Rather then fill the outback with yet another untested and likely useless species. Why don't they just put more people out there?
Build a few more cities or towns... expand... tame the wilderness. If people actually live out there then any undesired species isn't going to last very long.
And during the day people can go to the petrol station and see if any of the numbers have changed...
Sydney has a freezing winter rain in summer and the air turns into a wall of white water. You get just as wet from the rain as you do from the humidity. The only difference is if you have your sunnies on or not.
Then someone turns the weather switch and while that toggle switch goes from winter to summer or visa versa the day will be maybe hot maybe dry maybe rain maybe cold, the only difference is it will be that way all day after you've left for work you either carry your jacket and wear your sunnies or you wear your sunnies and carry your jacket. But don't dare open an umbrella or the wind will rip it to pieces or sudden lightning reduce it a hole in the ground with some molten metal and the remains of one of your shoes. Deodourant companies are listed on the commodities market.
Then winter is so dry that your lips skin and hands dry and crack and you suddenly get two days of summer in winter.
Except when it's the other way around and it pours the freezing winter rain in winter and summer is so dry that everything everywhere is so flammable that if the reflection of your sunglasses hits the ground at the wrong angle the whole place goes up in flames.
The fire warning signs read something like (This is not a joke) Normal, High, Dangerous, Extremely dangerous, catastrophic. I almost feel it is appropriate to have them add "We're all gonna die" or "save the children" in case some people don't understand the point.
Other than that the weather here is wonderful, I'm sure the elephants will have a great time.
You appear to have completely missed the core point in the GP. While nothing you wrote here is false on its own, it does ignore the sheer size of the ocean; the phrase "drop in a bucket" is an understatement here.
I don't know what you think the GP's point is but it carries the question of how many fatal doses of radionuclides were carried into the ocean around Japan, a country that depends heavily on its fishing industry. One microgram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human, so one kilo of plutonium is one million fatal human doses. Fukushima has several hundred tons of plutonium in storage and considering plutonium has been detected around the environs we know it was released in the accident. How much is the critical question.
The size of the ocean is only relevant to this discussion if diluting the radionuclides was occurring. As the science demonstrates that bio-concentration is a work the "sheer size of the ocean" is only relevant to the assumptions you are making about the process.
The food chain is going to experience far more damaging effects purely from radiation from space on a daily basis than it will ever experience from this.
We are talking about particulate radionuclide contamination that is a (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation emitter in the ocean absorbed by metabolic processes into the food chain. What you say demonstrates a clear mis-understanding of the processes at work.
You seem to be missing that we are talking about the corrosion of physically heavy particulate matter in an area known to be so abundant in sea life that Japan built a fishing industry around it. As a consequence I'd expect to see pronounced local effects on sea life, the ocean carrying the particulate matter (reports I've read tell us significantly measurable amounts as far as the Marshal islands) and effects on migratory species that feed in the area like whales and sea birds.
The food chain will suffer serious contamination, at least in Japan and people will die when they eat that food.
Your post appears to be a case of applying encyclopedic recall of facts without performing any critical analysis of actual effects in this specific case.
On the contrary communicating analysis was not necessary to refute that your point about dilution was incorrect and that the opposite process, bio-concentration, is occurring. Your assumptive analysis is also a moot point because you assume that everything will be diluted into the vast ocean when instead it will be absorbed and concentrated into the food chain.
But if non specific broad analysis is what you want then I expect to see an increase in cancer rates starting roughly 2017-2020 as the particulate matter is distributed throughout the food chain and eaten. Prawns and squid first, then larger fish. After the gestation period of cancer expect a requisite increase in the death rates from various cancers in Japan.
I think we may have a new record for the most trivial, inconsequential piece of "news" that made it to/. merely by being possibly related to Fukushima.
No it's not insignificant. It's either very good news and it means that the radionuclides become less like micro-nutrients to living systems or it's very bad news and this effect make the radionuclides more readily absorbed by living systems, it remains to be seen.
Uranium release from the UO2 fuel?
So what? Uranium is harmless, it's hardly radioactive at all, it's abundant throughout nature, and it's naturally present in seawater.
