value to the ISS as they are not compatible. That means you would have to connect the two stations, which puts ISS at risk...plus, probably poses some stability issues and increases fuel requirements everytime ISS needs to increase its orbit.
Why not arrange to have it join up with ISS. It could be refurbished and be a seperate entity as an emergency shelter, with all it's own systems. Even if you only used the solar panels? Just doesn't make sense when getting stuff up there in the first place is so expensive.
For what it would cost to refurbish Mir, they would probably be close to finishing the ISS.
For example, the large tank on the shuttle. Couldn't it be taken right into orbit and parked there?
No. The tanks do not have the volocity to make it into a safe, stable, high orbit.
Huge, presumably air tight, cylinders? Even if you didn't (or couldn't) convert them into some sort of habitat or storage attached to ISS, why not strap on some boosters and fire them off to the moon. Sure would be nice to have a bunch of scrap metal to play with when we finally get there?
The fuel tanks are very toxic. Thusly, taking them into space makes them useless. Taking them back to the ground means recovery and cleaning. Or, they can simply let it burn up on reentry.
Windows constantly pages because that's how the kernel works. Under windows, EVERYTHING is dynamically loaded via paging from the page file. Yes, that means it's initially loaded directly to the page file. They do this to back-store, on demand paging. The way Linux does it is to load from a shared lib on demand. To do this, they load from the shared lib, into the VMM, where it can later be written out to the page file. On windows, they directly load it to the page file, loading to the VMM as needed. I hate to say this, but the Window's solution actally has some advantages.
Thusly, no matter what you do under Windows, the pagefile is heavily used. I highly recommend the use of sysinternels Page Defrag utility. Otherwise, your page file can become very fragmented. If you're a Windows user, check it out! It also helps defrag various system registries which is normally left untouched; which causes it suffer from heavy fragmentation too.
Not true. There are many ways to distribute a python application without providing the source code. Simply providing the .pyc or .pyo file does it. Granted, that is still the byte code, but that's not source. On top of that, there are many installers which can turn a python application into a single binary application; where, the python runtime, standard library and code (possibly byte code), are all bundled.
Long story short, distributing a python application does not always translate into providing source.
Someone mod the parent and grandparent up. Both are fairly interesting/insightful.
That is 2800 cycles per ray for a single frame. (BTW Intels figures in the article are bullshit. 100mil rays at 30fps = 3 billion rays per second.
Ahh....this to me says you screwed up the math. 100m rays at 30f/s = 3.333333m rays per frame not 3b r/s. You multiplied when you should have divided. In other words, it looks like Intel got it right and your math is in the south pasture.
I still agree with the mods...your post is interesting.
Agreed. On the other hand, that's why they constantly offer Iran support on different nuclear designs (making it much harder to enrich material) and a steady supply of fuel. Iran doesn't want this because it would give the world leverage on them in the future...and oh, much, much harder to make a nuke.
The toilet set has been around since at least 1000bc in Egypt. The generally looked like a lattice-box. People of importance and wealth often had one made of stone. People of moderate wealth often had one made of of wood. Everyone else simply squated. All wiped with their fingers.
You don't think in 1000 years we'll have a better solution? 2000 years? 5000 years? That's a lot of time!
Because personal history is not a factor until one is established. And even after one is established, statistics are still the primary focus for insurance companies.
Also, no driving record does not equate to high risk. By default, what makes them a high risk, first and foremost, is the fact that they are a teenager. Not that they have don't have a driving history. Commonly, insurance companies are starting to give discounts to teenagers with high grades. This is because, statistically, kids with good grades are not as high a risk as others. Also, in some states, teens can start driving as early as 13 or 14. These kids still pay high teenage rates until they fall outside the bracketed age group. This means they are not discounted for their experience. This, again, invalidates your position. Furthermore, drivers which start driving later in life (e.g. 30-40s, etc.), do not pay higher rates. I know this because I've had two neighbors where their wifes fit this situation. One was from another country where women didn't drive and the other was from New York. You may think this is odd, but people that grow up in places which have mass transit and move elsewhere, are often forced to obtain a driver's license to get around by driving. Again, this invalidates your position.
