The excellent (Australian) ABC science program "Catalyst" shot the story of the crash as part of the article on the launch. I remember seeing this a few months ago. Very sad to watch but also awe inspiring just how much payload these huge balloons can hoist into the sky. The SUV get walloped pretty badly!
Certainly. Thanks for the paper, I look forward to absorbing it.
I'm having serious difficulty finding any serious refutation of in-depth studies of radiation hormesis (which you claim makes someone lose all credibility).
Well first of all, and most obviously, Rockwell draws a long bow to compare "acting like a vaccination to reduce cancer rates and extend lifespan of nuclear workers and atomic bomb survivors" presumably to the paper which you link. Radon is one of the comparably benign radionuclides and a nuclear worker is likely to encounter that and more yet the paper (presumably - as that is the title) only speaks to radon and it's daughter products whose half lifes fall *within* a human life span.
However there is plenty of work surrounding ingested low-energy emitters, in particular Tritium which a nuclear worker is as likely to encounter.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter, like radon. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects if you are looking for similar studies as refutation. From those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing radionuclides 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
Maybe if you're so experienced in debating these issue, you could provide me with such a refutation to Bernard L. Cohen's paper published in Health Physics from 1995 titled "Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products."
While I don't have a direct link, Ted Rockwell makes mention of such studies in his blog from time to time. You might be able to contact him for more specifics.
Well I read his blog and there is absolutely no reference to any medical studies. I find his opinions of "the Davis-Besse situation", the Price-Anderson Act and Yucca Mountain lack any real depth to be taken seriously. He says "Nuclear pioneer Alvin Weinberg, long-time director of Oak Ridge National Lab, repeatedly characterized nuclear technology as a "Faustian Bargain," urge[d] me to continue using the term, in order to spur nuclear workers to maintain the extraordinary level of technical excellence" he refuses, I feel illustrates his unwillingness to see the Nuclear Industry progress.
that demonstrated that low-dose radiation is actually beneficial, acting like a vaccination to reduce cancer rates and extend lifespan of nuclear workers and atomic bomb survivors.
Basically the guy looses all credibility here. So rather than refute any of the statements in his blog, that can be found on slashdot on any other day, everything and I do mean everything in his blog I have already analysed and refuted before - just go search through my previous posts.
On a final note I will leave you with the words of a man whom we co-incidentally greatly admire. One whom I would characterise as the greatest Responsible Nuclear Advocate to have lived Four Star Admiral Hyman G. Rickover who directed the original development of naval nuclear propulsion and controlled its operations for three decades sums up this entire discussion;
"I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That's why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits - attempts to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available." Further remarking: "Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." (Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982))
To me, looks like the US has pretty damn good nuclear safeguards. If the best "almosts" they can find were things when nothing even came close to actually going wrong that is good.
I understand why you have been modded up for your comment but reinforcing a belief system is a poor substitute for examining the facts, so let's do that now.
Hell look on the civilian side, at Three Mile Island. The "Worst nuclear disaster in US history." Even with a rather major screwup making the problem so much worse, something the NRC discovered, it still didn't release any significant amount of radiation,
To quote the NRC documentation of the incident A significant release of radiation from the plant's auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core.
The gamma radiation monitors on the top of the auxiliary building were not designed to measure such high concentrations and they went off the scale when the accident *began*, the release of contamination went on for several *days* after. Estimates were based on thermoluscent dosimeters on the fence and Alpha and Beta emissions weren't even measured. So, in reality, the amounts of contamination released were beyond the Nuclear Industry capability to measure.
Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions." - So if they didn't know, how is it you do?
Expert measurements of radioactive iodine in farm animals nearby revealed Nuclear Industry estimates of contamination released to be 'grossly underestimated'. Radioactive iodine, plutonium, strontium, americurium, 172,000 cubic feet of high level radioactive water, large quantities of krypton 85 and later that year 8 million litres of radioactive water containing tritium that were evaporated deliberately were all part of the elements released.
Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of Nuclear Physics at the City University of New York, was quoted to say of TMI "It appears that every few months, since 1990, a new estimate is made of core debris, often with little relationship to the previous estimate. Estimates range form 608.8 kg to 1,322 kg... This is rather unsettling....," he concluded. "The still unanswered questions are therefore: precisely how much uranium is left in the core, and how much uranium can collect in the bottom of the reactor to initiate re-criticality."