Surely any such analysis of the radiochemistry consequences of adding seawater to the BWR's coolant should focus on the fission products and their radiochemical mobility and transport, not on harmless, insignificant, uranium.
Indeed, uranium isn't the only radionuclide that Fukushima ejected. Plutonium-239, strontium-90 and cesium-137 (amongst others) were likely candidates. If you seek out my other posts in this thread you'll find I've linked to the science already.
Do you honestly have any fucking idea how big the Pacific is, or how big the planet as a whole is? Not trolling here, just honest questions. Do you know anything at all about ocean currents or dilution rates expressed not in parts per million, but parts per quintillion over time spans measured not in years or even months, but in days? How about decay rates? How about statistically significant exposure thresholds for even remote potential for damage to cellular structures? For fuck's sake, do you have any idea whatsoever about anything you're commenting on, or was your post just for "the lulz?"
As radionuclides are analogues of micro nutrients to living organisms dilution does not apply. What applies is bio-concentration and in nature, due to those properties of the radionuclides, they will be absorbed by the smallest of sea creatures and plants facilitating their entry into the food chain as they are eaten.
Plutonium is a analogue of iron and iron is a sort after micro nutrient in the ocean, consequently most of it will find it's way into the food chain. At least, thats how the science tells us how bio-concentration works. Of course there are other ways for radionuclides to end up in our food chain but this is specific to your points which are often made by those who think "dilution is part of the solution". The fact is the opposite is what is occurring.
You are part of the problem, and congratulations on feeding Yet Another Media Earnings Frenzy Over Absolutely Nothing At All. Yes I know what I'm talking about, and no I don't give a flying fuck about being modded down here. Take it or leave it. My advice to you is simply this: find something else to do with your spare time aside from feeding the beast of rampant stupidity. I recommend a formal education beyond the community college level on the aforementioned topics for starters. Have a nice day.
What are the capabilities of this silk? How is it superior to regular silk? I see no real facts just that it's made of spider silk and took a while? It would take me a while to fasion a life size bridge out of Lego - it doesn't mean it would be stronger than a real bridge.
?
But consider that a spider's web isn't lego so the real question is whether a bridge made from spiders silk would be stronger than a bridge made from lego? And if you had lego made from spiders silk, fashioned into a lego mindstorm robotic spider, would it make even stronger spidersilk lego blocks?
That why they have spiderman not legoman -- duuuuh. Lego doesn't have a spidey sense.
I think he's saying, fuck it, in that event let the crew evacuate and let it melt down and to hell with it. Just leave it entombed well underground. I would assume he's not thinking of three feet of earth here, but REALLY WELL underground. That's not too different from what was done with underground nuclear tests. Believe me, the pressure due to a melted down nuclear reactor is not even close to the pressure of an exploding nuclear weapon, and that was pretty fully contained, so what do you think the problem would be.
Certainly, with respect to an accident, but ideally to use the reactor for its entire operational lifetime and when it's decommissioned leave it in place to cool and decay, perhaps even sealed into the earth.
Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced and they have to be cooled whilst in a decommissioned state also allowing time for the highly active
radionuclides to decay. Thus the disposal of the reactor is designed into it, the longer it stays in lace the cooler it gets.
You need an analysis to prove this either way, but I would suggest that the added cost of building underground would not be prohibitive (heck, the Iranians are doing it). The added cost per plant would probably be less unfavorable than having one above ground disaster out of every few hundred or so above-ground plants.
Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.
I would suggest that the only real issue would be ground water contamination in the threat of a contained disaster, and I am not minimizing that. It has to be shown one way or another to be not a major factor in any such installation.
And that would be an absolutely appropriate thing to raise. One of the reasons to choose Granite is that it captures the radionuclides from the groundwater that has contacted these isotopes.
I've seen some promising research of this discovery but I'm afraid I cannot provide a link at this time. Roughly though the DOE's original policy using the 'Defense in Depth' approach to the specification for building a spent fuel containment facility. The reason to choose that specific geology (in addition to being stable) was also to have the geologic chemistry of the rock able to mitigate the effect of ground water traveling through the facility and carrying radioactive isotopes into the water table.
