Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

Dr Kynes · Oct 8, 2012

mindphuk said:
Babble much?
I have no idea what you are saying now.
50 years ago, Einstein's theories were well accepted. 100 years ago, special relativity was already finished and general relativity was almost complete.
Proposing what might be in the future is irrelevant when evaluating the strength or weaknesses of current scientific theories.
Context is everything.
Strawman. Your lack of understanding of relativistic momentum and the math does not make your simplistic assessment of the situation correct.
non-sequitur, strawman and all-around terrible analogies. Continuing to apply Newtonian assumptions and math to relativistic situations (as already explained) does not in any way address or contradict the facts but only serves to make you (continue to) look stupid.

so you cant see where those of us who do NOT hold advanced degrees might be required to choose?

either doubting the veracity of the new quantum universe where two opposing answers can both be right and wrong simultaneously, or massless objects which are actually waves can interact and cause effects inn objects that are actually objects and vice versa, and multiplying zero by a big enough number gets a non zero sum,

or making a leap of faith and accepting that it is best not to ask too many questions lest the gods become angry and wrathful

simply stating:
you dont know enough, go read more books that say this same thing and youll see im right, or ask more people who wear the same preistly labcoat with the same ecclesiastical pocket protector and they will help you understand your failure to grasp the beauty of the faith.

is not so different from

god said it, i believe it, that proves it.

many people can read the bible and come to the conclusion that it is historically accurate, true and the actual word of god.
i cant. im a doubter. i doubt any claim that requires a leap of faith to accept.

nuclear fission, time dilation, and numerous tested and well proved scientific theories all say youre right, but a few things dont make any damned sense to me, and all the explanations i read, and all the troublesome math i have struggled through may add up to the right numbers for the theories, but the assumptions required to make the theories work still just sit there. stinking.

insisting that "newton works fine until you get inducted into the deeper mysteries", or "step behind the veil into the holiest of holies, and then youll see what really happens" may work for some, but it sounds like a cult to me.

i cant make this new science click inside my head. maybe i am just really really really stupid. or maybe i look at the universe from a different angle and from my angle quantum physics looks like smoke and mirrors to conceal the greatest sin any scientist can admit to, observations with no adequate theory to explain them.

i cant recall ANY scientist egghead, teacher, professor or poindexter ever saying, when asked a question about anything "we just dont know" or even "our best guess is..." it's always a dandy explanation usually with shitloads of math. even if the answer is completely opposed to what his colleagues in another university claim, both will show you lots and lots of math.

string theory, dark matter theory, endless recursive orbits at the speed of light, quantum probability, cats which are simultaneously alive and dead... some of it makes the claims of the bible seem almost sensible.

more math will not answer my questions, and more people saying the same thing and offering more math will still not convince me to accept this new religion even if these theories seem to work good enough to pull a few rabbits out of some hats, i still gotta suspect that maybe theres a rabbit concealed in the hat someplace, or the rabbit was up your sleeve, or a switching of hats, but i cant accept a quantum bunny generator hidden in the lining.

mindphuk · Oct 8, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
so you cant see where those of us who do NOT hold advanced degrees might be required to choose?

Choose what? Scientific models that appear to fit well with current observations or ideas proposed because someone doesn't like the consequences of what those models say?

either doubting the veracity of the new quantum universe where two opposing answers can both be right and wrong simultaneously, or massless objects which are actually waves can interact and cause effects inn objects that are actually objects and vice versa, and multiplying zero by a big enough number gets a non zero sum,

or making a leap of faith and accepting that it is best not to ask too many questions lest the gods become angry and wrathful

Surround a false dilemma with persecution syndrome and what are you left with?

simply stating:
you dont know enough, go read more books that say this same thing and youll see im right, or ask more people who wear the same preistly labcoat with the same ecclesiastical pocket protector and they will help you understand your failure to grasp the beauty of the faith.

Simply stated, that modern physics is not out of reach of the everyday man and all you need to do is study and learn what is actually claimed before creating an argument against it, else be aware that arguing against something where you have a lack of understanding makes you extremely susceptible to creating false arguments called straw men, because you are creating the position you are arguing against rather that arguing against the actual position.

is not so different from

god said it, i believe it, that proves it.

Not once did I invoke an argument from authority. That is another one of your strawmen. No one is claiming physics needs faith. Where in the world did you come up with this gem?

many people can read the bible and come to the conclusion that it is historically accurate, true and the actual word of god.
i cant. im a doubter. i doubt any claim that requires a leap of faith to accept.

Good. You should not accept anything on faith. When was the last time a bible thumper told you to do research before accepting god's word?

nuclear fission, time dilation, and numerous tested and well proved scientific theories all say youre right

They all say that the current model has not been able to be falsified. I'm not right, the models appear to work, therefore we should accept the premises of the models until someone can provide another model that also explains all of the observations but makes fewer assumptions and/or explains MORE.

, but a few things dont make any damned sense to me, and all the explanations i read, and all the troublesome math i have struggled through may add up to the right numbers for the theories, but the assumptions required to make the theories work still just sit there. stinking.

Few things in our physical world seem to make sense, until they do. Newton didn't make sense to people that asked, why should things follow mathematical models? Why does the universe work this way? Newton created laws, mathematical models that could predict things. They offered no explanations as to mechanism. The answer could just as easily be, "Because God wanted it that way."

insisting that "newton works fine until you get inducted into the deeper mysteries", or "step behind the veil into the holiest of holies, and then youll see what really happens" may work for some, but it sounds like a cult to me.

A cult that is readily accessible and open to anyone that chooses to investigate. A cult that allows, nay, requires dissenting voices. Doesn't seem like any cult I am aware of.

i cant make this new science click inside my head. maybe i am just really really really stupid.

Or maybe because it is not common sensical. It doesn't just click in the head of anyone that I met. Virtually everyone I know struggles with these concepts to some degree when they first learn them and many struggle for a long time afterwards, making them look for alternatives. This is what makes it good science, decades of smart people looking for errors, omissions, alternatives and other angles that can help simplify or even overturn the current paradigm. Asking questions is good. Being critical is good. Being outright antagonistic for no rational reason (it doesn't feel right is emotional, not rational), especially when it is clear you have some holes in your understanding of these theories is not good.

or maybe i look at the universe from a different angle and from my angle quantum physics looks like smoke and mirrors to conceal the greatest sin any scientist can admit to, observations with no adequate theory to explain them.

This makes no sense. We have models, not clear explanations. Many people have offered up many alternative explanations for the observations. These mavericks are good for science, they push the envelope and make those that defend the status quo on guard and tests their ability to contend with problems they may not have thought of. However, proposing that current models are wrong without offering up any foundation on which to test these claims of wrongness, is merely spitting and frothing.

i cant recall ANY scientist egghead, teacher, professor or poindexter ever saying, when asked a question about anything "we just dont know" or even "our best guess is..." it's always a dandy explanation usually with shitloads of math. even if the answer is completely opposed to what his colleagues in another university claim, both will show you lots and lots of math.

Then you aren't talking to enough scientists. There are tons of things we just don't know. Ever hear of dark matter? What is it? We don't know. How do you deal with the horizon problem? Inflation. What caused inflation? We don't know. There are so many questions and paradoxes associated with modern physics that claiming we have answers to most things is ridiculous. Sometimes the problem is with the way a question is asked, and not about the answer. Sometimes people think you want our current best answer, which often is a mere hypothesis, not a tested theory. In that case, the answer may be attempted because of what the scientist perceives what is being asked of him. Every time I see Michio Kaku on TV explaining something for a lay audience, I routinely hear him say, "we really just don't know." Same with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Watch enough videos and you see a lot of admission that we don't know.

more math will not answer my questions, and more people saying the same thing and offering more math will still not convince me to accept this new religion even if these theories seem to work good enough to pull a few rabbits out of some hats, i still gotta suspect that maybe theres a rabbit concealed in the hat someplace, or the rabbit was up your sleeve, or a switching of hats, but i cant accept a quantum bunny generator hidden in the lining.

Now you are sounding like the science denier I pegged you for. You aren't merely dissatisfied with certain aspects of relativity or QM, you seem disillusioned with all of modern physics. Ever since the theorists have taken over from the experimentalists when it comes to describing our world, the answers certainly have become more fuzzy. This, however, does not mean they do not have experiment and observation to back them up. The standard model of particle physics is by far one of the most robust and successful theories in science ever. This does not mean we know how and why of everything. The fact that there are still countless papers and journals written dissecting and critiquing everyone's work and proposing new theories and ideas every day, tells us that we are far from knowing how this all fits together. Part of the problem stems from being relagated to pop science where only the most current, mainstream understanding gets detailed, often incorrectly by well-meaning, non-scientist writers. Even the scientists make incorrect analogies and claims when writing for lay audiences, attempting to do away with the math to make it easier to understand.

Dr Kynes · Oct 9, 2012

mindphuk said:
Choose what? Scientific models that appear to fit well with current observations or ideas proposed because someone doesn't like the consequences of what those models say?
Surround a false dilemma with persecution syndrome and what are you left with?

Simply stated, that modern physics is not out of reach of the everyday man and all you need to do is study and learn what is actually claimed before creating an argument against it, else be aware that arguing against something where you have a lack of understanding makes you extremely susceptible to creating false arguments called straw men, because you are creating the position you are arguing against rather that arguing against the actual position.

Not once did I invoke an argument from authority. That is another one of your strawmen. No one is claiming physics needs faith. Where in the world did you come up with this gem?

