The technology and goals were actually very different. In the US, you had regulator-imposed general design criteria that said things like "thou shalt have a void-coefficient of reactivity that is negative" and "thy shutdown systems shall be fast acting" and "thou shalt have diverse and redundant safety systems" and "when the shit hits the fan, thou shalt contain thy fission products".
In Soviet Russia, reactor design imposes criteria on YOU! Design reactor for maximal plutonium production and easy removal of fuel ---> minimal containment, minimal redundant systems, positive void coefficient, control rods that have graphite followers. So, when you begin to lose control of the reactor and you insert control rods, the graphite followers go in first, spiking reactivity and power, which causes your coolant to flash to steam, increasing void fraction, and because your void coefficient is positive, power goes UP even more instead of going down, and then the few safety systems you have don't work because you shut them all down or they suck to begin with, and then reactor (not containment, REACTOR) goes boom and chunks of FUEL and FLAMING GRAPHITE are forcefully ejected into the air.
So, then, why did Fukushima fail so badly, even though it had fast-acting shutdown systems, a negative void coefficient, diverse and redundant safety systems, and a containment design that satisfied all of the regulations that existed at the time? That's the real story here, and its moral has a lot to do with the idea of "beyond design basis" accidents and designing to be more robust than required by regulation.
You forgot the list of things that your wife was probably capable of doing on her own before marriage, but now that you're around, apparently you are the only one that can do them.
Also, make sure these are phrased as questions so that the hapless husband has a chance to trigger the "wretched harpy" mode with one poorly worded reply (or one that's just stated too audibly).
1. Can you carry these groceries for me? 2. Can you get the telephone for me? 3. Can you take this to my parent's place for me? 4. Can you change this lightbulb for me? 5. Can you put the mixer away for me? 6.... and so on...
Maybe he's not famous or well-known, but I bet he is interesting as hell. We should all aspire to have that much energy, drive, and interest as we get older... I know way too many people in their 50s and older that refuse to learn anything new. Hearing about a guy that has probably been on top of the latest tech continuously for 70-odd years is just inspiring!
Depending on the flow you need, and the conditions under which the flow must be provided, a pump *is* better under many circumstances.
However, in a harsh environment, with no power, and an absolute need for a certain amount of flow, gravity/convection driven systems may be a whole lot more desirable.
Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?
On top of the digital controls, it has vastly simpler mechanical and electrical design, yielding significant reductions in the amounts of safety-related piping, cabling, valves, seismic building volume, etc.
Something that should be appreciated, but is seldom mentioned: the design work has been conducted using modern computers and software incorporating vastly improved analytical methods for nuclear, thermal, mechanical, civil, and electrical analysis. The last round of plants built in the US were designed in the 60s and 70s using tools that seem positively ancient by today's standards.
The summary, and the linked article for that matter, both imply that there must be an arrow of causality between A (depression, anxiety) and B (multiple media input seeking). Does A cause B, or B cause A? However, that's a flawed view of this situation.
The old adage that "correlation is not causation" is apt here... correlation does not prove a direct causal link. What correlation does do, however, is suggest the possibility of a causal relationship, whether direct, indirect, or parallel.
The real answer could be that some other factor C (or combination of factors) causes *both* A and B. This is the interpretation that seems most logical to me, but of course, I have no proof.
Anyway, my suspicion is that nerds like to overload on input, and that nerds are also more susceptible to depression/anxiety. That's how I know that I am a nerd.:)
I actually saw much of Oprah's 2012 "Favorite Things" show, including the ridiculous hour long leadup showing how Oprah picks the stuff to give away. Watching this wasn't entirely by choice, as I happened to be sitting on the sofa working on my laptop while my wife and daughter were watching. (I must say though, the actual giveaways are priceless... from the over-the-top OMG OMG OMG craziness when it's something good, to the valiantly concealed "Meh!" when it sucks.)