It's a great starting place for siting a reactor facility what better way to guarantee it's engineered as much as possible to minimise release of radionuclides.
If you look at the history of the Research and Development of nuclear reactors you will notice they were scaled up from test reactors to full sized commercial reactors very quickly. Speaking in general terms if you look closely at the design of most commercial reactors they just look like big versions of the test reactors. Even the AP-1000 and the EPR reactors suffer from a plethora of design inadequacies that demonstrate the full life cycle of a reactor was not considered.
I reason this because the simplest and most obvious design change to Nuclear reactors would be to build them underground which would mean any nuclear accident would be automatically contained and the entire facility sealed off and, if necessary, flooded with water. It would also mean decommissioning and disposal of the reactor could take place in-situ and that would avoid the energy costs (around one third of the reactors lifetime output) incurred. I've only ever seen an IFR reactor design underground but there are many other safety features that can be applied.
The argument for Nuclear Power generally ignores the entire nuclear industry paradigm and focuses on reactor technology as the answer, whilst the argument against focuses on the consequences of an industry that was rushed into existence based of the premise of nuclear weapons production. But I believe there is a middle ground based on spent fuel containment and a proper infrastructure to support it.
There is little doubt that Fukushima would be much easier to deal with now if the spent fuel pools were empty but the truly sobering thought is that US reactors of the same design have up to five times the density of spent fuel contained in those pools and the same type of accident in one of those reactors would almost certainly result in a un-contained plutonium fire.
It is possible to build a much safer nuclear industry but it would start with an international effort that incorporated the Joint industry findings the NRC commissioned AND the EPR design enhancements applied to all new reactor designs. That and a proper infrastructure program to handle spent fuel would answer most of the arguments the critics have of the Nuclear industry.
It's really only attributable to the arrogance of the 50's thinking that leaves legal artifacts like the Price-Anderson act in existence long after it's use by date and demonstrates that announcements such of these are as insincere as the regulatory enforcement that led Japan, and the world, into this mess in the first place.
Steve Jobs was frankly, not known for his sense of humor or for being self-deprecating; he was obsessed with his own image and I think he would have been far too pompous to laugh this off.
ummm, is it possible I was being a little sarcastic?
I'll probably get modded insightful for this drivel, but seriously, he would laugh and say, "It looks more like me than I do and I should know, I'm me". The only reason Apple Inc want to sue is because it's not a genuine Apple Steve Jobs doll. Someone in Apple marketing is thinking "Damn why didn't we think of that, we should sue them because we didn't think of that" so they are.
The problem with these dolls is that they become alive after being used as a cx toy. THESE DOLLS ARE NOT CX TOYS, Rule 39 does not apply here. These are collectors items of a man who is very important enough for someone to make a doll,,,of. The possibilities are endless for fans of action figures and Shaun the Sheep when coupled with this doll. sweet revenge muu hahaha. oh the irony isn't lost on me, it isn't even if I understood what it was. I will buy this doll because it sums up Steve's entire life. He kept it real, now the Chinese want to cash in on that realnessness.
It looks so awesome, thats what Steve would say and he'd be right.
Business is Business, go run your own small business with your own money for a while. Understand business and learn what it means to have Skin in the Game.
Understand Accounting, Cash Flow, Marketing, Sales, People Management, Psychology, Contract Law and more but I'm very tired, HTH.
I'm not ignoring the toxicity, I'm pointing out the FUD with regard to the half life. The fact that it takes a long time to decay is irrelevant because the radioactivity isn't the problem, even though that is what scares people. At that point you can stop talking about nuclear physics and start talking about chemistry.
Only because most people don't understand that radionuclide release into the environment, bio-accumulation and micro-nutrient analogues are far more insidious and deadly issue. It's exactly because this isotope is stable in this extremely toxic chemical form for so long that it deserves to be singled out. Your comments sought no balance, no mention of it's toxicity and presented hope of the prospect of dealing with plutonium with technology that isn't available with existing materials technology. All in all a clever mis-representation of the truth.
Ingest one millionth of a gram of plutonium and it will kill you, the radiation will induce cancer in the body - they are facts.
