Just stumbled upon a great document that addresses that very topic. It's on market economies and the rule of law. Worth the ~20 minutes to read.
Here's a particularly relevant excerpt:
The second economic function of the rule of law is for the state to enforce laws and contracts in an impartial way. This can be achieved only after the government distances itself from microeconomic decisions. Defining property rights, preserving fair competition, fighting monopoly and enforcing contracts are all essential to economic development because they are necessary for establishing credible commitments among economic agents. Without the enforcement of contracts, economic agents cannot become motivated because they will always worry about opportunistic behavior of the other parties to the transaction. But how can we establish an orderly market environment? The enforcement of contracts and preservation of competition should rest on the rule of law instead of the government's discretion. For example, the government should not be in a position to define arbitrarily what unfair competition is, or what business activities need to be regulated.
It is by no means an easy task for the government to act as a impartial arbitrator. For example, errors could occur during the enforcement of law, either unintentionally or intentionally such as when induced by vested interests. Therefore, under the rule of law, it is essential that individuals and business enterprises are empowered to challenge the government on laws, regulations and judgements and to sue the government if necessary. The Administrative Procedure Law and Administrative Redress Law that we have enacted is a promising start, but we still have a long way to go.
Another substantial barrier to the effective enforcement of law is the judicial corruption. Obviously, a corrupt judiciary, which gives rise to insecure property rights and ineffective contract enforcement, forces business enterprises to resort to the traditional way of making back-door deals instead of using legal methods when there is a dispute. This is one of the factors that suffocate economic activities. A better way to tackle the problem of judicial corruption is to create better institutions rather than relying on political campaigns.
In summary, the second economic function of the rule of law is fundamentally about how the government acts as an impartial "third-party" in economic transactions.
Cats and dogs are both quite intelligent. They're very different, dogs are typically more loyal, and they're social/pack oriented. They want to be part of a heirarchy with a leader (usually an alpha male). They want approval and acceptance into the pack.
Cats are more possessive (they "own" you) and independent. Cats have a "language", their different vocalizations have different meanings. I learned to tell the difference such that I could recognize when I cats were asking for food, water, attention, going outside, caution, or when they just wanted to "talk" (be social). It's simplistic as a "language", but it's effective, and appears to be common to most cats, so it fulfills the requirements of being a "language".
And don't forget to remind people that a percentage of all potassium is radioactive. It's the single largest source of radiation in the environment, and it's absolutely necessary for life. That banana, avocado, salt substitute, steak, potato, etc., all radioactive. Your smoke detector is radioactive.
Radiation isn't a problem. Too much radiation CAN be a problem. Each and every person, animal, most plants, and most rocks are radioactive. You're constantly surrounded by radiation every second of every day. Walk outside on a clear sunny day, more radiation. Live in a cave, probably less radiation, but it depends upon what kind of rock.
Fear and misinformation will not solve the energy crisis. Facts and reason can. Nuclear power can be a safer part of a sensible, sustainable energy policy.
Research "prussion blue". It's the standard treatment for 137Cs exposure because it has an affinity for binding to Cs. It's can be given orally to someone who has eaten contaminated foods. It can also be used to treat contaminated soils.
Well, since the OP was claiming the land is unusable for 100k years, that wasn't relevant. However, since you brought it up.
I131 exposure is easily and cheaply treated by taking iodine tablets. This overload prevents most of the I131 from being absorbed, it will be eliminated from the body with the rest of the excess iodine
137Cs is treated with medical grade prussian blue, also cheap and effective. Prussian blue is effective at binding most of the Cs. Can be ingested for people who have eaten contaminated foods. Can be mixed with contaminated soils to bind it and keep most of it out of plants.
90Sr exposure is somewhat trickier to treat, but it's produced and such small quantities that it's rarely an issue to begin with. High doses of calcium will minimize the amount absorbed by the body.
No, but Hanford, and Savannah River are products of creating plutonium for bombs, not nuclear power. Those were also experimental sites before we understood radioactivity well. They bear no particular relevance to using thorium fuel reactors.
In theory, but incorrect in this case. I've tested when very close to a 4G tower. The current 4G chipsets simply aren't power competitive with the 3G chipsets. When the chipsets get their power consumption down, then availability of nearby 4G towers will be a bigger factor. Right now, it has everything to do with the chipset.