Anyway, Oprah didn't actually choose the Surface. It was selected by one of her producers (probably after prodding by Microsoft) and shown to Oprah for a grand total of about 2 minutes. Why did she then choose it? Probably because of the kickstand and the magnetic keyboard attachment.
I'm not going to argue that these activists should be doing this, but I have to ask... Why are they flying such expensive pieces of equipment for this purpose? It's crazy. You can build a really nice drone for $1000, and a half-decent one for a few hundred. That includes fairly long range RC and video transmission *and* FPV goggles. Heck, autopilot with GPS and return-home on signal loss wouldn't even push the price that high. Just search Youtube for "FPV" and you quickly find out that pretty incredible things can be done inexpensively with off-the-shelf RC hobby gear.
I know this is probably a ridiculous question, but... with this rice, what are the chances of a rice-specific bacteria suddenly developing a taste for human blood proteins?
(Sorry... I just shelled out candy to a couple of neighbourhood zombies, which got me to thinking about disaster scenarios.)
I dislike Apple with an intensity that few can match. Nevertheless, I often read Apple-related articles because I might learn something about a topic that is relatively unknown to me. It's even possible that I might learn something useful that can be applied in areas that I already know very well. Besides, it's good to go past your own biases every now and then... it keeps you frombecoming insular and stagnant.
I'm no fan of Steve Jobs, but I think it's reasonable to acknowledge his contributions. His particular talents seem to have been the imagination and insight required to identify and specify the attributes of devices that people would *want* to use, an unwillingness to accept anything less, and the charisma to make others share his vision.
Don't get the idea that I'm some kind of Apple fanboy or Jobs-fawner. I pretty much despise Apple, and never liked Jobs. There are only two Apple devices even allowed in my home, and I tried damn hard to persuade my wife and my daughter to choose something other than ipods (but failed).
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Dennis Ritchie, so I'll shut up about Jobs now.
Thinking about this some more, I might want to go bluetooth instead of wifi to save power, then use my cellphone as the bridge to wifi or cellnetwork. Cellphone or tablet could be used for display and interaction.
Hmmm... more ideas keep popping into my head...
You only really mentioned stationary uses. Their FAQ specifically mentions that it should run well off 4 AA batteries and that wifi can be added via USB.
At $25 per unit, I can easily see myself carrying a couple of these around with me all the time. I'm just starting to think of all he interesting things I could do...
UCS actually has a decent, non-sensationalized writeup about the latest events. Colour me surprised. (A personal note: I would consider posts authored or co-authored by Dave Lochbaum to be more reliable than anything from Ed Lyman alone.)
http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear
"Being exposed to ionizing radiation means that you're taking a risk of fatal damage to your body, no matter how little radiation you're exposed to."
That's a very interesting statement. I think the most interesting part of it is your use of the words "risk" and "fatal". My understanding of those words is that risk = probability x consequences, and that "fatal" would be a word associated with consequence.
I would like to understand this better. Please help me by quantifying the probability of "fatal damage" arising from an acute exposure equal to a small fraction of my yearly background exposure.
The following document is a good source of info regarding the situation at the Fukushima reactors. See the section titled "BWR 3/4 Perspectives", including the parts regarding station blackout (SBO), transients with loss of coolant injection, and transients with loss of decay heat removal (DHR). (The remaining parts of the BWR 3/4 section don't appear to apply.)
Switching their fleet to plugin vehicles makes a lot of sense for GE, especially in the long run. If it actually helps accelerate the rate of plugin vehicle adoption, electricity demand could increase significantly. GE would absolutely love that... it would probably help them sell more nuclear reactors, like the ESBWR (near-term) and the PRISM (long-term).
Slashdot Mirror
The technology and goals were actually very different. In the US, you had regulator-imposed general design criteria that said things like "thou shalt have a void-coefficient of reactivity that is negative" and "thy shutdown systems shall be fast acting" and "thou shalt have diverse and redundant safety systems" and "when the shit hits the fan, thou shalt contain thy fission products".