You don't have any reason why Plutonium has to be singled out. We deal with toxic substances regularly. When mistakes happen it's very bad, so we do what we can to minimize mistakes.
On the contrary I have cited many reasons for Plutonium to be singled out. It's precisely that we continue to make these mistakes so often that we can't afford to continue to make these mistakes with plutonium any more. It's extreme toxicity is stable for at least 25000 years despite the level of radioactivity it's gone through a process of significant concentration and neutron bombardment to achieve its form.
Do you actually have any purpose in asking these questions? You can destroy Plutonium with anything that bombards it with neutrons. It's fissionable.
Yes I do, to gauge your depth of consideration. Yes it is fissionable but on an industrial scale, unlikely. These are straightforward questions, like What is the Net Energy return of a new AP-1000 reactor?
And so far, I'm not wearing my surprised face.
Let's come back from the propaganda term "fissile ash" and actually consider what that is. It's the elements the fissile elements are split into. This is really the whole problem with talking about "nuclear waste" -- it's not waste. People pay money for this stuff.
Please don't insult me with schoolboy arguments, I know how valuable these elements are. The real question is are you aware of how deadly they are outside of your circle of expertise? sr-90 might be a valuable substance (as is plutonium) but that doesn't mean it won't kill you and generations of children after you. Do you know what micro-nutrient strontium-90 analogues in the body? Do you know how much energy it takes to decommission a nuclear reactor? Can you describe how it moves through the food chain?
You seek to cast these elements as benign. You talk about reactor technology that doesn't exist as if it does yet when you are asked the most rudimentary questions about nuclear power you are unable to offer an answer. This begs the question of how much you have actually considered, really considered, what you believe to be facts about nuclear power.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather then fill the outback with yet another untested and likely useless species. Why don't they just put more people out there?
Build a few more cities or towns... expand... tame the wilderness. If people actually live out there then any undesired species isn't going to last very long.
And during the day people can go to the petrol station and see if any of the numbers have changed...
Yes it did, it just didn't do it completely - and the remaining population has now been selected for resistance.
It's the exact same problem we have with antibiotics
Yeah, but at least the aboriginals finally thought the white man did something right for a change. Now foxes,,,,,,uuurrh foxes
[...]they're not exactly small and hard to spot. [...]
If they wear red socks, and hide in a strawberry patch, they're quite hard to spot!
They leave footprints in the butters
Sydney has a freezing winter rain in summer and the air turns into a wall of white water. You get just as wet from the rain as you do from the humidity. The only difference is if you have your sunnies on or not.
Then someone turns the weather switch and while that toggle switch goes from winter to summer or visa versa the day will be maybe hot maybe dry maybe rain maybe cold, the only difference is it will be that way all day after you've left for work you either carry your jacket and wear your sunnies or you wear your sunnies and carry your jacket. But don't dare open an umbrella or the wind will rip it to pieces or sudden lightning reduce it a hole in the ground with some molten metal and the remains of one of your shoes. Deodourant companies are listed on the commodities market.
Then winter is so dry that your lips skin and hands dry and crack and you suddenly get two days of summer in winter.
Except when it's the other way around and it pours the freezing winter rain in winter and summer is so dry that everything everywhere is so flammable that if the reflection of your sunglasses hits the ground at the wrong angle the whole place goes up in flames.
The fire warning signs read something like (This is not a joke) Normal, High, Dangerous, Extremely dangerous, catastrophic. I almost feel it is appropriate to have them add "We're all gonna die" or "save the children" in case some people don't understand the point.
Other than that the weather here is wonderful, I'm sure the elephants will have a great time.
I don't know what you think the GP's point is but it carries the question of how many fatal doses of radionuclides were carried into the ocean around Japan, a country that depends heavily on its fishing industry. One microgram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human, so one kilo of plutonium is one million fatal human doses. Fukushima has several hundred tons of plutonium in storage and considering plutonium has been detected around the environs we know it was released in the accident. How much is the critical question.
The size of the ocean is only relevant to this discussion if diluting the radionuclides was occurring. As the science demonstrates that bio-concentration is a work the "sheer size of the ocean" is only relevant to the assumptions you are making about the process.