Which means the containment building contains enough radioactive elements to still be capable of releasing *extremely* radioactive elements into the environment.
not enough to cause any adverse health effects (and it has been studied for decades now). That's pretty fucking good, if the worst it gets is a case of "Nobody got hurt."
Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused. So if the authorities *refused* to take measurements on which to base long term cancer studies, how can a supposition be made about how many lives have been lost?
What we do know is of the states highest in the list of cancer averages (within the cancer incubation period after the accident) the ones with similar population density surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred. New York with roughly 3 times the population, which topped the list, was also in the fall out zone. So it's easy for anyone to say that no-one died because of TMI because there is no gathering of data, no official study, no evidence. It's more honest to say "We don't know how many people died as a result of TMI because because no data was collected".
If you are aware of any such study please provide a link to it.
Sentient beings that are locked away in seclusion often develop depression. In fact, given that most people would rather not carry on a conversation with a sentient nuclear weapon this would have been doubly bad. I suspect at some point our self aware nuclear being would have turned suicidal at some point. Unfortunately, in this case he really could have taken them all with him.
If you had actually spoken to a sentient weapon you would realise that they have quite grandiose egos and there is very little chance of them going suicidal. It's actually a real problem because sometimes you actually have to *convince* them that it's a noble cause, or that many other sentient beings will see their brilliant death. They enjoy seclusion until the moment they go off and whilst quite childlike in nature they are are also quite narcissistic.
They are quite aware of the power they posses and talking to them really is quite high maintenance.
The first on in 1950 at Travis the bomb wasn't armed. AKA it had no nuclear material in it.
So there was zero chance that we would get nuked.
Do you realise that doesn't make sense. Just because the bomb wasn't armed doesn't mean there was no nuclear material in it. It's not just something they can put together mid-flight McGyver style and expect it to work.
I'm curious about what nuclear innovations the U.S are concerned about gathering intelligence about in Iran's Nuclear program. The likely basis for Iranian Nuclear technology is Russian, but considering the isolation by the global community, Iran's determination to have a nuclear program and the threat of military intervention the pressure on the engineers must be enormous.
Despite Iran's questionable human rights record, when it comes to science and technology we should not discount Iran's achievements. May be the CIA is just curious too and are trying to asses the Iranian program. The irony of all this is would be if Iran came up with the most modern reactor design because it was a state enterprise unconcerned with the cost constraints that govern western designed commercial reactors like the AP-1000.
If, as it is alleged, Iran has built Nuclear facilities underground this alone would be a major step forward in reactor facility design.
If anyone has any tricks to get rid of the background noise,
it's a process. First your mics may be out of phase depending on how close they were when you recorded. align the wave forms then try reversing the phase (polarity) of one wave form to hear if it reinforces Mr.G's voice. Focus on the one that picks up a "hotter" signal and is clearer, then use equalisation to reduce the back ground noise and improve Mr.G (think 'I'm taking noise away'). repeat on the second channel. pan one left and the other right but not all the way (aim for about.7 l&r) so it translates ok to mono. improve the gain on the weaker channel. use a gate to further reduce the back ground noise. compress the signal tastefully (AtART). a little more equalisation and you should be done.
There is no tricks when it comes to mixing sound, but thats the process I would use to do it (ahh - forgot to mention I've recorded and Produced a few cd's now). And there is something better than Garage Band, Audacity and the rest of the offerings called Ardour. It just keeps getting better and it's Open Source. Use that for your good work.
No one should be compelled to be a member of a union as a condition of employment.
Participation in a Union is the ultimate expression of responsibility for a functioning democracy, however, bearing that responsibility is a heavy unpopular affair.
These results thus leave open the possibility that the half-life of a radioactive nuclide could in fact depend on its shape
Just going with the possibility *if* it does maybe the radionuclides radiate at a certain frequency and the shape helps it achieve a resonance where the decay rate is altered.
I'm not qualified to say whether that question even makes any sense, my brother has some relevant qualifications (I'll ask him tomorrow). Surely there is some physicists here who can tell if that is feasible?
That attitude is starting to change but it's sooooo sssssllllloooooowwwww in an industry that moves so fast.
You are right, slowly open source is changing attitudes in the Information Technology industry, but even so, it's mainstream now. We've observed the demise of the big computing shops that people thought would never die and I think the perception that OSS is moving so slowly is due to Geometric progression, or the lilly pond effect.
