Pushing nuclear energy has relatively very little do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil. Please lets not confuse the two. There is no chance that there will be cars powered by "under the hood" nuclear reactors in the near future. Our cars might not be directly powered by nuclear energy, but our plug-in electric cars and hybrids will be using electricity generated by it.
Its arguably true that fissile materials are a limited resource, however, from what I understand most of those projections are based on current U.S. reactors, which are dinosaurs compared to places like France and Canada. When you take into account breeder reactors, and in particular the ability to use the massive amounts of "waste" currently stored in pools as fuel, I suspect the projections go way up.
after that we can count on fusion. Fusion is the future. In the words of a nuclear engineering professor at NC State, "Fusion is the future of nuclear power, and always will be."
So long as they came with their handy dandy bipedal humanoid repair agents... Make sure you get the bipedal humanoids though, those quadrupedal humanoids are no good...
Not as amusing when you consider that the grandparent was defining hard as involving SCUBA gear and lethal weaponry. Perhaps I didn't stress it properly, I was trying to say that it would be hard, but not that hard.
1.) The fuel rods are something you can just "remove." This action poses some purely physical difficulties- they're meters underwater, bathed in a deadly neutron flux, and have to be removed by tools taking a lot of time.
2.) Monitors at access points would detect something being removed and sound alarms.
3.) You don't really get to be alone with the reactor for any period of time worth mentioning.
4.) Fuel rods aren't the attractive target people think they are.
5.) Becoming a reactor operator and being allowed access to the PULSTAR directly involves more than just taking a few classes- security post 9/11 is much greater. Undergraduates aren't allowed to have keys to the classroom building anymore, let alone the reactor. There are things called background checks by the way. 1. I didn't say it would be easy, I said it would be possible. The fact is that the fuel rods can be removed, and it doesn't require SCUBA gear, as the grandparent said.
2. Again, not easy, but doable. Any alarm system is fallible. Keep in mind that I am working under the assumption that the people involved are NCSU students with clean background checks who have taken the time and energy to be given direct access to the PULSTAR. Given time and ingenuity I am fairly certain that an intelligent individual could figure out how to get past the alarm systems. Remember, the individual doesn't need to not get caught, or even survive, for very long. He just has to get the rods to his buddy on the outside.
3. I believe I specifically mentioned that multiple people would be involved(if not, shame on me). The trick isn't to be alone, its not be not alone with the right person.
4. Not attractive to someone building a nuke, more attractive to someone building a dirty bomb. Your logic is also faulty, if people think its an attractive target, then it becomes an attractive target. Whether it's a good target is an entirely separate matter.
5. I apologize for being imprecise in my first post, I do not actually know the amount of time required to become a reactor operator. I do, however, know it can be done. Oh no, background check? I guess we are all saved. It's a good thing the governments has tabs on every single person with anti-American feelings in the entire world!
Honestly, stealing reactor materials from the Pulstar probably wouldn't be that hard. When you think about the amount of time spent planning the 9/11 attacks, a couple of semesters to become a reactor operator wouldn't be that big a deal. or there are others experiments going on in the reactor bay, so I assume the people running those experiments have access. Once you have physical access to the reactor you wouldn't need weapons or SCUBA gear, particularly assuming you don't mind death from radiation poisoning/cancer. just pull the rods out and put them in a box. then stroll off campus.
(lawyer note: I don't recommend this, you will probably get caught and spend the rest of your life in jail, plus it's just plain a bad idea)
The problem with your comment is that is assumes that the teachers have done anything to deserve respect. In my mind, having a master's in education and the ability to keep a group of kids from killing each other is not worthy of any particular respect. You also have to take your definition of "worth while achievements" in context. The reason we respect people who have PHD's is because they have not something the vast majority of the population has not. For someone in high school, you need to base their achievements on a scale set by the achievements of their peers. Finally, your right, intelligence has no meaning in and of itself, however, intelligence often corresponds with knowledge and activity beyond the scope of the norm. My guess is that the GP was not just more intelligent, but also knew and did more than his peers.