We are talking about particulate radionuclide contamination that is a (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation emitter in the ocean absorbed by metabolic processes into the food chain. What you say demonstrates a clear mis-understanding of the processes at work.
You seem to be missing that we are talking about the corrosion of physically heavy particulate matter in an area known to be so abundant in sea life that Japan built a fishing industry around it. As a consequence I'd expect to see pronounced local effects on sea life, the ocean carrying the particulate matter (reports I've read tell us significantly measurable amounts as far as the Marshal islands) and effects on migratory species that feed in the area like whales and sea birds.
The food chain will suffer serious contamination, at least in Japan and people will die when they eat that food.
On the contrary communicating analysis was not necessary to refute that your point about dilution was incorrect and that the opposite process, bio-concentration, is occurring. Your assumptive analysis is also a moot point because you assume that everything will be diluted into the vast ocean when instead it will be absorbed and concentrated into the food chain.
But if non specific broad analysis is what you want then I expect to see an increase in cancer rates starting roughly 2017-2020 as the particulate matter is distributed throughout the food chain and eaten. Prawns and squid first, then larger fish. After the gestation period of cancer expect a requisite increase in the death rates from various cancers in Japan.
I think we may have a new record for the most trivial, inconsequential piece of "news" that made it to /. merely by being possibly related to Fukushima.
No it's not insignificant. It's either very good news and it means that the radionuclides become less like micro-nutrients to living systems or it's very bad news and this effect make the radionuclides more readily absorbed by living systems, it remains to be seen.
Uranium release from the UO2 fuel? So what? Uranium is harmless, it's hardly radioactive at all, it's abundant throughout nature, and it's naturally present in seawater. Surely any such analysis of the radiochemistry consequences of adding seawater to the BWR's coolant should focus on the fission products and their radiochemical mobility and transport, not on harmless, insignificant, uranium.
Indeed, uranium isn't the only radionuclide that Fukushima ejected. Plutonium-239, strontium-90 and cesium-137 (amongst others) were likely candidates. If you seek out my other posts in this thread you'll find I've linked to the science already.
As radionuclides are analogues of micro nutrients to living organisms dilution does not apply. What applies is bio-concentration and in nature, due to those properties of the radionuclides, they will be absorbed by the smallest of sea creatures and plants facilitating their entry into the food chain as they are eaten.
Plutonium is a analogue of iron and iron is a sort after micro nutrient in the ocean, consequently most of it will find it's way into the food chain. At least, thats how the science tells us how bio-concentration works. Of course there are other ways for radionuclides to end up in our food chain but this is specific to your points which are often made by those who think "dilution is part of the solution". The fact is the opposite is what is occurring.
No, you don't know what you are talking about and you should take you own advice. The process of bio-concentration and radionuclide micro nutrient analogue has been studied, peer reviewed and has an ever growing body of science to refer to. The article Radionuclide Bioconcentration Factors and Sediment Partition Coefficients in Arctic Seas Subject to Contamination from Dumped Nuclear Wastes would be a good place to start if the science is an adequate refutation of your assumptions.
Your comment was annoying and juvenile. Best that nobody else has to see it.
I guess the same can be said about your identity.
Maybe that's what that moderator was thinking...
What are the capabilities of this silk? How is it superior to regular silk? I see no real facts just that it's made of spider silk and took a while? It would take me a while to fasion a life size bridge out of Lego - it doesn't mean it would be stronger than a real bridge.
?
But consider that a spider's web isn't lego so the real question is whether a bridge made from spiders silk would be stronger than a bridge made from lego? And if you had lego made from spiders silk, fashioned into a lego mindstorm robotic spider, would it make even stronger spidersilk lego blocks?
That why they have spiderman not legoman -- duuuuh. Lego doesn't have a spidey sense.
Everybody Else Has Had More Sex Than Me - By TISM, for your enjoyment!
Everyone else has had more sex than me
ohhh ohhh
Everyone else has had more sex than me
ohhh ohhh
Everyone else has had more sex than me
Does anyone else get that feeling?