Simply put, the progression is 99% complete when the pond is 50% saturated. When it comes to IT no one knows where the saturation point actually is.
My point in bringing it up was not that you were wrong, but that you were not being critical and honest. Wow, you are really sensitive to ad hominems, but you call me "George Bush" which is quite obviously an ad hominem. At least mine was in response to a claim you actually made.
Right. So I'm not wrong I'm just "twisting the truth". So it's not an ad hominem attack it's just a flat out insult. Why the fuck wouldn't I be sensitive to the connotation that I'm a liar. Take a step back and have some manners and I won't ridicule you in return. That behavior is typical of Nuclear Fanboi's > stdout when it should be >/dev/null. Don't do that stdarg if you sincerely want to have an intelligent conversation.
You should have mentioned that
As I said "I'm short on time so I'll summarise" because I do have *other* obligations.
CFCs are currently used in the refinement process but that the plants responsible for them were designed and built in the 1950s before CFCs were even on the radar. Further, efforts are underway to develop a new process that does not use CFCs. And already, the CFC use was reduced by 2/3 since 2001.
That's awesome but it doesn't change the facts CFC 114 is STILL USED for enrichment TODAY, and that up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 have leaked into the atmosphere per year since the inception of the Montreal protocol in 1995. CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer, the ozone layer that protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE.
Do you think your remarks, which left out even a mere mention of these developments, were critical and honest about the requirement of CFCs in uranium production?
I did mention them, I said "So you're saying that all the problems with ultracentrifuge technology has been solved, it's commercially implemented on an industrial scale in America and that Paducah has been shut down.". If we were having a specific conversation about enrichment I might ask you if they have solved the problems with bearing technology in the devices or improved the energy efficiency per SWU or some other thing that changes the status quo. I see nothing in the article you sent me about an actual implementation date or that the unit was functioning in an industrial capacity. So since ultracentrifuge, American Centrifuge etc are not actually implemented industrial processes, absol-fucking-lootley I think it's not only critical and honest but more importantly completely specifically relevant.
Otherwise, did you run across that information and find something conflicting and credible to reject USEC's claims, and then decide the whole thing is not worth mentioning? Presenting pertinent facts and honest reporting about *both sides* is essential to being critical and honest.
What's critical is an article, link, or what ever that Paducah has been shut down, that the CFC114 process has been retired and then might be worth mentioning, it might be pertinent. What's honest is UltraCentrifuge is what might be, not what is. Sure it will be great if they actually get it going and stop using CFC114, one day.
But even if they do it won't change the energy equation for the Nuclear industry. That why wind and solar are far more useful and usable technologies.
Citation? That seems like basic economics and common sense to me. The energy used to gather and refine the fu
Pretty sure he can't. Everyone says it's mostly examples of stuff that people who pay attention already knew. They show a lot of lies by omission, but there's not big new news.
And you would be right. The sheer volume of bungling and incompetence is enough to make a sane person crawl up into a ball and suck their thumb like a tramatised monkey.
The best thing about this information is it reveals how governments lie and lie and lie to the populace. Thats the only reason they only want the information back.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we were just fortunate we didn't need to have a nuclear war today.
The excellent (Australian) ABC science program "Catalyst" shot the story of the crash as part of the article on the launch. I remember seeing this a few months ago. Very sad to watch but also awe inspiring just how much payload these huge balloons can hoist into the sky. The SUV get walloped pretty badly!
Certainly. Thanks for the paper, I look forward to absorbing it.
Well first of all, and most obviously, Rockwell draws a long bow to compare "acting like a vaccination to reduce cancer rates and extend lifespan of nuclear workers and atomic bomb survivors" presumably to the paper which you link. Radon is one of the comparably benign radionuclides and a nuclear worker is likely to encounter that and more yet the paper (presumably - as that is the title) only speaks to radon and it's daughter products whose half lifes fall *within* a human life span.
However there is plenty of work surrounding ingested low-energy emitters, in particular Tritium which a nuclear worker is as likely to encounter.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter, like radon. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects if you are looking for similar studies as refutation. From those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing radionuclides 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
Perhaps you can find that in the paper Histopathologic findings of lung cancer in Navajo men: relationship to U mining and you can read Lung Cancer after Exposure to Radon Daughters and for materials and circumstance background you can read
Well I read his blog and there is absolutely no reference to any medical studies. I find his opinions of "the Davis-Besse situation", the Price-Anderson Act and Yucca Mountain lack any real depth to be taken seriously. He says "Nuclear pioneer Alvin Weinberg, long-time director of Oak Ridge National Lab, repeatedly characterized nuclear technology as a "Faustian Bargain," urge[d] me to continue using the term, in order to spur nuclear workers to maintain the extraordinary level of technical excellence" he refuses, I feel illustrates his unwillingness to see the Nuclear Industry progress.