Good. You should not accept anything on faith. When was the last time a bible thumper told you to do research before accepting god's word?
They all say that the current model has not been able to be falsified. I'm not right, the models appear to work, therefore we should accept the premises of the models until someone can provide another model that also explains all of the observations but makes fewer assumptions and/or explains MORE.
Few things in our physical world seem to make sense, until they do. Newton didn't make sense to people that asked, why should things follow mathematical models? Why does the universe work this way? Newton created laws, mathematical models that could predict things. They offered no explanations as to mechanism. The answer could just as easily be, "Because God wanted it that way."
A cult that is readily accessible and open to anyone that chooses to investigate. A cult that allows, nay, requires dissenting voices. Doesn't seem like any cult I am aware of.

Or maybe because it is not common sensical. It doesn't just click in the head of anyone that I met. Virtually everyone I know struggles with these concepts to some degree when they first learn them and many struggle for a long time afterwards, making them look for alternatives. This is what makes it good science, decades of smart people looking for errors, omissions, alternatives and other angles that can help simplify or even overturn the current paradigm. Asking questions is good. Being critical is good. Being outright antagonistic for no rational reason (it doesn't feel right is emotional, not rational), especially when it is clear you have some holes in your understanding of these theories is not good.

This makes no sense. We have models, not clear explanations. Many people have offered up many alternative explanations for the observations. These mavericks are good for science, they push the envelope and make those that defend the status quo on guard and tests their ability to contend with problems they may not have thought of. However, proposing that current models are wrong without offering up any foundation on which to test these claims of wrongness, is merely spitting and frothing.Then you aren't talking to enough scientists. There are tons of things we just don't know. Ever hear of dark matter? What is it? We don't know. How do you deal with the horizon problem? Inflation. What caused inflation? We don't know. There are so many questions and paradoxes associated with modern physics that claiming we have answers to most things is ridiculous. Sometimes the problem is with the way a question is asked, and not about the answer. Sometimes people think you want our current best answer, which often is a mere hypothesis, not a tested theory. In that case, the answer may be attempted because of what the scientist perceives what is being asked of him. Every time I see Michio Kaku on TV explaining something for a lay audience, I routinely hear him say, "we really just don't know." Same with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Watch enough videos and you see a lot of admission that we don't know.

Now you are sounding like the science denier I pegged you for. You aren't merely dissatisfied with certain aspects of relativity or QM, you seem disillusioned with all of modern physics. Ever since the theorists have taken over from the experimentalists when it comes to describing our world, the answers certainly have become more fuzzy. This, however, does not mean they do not have experiment and observation to back them up. The standard model of particle physics is by far one of the most robust and successful theories in science ever. This does not mean we know how and why of everything. The fact that there are still countless papers and journals written dissecting and critiquing everyone's work and proposing new theories and ideas every day, tells us that we are far from knowing how this all fits together. Part of the problem stems from being relagated to pop science where only the most current, mainstream understanding gets detailed, often incorrectly by well-meaning, non-scientist writers. Even the scientists make incorrect analogies and claims when writing for lay audiences, attempting to do away with the math to make it easier to understand.

dude im not a science denier.

i actually do want to know, and the math is just not convincing.

i heard michio kaku on coast to coast am too many times on the late night shift. he personally doesnt have much credibility with me. niel degrasse tyson is amiable and charming enough, but he doesnt enthrall me. i would rather read than watch videos. and the reading i been doing keeps circling several assumptions, like 0 x a big enough number = not zero, so photons can have zero mass but still deliver a force on impact, or gravity is a wave, but it doesnt make interference patterns cuz it's a different kind of wave. or neutrinos are particles despite their masslessness and their seeming disrespect for ordinary matter, yet they move faster than the speed of light, and slower than the speed of light and the truth will be determined with a steel cage match in the middle of the large hadron collider. two nerds enter, one nerd leaves.

fuck, im not even sure who is leading in the neutrino speed of light sweepstakes right now.

all im sure of is that photons seem to act like they got mass, but other theories say they dont, and the experimental physics nerds say its definitely less than x but the theoretical physics nerds insist its dead on zero.

if i was a science denier i would offer a different solution, i aint got one, all i got is newtons theories that worked pretty good for a while now, and some new stuff that also works pretty good, but they dont seem to work together. and that is a burr under my saddle.

i keep getting the same answers, read more of the same stuff you already read, do more of the math you already slogged through, and youll see. i still dont see.

and its not like im asserting that photons definitely have mass, and thats why a burnt out lightbulb weighs less than a new one, cuz the photons have all escaped. im asserting that photons have mass because when they hit something, the deliver a force.

i had no idea that was so controversial.

fb360 · Oct 10, 2012

Doer said:
Smell the rat? So, of course the climate is changing. But CO2? It's the premier
mineral cycle on the planet. Volcanos spew it, reefs take it up, plants breathe it
in, we breathe it out. It's the perfect chaos element. The debate will rage and
money, taxpayer money will be spent in large amounts.

You make a very good argument, however what is your stance on the observations we've made on Venus concerning CO2 emissions and its labeled "global warming"?
There are no users or consumers, at least that we know of, on that planet.

ginjawarrior · Oct 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
the entire point of nuclear power plants is that they do NOT emit any contaminants (if they dont get pulverized by an earthquake and a tidal wave... sorry japan) into the local environment, instead all their toxic byproducts are secured and stored in a way that prevents their distribution into the environment at large. the tiny amount of radiation that does escape is easily overshadowed (even by exponential numbers) by the minute traces of radiation found in canned tuna fish, ceramic tableware or cell phone transmissions.

one hundred times .0000000001 parts per million is .00000001 parts per million, and both are insignificant. even plutonium cant hurt you in those concentrations.

the article creates a false impression (a red herring) of massive radiation and toxic billowing plumes of uranium soaked smoke drifting over schoolyards and nursing homes. that is UNTRUE.

the point remains however that nuclear power is GOOD, but we have a spent nuclear fuel problem already. massive increases in nuclear power without first solving the disposal (storage) problem is a dangerously shortsighted move.

it only takes one fuckup with spent nuclear fuel or used up control rods to turn nuclear power from a safe and viable alternative to a dangerous and unstable menace with a new chernobyl lurking around every corner.

the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US, and is thus not their problem. here in america (where the spent fuel and old control rod issue is NOT somebody else's problem) nuclear power is NOT our friend. most people see nuclear power as a sinister threat, just one mad scientist away from unleashing godzilla upon the world, and this time it's new york or los angeles in his path on his way back to monster island, not tokyo. (again, sorry japan)

"the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"

you know i have lived in europe all my life and i have NEVER heard of all the waste being shipped to usa. i've tried googling it but cannot come up with anything that suggests as much. have you got anything to back up this narrative you claim all europeans fall under?
now im not saying that you pulled this "narrative" out of your arse to back up your hysterical bullshit rant but considering the waste reprocessing plants in the uk and in france and the plans by governments across europe to build under ground dumps for the waste built up over last 50+ years

i see you sneaked in fukishima a gen 1 plant from 1967 into a discussion of new build gen 3 and 4

my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants

thought you said you could read or are you deliberately being dishonest?

but lets give the fukishima plant its praise one of the oldest operating nuclear power plants of the unstable gen 1 configuration survived one of biggest earthquakes ever recorded (yeah it wasnt pulverised as you claim) and survived a fricking tsunami HUMAN ERROR in the placement of the back up generators was the deciding factor in this

oh and lets not forget that the very same earthquake/ tsunami killed tens of thousands of people the power plants killed no one

Dr Kynes · Oct 11, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
"the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"

you know i have lived in europe all my life and i have NEVER heard of all the waste being shipped to usa. i've tried googling it but cannot come up with anything that suggests as much. have you got anything to back up this narrative you claim all europeans fall under?
now im not saying that you pulled this "narrative" out of your arse to back up your hysterical bullshit rant but considering the waste reprocessing plants in the uk and in france and the plans by governments across europe to build under ground dumps for the waste built up over last 50+ years

i see you sneaked in fukishima a gen 1 plant from 1967 into a discussion of new build gen 3 and 4

thought you said you could read or are you deliberately being dishonest?

but lets give the fukishima plant its praise one of the oldest operating nuclear power plants of the unstable gen 1 configuration survived one of biggest earthquakes ever recorded (yeah it wasnt pulverised as you claim) and survived a fricking tsunami HUMAN ERROR in the placement of the back up generators was the deciding factor in this

oh and lets not forget that the very same earthquake/ tsunami killed tens of thousands of people the power plants killed no one

the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ensures that the nuclear armed states of US, China, Britain, France, and the soviet union (now Russia) will not help anybody else make nuclear weapons, and further they will assist non-nuclear states with technology and "logistical" help for the cration and operation of nuclear power systems. the Non-Nuclear States agree to not seek nuclear weapons, and all partires agree to abide by the nuclear regulatory commission's rules and regulations.

among those rules is the EXTREMELY GOOD IDEA of bringing in nuclear fuel at low low discount prices and taking out every gram of spent waste from those nations who are non-nuclear signatories.

this helps developing and even developed nations in many ways, from not having to spend vast monies to build facilities that other nations have already built to enrich the fuel materials, so instead they can simply buy it with a return for deposit on the old used up fuel, and the non nuclear states dont need or have to worry about nuclear waste products.

nations which HAVE certified re-refining and waste uranium reclamation programs receive the waste from those which have NOT this technology, and thus the nuclear regulatory commission winds up bringing ALMOST ALL of the worlds atomic waste to the US, and to a much lesser degree france and britain. the soviets recieved a shitload during the cold war, but after the breakup of their empire the smaller states that housed the soviet era waste reclamation and re-enrichment plants were generally poor, unstable, and not terribly charitable so many former soviet republics' waste now comes to the US in large quantities too. britain and france receive only tiny amounts (in conjunction with their extremely small re-refining programs) of the world's nuclear garbage and china's nuclear re-enrichment program is done under a veil of secrecy.