From the GP of my original post: "Fukushima 4 may be "offline" but can't be "shutdown"..."
Your statements are a prime example of how Nuclear fanbois cannot accept the facts about the Nuclear Industry even when confronted with the smouldering toxic remains of 3 commercial power reactors.
No, my statements were a direct response to demonstrably false info.
As to the rest of your diatribe, you've assumed many facts about me and my intent, none of which are in evidence. Nor do you have any idea where I stand on NP. So, I won't bother to respond to it. But before you attack me again, you might want to find out some info about who you're dealing with and where I stand on NP.
You can start from my blog. From there, I suggest a google search for my name and "nuclear".
Don't know why you were modded down, but you're correct.
Nice demonstration. It's cool that they did it, but it's completely impractical.
It would have made more sense to use a combination of sails and solar. A hybrid solar/sail would be far more practical, and would have completed the trip much faster.
Your ignorance is showing. The notable fission products released from a nuclear plant accident are 131I, 137Cs, and 90Sr. 131I has a half-life of just over 8 days. In 80 days, it's 1/1000 the level, in 160 days, 1/1M, in 240 days 1/1B. It's a short term hazard.
137Cs and 90Sr each have a half-life of ~30yrs, making them a factor for up to 600 years. Both are beta emitters, so they're primarily a hazard only when inhaled, ingested, or with direct skin contact. However, 90Sr isn't produced in large quantities, so it's not a major factor. That leaves 137Cs. The main concern with 137Cs is with unknown/untreated exposure. It's easy and fairly cheap to treat exposure (including land) if you know about the contamination. 137Cs and 131I are the primary isotopes released at both Chernobyl and Fukushima.
So, what about the others. 238U (4.4B yrs) and 235U (700M yrs) in the fuel have such long half-lives and are primarily alpha emitters, such that you can hold them with just gloves.
Uranium fueled reactors will produce small amounts of 239Pu (24,100 yrs), 242Pu (373K yrs), and 241Pu (14yrs) The 241Pu is the most radioactive of these, but it's produces in much lower quantities than the other two. The other two are less radioactive, and are produced in small quantities. Contrary to urban legend, Pu is not "the deadliest substance known", in fact, the body generally won't absorb it even if eaten (definitely not recommended). The real risk from Pu is if it's inhaled, and still, due to the long half-life of 239Pu and 242Pu, you would have to inhale a notable number of atoms to have any likelihood of increased risk.
And if you switch to thorium fueled reactors, they produce virtually no plutonium, and no weapons grade uranium. The do produce some different isotopes that need to be managed. Overall, they're significantly "cleaner" and "safer" than a uranium fuel cycle.
In either case, using fuel reprocessing, you drastically reduce the nuclear waste. If you do it well, you can separate it into short-lived waste that needs only to be buried for ~400 years, and long-lived waste, which is less of a risk, and could be safely mixed in with the original ore from which the Ur or Th was mined. That ore would be less radioactive than it was before mining. Yes, I did just say that we could dispose of "radioactive waste" by putting it back where we originally mined the Ur/Th, AND that that would leave LESS radiation in the environment than was there naturally.
That would require people get over the fear of the terms "nuclear" and "radiation" (which we're exposed to constantly), and it would require changes in environmental regulations. I know it sounds scary, to put the waste back into the tailings from which it was mined, but that's actually the safest way to dispose of it, and it has a net effect of reducing radiation in the environment.
A phone doesn't need to be LTE only to provide evidence. The differential power draw/battery life when LTE is enabled/disabled is sufficient, and it demonstrates that LTE when enabled, but not actively in use significantly reduces battery life enough to make the claim unsupported.
LTE may be more efficient per byte, but unless you can power down the transceiver to a the same idle power when data isn't being transmitted (yet it's still listening for incoming data), then LTE will use more power and shorten battery life.
You have to be careful of claims of "more efficient". More efficient by one measurement doesn't mean a typical user will see any actual improvement.
It's good, and it's been around for a while. But I like mine better. Gilmore's quote may work better with the politicians, etc. But I think "Can't stop the signal" is better for everyday use.
You can't convince the anti-np crowd or conspiracy theorists with facts. They just keep on repeating the same misinformation hoping it will eventually override all the evidence.