Your rant contains more insults than facts, as you provide almost no external source .
.
I decided to actually engage you. If you have the balls, feel free to do the same. And to correct your statement above, my rant was both insulting and factual. You go on to state I provide almost no external source. How lazy are you? You scared you'll have to admit what you already know? Learn to friggen google! Everything I stated above is EASILY confirmed.
You will note that i quoted exclusively mainstream news material but still you chose to answer what arranges you most
We still lack your deepfull analysis of nuclear security on this one [cnn.com].
I responded to this in other posts. Hopefully you'll understand why the link you provided is nothing but a joke from fear monger central. Heck, even the likes of John Stewart has started making fun of their ability to spin and fear monger just about any topic; all the while they actually claim others do it and they don't. It's a huge friggen joke for those that actually bother to use their brain versus allowing the media to think for them. Seriously, I'm not making this up.
In the end you are the delluded one, calling everything you can up to "good old forth of july" to justify your insanity.
You might need to work on your reading comprehension skills. "good old forth of july" was called into question to highlight how insane your position is. In other words, the facts are, coal kills LOTS of people every year. Heck, this year alone there have been no less than four or five hugely publicized coal mine accidents in the US alone. Several more were reported in both China and some small, European country. Lots of deaths, needless to say. Since obviously, coal = lots of death people...every friggen year...and you insist on absolute zero deaths for your source of energy, you can ONLY mean that coal should never be used. This means the "good old forth of july" BBQ must come to an end. Obviously, I don't mean that...and hopefully you're not so dumb to think I did...but it wonderfully shows how irrational your position is on the subject. To get more information, google the friggen subject. Do I have to spoon feed you too? Can you not analyze, learn, and think for your self?
You realize that the pro nuclear stand is way dominant in the mass media, don't you ?
That's news to me. The ONLY pro-nuclear people I'm aware of are the ones that actually know what they're talking about. This almost immediately excludes most mass media. Seriously, I never see pro-nuclear stuff in the news. NEVER. I do, periodically see fear mongering articles, like the one you linked to. Perhaps this is a difference in states or the media we read/watch. But I can honestly say, all the media I commonly see is very anti-nuclear. And of course, this makes perfect sense too. It's hard to sensationalize, "nothing to see here...move along." Rather, it makes for better ratings to spin and mislead, exactly like the article to which you linked does.
Nonetheless i will note that in your last post you finally acknowledge the fact that nuclear has non zero risk, which is quite different from your first answer. Keep on thinking, maybe logic still can reach you.
Of course it does. And whatever that risk is, it's lower than that associated with coal power plants. That was my entire point. How could you have missed that. Simple fact is, NOTHING humans do has a zero-risk associated with it. It's completely impossible and insanely unrealistic to think otherwise. After all, yes, it's certainly possible a giant metor will fall from outspace, hit a nuclear power plant, and cause some radiation from the reactor's core to be released. That doesn't mean it's plausible nor a reasonble position to hold in attempting to justity an anti-nuclear position.
I will answer one point. As almost all nuclear mongers you threaten that it is either nuclear power or the end of our life style, de
Statistically, the noob is far more risky... Did you really have to be told that?
Here's the facts:
Females are the absoluete worst drivers, by far. They have more accidents than males. Having said that, male drivers drive much more aggressively than female drivers. So when a male driver is involved in an accident, it tends cost a lot more and the injurry and death rate tends to be much, much higher. Likewise, statistically, teenage drivers are second ONLY to elderly, post retirement age, in their rate of accidents.
Noobs have no history so you can't judge their abilities
So you are actually very incorrect in your assement of the facts. Insurance companies use statisitcs as the basis of their rates. Statistically, the three categories which cost insurance companies the most are: elderly driver (I don't think gender comes into play here), teenage male driver, teenage female driver, all other drivers (assuming all other things being equal).