arguing which generation of nuclear plants will be built is arguing a foolish cunard. if i propose building an auto manufacturing plant in kentucky will i have to SPECIFY IN GREAT DETAIL that this will NOT be a 1915/1920 manual assembly plant with attached forge and a dedicated coachworks for the custom hand construction of custom built wood framed phaetons with lever operated wheel brakes, abalone inlaid teak steering tillers and whale oil fueled lanthorns on the front wheel fenders?

also fukishima got pulverized in the literary (if not literal) sense by a big ass earthquake and tidal wave, the plant's amazing level of not uverheating in an uncontrolled reaction chernobyl style is impressive, and a testament to top quality japanese design and manufacture, but this does not mean every plant is as good, nor that the new designs which inspire such confidence in you are necessarily better in a catastrophic failure.

fukishima lasted because it was well made, chernobyl did NOT last because it was shoddy, as is rancho seco, and a couple others. however, newer is not always better,, and if nuclear power plants are built the way new houses are constructed, i look forward to many catastrophes in the future.

anyone who has ever been in a serious crash knows the value of steel. a 1954 chevy bel aire in any crash condition you can imagine except a 120 kph head on wall assault, is MORE survivable than the "Smart Car" which crumples and collapses like an old pepsi can in even the mildest creashs.

thats why i see more 1954 bel aires than i see of ANY model year of pinto, corvair, or gremlin. (except this one cherry ass Just Off The Showroom Floor type 1974 pinto that is so well restored that i can only assume that it was done for the lulz)

unibody construction, stamped sheet metal rigid panels and pinch welds are NOT stronger than steel chassis/frame construction and straight bead welds. they are only cheaper.

the same principle applies to nuclear plants. the US navy operates dozens of nuclear plants around the globe all without a serious issue because they made it to survive, i hold very little confidence that the nuclear commission for the nigeria will hold to the highest standards since i keep getting e-mails offering the share with me if i help them set up a money laundering scheme through my bank accounts. my correspondent is apparently "looking forward to many best wishes with our happy arrangement."

confidence is low. not looking forward to the 500 nuclear plants needed to be built cheaply, and in short order to ensure that coal and gas are pushed into the bi, and we can start "green washing" the planet.

ginjawarrior · Oct 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ensures that the nuclear armed states of US, China, Britain, France, and the soviet union (now Russia) will not help anybody else make nuclear weapons, and further they will assist non-nuclear states with technology and "logistical" help for the cration and operation of nuclear power systems. the Non-Nuclear States agree to not seek nuclear weapons, and all partires agree to abide by the nuclear regulatory commission's rules and regulations.

among those rules is the EXTREMELY GOOD IDEA of bringing in nuclear fuel at low low discount prices and taking out every gram of spent waste from those nations who are non-nuclear signatories.

this helps developing and even developed nations in many ways, from not having to spend vast monies to build facilities that other nations have already built to enrich the fuel materials, so instead they can simply buy it with a return for deposit on the old used up fuel, and the non nuclear states dont need or have to worry about nuclear waste products.

nations which HAVE certified re-refining and waste uranium reclamation programs receive the waste from those which have NOT this technology, and thus the nuclear regulatory commission winds up bringing ALMOST ALL of the worlds atomic waste to the US, and to a much lesser degree france and britain. the soviets recieved a shitload during the cold war, but after the breakup of their empire the smaller states that housed the soviet era waste reclamation and re-enrichment plants were generally poor, unstable, and not terribly charitable so many former soviet republics' waste now comes to the US in large quantities too. britain and france receive only tiny amounts (in conjunction with their extremely small re-refining programs) of the world's nuclear garbage and china's nuclear re-enrichment program is done under a veil of secrecy.

arguing which generation of nuclear plants will be built is arguing a foolish cunard. if i propose building an auto manufacturing plant in kentucky will i have to SPECIFY IN GREAT DETAIL that this will NOT be a 1915/1920 manual assembly plant with attached forge and a dedicated coachworks for the custom hand construction of custom built wood framed phaetons with lever operated wheel brakes, abalone inlaid teak steering tillers and whale oil fueled lanthorns on the front wheel fenders?

also fukishima got pulverized in the literary (if not literal) sense by a big ass earthquake and tidal wave, the plant's amazing level of not uverheating in an uncontrolled reaction chernobyl style is impressive, and a testament to top quality japanese design and manufacture, but this does not mean every plant is as good, nor that the new designs which inspire such confidence in you are necessarily better in a catastrophic failure.

fukishima lasted because it was well made, chernobyl did NOT last because it was shoddy, as is rancho seco, and a couple others. however, newer is not always better,, and if nuclear power plants are built the way new houses are constructed, i look forward to many catastrophes in the future.

anyone who has ever been in a serious crash knows the value of steel. a 1954 chevy bel aire in any crash condition you can imagine except a 120 kph head on wall assault, is MORE survivable than the "Smart Car" which crumples and collapses like an old pepsi can in even the mildest creashs.

thats why i see more 1954 bel aires than i see of ANY model year of pinto, corvair, or gremlin. (except this one cherry ass Just Off The Showroom Floor type 1974 pinto that is so well restored that i can only assume that it was done for the lulz)

unibody construction, stamped sheet metal rigid panels and pinch welds are NOT stronger than steel chassis/frame construction and straight bead welds. they are only cheaper.

the same principle applies to nuclear plants. the US navy operates dozens of nuclear plants around the globe all without a serious issue because they made it to survive, i hold very little confidence that the nuclear commission for the nigeria will hold to the highest standards since i keep getting e-mails offering the share with me if i help them set up a money laundering scheme through my bank accounts. my correspondent is apparently "looking forward to many best wishes with our happy arrangement."

confidence is low. not looking forward to the 500 nuclear plants needed to be built cheaply, and in short order to ensure that coal and gas are pushed into the bi, and we can start "green washing" the planet.

ahh so you've switch from "the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"
to the whole of the world hmm i doubt anyone will notice

fukishima was general electrics desgined/ built plant

new is actually pretty damn strong
[youtube]CJHpUO-S0i8[/youtube]
a big reason im advocating gen 3 reactors is that you can walk away from them without any notice and they will not melt down I.E in a situation like the fukishima event there would have been no melt down (aand hopefully alot cheaper in the long run as so much money isnt needed to stop them blowing themselves up)

atm nigeria's contribution towards CO2 emmisions is low but that has nothing to do with usa sorting its shit out and changing from a carbon economy to a nuclear economy and maybe helping countries like nigeria with their capabilities at some time in the future

confidence might be low but it certainly isnt helpped with shrill voices like yours screaming of the boogy man as soon as nuclear is mentioned

Dr Kynes · Oct 11, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
ahh so you've switch from "the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"
to the whole of the world hmm i doubt anyone will notice

fukishima was general electrics desgined/ built plant

new is actually pretty damn strong

(dopey video removed, i pulled apart too many new cars after they been crumpled into garbage to believe that crap)

a big reason im advocating gen 3 reactors is that you can walk away from them without any notice and they will not melt down I.E in a situation like the fukishima event there would have been no melt down (aand hopefully alot cheaper in the long run as so much money isnt needed to stop them blowing themselves up)

atm nigeria's contribution towards CO2 emmisions is low but that has nothing to do with usa sorting its shit out and changing from a carbon economy to a nuclear economy and maybe helping countries like nigeria with their capabilities at some time in the future

confidence might be low but it certainly isnt helpped with shrill voices like yours screaming of the boogy man as soon as nuclear is mentioned

no, again you are dancing around the issue. the US recieves almost ALL of the world's nuclear waste. the nuclear regulatory commision ensures that. france and britain and a few other developed nations keep their own, for their own uses, but all the rest goes to the US.

this is done to keep fissile materials OFF THE MARKET! (as much as possible) ajnd it is a good thing, but unless we sort out the long term storage issue, we cannot responsibly begin formulating plans to build hindreds of new nuclear plants around the globe.

your idiotic video displays the ignorance and arrogance of modern designs, in real actual crashes, the vehicle does not lead with it's "crumple zones" impact absorbing materials and safety equipment, real crashes turn almost any modern car into a mess of shattered fiberglass plastic and aluminum (i know, i been in a few) while real steel keeps your ass off the pavement and prevents the firey immolation or steering column impalement that is the cause of so many deaths in ACTUAL crashes.

the problems with the Nukes Everywhere proposal are many-fold.

1: limited fuel supplies. we dont have enough, nor the capacity to make more of the stuff to fuel hundreds of reactors in every corner of the world

2: waste. yes. already too much for our curent storage systems to handle, and our current storage faciliites are in fact TEMPORARY storage that has been converted to long tem storage by the unavailabbility of actual long term storage. why is this so hard for you to grasp? and yes, most of it comes to the US, so britain doesnt need to hollow out ben nevis and turn it into a radioactive waste dump. but WE do. (not actually ben nevis of course, that would be deemed impolite, we have tyo hollow out a mountain in america someplace.)

3: safety. building a plant in France is a job for FRENCH people. they will ensure that its a good plant. when (unavoidably) Daihatsu or Schlumberger start building nuclear plants in Uganda or East Timor they could easily decide to shave a few corners here and there, pocket the difference, and head home, leaving the people of Paraguay, or Turks and Caicos to deral with the shabby nuclear plant with rising damp and windows that dont quite keep out the cold. and a shitty nuclear plant cant be fixed with weatherstripping and expanding foam.