You're correct that it's WiMAX, not LTE. However, that doesn't change my statement at all. They're not that different. They have similar data rates, similar modulation methods, use a 20MHz channel, and use the same transmit power. They're not interoperable, but they're not significantly different. And WiMAX is the more mature of the two technologies, which makes the point even stronger. The more mature technology still kills battery life.
A business wants to increase their profits and increase their margins continuously.
And that's the fallacy of continual growth. Continual growth is only possible if your growth rate is less than or equal to the growth rate of the market. If you growth rate exceeds the growth rate of the market, then no matter how small you start, or how large the market, you will eventually hit a maximum. Businesses (and stockholders) demand sustained growth exceeding the market growth, and that's simply impossible. You can only do that for a limited time. Moving into additional markets allows continued growth in those markets, but it's not enough to sustain continual geometric growth. It's simple math, yet it escapes most executives and stockholders.
I have a 4G/LTE capable Android phone (Samsung Conquer on Sprint). 4G is fast, where it's available, but I leave it off except when I really need more speed than 3G can provide and I don't have Wi-Fi available, because it kills battery life. About 90% of the time, I have Wi-Fi, and most of the remainder, 3G is fast enough. So, if and when 4G/LTE chipsets can provide the speed without a major hit to battery life, that will be a viable option. Not so coincidentally, that's exactly the reason Apple gave for not supporting LTE yet.
So, from technical perspective, it may appear to make sense to push customers to 4G/LTE phones, many will do as I have and turn off 4G eliminating the technical advantages. Many of the others will complain about the battery life, it's not necessarily good customer relations.
And, it doesn't work if you've applied any of the Office patches in the past 3 years. Patches that Office (by default) notifies you about weekly.
Very opportunistic.
Still, they are correct that attacks will increase, and anyone who has refused to install security patches in a needs to change their habits, or they will eventually be infected.
Slashdot Mirror
Just stumbled upon a great document that addresses that very topic. It's on market economies and the rule of law. Worth the ~20 minutes to read.
Here's a particularly relevant excerpt:
The second economic function of the rule of law is for the state to enforce laws and contracts in an impartial way. This can be achieved only after the government distances itself from microeconomic decisions. Defining property rights, preserving fair competition, fighting monopoly and enforcing contracts are all essential to economic development because they are necessary for establishing credible commitments among economic agents. Without the enforcement of contracts, economic agents cannot become motivated because they will always worry about opportunistic behavior of the other parties to the transaction. But how can we establish an orderly market environment? The enforcement of contracts and preservation of competition should rest on the rule of law instead of the government's discretion. For example, the government should not be in a position to define arbitrarily what unfair competition is, or what business activities need to be regulated.
It is by no means an easy task for the government to act as a impartial arbitrator. For example, errors could occur during the enforcement of law, either unintentionally or intentionally such as when induced by vested interests. Therefore, under the rule of law, it is essential that individuals and business enterprises are empowered to challenge the government on laws, regulations and judgements and to sue the government if necessary. The Administrative Procedure Law and Administrative Redress Law that we have enacted is a promising start, but we still have a long way to go.
Another substantial barrier to the effective enforcement of law is the judicial corruption. Obviously, a corrupt judiciary, which gives rise to insecure property rights and ineffective contract enforcement, forces business enterprises to resort to the traditional way of making back-door deals instead of using legal methods when there is a dispute. This is one of the factors that suffocate economic activities. A better way to tackle the problem of judicial corruption is to create better institutions rather than relying on political campaigns.
In summary, the second economic function of the rule of law is fundamentally about how the government acts as an impartial "third-party" in economic transactions.
You might want to check your reading skills. (emphasis added)
Continual growth is only possible if your growth rate is less than or equal to the growth rate of the market.
So, what I meant to say is exactly what I did say.
The rest of what you said is accurate, and it does not conflict with what I wrote.
A cat's thoughts
Cats and dogs are both quite intelligent. They're very different, dogs are typically more loyal, and they're social/pack oriented. They want to be part of a heirarchy with a leader (usually an alpha male). They want approval and acceptance into the pack.
Cats are more possessive (they "own" you) and independent. Cats have a "language", their different vocalizations have different meanings. I learned to tell the difference such that I could recognize when I cats were asking for food, water, attention, going outside, caution, or when they just wanted to "talk" (be social). It's simplistic as a "language", but it's effective, and appears to be common to most cats, so it fulfills the requirements of being a "language".