You obviously don't have kids. Trust is earned. Period. Lack of trust is not always an issue of the relationship. Often, it's an issue of the child's behavior and track record. If a child is lacking trust in the parent/child relationship, more than likely, it's because the child has been screwing up...and often they know it. At the same time, since they are a teenager (16, as you cited), while they know they have to earn that trust back, doesn't mean they understand how to do it or always have that in the forefront of their mind while they are plotting how to screw up again.
When you have good parents, a lack of trust is almost always because of a child's previous performance. Generally speaking, a child has to have been trusted to be in a position where (s)he is no longer trusted. And no surprise, teenagers suffer from a form of brain damage until they hit 20-25. So it's no real surprise that issues like this pop up.
This movie will make $15 its opening weekend too.
I read the link. It completely met my expectations. Seriously! They are shooting 100 at fear mongering and you're right there to be spoon fed! Ignorance and fear mongering are its key elements. In other words, their position is, nuclear is unsafe because the technology which drives it, safely detected a problem which caused them to turn off the reactor. After following procedures, they turned off the reactor so they could follow up and safely bring the reactor back on line. Meanwhile, other reactors, based on the same design were brought offline pending the results of further investigation and review. I hate to tell you, but that's 100% validation of both the safety of the technology and the process which its built around. This is good news. Leave it to the stupidity at CNN to spin it into bad news.
Are you really unable to analyze what you're reading? How is the technology safely operating and identifying a problem, causing it to shutdown, before there was ever any risk, and bad thing? Contrary to the stupidity of the spin provided in the article, that's a 100% pro-nuclear article, once you bother to peel away CNN's stupidity and fear mongering.
I'm generally not a link kind of guy. Having said that, finding these is not hard at all. Google for "Yucca Mountain Survey". Also, wikipedia has a number of links. I can honestly say I do not know exactly what you will find as I tend to read as I stumble on things and rarely bookmark.
You'll find that Yucca Mountain is known as the "most heavily studied real estate on earth."
Obviously, this link is a "position" page (pro-nuke, which I found by simply googling on the topics provided), but it does seem to provides hard facts: http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=907
You need to keep in mind, earthquakes, in of themselves, are not always a problem. If it's on a fault line...which it is not...that could be a problem. Man has a lot of experience creating stable structures which can easily withstand earthquakes. This works so long as the earth doesn't move out from under it; which is why it's important for it to not be on a fault line. Which, in this case, it's not. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_constructi on or do a google search on earthquake structures. Heck, we can make high rises which can withstand magnatude 7 and 8 quakes. If we can do that, I'm fairly sure we can safely reinforce a friggen mountain.
Again, ignorance creates fear. Believe it or not, technology can solve a lot of problems.
We still lack your deepfull analysis of nuclear security on this one [cnn.com].
LOL! You're using CNN as your source for "deepfull analysis"? LOL. Are you trying to be funny? That place is fear mongering central and rarely even provides real news.
I'll check out the link tonight.
You missed the boat and went out into left field. Yuca Mountain is NOT on a fault line. The storage site, according to EVERY site survey says it's one of the best places to store such materials in the US. Period. This includes studies paid for by anti-Yuca Mountain groups.
In other words, the technology and process worked and this is a problem? A 34 year old reactor, probably based on 40+ year old plans worked safely and reliably. I fail to see the position this article supports...other than it being a very pro-nuclear article. Is that your point? Seriously, I'm not sure. The article seems very pro-nuclear to me. Despite the age of the reactor and the age of the technology involved, the supporting process was to shut down the reactor to ensure it can continue to operate safely. This following the safe shutdown of another reactor when a mechanical failure was detected; again proving the safety of the technology. The single article seems to only bolster support for how excellent nuclear technology and process is when run by safe, sane, technologically competent people.
It's not where anyone lives. That's the point.