4: security. its hard enough (and expensive enough) to secure nuclear facilties now, if we double or even triple the number of plants, then who will keep the doors locked so any asshole who wants to make a dirty bomb cant just stroll in and scrape off a few kilos of the hot stuff for their "protest" of the latest intolerable outrage by... whoever.

5: operating technicians. who will run these plants so they remain safe, operational and reliable?

6: No U!!

better plants is good. i am not arguing against the idea of nuclear power, i am concerned by some people who think it can magically cure all our problems without any downsides. charging forth blindly with the proposition that fossil fuels are dead is not sensible, nor is it feasible.

the nigerian comment was a joke. if you havent got your nigerian 419 scam e-mails yet, you soon should. they really are classic. in fact with all this proposed nuclear construction there would be incredible opportunity to "go chop your dollar".

[video=youtube;f1nKR3gYRY8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1nKR3gYRY8[/video]

it's also not my job to be a booster for every scheme to reduce Co2 emissions, since the science on the issue is far from settled.

the earth has in the past been FAR hotter, FAR richer in free Co2, and also far colder, and much leaner on Co2 all without human industry to help or hinder the changes.

ginjawarrior · Oct 11, 2012

im not dancing around the issue at all i've asked for evidence that (and i quote) "Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials." or "but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."
and you provided noevidence that europeans view it as waste free

your also missing the point of gen 1 reactors vs gen 3

ginjawarrior said:
much of the problems of the present waste is that it comes from first generation nuclear planst that were designed to give weapons grade fuel for bombs and as such they're planning to bury fuel thats only had a few percent of the energy removed and has waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands f years
generation 4 + 5 plants reduce that problem down to a few hundred years

(in that quote i mean gen 3+ 4)
and the long term storage is hundreds not hundreds of thousands of years

1. yur thinking along "once thru reactors" but there is plenty of fissile fuel available to us i refer you to http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml
2.

ginjawarrior said:
"A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html

you gonna stop bitching now?

3. fukishima was a general electric designed and built plant that was outsourced and it wasn't shoddy and out of every industry in the world i think nuclear has the strongest regulations
4. now here is a point. the plants i am suggesting are not geared towards weapons grade material but could be used in a dirty bomb. BUT theres no reason why the international community cannot keep tracks on the nuclear material in and out and tbh the amount of force the usa has built up (to in part protect its oil investments) can not use that to protect the nuclear plants. theres also a big bonus on bringing alot of the world out of poverty (failed states breed the best terrorists)
5. again i refer you to this http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

i dont think fossil fuels are dead just yet they have a very important job of setting us onto a nuclear path (with all the best will in the world a renewable economy isnt feasabile atm) but it certainly is feasible to switch to nuclear

i'm well aware of the 414 and many years ago i amused myself with "scambaiting" http://www.419eater.com/ but none of that helps this argument

Dr Kynes · Oct 11, 2012

yes. if they wished the british could in fact join the rest of the world and send their nuclear waste to the US. thast the compact we made as a leader of nations to everybody else. have nuclear power, and we will handle the waste for you. britain is a nuclear power,, and thus has a USE for their reactor wastes as nuclear bomb making/maintaining materials. spain has no such nuclear weapons program (and iran should not either since they are signatories to the treaty and have been receiving the benefits for a long time) and thus has no need for their nuclear waste for any legitimate purpose so they get new fuel rods cheap, the NRC collects their waste and ships it to california, or nevada or colorado, and we take care of it for them.

the proper position for me to take if i held the view you are attributing to me would be "fuck youse dutch bastards! youse can keeps your own nukular wastes and make your kuntry glow in the dark! thats what youse gets for bein communists! you froggy assholes can fuck your berets and youre eyeful towers. you can shuv your queen up your buts, with cranberries cuz you fought against us in ww2 you nazis!"

which is quite cathartic. i feel cleansed.

refined uranium is still a valuable and prized commodity, we may have enough for current needs with the newest plants, but if we need to do ALL electricity with nuclear, or even just the portion that wind and solar cant (or wont) handle we will rapidly see nuclear fuel becoming the new high demand substance with more mines, more enrichment facilities, and eventually... somebody will fuck up. its inevitable when theres a gold rush. somebody always fucks up. right now the fuckups are handled by the best and the brightest. what happens when BP or Exxon are running nukular

-P) reactors or fuel processing plants?

nuclear industries have tight regulations because its not a game for dilettantes and part timers. if we follow the suggestions of some, we would have to build dozens of nuclear plants every year all over the world to beat al gore's (already elapsed) doomsday timeline, and in that situation i can guarantee, somebody will cut corners. and then its godzilla time.

you also failed to answer my most salient point, which still remains,

NO U!

edit: missed one...
if the debate over nuclear reactor waste was only involvioong britain france china the us and the russian federation then yes, nuclear waste would be each country's own problem. but who taked Jamaica's nuclear waste when they go to atomic power? the US. who takes the shit from all over the mideast? the US. who handles japan's nuclear waste? the US. etc etc etc if britain wants to power every MG jaguar or mini on the planet with a tiny fast breeder reactor, and keep the waste from the spent fuel in suffolk or the cotswalds, thats groovy. more power to ya. and maybe british cars will start on cold mornings, and not leak oil. but then theres Sudan, and papua New Guinea, or bermuda. you gonna take all THEIR spent nuclear waste and store it in a welsh haystack for "ONLY" 200-300 years? no, didnt think so. theats america's job. and right now the US congress cant even agree on quilted or unscented toilet paper for the crappers in the congressional fitness center.

ginjawarrior · Oct 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
yes. if they wished the british could in fact join the rest of the world and send their nuclear waste to the US. thast the compact we made as a leader of nations to everybody else. have nuclear power, and we will handle the waste for you. britain is a nuclear power,, and thus has a USE for their reactor wastes as nuclear bomb making/maintaining materials. spain has no such nuclear weapons program (and iran should not either since they are signatories to the treaty and have been receiving the benefits for a long time) and thus has no need for their nuclear waste for any legitimate purpose so they get new fuel rods cheap, the NRC collects their waste and ships it to california, or nevada or colorado, and we take care of it for them.

the proper position for me to take if i held the view you are attributing to me would be "fuck youse dutch bastards! youse can keeps your own nukular wastes and make your kuntry glow in the dark! thats what youse gets for bein communists! you froggy assholes can fuck your berets and youre eyeful towers. you can shuv your queen up your buts, with cranberries cuz you fought against us in ww2 you nazis!"

which is quite cathartic. i feel cleansed.

refined uranium is still a valuable and prized commodity, we may have enough for current needs with the newest plants, but if we need to do ALL electricity with nuclear, or even just the portion that wind and solar cant (or wont) handle we will rapidly see nuclear fuel becoming the new high demand substance with more mines, more enrichment facilities, and eventually... somebody will fuck up. its inevitable when theres a gold rush. somebody always fucks up. right now the fuckups are handled by the best and the brightest. what happens when BP or Exxon are running nukular -P) reactors or fuel processing plants?

nuclear industries have tight regulations because its not a game for dilettantes and part timers. if we follow the suggestions of some, we would have to build dozens of nuclear plants every year all over the world to beat al gore's (already elapsed) doomsday timeline, and in that situation i can guarantee, somebody will cut corners. and then its godzilla time.

you also failed to answer my most salient point, which still remains,

NO U!

so now its not "all europe" but your singling down to spain
"
Radioactive Waste Management
ENRESA (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA) was established in 1984 as a state-owned company to take over radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants. It is now the only state-owned part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Spain.
It drew up a General Plan for radioactive wastes which was approved by parliament in 1999. Its is based on nuclear power plant lives of 40 years, and addresses the need to manage almost 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate-level wastes and 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel and other high-level wastes.
Since 1983 Spain's policy has been for an open fuel cycle, with no reprocessing. The plan for spent fuel envisages initial storage at each reactor for ten years. Some temporary storage for dry casks was envisaged at Trillo up to 2010 and establishment of a longer-term centralised facility from then. Meanwhile research will progress on deep geological disposal as well as transmutation, with a decision on disposal to be made after 2010. Granite, clay and salt formations are under consideration.
In mid 2006 Parliament approved ENRESA's plans to develop a temporary central nuclear waste storage facility by 2010, and the CSN approved its design, which was similar to the Habog facility near the Borssele power plant in the Netherlands. In December 2009 the government called for municipalities to volunteer to host this EUR 700 million Almacen Temporal Centralizado (ATC) facility for high-level wastes and used fuel. The government offered to pay up to EUR 7.8 million annually once the facility is operational. It is designed to hold for 100 years 6700 tonnes of used fuel and 2600 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of intermediate-level wastes, plus 12 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste from reprocessing the Vandellos-1 fuel. The facility is to be built in three stages, each taking five years. Asco and Villar de Canas were two towns among eight that volunteered, attracted by the prospect of EUR 700 million over 20 years and the annual direst payments, plus many jobs. A campaign of fearmongering has been mounted by nuclear detractors to dissuade residents of the eight towns, and some regional governments are also opposed.
In September 2011 the Ministry for Industry announced its selection and rankings:
- Zarra (Valencia) 736 points
- Asco (Tarragona) 732 points
- Yebra (Guadalajara) 714 points
- Villar de Canas (Cuenca) 692 points.

In December 2011 the Ministry announced that Villar de Canas had been selected, though only a 60-year storage period was mentioned. Pending construction, low- and intermediate-level wastes continues to be sent to ENRESA's storage facility at El Cabril, Cordoba, which has operated since 1961. Used fuel remains at individual power plants.
Waste management and decommissioning is funded by a levy of about 1% on all electricity consumed."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.html

and still not a shred of evidence for anything that your spewing

EDIT: you were perfectly capable of finding evidence of nigerians hmm...