Teenagers, naked, couples in threes;
Grandparents swing from the ceiling;
Everyone else has had more sex than me
ohhh ohhh
Everyone else has had more sex than me
ohhh ohhh
Corporate capers and office amour;
Shenanigans outdoor and in
Resist, and then later you find out there's more
Regret in not doing the sin.
All loves have to die - of that there's no help;
My favourite way to end em'
Is the orb-weaver spider's, whose pedipalp
Enters the female pudendum,
Then dies on the spot, his corpse there still stuck,
Left for his rivals to curse it.
He would rather die than not get to fuck:
Personally, I reckon it's worth it
Everyone else has had more sex than me
ohhh ohhh
Does everybody else get that feeling?
ohhh ohhh
Everyone else has had more sex than me
ohhh ohhh
Does everybody else get that feeling?
Whoa ohhhh ohhh ohh
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everybody else
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone
Does Everyone think?
I'm sure they have the highest quality control for these reactors, yippee!!!1
I think he's saying, fuck it, in that event let the crew evacuate and let it melt down and to hell with it. Just leave it entombed well underground. I would assume he's not thinking of three feet of earth here, but REALLY WELL underground. That's not too different from what was done with underground nuclear tests. Believe me, the pressure due to a melted down nuclear reactor is not even close to the pressure of an exploding nuclear weapon, and that was pretty fully contained, so what do you think the problem would be.
Certainly, with respect to an accident, but ideally to use the reactor for its entire operational lifetime and when it's decommissioned leave it in place to cool and decay, perhaps even sealed into the earth. Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced and they have to be cooled whilst in a decommissioned state also allowing time for the highly active radionuclides to decay. Thus the disposal of the reactor is designed into it, the longer it stays in lace the cooler it gets.
You need an analysis to prove this either way, but I would suggest that the added cost of building underground would not be prohibitive (heck, the Iranians are doing it). The added cost per plant would probably be less unfavorable than having one above ground disaster out of every few hundred or so above-ground plants.
Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.
I would suggest that the only real issue would be ground water contamination in the threat of a contained disaster, and I am not minimizing that. It has to be shown one way or another to be not a major factor in any such installation.
And that would be an absolutely appropriate thing to raise. One of the reasons to choose Granite is that it captures the radionuclides from the groundwater that has contacted these isotopes. I've seen some promising research of this discovery but I'm afraid I cannot provide a link at this time. Roughly though the DOE's original policy using the 'Defense in Depth' approach to the specification for building a spent fuel containment facility. The reason to choose that specific geology (in addition to being stable) was also to have the geologic chemistry of the rock able to mitigate the effect of ground water traveling through the facility and carrying radioactive isotopes into the water table.
It's a great starting place for siting a reactor facility what better way to guarantee it's engineered as much as possible to minimise release of radionuclides.
If you look at the history of the Research and Development of nuclear reactors you will notice they were scaled up from test reactors to full sized commercial reactors very quickly. Speaking in general terms if you look closely at the design of most commercial reactors they just look like big versions of the test reactors. Even the AP-1000 and the EPR reactors suffer from a plethora of design inadequacies that demonstrate the full life cycle of a reactor was not considered.
I reason this because the simplest and most obvious design change to Nuclear reactors would be to build them underground which would mean any nuclear accident would be automatically contained and the entire facility sealed off and, if necessary, flooded with water. It would also mean decommissioning and disposal of the reactor could take place in-situ and that would avoid the energy costs (around one third of the reactors lifetime output) incurred. I've only ever seen an IFR reactor design underground but there are many other safety features that can be applied.
The argument for Nuclear Power generally ignores the entire nuclear industry paradigm and focuses on reactor technology as the answer, whilst the argument against focuses on the consequences of an industry that was rushed into existence based of the premise of nuclear weapons production. But I believe there is a middle ground based on spent fuel containment and a proper infrastructure to support it.
There is little doubt that Fukushima would be much easier to deal with now if the spent fuel pools were empty but the truly sobering thought is that US reactors of the same design have up to five times the density of spent fuel contained in those pools and the same type of accident in one of those reactors would almost certainly result in a un-contained plutonium fire.