Basically the guy looses all credibility here. So rather than refute any of the statements in his blog, that can be found on slashdot on any other day, everything and I do mean everything in his blog I have already analysed and refuted before - just go search through my previous posts.
On a final note I will leave you with the words of a man whom we co-incidentally greatly admire. One whom I would characterise as the greatest Responsible Nuclear Advocate to have lived Four Star Admiral Hyman G. Rickover who directed the original development of naval nuclear propulsion and controlled its operations for three decades sums up this entire discussion;
"I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country. That's why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits - attempts to limit war have always failed. The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available." Further remarking: "Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." (Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982))
In nature there is a similar phenomena called a Microburst.
I stand corrected, and thanks for the information.
I understand why you have been modded up for your comment but reinforcing a belief system is a poor substitute for examining the facts, so let's do that now.
To quote the NRC documentation of the incident A significant release of radiation from the plant's auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core.
The gamma radiation monitors on the top of the auxiliary building were not designed to measure such high concentrations and they went off the scale when the accident *began*, the release of contamination went on for several *days* after. Estimates were based on thermoluscent dosimeters on the fence and Alpha and Beta emissions weren't even measured. So, in reality, the amounts of contamination released were beyond the Nuclear Industry capability to measure.
Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions." - So if they didn't know, how is it you do?
Expert measurements of radioactive iodine in farm animals nearby revealed Nuclear Industry estimates of contamination released to be 'grossly underestimated'. Radioactive iodine, plutonium, strontium, americurium, 172,000 cubic feet of high level radioactive water, large quantities of krypton 85 and later that year 8 million litres of radioactive water containing tritium that were evaporated deliberately were all part of the elements released.
Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of Nuclear Physics at the City University of New York, was quoted to say of TMI "It appears that every few months, since 1990, a new estimate is made of core debris, often with little relationship to the previous estimate. Estimates range form 608.8 kg to 1,322 kg... This is rather unsettling....," he concluded. "The still unanswered questions are therefore: precisely how much uranium is left in the core, and how much uranium can collect in the bottom of the reactor to initiate re-criticality." Which means the containment building contains enough radioactive elements to still be capable of releasing *extremely* radioactive elements into the environment.
Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused. So if the authorities *refused* to take measurements on which to base long term cancer studies, how can a supposition be made about how many lives have been lost?
What we do know is of the states highest in the list of cancer averages (within the cancer incubation period after the accident) the ones with similar population density surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred. New York with roughly 3 times the population, which topped the list, was also in the fall out zone. So it's easy for anyone to say that no-one died because of TMI because there is no gathering of data, no official study, no evidence. It's more honest to say "We don't know how many people died as a result of TMI because because no data was collected".
If you are aware of any such study please provide a link to it.
If you had actually spoken to a sentient weapon you would realise that they have quite grandiose egos and there is very little chance of them going suicidal. It's actually a real problem because sometimes you actually have to *convince* them that it's a noble cause, or that many other sentient beings will see their brilliant death. They enjoy seclusion until the moment they go off and whilst quite childlike in nature they are are also quite narcissistic.
They are quite aware of the power they posses and talking to them really is quite high maintenance.
Do you realise that doesn't make sense. Just because the bomb wasn't armed doesn't mean there was no nuclear material in it. It's not just something they can put together mid-flight McGyver style and expect it to work.
What do you mean *if*. There is very little doubt that this *is* what is occurring and as the old adage says "necessity is the mother of invention".
I'm curious about what nuclear innovations the U.S are concerned about gathering intelligence about in Iran's Nuclear program. The likely basis for Iranian Nuclear technology is Russian, but considering the isolation by the global community, Iran's determination to have a nuclear program and the threat of military intervention the pressure on the engineers must be enormous.
Despite Iran's questionable human rights record, when it comes to science and technology we should not discount Iran's achievements. May be the CIA is just curious too and are trying to asses the Iranian program. The irony of all this is would be if Iran came up with the most modern reactor design because it was a state enterprise unconcerned with the cost constraints that govern western designed commercial reactors like the AP-1000.