You made two errors:
1. You assumed MS has a design to their web site.
2. You didn't use google to search "site:microsoft.com"
I don't know, but I'm sure you can find it on MS website, look for software support life cycle.
They just stopped supporting Office 2004 in Jan of this year.
And don't forget to remind people that a percentage of all potassium is radioactive. It's the single largest source of radiation in the environment, and it's absolutely necessary for life. That banana, avocado, salt substitute, steak, potato, etc., all radioactive. Your smoke detector is radioactive.
Radiation isn't a problem. Too much radiation CAN be a problem. Each and every person, animal, most plants, and most rocks are radioactive. You're constantly surrounded by radiation every second of every day. Walk outside on a clear sunny day, more radiation. Live in a cave, probably less radiation, but it depends upon what kind of rock.
Fear and misinformation will not solve the energy crisis. Facts and reason can. Nuclear power can be a safer part of a sensible, sustainable energy policy.
Research "prussion blue". It's the standard treatment for 137Cs exposure because it has an affinity for binding to Cs. It's can be given orally to someone who has eaten contaminated foods. It can also be used to treat contaminated soils.
Well, since the OP was claiming the land is unusable for 100k years, that wasn't relevant. However, since you brought it up.
I131 exposure is easily and cheaply treated by taking iodine tablets. This overload prevents most of the I131 from being absorbed, it will be eliminated from the body with the rest of the excess iodine
137Cs is treated with medical grade prussian blue, also cheap and effective. Prussian blue is effective at binding most of the Cs. Can be ingested for people who have eaten contaminated foods. Can be mixed with contaminated soils to bind it and keep most of it out of plants.
90Sr exposure is somewhat trickier to treat, but it's produced and such small quantities that it's rarely an issue to begin with. High doses of calcium will minimize the amount absorbed by the body.
No, but Hanford, and Savannah River are products of creating plutonium for bombs, not nuclear power. Those were also experimental sites before we understood radioactivity well. They bear no particular relevance to using thorium fuel reactors.
In theory, but incorrect in this case. I've tested when very close to a 4G tower. The current 4G chipsets simply aren't power competitive with the 3G chipsets. When the chipsets get their power consumption down, then availability of nearby 4G towers will be a bigger factor. Right now, it has everything to do with the chipset.
I suspected that was possible, glad you have some experience confirming it.
What mis-information, what conspiracy theory?
From the GP of my original post: "Fukushima 4 may be "offline" but can't be "shutdown"..."
Your statements are a prime example of how Nuclear fanbois cannot accept the facts about the Nuclear Industry even when confronted with the smouldering toxic remains of 3 commercial power reactors.
No, my statements were a direct response to demonstrably false info.
As to the rest of your diatribe, you've assumed many facts about me and my intent, none of which are in evidence. Nor do you have any idea where I stand on NP. So, I won't bother to respond to it. But before you attack me again, you might want to find out some info about who you're dealing with and where I stand on NP.
You can start from my blog. From there, I suggest a google search for my name and "nuclear".
Then, we might have something to discuss.
You seem to be confusing implementation with technology.
Not at all. Go back and reread, this entire thread is about current implementations. That's all that was ever being discussed.
Don't know why you were modded down, but you're correct.
Nice demonstration. It's cool that they did it, but it's completely impractical.
It would have made more sense to use a combination of sails and solar. A hybrid solar/sail would be far more practical, and would have completed the trip much faster.
Your ignorance is showing. The notable fission products released from a nuclear plant accident are 131I, 137Cs, and 90Sr. 131I has a half-life of just over 8 days. In 80 days, it's 1/1000 the level, in 160 days, 1/1M, in 240 days 1/1B. It's a short term hazard.
137Cs and 90Sr each have a half-life of ~30yrs, making them a factor for up to 600 years. Both are beta emitters, so they're primarily a hazard only when inhaled, ingested, or with direct skin contact. However, 90Sr isn't produced in large quantities, so it's not a major factor. That leaves 137Cs. The main concern with 137Cs is with unknown/untreated exposure. It's easy and fairly cheap to treat exposure (including land) if you know about the contamination. 137Cs and 131I are the primary isotopes released at both Chernobyl and Fukushima.
So, what about the others. 238U (4.4B yrs) and 235U (700M yrs) in the fuel have such long half-lives and are primarily alpha emitters, such that you can hold them with just gloves.