Dr Kynes · Oct 11, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
so now its not "all europe" but your singling down to spain
"
Radioactive Waste Management
ENRESA (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA) was established in 1984 as a state-owned company to take over radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants. It is now the only state-owned part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Spain.
It drew up a General Plan for radioactive wastes which was approved by parliament in 1999. Its is based on nuclear power plant lives of 40 years, and addresses the need to manage almost 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate-level wastes and 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel and other high-level wastes.
Since 1983 Spain's policy has been for an open fuel cycle, with no reprocessing. The plan for spent fuel envisages initial storage at each reactor for ten years. Some temporary storage for dry casks was envisaged at Trillo up to 2010 and establishment of a longer-term centralised facility from then. Meanwhile research will progress on deep geological disposal as well as transmutation, with a decision on disposal to be made after 2010. Granite, clay and salt formations are under consideration.
In mid 2006 Parliament approved ENRESA's plans to develop a temporary central nuclear waste storage facility by 2010, and the CSN approved its design, which was similar to the Habog facility near the Borssele power plant in the Netherlands. In December 2009 the government called for municipalities to volunteer to host this EUR 700 million Almacen Temporal Centralizado (ATC) facility for high-level wastes and used fuel. The government offered to pay up to EUR 7.8 million annually once the facility is operational. It is designed to hold for 100 years 6700 tonnes of used fuel and 2600 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of intermediate-level wastes, plus 12 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste from reprocessing the Vandellos-1 fuel. The facility is to be built in three stages, each taking five years. Asco and Villar de Canas were two towns among eight that volunteered, attracted by the prospect of EUR 700 million over 20 years and the annual direst payments, plus many jobs. A campaign of fearmongering has been mounted by nuclear detractors to dissuade residents of the eight towns, and some regional governments are also opposed.
In September 2011 the Ministry for Industry announced its selection and rankings:
- Zarra (Valencia) 736 points
- Asco (Tarragona) 732 points
- Yebra (Guadalajara) 714 points
- Villar de Canas (Cuenca) 692 points.

In December 2011 the Ministry announced that Villar de Canas had been selected, though only a 60-year storage period was mentioned. Pending construction, low- and intermediate-level wastes continues to be sent to ENRESA's storage facility at El Cabril, Cordoba, which has operated since 1961. Used fuel remains at individual power plants.
Waste management and decommissioning is funded by a levy of about 1% on all electricity consumed."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.html

and still not a shred of evidence for anything that your spewing

and even a casual perusal of the site you offered shows that SOME countries do keep their waste (spain for example has research facilities and other organizations that use it as a research resource) othe rnatrions save it against the future proposal to use it in as yet undeveloped reactor systems, and the other small or developing nations... no mention. because it gets sent to the US.

if the current waste issue is not an issue in france, germany canada and britain etc etc etc, WHY IS IT AN ISSUE IN THE US?

the us, as we have heard so often lately, doesnt use nearly as much nuclear power as the rest of the civilized world... yet we have the biggest stockpile of nuclear garbage, why is this? because we accept it from everybody who doesnt want it!

this fact is NOT PUBLICIZED because it would be a political issue, and nobody wants that. so its kept quiet. not even mentioned, everybody pretends the US's huge nuclear waste stockpile is because we are evil wasteful assholes who like to surround ourselves with nuclear waste and thus probably manufacture the stuff specifically, just to get more.

the US hasnt built a nuclear plant in decades, because we have a problem, too much nuclear waste,, and no place to stash it. all we can do now is reprocess it into less hazardous forms, and hope we come up with a long term solution, but we cannot stop accepting the waste from other nations. thats our deal. if britain had to accept everybody's shit your country would be unable to find enough empty land to stow it. despite the vastness of the southwest, and the HUGE ammount of federal military land and research preserveswe cant find a place to stash all the crap we got. its an issue in america because we accepted the responsibility.

but then i suppose we should also take out ads on sky news and al jazeera advertising that we take all the excess nuclear waste just to make everybody feel better about us? and cause the reactionary groups, insane environmentalists, ultra-nationalist "if you aint american you aint shit" assholes, and whichever party is not in power to kick it around and use it as a wedge? or better still, a tool to try and push through isolationism or apocalyptic religious cult doomsaying? yeah its a quiet little issue and thats how it should stay, but dont mistake the current situation for what would happen if all the world had to rely on nuclear power. it would be a shitstorm of gargantuan proportions.

ginjawarrior · Oct 11, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
and even a casual perusal of the site you offered shows that SOME countries do keep their waste (spain for example has research facilities and other organizations that use it as a research resource) othe rnatrions save it against the future proposal to use it in as yet undeveloped reactor systems, and the other small or developing nations... no mention. because it gets sent to the US.

if the current waste issue is not an issue in france, germany canada and britain etc etc etc, WHY IS IT AN ISSUE IN THE US?

the us, as we have heard so often lately, doesnt use nearly as much nuclear power as the rest of the civilized world... yet we have the biggest stockpile of nuclear garbage, why is this? because we accept it from everybody who doesnt want it!

this fact is NOT PUBLICIZED because it would be a political issue, and nobody wants that. so its kept quiet. not even mentioned, everybody pretends the US's huge nuclear waste stockpile is because we are evil wasteful assholes who like to surround ourselves with nuclear waste and thus probably manufacture the stuff specifically, just to get more.

the US hasnt built a nuclear plant in decades, because we have a problem, too much nuclear waste,, and no place to stash it. all we can do now is reprocess it into less hazardous forms, and hope we come up with a long term solution, but we cannot stop accepting the waste from other nations. thats our deal. if britain had to accept everybody's shit your country would be unable to find enough empty land to stow it. despite the vastness of the southwest, and the HUGE ammount of federal military land and research preserveswe cant find a place to stash all the crap we got. its an issue in america because we accepted the responsibility.

but then i suppose we should also take out ads on sky news and al jazeera advertising that we take all the excess nuclear waste just to make everybody feel better about us? and cause the reactionary groups, insane environmentalists, ultra-nationalist "if you aint american you aint shit" assholes, and whichever party is not in power to kick it around and use it as a wedge? or better still, a tool to try and push through isolationism or apocalyptic religious cult doomsaying? yeah its a quiet little issue and thats how it should stay, but dont mistake the current situation for what would happen if all the world had to rely on nuclear power. it would be a shitstorm of gargantuan proportions.

its a (bigger) issue in usa because of conspiracy theory shrill people like yourself who prefer to rant about the evils without solid facts behind them

and its not published anywhere yet you personally know that "but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."

seriously can you for once put up or shut the fuck up and back away from this as im pretty sure i shown you wrong pretty much every time

Dr Kynes · Oct 11, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
its a (bigger) issue in usa because of conspiracy theory shrill people like yourself who prefer to rant about the evils without solid facts behind them

and its not published anywhere yet you personally know that "but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."

seriously can you for once put up or shut the fuck up and back away from this as im pretty sure i shown you wrong pretty much every time

mmm hmm... so the international atomic energy agency makes all the nuclear waste from compliant nations disappear into ban ki moon's magic hat?

of do they simply trust that oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan will leave it in their in-country storage facilities and that everything will go to plan...

nope.

it gets assayed, weighed packaged and shipped to iaea compliant storage facilities. where would that be... hmmmm

one of them was the rancho seco power facility that only ran for a few years and due to design flaws was decomissioned early, and turned into a storage facility.

take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station

"On 23 October 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released the majority of the site for unrestricted public use, while approximately 11 acres (45,000 m[SUP]2[/SUP]) of land including a storage building for low-level radioactive waste and a dry-cask spent fuel storage facility remain under NRC licenses"

why do you suppose the nuclear regulatory commisssion would license 11 acres in sacramento county? because rancho seco was built with a storage pool, that storage pool is now FULL of hot rods, the dry keg storage facility is also full, despite rancho stinko only running for a short time and never getting up past 30% capacity.

and thats just the one nearest me. theres lots of them

it;'s not a conspiracy. nor is it a theory. there have been a few protests for example, berkely became a "nuclear free zone" after somebody spilled that a few hundred kilos of nuclear waste from asia would be passing through on their way to storage. the local press painted an image of rickety hand carts laden with glowing Nuclear Death would be pushed down san pablo avenue, right past every school nursing home and hospital in town, with chunks falling off, and being left in the streets for urchins to play with.

so yes, for the rest of the world the NRC and IAEA ensure that spent nuclear fuel will behandled, and for almost ALL of the rest of the world,, they "make it go away". here in america, we get the privilege of being the "away" where it goes.