In louisiana a computer class is still required for graduation. However, at our school the "computer class" was some business major teaching us how to use word and excel. which, actually, could be helpful to those who want to get jobs right out of high school(thats why its implemented) but I would hesitate to say that its actually a computer class, and I'm sure that the teachers would be incapable of teaching a decent online safety course.
I'm a college freshmen in louisiana and we had to do this all through highschool. But it was more of a "okay class, the state says you have to fill out these forms, otherwise you won't be able to completely ignore them properly." We had to choose a track, but nobody took them seriously, I don't think the guidance counselors even looked at them when they were scheduling classes.
Rufus
The inherent problem with legislation is that it assumes that the legislators are smart and rational, which is in turn just an assumption the the electors(people in general) are smart and rational.
merely making the comment that i have known a lot of optomitrists but never have any of them refered to themselves as vision scientists. read this however you.
a vision scientist? really? your a rare breed. there are a lot of laymen and a fair complement of optometrists, but very few vision scientists. very few.
Slashdot Mirror
Its arguably true that fissile materials are a limited resource, however, from what I understand most of those projections are based on current U.S. reactors, which are dinosaurs compared to places like France and Canada. When you take into account breeder reactors, and in particular the ability to use the massive amounts of "waste" currently stored in pools as fuel, I suspect the projections go way up.
Not as amusing when you consider that the grandparent was defining hard as involving SCUBA gear and lethal weaponry. Perhaps I didn't stress it properly, I was trying to say that it would be hard, but not that hard.
Honestly, stealing reactor materials from the Pulstar probably wouldn't be that hard. When you think about the amount of time spent planning the 9/11 attacks, a couple of semesters to become a reactor operator wouldn't be that big a deal. or there are others experiments going on in the reactor bay, so I assume the people running those experiments have access. Once you have physical access to the reactor you wouldn't need weapons or SCUBA gear, particularly assuming you don't mind death from radiation poisoning/cancer. just pull the rods out and put them in a box. then stroll off campus.
(lawyer note: I don't recommend this, you will probably get caught and spend the rest of your life in jail, plus it's just plain a bad idea)
The problem with your comment is that is assumes that the teachers have done anything to deserve respect. In my mind, having a master's in education and the ability to keep a group of kids from killing each other is not worthy of any particular respect. You also have to take your definition of "worth while achievements" in context. The reason we respect people who have PHD's is because they have not something the vast majority of the population has not. For someone in high school, you need to base their achievements on a scale set by the achievements of their peers. Finally, your right, intelligence has no meaning in and of itself, however, intelligence often corresponds with knowledge and activity beyond the scope of the norm. My guess is that the GP was not just more intelligent, but also knew and did more than his peers.
Rufus
In louisiana a computer class is still required for graduation. However, at our school the "computer class" was some business major teaching us how to use word and excel. which, actually, could be helpful to those who want to get jobs right out of high school(thats why its implemented) but I would hesitate to say that its actually a computer class, and I'm sure that the teachers would be incapable of teaching a decent online safety course.
Rufus
I'm a college freshmen in louisiana and we had to do this all through highschool. But it was more of a "okay class, the state says you have to fill out these forms, otherwise you won't be able to completely ignore them properly." We had to choose a track, but nobody took them seriously, I don't think the guidance counselors even looked at them when they were scheduling classes. Rufus
The inherent problem with legislation is that it assumes that the legislators are smart and rational, which is in turn just an assumption the the electors(people in general) are smart and rational.
It says something about American politics that the first thing that came to mind involved Bill Clinton and an intern.
I for one welcome our mobile robotic alarm clock overlords!
then you would be wrong but would probobly feel better.
merely making the comment that i have known a lot of optomitrists but never have any of them refered to themselves as vision scientists. read this however you.
a vision scientist? really? your a rare breed. there are a lot of laymen and a fair complement of optometrists, but very few vision scientists. very few.