Uranium fueled reactors will produce small amounts of 239Pu (24,100 yrs), 242Pu (373K yrs), and 241Pu (14yrs) The 241Pu is the most radioactive of these, but it's produces in much lower quantities than the other two. The other two are less radioactive, and are produced in small quantities. Contrary to urban legend, Pu is not "the deadliest substance known", in fact, the body generally won't absorb it even if eaten (definitely not recommended). The real risk from Pu is if it's inhaled, and still, due to the long half-life of 239Pu and 242Pu, you would have to inhale a notable number of atoms to have any likelihood of increased risk.
And if you switch to thorium fueled reactors, they produce virtually no plutonium, and no weapons grade uranium. The do produce some different isotopes that need to be managed. Overall, they're significantly "cleaner" and "safer" than a uranium fuel cycle.
In either case, using fuel reprocessing, you drastically reduce the nuclear waste. If you do it well, you can separate it into short-lived waste that needs only to be buried for ~400 years, and long-lived waste, which is less of a risk, and could be safely mixed in with the original ore from which the Ur or Th was mined. That ore would be less radioactive than it was before mining. Yes, I did just say that we could dispose of "radioactive waste" by putting it back where we originally mined the Ur/Th, AND that that would leave LESS radiation in the environment than was there naturally.
That would require people get over the fear of the terms "nuclear" and "radiation" (which we're exposed to constantly), and it would require changes in environmental regulations. I know it sounds scary, to put the waste back into the tailings from which it was mined, but that's actually the safest way to dispose of it, and it has a net effect of reducing radiation in the environment.
A phone doesn't need to be LTE only to provide evidence. The differential power draw/battery life when LTE is enabled/disabled is sufficient, and it demonstrates that LTE when enabled, but not actively in use significantly reduces battery life enough to make the claim unsupported.
LTE may be more efficient per byte, but unless you can power down the transceiver to a the same idle power when data isn't being transmitted (yet it's still listening for incoming data), then LTE will use more power and shorten battery life.
You have to be careful of claims of "more efficient". More efficient by one measurement doesn't mean a typical user will see any actual improvement.
It's good, and it's been around for a while. But I like mine better. Gilmore's quote may work better with the politicians, etc. But I think "Can't stop the signal" is better for everyday use.
Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support that claim.
You can't convince the anti-np crowd or conspiracy theorists with facts. They just keep on repeating the same misinformation hoping it will eventually override all the evidence.
You're correct that it's WiMAX, not LTE. However, that doesn't change my statement at all. They're not that different. They have similar data rates, similar modulation methods, use a 20MHz channel, and use the same transmit power. They're not interoperable, but they're not significantly different. And WiMAX is the more mature of the two technologies, which makes the point even stronger. The more mature technology still kills battery life.
A business wants to increase their profits and increase their margins continuously.
And that's the fallacy of continual growth. Continual growth is only possible if your growth rate is less than or equal to the growth rate of the market. If you growth rate exceeds the growth rate of the market, then no matter how small you start, or how large the market, you will eventually hit a maximum. Businesses (and stockholders) demand sustained growth exceeding the market growth, and that's simply impossible. You can only do that for a limited time. Moving into additional markets allows continued growth in those markets, but it's not enough to sustain continual geometric growth. It's simple math, yet it escapes most executives and stockholders.
I have a 4G/LTE capable Android phone (Samsung Conquer on Sprint). 4G is fast, where it's available, but I leave it off except when I really need more speed than 3G can provide and I don't have Wi-Fi available, because it kills battery life. About 90% of the time, I have Wi-Fi, and most of the remainder, 3G is fast enough. So, if and when 4G/LTE chipsets can provide the speed without a major hit to battery life, that will be a viable option. Not so coincidentally, that's exactly the reason Apple gave for not supporting LTE yet.
So, from technical perspective, it may appear to make sense to push customers to 4G/LTE phones, many will do as I have and turn off 4G eliminating the technical advantages. Many of the others will complain about the battery life, it's not necessarily good customer relations.
I thought it meant Pointy Haired Programmers.
And, it doesn't work if you've applied any of the Office patches in the past 3 years. Patches that Office (by default) notifies you about weekly.
Very opportunistic.
Still, they are correct that attacks will increase, and anyone who has refused to install security patches in a needs to change their habits, or they will eventually be infected.
"Can't stop the signal".
I say that quote is now obligatory whenever they try blocking access to information on the Internet.