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/208/international_nuclear_waste_transportation.html

among several particular programs discussed in this research paper which is a great read FYI, youll see the little detail of US owned nuclear materials being used worldwide, we send it to them as fuel,, they use it and then we take it back as waste. it remains OUR PROBLEM forever, specifically to prevent fissile materials from getting into the hands of douchebags assholes or terrorists.
its rarely discussed, but a huge portion of the nuclear fuel "market" is based on renting the shit from the US where THEY (meaning reactor operators in MANY MANY nations) receive live and active nuclear fuel, and when it is spent,and just a pile of hot garbage, we take it back and send them some fresh shit.

thats how it works. thats what it means when you hear discussion of fissile materials as "transfers" "trades" and a "market"

few countries have the ability to refine uranium, few countries actually have sufficient uranium deposits, and even fewer countries have the capability to reprocess or store the spent fuel. in britain there was a shitstorm a few years ago over a few POUNDS of nuclear rejectamenta being sent from a soviet republic so it wouldnt get sold to the highest bidder. america takes other nation's nuclear waste all the time. we dont talk about it becauyse we dont want shitstorms, and when it leaks out there is always trouble, in fact MORE trouble from nuclear news leaking than if the actual waste had leaked.

but then im totally wrong about this, and thats why the united arab emirates, jordan, and taiwan just keep the shit at their place. yep. they just keep it stacked up out back by the shed. if that were actually the case al quaeda would have had nuclear bombs decades ago.

shit, your local chavs could rob people in the street with nuclear bombs if that were the case.

on-site storage is a short term storage of spent fuel to let it get a little less HOT before it is packed up and shipped off to it's destination (and for most of the world thats the US) and its done QUIETLY! but then, by your reasoning, seeing as you havent heard about it, one could also presume that nuclear fuel is mined, refined and manufactured on-site too, at every nuclear plant in the world. otherwise you surely would have heard of the shipment of new, live and active fuel rods too...

or maybe, all nuclear power is a myth, and the reactors really just conceal the true source of europe's electrical energy, wizards. harry potter is chained to a grist mill and forced to turn it for all eternity to generate electricity for the masses.

ginjawarrior · Oct 12, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
mmm hmm... so the international atomic energy agency makes all the nuclear waste from compliant nations disappear into ban ki moon's magic hat?

of do they simply trust that oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan will leave it in their in-country storage facilities and that everything will go to plan...

nope.

it gets assayed, weighed packaged and shipped to iaea compliant storage facilities. where would that be... hmmmm

one of them was the rancho seco power facility that only ran for a few years and due to design flaws was decomissioned early, and turned into a storage facility.

take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station

"On 23 October 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released the majority of the site for unrestricted public use, while approximately 11 acres (45,000 m[SUP]2[/SUP]) of land including a storage building for low-level radioactive waste and a dry-cask spent fuel storage facility remain under NRC licenses"

why do you suppose the nuclear regulatory commisssion would license 11 acres in sacramento county? because rancho seco was built with a storage pool, that storage pool is now FULL of hot rods, the dry keg storage facility is also full, despite rancho stinko only running for a short time and never getting up past 30% capacity.

and thats just the one nearest me. theres lots of them

it;'s not a conspiracy. nor is it a theory. there have been a few protests for example, berkely became a "nuclear free zone" after somebody spilled that a few hundred kilos of nuclear waste from asia would be passing through on their way to storage. the local press painted an image of rickety hand carts laden with glowing Nuclear Death would be pushed down san pablo avenue, right past every school nursing home and hospital in town, with chunks falling off, and being left in the streets for urchins to play with.

so yes, for the rest of the world the NRC and IAEA ensure that spent nuclear fuel will behandled, and for almost ALL of the rest of the world,, they "make it go away". here in america, we get the privilege of being the "away" where it goes.

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/208/international_nuclear_waste_transportation.html

among several particular programs discussed in this research paper which is a great read FYI, youll see the little detail of US owned nuclear materials being used worldwide, we send it to them as fuel,, they use it and then we take it back as waste. it remains OUR PROBLEM forever, specifically to prevent fissile materials from getting into the hands of douchebags assholes or terrorists.
its rarely discussed, but a huge portion of the nuclear fuel "market" is based on renting the shit from the US where THEY (meaning reactor operators in MANY MANY nations) receive live and active nuclear fuel, and when it is spent,and just a pile of hot garbage, we take it back and send them some fresh shit.

thats how it works. thats what it means when you hear discussion of fissile materials as "transfers" "trades" and a "market"

few countries have the ability to refine uranium, few countries actually have sufficient uranium deposits, and even fewer countries have the capability to reprocess or store the spent fuel. in britain there was a shitstorm a few years ago over a few POUNDS of nuclear rejectamenta being sent from a soviet republic so it wouldnt get sold to the highest bidder. america takes other nation's nuclear waste all the time. we dont talk about it becauyse we dont want shitstorms, and when it leaks out there is always trouble, in fact MORE trouble from nuclear news leaking than if the actual waste had leaked.

but then im totally wrong about this, and thats why the united arab emirates, jordan, and taiwan just keep the shit at their place. yep. they just keep it stacked up out back by the shed. if that were actually the case al quaeda would have had nuclear bombs decades ago.

shit, your local chavs could rob people in the street with nuclear bombs if that were the case.

on-site storage is a short term storage of spent fuel to let it get a little less HOT before it is packed up and shipped off to it's destination (and for most of the world thats the US) and its done QUIETLY! but then, by your reasoning, seeing as you havent heard about it, one could also presume that nuclear fuel is mined, refined and manufactured on-site too, at every nuclear plant in the world. otherwise you surely would have heard of the shipment of new, live and active fuel rods too...

or maybe, all nuclear power is a myth, and the reactors really just conceal the true source of europe's electrical energy, wizards. harry potter is chained to a grist mill and forced to turn it for all eternity to generate electricity for the masses.

LOL last i checked "oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan" they werent in europe....

shall we recap?

ginjawarrior said:
.........
my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants to supply baseload then building supplemental wind and solar

Dr Kynes said:
and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods?

springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill.

youre a european right ginja? i bet you didnt know that the USA takes in the world's nuclear waste. Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials.
****snipped hysterical ranting*****
maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.

Dr Kynes said:
but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it.
****snipped hysterical ranting*****
Europe doesnt have to argue about which of their communities will have a nuclear waste dump under the mountain, thats nevad's problem, or wyoming, or california. not europe's. europe loves nuclear power, its cheap safe and practically pollution free (in europe) since they can ship the waste "someplace else" and "someplace else" is, by treaty, the US.

naturally europe considers nuclear power a fine alternative. everybody should do it! theres just no downside. for them.

Dr Kynes said:
****snipped****
meanwhile european smug surety that nuclear power is the only choice is based on their not having to deal with the downside, so they need to be a little less sure of their rightness and a LOT less dickish with their claims of superiority because they get more power from nuclear sources than the backwards ole' hillbillies in the us.

ginjawarrior said:
"A step-by-step process has begun in the UK to select a site and design a single facility to store radioactive waste for ever. Today's white paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, said that principles of "voluntarism and partnership" are to be used in the selection process."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html

you gonna stop bitching now?
****snipped***

Dr Kynes said:
what i mean by all that above is if europe wants to use 300% more nuclear power, then they are gonna have to let us store it in THEIR backyard under our supervision until we got a place to store it long term. with the stuff near their communities nuclear power would rapidly become as troublesome there as it is here.

ginjawarrior said:
"the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"

you know i have lived in europe all my life and i have NEVER heard of all the waste being shipped to usa. i've tried googling it but cannot come up with anything that suggests as much. have you got anything to back up this narrative you claim all europeans fall under?
now im not saying that you pulled this "narrative" out of your arse to back up your hysterical bullshit rant but considering the waste reprocessing plants in the uk and in france and the plans by governments across europe to build under ground dumps for the waste built up over last 50+ years

i see you sneaked in fukishima a gen 1 plant from 1967 into a discussion of new build gen 3 and 4

thought you said you could read or are you deliberately being dishonest?

but lets give the fukishima plant its praise one of the oldest operating nuclear power plants of the unstable gen 1 configuration survived one of biggest earthquakes ever recorded (yeah it wasnt pulverised as you claim) and survived a fricking tsunami HUMAN ERROR in the placement of the back up generators was the deciding factor in this

oh and lets not forget that the very same earthquake/ tsunami killed tens of thousands of people the power plants killed no one

Dr Kynes said:
****snipped****
nations which HAVE certified re-refining and waste uranium reclamation programs receive the waste from those which have NOT this technology, and thus the nuclear regulatory commission winds up bringing ALMOST ALL of the worlds atomic waste to the US, and to a much lesser degree france and britain. the soviets recieved a shitload during the cold war, but after the breakup of their empire the smaller states that housed the soviet era waste reclamation and re-enrichment plants were generally poor, unstable, and not terribly charitable so many former soviet republics' waste now comes to the US in large quantities too. britain and france receive only tiny amounts (in conjunction with their extremely small re-refining programs) of the world's nuclear garbage and china's nuclear re-enrichment program is done under a veil of secrecy.

arguing which generation of nuclear plants will be built is arguing a foolish cunard. if i propose building an auto manufacturing plant in kentucky will i have to SPECIFY IN GREAT DETAIL that this will NOT be a 1915/1920 manual assembly plant with attached forge and a dedicated coachworks for the custom hand construction of custom built wood framed phaetons with lever operated wheel brakes, abalone inlaid teak steering tillers and whale oil fueled lanthorns on the front wheel fenders?

ginjawarrior said:
ahh so you've switch from "the positive view in europe of nuclear poiwer is based on the fact that the waste gets shipped to the US"
to the whole of the world hmm i doubt anyone will notice

fukishima was general electrics desgined/ built plant

new is actually pretty damn strong
[youtube]CJHpUO-S0i8[/youtube]
a big reason im advocating gen 3 reactors is that you can walk away from them without any notice and they will not melt down I.E in a situation like the fukishima event there would have been no melt down (aand hopefully alot cheaper in the long run as so much money isnt needed to stop them blowing themselves up)

atm nigeria's contribution towards CO2 emmisions is low but that has nothing to do with usa sorting its shit out and changing from a carbon economy to a nuclear economy and maybe helping countries like nigeria with their capabilities at some time in the future

confidence might be low but it certainly isnt helpped with shrill voices like yours screaming of the boogy man as soon as nuclear is mentioned

Dr Kynes said:
no, again you are dancing around the issue. the US recieves almost ALL of the world's nuclear waste. the nuclear regulatory commision ensures that. france and britain and a few other developed nations keep their own, for their own uses, but all the rest goes to the US.