If, as it is alleged, Iran has built Nuclear facilities underground this alone would be a major step forward in reactor facility design.
real men type it straight onto the bash prompt and get the lines out of .bash_history when it's done.
Maybe it's time that NASA listened to their engineers about rockets.
just for a change...
Sounds like something every teenage boy need to hide their porn collection.
it's a process. First your mics may be out of phase depending on how close they were when you recorded. align the wave forms then try reversing the phase (polarity) of one wave form to hear if it reinforces Mr.G's voice. Focus on the one that picks up a "hotter" signal and is clearer, then use equalisation to reduce the back ground noise and improve Mr.G (think 'I'm taking noise away'). repeat on the second channel. pan one left and the other right but not all the way (aim for about .7 l&r) so it translates ok to mono. improve the gain on the weaker channel. use a gate to further reduce the back ground noise. compress the signal tastefully (AtART). a little more equalisation and you should be done.
There is no tricks when it comes to mixing sound, but thats the process I would use to do it (ahh - forgot to mention I've recorded and Produced a few cd's now). And there is something better than Garage Band, Audacity and the rest of the offerings called Ardour. It just keeps getting better and it's Open Source. Use that for your good work.
Hope this helps
Participation in a Union is the ultimate expression of responsibility for a functioning democracy, however, bearing that responsibility is a heavy unpopular affair.
Just going with the possibility *if* it does maybe the radionuclides radiate at a certain frequency and the shape helps it achieve a resonance where the decay rate is altered.
I'm not qualified to say whether that question even makes any sense, my brother has some relevant qualifications (I'll ask him tomorrow). Surely there is some physicists here who can tell if that is feasible?
You are right, slowly open source is changing attitudes in the Information Technology industry, but even so, it's mainstream now. We've observed the demise of the big computing shops that people thought would never die and I think the perception that OSS is moving so slowly is due to Geometric progression, or the lilly pond effect.
Simply put, the progression is 99% complete when the pond is 50% saturated. When it comes to IT no one knows where the saturation point actually is.
Funniest thing about this comment is people think it's funny.
Oh, thank God someone finally came up with the answer!
the existence of the Crazy Chaos C Compiler
OSM could tell Bing where to go.
Right. So I'm not wrong I'm just "twisting the truth". So it's not an ad hominem attack it's just a flat out insult. Why the fuck wouldn't I be sensitive to the connotation that I'm a liar. Take a step back and have some manners and I won't ridicule you in return. That behavior is typical of Nuclear Fanboi's > stdout when it should be > /dev/null. Don't do that stdarg if you sincerely want to have an intelligent conversation.
As I said "I'm short on time so I'll summarise" because I do have *other* obligations.
That's awesome but it doesn't change the facts CFC 114 is STILL USED for enrichment TODAY, and that up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 have leaked into the atmosphere per year since the inception of the Montreal protocol in 1995. CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer, the ozone layer that protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE.
But you don't have to believe me just read the submissions made to the UN for the Montreal Protocol. Or of course Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. and the epa data is available for your analysis.
I did mention them, I said "So you're saying that all the problems with ultracentrifuge technology has been solved, it's commercially implemented on an industrial scale in America and that Paducah has been shut down.". If we were having a specific conversation about enrichment I might ask you if they have solved the problems with bearing technology in the devices or improved the energy efficiency per SWU or some other thing that changes the status quo. I see nothing in the article you sent me about an actual implementation date or that the unit was functioning in an industrial capacity. So since ultracentrifuge, American Centrifuge etc are not actually implemented industrial processes, absol-fucking-lootley I think it's not only critical and honest but more importantly completely specifically relevant.
What's critical is an article, link, or what ever that Paducah has been shut down, that the CFC114 process has been retired and then might be worth mentioning, it might be pertinent. What's honest is UltraCentrifuge is what might be, not what is. Sure it will be great if they actually get it going and stop using CFC114, one day.
But even if they do it won't change the energy equation for the Nuclear industry. That why wind and solar are far more useful and usable technologies.
And you would be right. The sheer volume of bungling and incompetence is enough to make a sane person crawl up into a ball and suck their thumb like a tramatised monkey.
The best thing about this information is it reveals how governments lie and lie and lie to the populace. Thats the only reason they only want the information back.