It is possible to build a much safer nuclear industry but it would start with an international effort that incorporated the Joint industry findings the NRC commissioned AND the EPR design enhancements applied to all new reactor designs. That and a proper infrastructure program to handle spent fuel would answer most of the arguments the critics have of the Nuclear industry.
It's really only attributable to the arrogance of the 50's thinking that leaves legal artifacts like the Price-Anderson act in existence long after it's use by date and demonstrates that announcements such of these are as insincere as the regulatory enforcement that led Japan, and the world, into this mess in the first place.
A ScrewMaster doll? You Apple Haters sure have weired fetishes you project on others?
These fetishes exist under the bsd license and you are free to polish them and make them your own.
Why would I hate Apple? they make unix appeal to the mentally lazy masses, who can't think up their own fetishes.
Steve Jobs was frankly, not known for his sense of humor or for being self-deprecating; he was obsessed with his own image and I think he would have been far too pompous to laugh this off.
ummm, is it possible I was being a little sarcastic?
I'll probably get modded insightful for this drivel, but seriously, he would laugh and say, "It looks more like me than I do and I should know, I'm me". The only reason Apple Inc want to sue is because it's not a genuine Apple Steve Jobs doll. Someone in Apple marketing is thinking "Damn why didn't we think of that, we should sue them because we didn't think of that" so they are.
The problem with these dolls is that they become alive after being used as a cx toy. THESE DOLLS ARE NOT CX TOYS, Rule 39 does not apply here. These are collectors items of a man who is very important enough for someone to make a doll,,,of. The possibilities are endless for fans of action figures and Shaun the Sheep when coupled with this doll. sweet revenge muu hahaha. oh the irony isn't lost on me, it isn't even if I understood what it was. I will buy this doll because it sums up Steve's entire life. He kept it real, now the Chinese want to cash in on that realnessness.
It looks so awesome, thats what Steve would say and he'd be right.
Report to Real Doll Inc. for measurements for the official ScrewMaster FuckDoll - and don't even dream about getting any money.
You've just described every mac fanbois dream
"I will not kill...Today!"
Thanks - that was a great post!
The larger problem is that (in the U.S.) the public prohibits the construction of new reactors.
That's not a problem, that's a solution.
Understand Accounting, Cash Flow, Marketing, Sales, People Management, Psychology, Contract Law and more but I'm very tired, HTH.
We have no union to protect our interests at an organisational level, so our destinies will always be dictated by those that do.
Only because most people don't understand that radionuclide release into the environment, bio-accumulation and micro-nutrient analogues are far more insidious and deadly issue. It's exactly because this isotope is stable in this extremely toxic chemical form for so long that it deserves to be singled out. Your comments sought no balance, no mention of it's toxicity and presented hope of the prospect of dealing with plutonium with technology that isn't available with existing materials technology. All in all a clever mis-representation of the truth.
Ingest one millionth of a gram of plutonium and it will kill you, the radiation will induce cancer in the body - they are facts.
On the contrary I have cited many reasons for Plutonium to be singled out. It's precisely that we continue to make these mistakes so often that we can't afford to continue to make these mistakes with plutonium any more. It's extreme toxicity is stable for at least 25000 years despite the level of radioactivity it's gone through a process of significant concentration and neutron bombardment to achieve its form.
Yes I do, to gauge your depth of consideration. Yes it is fissionable but on an industrial scale, unlikely. These are straightforward questions, like What is the Net Energy return of a new AP-1000 reactor?
And so far, I'm not wearing my surprised face.
Please don't insult me with schoolboy arguments, I know how valuable these elements are. The real question is are you aware of how deadly they are outside of your circle of expertise? sr-90 might be a valuable substance (as is plutonium) but that doesn't mean it won't kill you and generations of children after you. Do you know what micro-nutrient strontium-90 analogues in the body? Do you know how much energy it takes to decommission a nuclear reactor? Can you describe how it moves through the food chain?
You seek to cast these elements as benign. You talk about reactor technology that doesn't exist as if it does yet when you are asked the most rudimentary questions about nuclear power you are unable to offer an answer. This begs the question of how much you have actually considered, really considered, what you believe to be facts about nuclear power.