ginjawarrior said:
im not dancing around the issue at all i've asked for evidence that (and i quote) "Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials." or "but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."
and you provided noevidence that europeans view it as waste free

Dr Kynes said:
yes. if they wished the british could in fact join the rest of the world and send their nuclear waste to the US. thast the compact we made as a leader of nations to everybody else. have nuclear power, and we will handle the waste for you. britain is a nuclear power,, and thus has a USE for their reactor wastes as nuclear bomb making/maintaining materials. spain has no such nuclear weapons program (and iran should not either since they are signatories to the treaty and have been receiving the benefits for a long time) and thus has no need for their nuclear waste for any legitimate purpose so they get new fuel rods cheap, the NRC collects their waste and ships it to california, or nevada or colorado, and we take care of it for them.

the proper position for me to take if i held the view you are attributing to me would be "fuck youse dutch bastards! youse can keeps your own nukular wastes and make your kuntry glow in the dark! thats what youse gets for bein communists! you froggy assholes can fuck your berets and youre eyeful towers. you can shuv your queen up your buts, with cranberries cuz you fought against us in ww2 you nazis!"

ginjawarrior said:
so now its not "all europe" but your singling down to spain
"
Radioactive Waste Management
ENRESA (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA) was established in 1984 as a state-owned company to take over radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear plants. It is now the only state-owned part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Spain.
It drew up a General Plan for radioactive wastes which was approved by parliament in 1999. Its is based on nuclear power plant lives of 40 years, and addresses the need to manage almost 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate-level wastes and 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel and other high-level wastes.
Since 1983 Spain's policy has been for an open fuel cycle, with no reprocessing. The plan for spent fuel envisages initial storage at each reactor for ten years. Some temporary storage for dry casks was envisaged at Trillo up to 2010 and establishment of a longer-term centralised facility from then. Meanwhile research will progress on deep geological disposal as well as transmutation, with a decision on disposal to be made after 2010. Granite, clay and salt formations are under consideration.
In mid 2006 Parliament approved ENRESA's plans to develop a temporary central nuclear waste storage facility by 2010, and the CSN approved its design, which was similar to the Habog facility near the Borssele power plant in the Netherlands. In December 2009 the government called for municipalities to volunteer to host this EUR 700 million Almacen Temporal Centralizado (ATC) facility for high-level wastes and used fuel. The government offered to pay up to EUR 7.8 million annually once the facility is operational. It is designed to hold for 100 years 6700 tonnes of used fuel and 2600 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of intermediate-level wastes, plus 12 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste from reprocessing the Vandellos-1 fuel. The facility is to be built in three stages, each taking five years. Asco and Villar de Canas were two towns among eight that volunteered, attracted by the prospect of EUR 700 million over 20 years and the annual direst payments, plus many jobs. A campaign of fearmongering has been mounted by nuclear detractors to dissuade residents of the eight towns, and some regional governments are also opposed.
In September 2011 the Ministry for Industry announced its selection and rankings:
- Zarra (Valencia) 736 points
- Asco (Tarragona) 732 points
- Yebra (Guadalajara) 714 points
- Villar de Canas (Cuenca) 692 points.

In December 2011 the Ministry announced that Villar de Canas had been selected, though only a 60-year storage period was mentioned. Pending construction, low- and intermediate-level wastes continues to be sent to ENRESA's storage facility at El Cabril, Cordoba, which has operated since 1961. Used fuel remains at individual power plants.
Waste management and decommissioning is funded by a levy of about 1% on all electricity consumed."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf85.html

and still not a shred of evidence for anything that your spewing

Dr Kynes said:
and even a casual perusal of the site you offered shows that SOME countries do keep their waste (spain for example has research facilities and other organizations that use it as a research resource) othe rnatrions save it against the future proposal to use it in as yet undeveloped reactor systems, and the other small or developing nations... no mention. because it gets sent to the US.

if the current waste issue is not an issue in france, germany canada and britain etc etc etc, WHY IS IT AN ISSUE IN THE US?

the us, as we have heard so often lately, doesnt use nearly as much nuclear power as the rest of the civilized world... yet we have the biggest stockpile of nuclear garbage, why is this? because we accept it from everybody who doesnt want it!

this fact is NOT PUBLICIZED because it would be a political issue, and nobody wants that. so its kept quiet. not even mentioned, everybody pretends the US's huge nuclear waste stockpile is because we are evil wasteful assholes who like to surround ourselves with nuclear waste and thus probably manufacture the stuff specifically, just to get more.

ginjawarrior said:
its a (bigger) issue in usa because of conspiracy theory shrill people like yourself who prefer to rant about the evils without solid facts behind them

and its not published anywhere yet you personally know that "but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it."

seriously can you for once put up or shut the fuck up and back away from this as im pretty sure i shown you wrong pretty much every time

Dr Kynes said:
mmm hmm... so the international atomic energy agency makes all the nuclear waste from compliant nations disappear into ban ki moon's magic hat?

of do they simply trust that oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan will leave it in their in-country storage facilities and that everything will go to plan...

i think thats called moving the goalposts or in other terms you were full of shit at the start and your not man enough to step up and admit to it
have a good day

guy incognito · Oct 12, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
dude im not a science denier.

i actually do want to know, and the math is just not convincing.

i heard michio kaku on coast to coast am too many times on the late night shift. he personally doesnt have much credibility with me. niel degrasse tyson is amiable and charming enough, but he doesnt enthrall me. i would rather read than watch videos. and the reading i been doing keeps circling several assumptions, like 0 x a big enough number = not zero, so photons can have zero mass but still deliver a force on impact, or gravity is a wave, but it doesnt make interference patterns cuz it's a different kind of wave. or neutrinos are particles despite their masslessness and their seeming disrespect for ordinary matter, yet they move faster than the speed of light, and slower than the speed of light and the truth will be determined with a steel cage match in the middle of the large hadron collider. two nerds enter, one nerd leaves.

fuck, im not even sure who is leading in the neutrino speed of light sweepstakes right now.

all im sure of is that photons seem to act like they got mass, but other theories say they dont, and the experimental physics nerds say its definitely less than x but the theoretical physics nerds insist its dead on zero.

if i was a science denier i would offer a different solution, i aint got one, all i got is newtons theories that worked pretty good for a while now, and some new stuff that also works pretty good, but they dont seem to work together. and that is a burr under my saddle.

i keep getting the same answers, read more of the same stuff you already read, do more of the math you already slogged through, and youll see. i still dont see.

and its not like im asserting that photons definitely have mass, and thats why a burnt out lightbulb weighs less than a new one, cuz the photons have all escaped. im asserting that photons have mass because when they hit something, the deliver a force.

i had no idea that was so controversial.

Yes you are.

Yes it is. You just don't understand it.

What theories, besides your own, suggest a massive photon? How do you still not understand why experiments only put an upper limit on the mass? You can't stop a photon and bring it to rest. Even if you could, and you put it on a scale that goes out 100 places past the decimal, then how can you know for sure the mass is not 1x10^101? You can't. You are limit in your precision.

Again, you don't understand the math behind it. They deliver force because they have momentum. I have already posted the equations along with an explanation of exactly why they have no mass yet still deliver force. Every single equation you are thinking of is newtonian and has been proven to not be accurate.

It's not controversial, it has been widely accepted for a hundred years.

Dr Kynes · Oct 12, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
LOL last i checked "oman, taiwan sri lanka and jordan" they werent in europe....

shall we recap?
i think thats called moving the goalposts or in other terms you were full of shit at the start and your not man enough to step up and admit to it
have a good day

nice recap. you claim the goalposts moved, but thats just your interpretation, britain, as a nuclear armed power has under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty certain responsibilites to assist other nations who are NOT nuclear armed powers in the use, development and handling of nuclear power AND it's resultant waste.

britain uses reprocessing to turn spent fuel into new fuel, with the excess concentrated garbage moved to storage. if however they were to disarm all their nukes, abandong all nuclear wepaons research and forswear any future nuclear amrmaments they could easily become a non-nuclear power and send their waste to the us just as taiwan jordan and most of the rest of the world does. France too.

germany is NOT a nuclear armed power and thus they may if they soi desire turn their waste troubles into the iaea's troubles and those troubles are the US's troubles by default. the onloy goalpost being moved were mioved by YOU. "almost all of the worlds' nuclear waste" becomes "just europe" or "Just england" or "just a small second floor efficiency flat in notting hill" if it suits your purposes.

the facts remain unchanged. the NRC, the IAEA and the US department of energy wind up dealing with the nuclear waste from nearly every nation on earth a very small select group of FIRST WORLD NATIONS keep their nuclear waste for experimentation, reprocessing or as a savings against new technologies they see on the horizon, like plutonium waste fueled reactors that dump out plain lead or bismuth as their "waste" instead of flesh melting deathrods which are so popular in anti-nuclear hysteria.

but then you cant imagine a world where fresh nuclear fuel, and spent waste could be moved without YOU hearing about it, so obviously the stuff never crosses a border, never gets transported by road rail or sea, and therefore simply cannot exist.