In Soviet Russia, reactor design imposes criteria on YOU! Design reactor for maximal plutonium production and easy removal of fuel ---> minimal containment, minimal redundant systems, positive void coefficient, control rods that have graphite followers. So, when you begin to lose control of the reactor and you insert control rods, the graphite followers go in first, spiking reactivity and power, which causes your coolant to flash to steam, increasing void fraction, and because your void coefficient is positive, power goes UP even more instead of going down, and then the few safety systems you have don't work because you shut them all down or they suck to begin with, and then reactor (not containment, REACTOR) goes boom and chunks of FUEL and FLAMING GRAPHITE are forcefully ejected into the air.
So, then, why did Fukushima fail so badly, even though it had fast-acting shutdown systems, a negative void coefficient, diverse and redundant safety systems, and a containment design that satisfied all of the regulations that existed at the time? That's the real story here, and its moral has a lot to do with the idea of "beyond design basis" accidents and designing to be more robust than required by regulation.
You forgot the list of things that your wife was probably capable of doing on her own before marriage, but now that you're around, apparently you are the only one that can do them.
Also, make sure these are phrased as questions so that the hapless husband has a chance to trigger the "wretched harpy" mode with one poorly worded reply (or one that's just stated too audibly).
1. Can you carry these groceries for me? ... and so on ...
2. Can you get the telephone for me?
3. Can you take this to my parent's place for me?
4. Can you change this lightbulb for me?
5. Can you put the mixer away for me?
6.
FWIW, Congress told the EPA to study this. Their first progress report was issued December 2012.
http://epa.gov/hfstudy/
I've only skimmed the report, so I can't be sure, but it looks like the report is long on methodology but short on actual results.
I will break you!
Now get off my lawn!
Don't stretch analogies too far... they're liable to snap back and leave a welt.
Oooh, even better... get him the plans and parts for a nixie-tube clock!
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4396235/Microchip-s-Nixie-Tubes-light-up-Design-East
Maybe he's not famous or well-known, but I bet he is interesting as hell. We should all aspire to have that much energy, drive, and interest as we get older... I know way too many people in their 50s and older that refuse to learn anything new. Hearing about a guy that has probably been on top of the latest tech continuously for 70-odd years is just inspiring!
Depending on the flow you need, and the conditions under which the flow must be provided, a pump *is* better under many circumstances.
However, in a harsh environment, with no power, and an absolute need for a certain amount of flow, gravity/convection driven systems may be a whole lot more desirable.
Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?
On top of the digital controls, it has vastly simpler mechanical and electrical design, yielding significant reductions in the amounts of safety-related piping, cabling, valves, seismic building volume, etc.
Something that should be appreciated, but is seldom mentioned: the design work has been conducted using modern computers and software incorporating vastly improved analytical methods for nuclear, thermal, mechanical, civil, and electrical analysis. The last round of plants built in the US were designed in the 60s and 70s using tools that seem positively ancient by today's standards.
The summary, and the linked article for that matter, both imply that there must be an arrow of causality between A (depression, anxiety) and B (multiple media input seeking). Does A cause B, or B cause A? However, that's a flawed view of this situation.
The old adage that "correlation is not causation" is apt here... correlation does not prove a direct causal link. What correlation does do, however, is suggest the possibility of a causal relationship, whether direct, indirect, or parallel.
The real answer could be that some other factor C (or combination of factors) causes *both* A and B. This is the interpretation that seems most logical to me, but of course, I have no proof.
Anyway, my suspicion is that nerds like to overload on input, and that nerds are also more susceptible to depression/anxiety. That's how I know that I am a nerd. :)
I actually saw much of Oprah's 2012 "Favorite Things" show, including the ridiculous hour long leadup showing how Oprah picks the stuff to give away. Watching this wasn't entirely by choice, as I happened to be sitting on the sofa working on my laptop while my wife and daughter were watching. (I must say though, the actual giveaways are priceless... from the over-the-top OMG OMG OMG craziness when it's something good, to the valiantly concealed "Meh!" when it sucks.)