The last few reports I've read all say Yuca is stable and the ideal spot for nuclear waste. Last I heard, the only REAL concern was the people of Nevada don't want it there. Even the link you provided seems to confirm it; reading between the lines. Yuca is not on a major fault line. In other words, the area is stable enough to not have issues with collapse, etc. Believe it or not, even with man made structures, built with earthquakes in mind, a 4.4 is nothing. And you can bet, Yuca has been reinforced to withstand earthquake activity. I know because I've seen a documentary talking about what they've done to reinforce the internal structure that they've made within. Many studies all say the same thing; Yuca is safe! The only thing stopping the safe desposal of waste is politics.
If you have a link which actually says otherwise, I'm happy to look at it.
Wow have you been misinformed. I guess I can expect as much as most people close their eyes and fear monger the second someone mentions nuclear.
Wow, talk about denial. "It's not us, it's those damn russians. Our technology is safe, don't worry. These are the facts" .
What the hell are you talking about? Did you actually read the post? The point being, countries which agree to conform to nuclear standards, including inspections don't have problems. Countries which willfully cut corners and do things half ass (Russia, time and time again), are of course going to have serious problems. Had you actually bothered to read my post, you would have understood we're talking about safe designs...not something some punk thought of in his backyard (e.g. Russian design during the cold war, rushed into service because they have something to prove, and Iran's efforts).
Well, as you must know, there is a history of hundreds of examples of disfunctions, even in todays's most "modern" nuke plants. But you are right. These are not facts. Let's keep our eyes wide shut.
Paranoid delusion much? Ever heard of manual controls? Three mile island can be dismissed AND IS NOT CONSIDERED MODERN! Three Mile Island was considered behind the technology curve when the event took place. Heck, that design was based on information we were still trying to figure out. This was compounded by the fact that they cut a couple of corners in instrumentation. That design was one of the very early designs and was lacking both instrumentation and some cross control checks which were starting to become common practice, even back then. Long story short, despite the failure, loss of containment did not occur and the designs have been improved many, many, many times over. But, only ignorant, scared children refuse to believe that man has improved on things. According to your backass logic, we should all be walking, living in caves, and trading/bartering for goods. You do realize even going to sleep carries a, "non-default zero"? Right? If you seriously think anything humans do carries a zero chance of risk, you need to find the termination booth because you're not dealing with reality. At least not the reality most humans live in.
Are you able to read and comprehend? The other links you included are not even about nuclear plants! It's about radioactive contamination...which is not from a plant...it's from poor desposal. If it were not for fear mongering fools like you, places like Yuca Mountain would already be in use and would have already prevented radioactive contamination; such as you happily pointed out. Not to mention, if it were not for fear mongering fools, we would have technology in our plants which allows the plants to refine, on site, the nuclear material allow for reuse and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less waste. But we're all safer, thanks to the likes of you because you prevent us from having safe displosal and prevent us for vastly reducing the amount of waste which requires disposal. And yes, many of Europe's nuclear plants have such technology in place.
You do realize that we have many plants here in the US? All running without problem...ALL OF WHICH fall behind the state of art by several decades? Why? Thanks to people like you! Despite the technological gap, none of which are posing hazzard to anyone! You do realize that countries around the world are using nuclear power plants...all (excluding Russia and Russian designs) of which are chugging along happily? Yet according to you, we are all seconds from a mass extension event, thanks to these reactors.
Do you have any idea how many people are killed by black lung, mine accidents, coal transportation accidents, and health issues imposed by coal plants? Coal is much more dangerous to the popular than is nuclear....should we shutdown all these power plants too? How about the 'ol Forth of July BBQ? We should stop that too? What are you afraid of...imaginary mon
Filing a claim does not make it the property of the insurance company. Agreeing to surrending the car for it to be totaled is completely different than making a simple claim.
But that doesn't really change anything...which was my point. When I need to go, I need to go...I often don't have time to delay my trip so I can load crap on a stick/card/whatever. The point stands and has zero to do with reading TFA. Like I said...real value will exist when it can do both WiFI and highspeed data connections with cellular networks.