PS, we actually use the shit when we can. cuz we get so fucking much.

remember the cassini space probe: plutonium deathwaste powered atomic energy cells.
depleted uranium bullets?
the powercells of the mars rovers?
smoke detectors?
yeah we are always looking for new ways to handle that crap. but it still costs us a packet. and any OTHER nation always has the option of just saying fuckit, and sending their shit to the IAEA and NRC, except america of course. if we opt out of the nuclear power game, ya'll would be fucked. fucked hard. and thats why we havent built a nuclear power plant since 1973. we get too much nuclear waste already, and we cant afford to take any more, not even from our own power plants. we are too busy taking it from everybody else, except of course those who preferr to keep it. or unles they have more than they want, and then... the excess will come to us.

its' just the way it is.

meanwhile i didnt want to have to publish a goddamn doctoral thesis on this little discussed fact of nuclear power policy. but since you insist that every detail be laid out in in specific, and then youll most likely begin grading my spelling and grammar, before moving on to examine my shoddy bibliography and lack of graphics. ill just bid you a good day too.

ginjawarrior · Oct 13, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
nice recap. you claim the goalposts moved, but thats just your interpretation, britain, as a nuclear armed power has under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty certain responsibilites to assist other nations who are NOT nuclear armed powers in the use, development and handling of nuclear power AND it's resultant waste.

"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials. "
"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry."
"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it. "

britain uses reprocessing to turn spent fuel into new fuel, with the excess concentrated garbage moved to storage. if however they were to disarm all their nukes, abandong all nuclear wepaons research and forswear any future nuclear amrmaments they could easily become a non-nuclear power and send their waste to the us just as taiwan jordan and most of the rest of the world does. France too.

so what your saying we're not sucking on usa tit?
jordan
"AMMAN – Officials marked another milestone in Jordan’s peaceful nuclear programme on Thursday by unveiling the Kingdom’s first storage facility for radioactive waste."
http://mideastenvironment.apps01.yorku.ca/?p=451
taiwan
"
Lanyu gantry national radioactive waste storage site, on May 19, 1982, to receive the first batch of 10,008 barrels of nuclear waste. To October 1987, the number of nuclear waste has reached 4700 barrels and continue to 6 per voyage container 228 a barrel, about once a week to a cruise speed of input Orchid Island, solidified waste digestion and annual output of 45,000 barrels per nuclear power plant in Taiwan!
"
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftw.myblog.yahoo.com%2Fvongayan%2Farticle%3Fmid%3D53%26prev%3D54%26next%3D52%26sc%3D1&act=url

germany is NOT a nuclear armed power and thus they may if they soi desire turn their waste troubles into the iaea's troubles and those troubles are the US's troubles by default. the onloy goalpost being moved were mioved by YOU. "almost all of the worlds' nuclear waste" becomes "just europe" or "Just england" or "just a small second floor efficiency flat in notting hill" if it suits your purposes.

"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry."

"(Reuters) - A French train carrying 150 tonnes of reprocessed nuclear waste entered Germany on Friday en route to a storage site after a 24-hour stop at the border following clashes between riot police and anti-nuclear activists who tried to block the transport."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/uk-france-germany-nuclear-idUKTRE7AO0ZA20111125
we never have to think about waste...

the facts remain unchanged. the NRC, the IAEA and the US department of energy wind up dealing with the nuclear waste from nearly every nation on earth a very small select group of FIRST WORLD NATIONS keep their nuclear waste for experimentation, reprocessing or as a savings against new technologies they see on the horizon, like plutonium waste fueled reactors that dump out plain lead or bismuth as their "waste" instead of flesh melting deathrods which are so popular in anti-nuclear hysteria.

"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials."

but then you cant imagine a world where fresh nuclear fuel, and spent waste could be moved without YOU hearing about it, so obviously the stuff never crosses a border, never gets transported by road rail or sea, and therefore simply cannot exist.

no i cannot imagine anything that comes out of your mouth to be true without some sort of evidence you type alot of words to try to hide your ignorance

PS, we actually use the shit when we can. cuz we get so fucking much.

remember the cassini space probe: plutonium deathwaste powered atomic energy cells.
depleted uranium bullets?
the powercells of the mars rovers?
smoke detectors?
yeah we are always looking for new ways to handle that crap. but it still costs us a packet. and any OTHER nation always has the option of just saying fuckit, and sending their shit to the IAEA and NRC, except america of course. if we opt out of the nuclear power game, ya'll would be fucked. fucked hard. and thats why we havent built a nuclear power plant since 1973. we get too much nuclear waste already, and we cant afford to take any more, not even from our own power plants. we are too busy taking it from everybody else, except of course those who preferr to keep it. or unles they have more than they want, and then... the excess will come to us.

its' just the way it is.

so its gone from the whole world sends waste to usa to well they look after it on their own but if they choose then maybe they could send it here?

meanwhile i didnt want to have to publish a goddamn doctoral thesis on this little discussed fact of nuclear power policy. but since you insist that every detail be laid out in in specific, and then youll most likely begin grading my spelling and grammar, before moving on to examine my shoddy bibliography and lack of graphics. ill just bid you a good day too.

yeah you wouldnt need so many words to hide your ignorance if you learnt what you were talking about before you started typing

Dr Kynes · Oct 13, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials. "
"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry."
"but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it. "

so what your saying we're not sucking on usa tit?
jordan
"AMMAN Officials marked another milestone in Jordans peaceful nuclear programme on Thursday by unveiling the Kingdoms first storage facility for radioactive waste."
http://mideastenvironment.apps01.yorku.ca/?p=451
taiwan
"
Lanyu gantry national radioactive waste storage site, on May 19, 1982, to receive the first batch of 10,008 barrels of nuclear waste. To October 1987, the number of nuclear waste has reached 4700 barrels and continue to 6 per voyage container 228 a barrel, about once a week to a cruise speed of input Orchid Island, solidified waste digestion and annual output of 45,000 barrels per nuclear power plant in Taiwan!
"
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftw.myblog.yahoo.com%2Fvongayan%2Farticle%3Fmid%3D53%26prev%3D54%26next%3D52%26sc%3D1&act=url

"maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry."

"(Reuters) - A French train carrying 150 tonnes of reprocessed nuclear waste entered Germany on Friday en route to a storage site after a 24-hour stop at the border following clashes between riot police and anti-nuclear activists who tried to block the transport."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/uk-france-germany-nuclear-idUKTRE7AO0ZA20111125
we never have to think about waste...

"Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials."

no i cannot imagine anything that comes out of your mouth to be true without some sort of evidence you type alot of words to try to hide your ignorance

so its gone from the whole world sends waste to usa to well they look after it on their own but if they choose then maybe they could send it here?

yeah you wouldnt need so many words to hide your ignorance if you learnt what you were talking about before you started typing

again, storage for their own use at a later date, storage for short term cooling before disposal etc are NOT long term disposaal entombment, or vitrification, and low level waste (which includes rags used to wipe down anything more radioactive than a colour tv's screen if it's in a nuclear facility) is NOT the hot rods and highly radioactive by-products of powerplants. low level radioactive waste is NOT what i was talking about and you well know this. forther, yes, britain MAY if they so desire, abrogate their eresponsibility, the CAN if they wish stop keeping spent nuclear rods and whatnot, and the COULD if they wished let the IAEA handle their fissionable wastes for them.

and thats the key FISSIONABLE MATERIALS not empty soup cans from the reactor facility's cafeteria (which yes are sometimes classified as low level waste) or contaminated silt from uraium mining operations, or that tiny nugget of slightly radioactive shit in your smoke detector.

fissionable materials are what i was talkng about, what i was referring to, and exactly the issue, not the low level mildly radioactive, barely higher than background radiation bullshit you keep dragging up.

fissionable materials are handled by VERY few nations, despite MANY nations having nuclear reactors that use fissionable materials. one small load of fissionable materials being sent to britain resulted in riots when word leaked out, one large shipment through the east bay of fissionable materials from several asian countries(again not low level waste incidentally used at a nuclear facility, but actual nuclear waste) resulted in months of protests and berkeley declaring itself a "nuclear free zone". thats why the NRC the IAEA and the various national nuclear agencies around the world dont put out press releases on every shipment of new nuclear fuels, or spent ones when they transfer them.

australia, a nation with no nuclear arms, DOES mine and manufacture nuclear fuel rods, and other fissionable materials, and they are careful to ensure that they ONLY send the shit out to nations who will NOT be making weapons, and with the IAEA's help they try to ensure that the spent material (not the fucking rags, paper towels and paint chips) are sent BACK to australia when they are used up (so that it does not get diverted into nuclear weapons programs or the hands of terrorists) or some other responsible agency (which almost invariably winds up being the US). the website you referenced makes a LOT of discussion of short term storage, the issues of transportation and discussion of fissionable materials being sent from one nation to another, but they neglect to mention where the stuff goes when it is finished, and past it's useful life, save for those specific instances that are already public record (such as britain's reprocessing deal with japan or the US lend/lease fuel program) they keep the rest of the facts on the low-low with good reason. the closest they get is discussing the HUGE numbers of fissionable materials brought into and out of the US every year, but the details are conspicuously absent.

where the used fuel rods we get so much of here in the us come from is the dirty little secret of the IAEA the NRC and the DOE. where they wind up is even more secret. most people in the sacramento valley have no idea that rancho stinko's colling and holdign pools and cask storage is full. theyassume since rancho stinko only ran for a few years at very low capacity, that theres nothing in there but dust, cobwebs and a few mice. nothing is further from the truth. that facility is maxed out. and since we dont have many nuclear plants in the US, much of the stuff in rancho seco is probably from foreign lands, but the details are classified.

to prevent public outcry.

The US alos has a large fleet of nuclear powered vessels in our navy. much of the fuel and the resulting waste is handled internally, but they are also known to act as a shipping service for spent fuel rods from several nation, and to have brough the spent fissionable materials into the US from foreign lands through their bases in Port Chicago, Newport, oakland long beach and new jersey.

MoonRaver · Oct 13, 2012

Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...a-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/

Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member