Anyway, Oprah didn't actually choose the Surface. It was selected by one of her producers (probably after prodding by Microsoft) and shown to Oprah for a grand total of about 2 minutes. Why did she then choose it? Probably because of the kickstand and the magnetic keyboard attachment.
I'm not going to argue that these activists should be doing this, but I have to ask... Why are they flying such expensive pieces of equipment for this purpose? It's crazy. You can build a really nice drone for $1000, and a half-decent one for a few hundred. That includes fairly long range RC and video transmission *and* FPV goggles. Heck, autopilot with GPS and return-home on signal loss wouldn't even push the price that high. Just search Youtube for "FPV" and you quickly find out that pretty incredible things can be done inexpensively with off-the-shelf RC hobby gear.
I tried it on my netbook... it sucked there too.
I know this is probably a ridiculous question, but... with this rice, what are the chances of a rice-specific bacteria suddenly developing a taste for human blood proteins?
(Sorry... I just shelled out candy to a couple of neighbourhood zombies, which got me to thinking about disaster scenarios.)
I dislike Apple with an intensity that few can match. Nevertheless, I often read Apple-related articles because I might learn something about a topic that is relatively unknown to me. It's even possible that I might learn something useful that can be applied in areas that I already know very well. Besides, it's good to go past your own biases every now and then... it keeps you frombecoming insular and stagnant.
I'm no fan of Steve Jobs, but I think it's reasonable to acknowledge his contributions. His particular talents seem to have been the imagination and insight required to identify and specify the attributes of devices that people would *want* to use, an unwillingness to accept anything less, and the charisma to make others share his vision.
Don't get the idea that I'm some kind of Apple fanboy or Jobs-fawner. I pretty much despise Apple, and never liked Jobs. There are only two Apple devices even allowed in my home, and I tried damn hard to persuade my wife and my daughter to choose something other than ipods (but failed).
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Dennis Ritchie, so I'll shut up about Jobs now.
Thinking about this some more, I might want to go bluetooth instead of wifi to save power, then use my cellphone as the bridge to wifi or cellnetwork. Cellphone or tablet could be used for display and interaction. Hmmm... more ideas keep popping into my head...
You only really mentioned stationary uses. Their FAQ specifically mentions that it should run well off 4 AA batteries and that wifi can be added via USB.
At $25 per unit, I can easily see myself carrying a couple of these around with me all the time. I'm just starting to think of all he interesting things I could do...
UCS actually has a decent, non-sensationalized writeup about the latest events. Colour me surprised. (A personal note: I would consider posts authored or co-authored by Dave Lochbaum to be more reliable than anything from Ed Lyman alone.) http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear
Several hours is an eternity... lots can happen to change hazard levels in that period of time.
"Being exposed to ionizing radiation means that you're taking a risk of fatal damage to your body, no matter how little radiation you're exposed to." That's a very interesting statement. I think the most interesting part of it is your use of the words "risk" and "fatal". My understanding of those words is that risk = probability x consequences, and that "fatal" would be a word associated with consequence. I would like to understand this better. Please help me by quantifying the probability of "fatal damage" arising from an acute exposure equal to a small fraction of my yearly background exposure.
The following document is a good source of info regarding the situation at the Fukushima reactors. See the section titled "BWR 3/4 Perspectives", including the parts regarding station blackout (SBO), transients with loss of coolant injection, and transients with loss of decay heat removal (DHR). (The remaining parts of the BWR 3/4 section don't appear to apply.)
Core damage frequency perspectives for BWR 3/4...
Switching their fleet to plugin vehicles makes a lot of sense for GE, especially in the long run. If it actually helps accelerate the rate of plugin vehicle adoption, electricity demand could increase significantly. GE would absolutely love that... it would probably help them sell more nuclear reactors, like the ESBWR (near-term) and the PRISM (long-term).