Ah, the usual quasi-environmentalist fearmongering. Gotta love it.

Didn't subby have a lobotomy?

I read that in Montgomery Burns' voice (as I believe subby intended), which made it EXCELLENT.

velvetshark: I read that in Montgomery Burns' voice (as I believe subby intended), which made it EXCELLENT.

No, you're supposed to read it in J. Frank Parnell's voice.

/Watch the full movie.
//It encapsulates the nihilism of the time - we all expected to get nuked any day.

Does subby not understand the difference between radiation and nuclear proliferation?

It's funny that only one commenter has yet read TFA.

bandy: velvetshark: I read that in Montgomery Burns' voice (as I believe subby intended), which made it EXCELLENT.

No, you're supposed to read it in J. Frank Parnell's voice.

/Watch the full movie.
//It encapsulates the nihilism of the time - we all expected to get nuked any day.

I read it in Brother Jed's voice.



Ra-di-a-tion!!!

For-ni-ca-tion!!!!

/hot, like the fires of perdition

bandy: velvetshark: I read that in Montgomery Burns' voice (as I believe subby intended), which made it EXCELLENT.

No, you're supposed to read it in J. Frank Parnell's voice.

/Watch the full movie.
//It encapsulates the nihilism of the time - we all expected to get nuked any day.

Really I read it in JK Simmons voice ala Cave Johnson.

So are you saying it's safe to break out my Fiesta Red again?

RA-DI-A-TION!!


//woo-oo

grokca: LesserEvil: Obligatory XKCD Radiation chart (new window)

I noticed this in the chart
Eating one Banana (0.1mircoSv)

Why would god make his most perfect food radioactive, is it just farking with us?

Bananas are not macaroni and cheese.

grokca: LesserEvil: Obligatory XKCD Radiation chart (new window)

I noticed this in the chart
Eating one Banana (0.1mircoSv)

Why would god make his most perfect food radioactive, is it just farking with us?

So are you telling me if I eat 8 million banannas in a very short period of time, I would die?

It's a fark trifecta! The article is bizarre, the headline is bizarre and the comments are bizarre.

Article:
FTFA: The researchers, from Princeton University, found that if nuclear fusion power plants are designed to accommodate appropriate safeguards, there is little risk of fissile materials being produced for weapons, either secretly or overtly.

Talk about going about it the hard way! Why would you even need to do this study?

FTFA: Firstly, their findings showed that it is highly implausible that a small-scale nuclear fusion system could be built, and then operated, in a clandestine fashion to produce material for even one weapon in two years

What does the scale have to do with it? It's easy to build a small fusion reactor. A High school kid built one in his basement (new window) Clandestine would be a problem.

headline:
WTF does it have to do with the article?

Comments:
Well let me just say, WTF are the rest of you talking about?

I am unclear on how the article's authors get fissile material from a (non-existent) fusion reactor. And, yes, I have both the education and work experience in the field. I suppose conversion of U238 by slow neutron capture, but none of the likely fusion processes produce slow neutrons. The best process, proton-boron, only produces helium.

rwfan: What does the scale have to do with it? It's easy to build a small fusion reactor. A High school kid built one in his basement (new window) Clandestine would be a problem.

FISSION

/me headdesk

natazha: I am unclear on how the article's authors get fissile material from a (non-existent) fusion reactor. And, yes, I have both the education and work experience in the field. I suppose conversion of U238 by slow neutron capture, but none of the likely fusion processes produce slow neutrons. The best process, proton-boron, only produces helium.

Why do you say non existent? Fusion reactors have existed for decades. You don't need a reactor that breaks even to produce fusion. I am not sure how the authors would go about producing fissile material from one but surely not through neutron production. BTW, wouldn't you want fast neutrons to breed u238 into Pu?

bandy: FISSION

/me headdesk

Wat?

Have I had a stroke? no one makes sense anymore.

rwfan: bandy: FISSION

/me headdesk

Wat?

Have I had a stroke? no one makes sense anymore.

Sorry, man, didn't RTFA, thought you were referencing Radioactive Boy Scout^.

bandy:
Sorry, man, didn't RTFA, thought you were referencing Radioactive Boy Scout^.

Ahhh. OK then, I'll cancel the doctors appointment.

Someone call the DOE! (new window)

rwfan: bandy:
Sorry, man, didn't RTFA, thought you were referencing Radioactive Boy Scout^.

Ahhh. OK then, I'll cancel the doctors appointment.

Time for another cup of Turkish coffee!

Came here expecting a Repo Man thread.

/leaving deeply saddened

Saiga410: bandy: velvetshark: I read that in Montgomery Burns' voice (as I believe subby intended), which made it EXCELLENT.

No, you're supposed to read it in J. Frank Parnell's voice.

/Watch the full movie.
//It encapsulates the nihilism of the time - we all expected to get nuked any day.

Really I read it in JK Simmons voice ala Cave Johnson.

^This. Couldn't help myself.

/turns out the stuff is pure poison

grokca: offmymeds: Someone call the DOE! (new window)

A deer

A female deer?

Tyrone Slothrop: Didn't subby have a lobotomy?



Friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. You ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people - leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It's so small, no one knows it's there until - BLAMMO. Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead. So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.

That doesn't mean he was a homo, Miller. Lotta straight guys like to watch their buddies fark. I know I do.

andrewagill: So are you saying it's safe to break out my Fiesta Red again?

I've got one of those. Unfortunately it's from the era when they were using depleted uranium, so, while it's pretty hot, the gamma spectrum is boring. I also have an old clock dial (textbook radium spectrum) and an old lantern mantle (textbook 232-Th spectrum). Both are pretty damned hot too...
I never saw anything interesting (or even above background) in the Brazil nuts that I bought at the supermarket. Did get a textbook 40-K spectrum from a banana though...

cheers

Arkanaut: Does subby not understand the difference between radiation and nuclear proliferation?

yeah - from the headline, I was positive the TFA was about Hormesis.

grokca: Why would god make his most perfect food radioactive, is it just farking with us?

natural potassium has a small admixture of 40-K... There's even a just-for-fun unit (new window)

cheers

Best damn car in the lot......

bandy: rwfan: What does the scale have to do with it? It's easy to build a small fusion reactor. A High school kid built one in his basement (new window) Clandestine would be a problem.

FISSION

/me headdesk

Thanks for the self-correction. And Clandestine is almost never a problem. Gotta keep an eye open for Verg, though.

bandy: rwfan: What does the scale have to do with it? It's easy to build a small fusion reactor. A High school kid built one in his basement (new window) Clandestine would be a problem.

FISSION

/me headdesk

Don't bother. I was lectured once about how evil radiation was, then on to nuclear energy. When I asked about Fusion I had similar things said to me. Big ass ball of fusing Hydrogen & Helium, radiates out terrawatts of energy... pretty much in the middle of our solar system as well. *shrug*

There's one in every car. You'll see.

It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.

First of all, ANYTHING other than fission systems using weapons-usable isotopes would present a lesser proliferation risk. Coal, gas, wind, wood, garbage, you name it.

Second, you can STILL have fission nuclear power, WITHOUT the weapons proliferation risk. We could have developed thorium-cycle reactors half a century ago, but our development of our civilian nuclear power programme just happened to coincide with the Cold War, so we stuck with uranium-plutonium because we already knew how to handle that. As an added bonus, a thorium-cycle process would be *much* safer.

Third, given that even the most technologically advanced nations in the world have yet to demonstrate practical and productive fusion power generation, what are the odds that it will displace fission power production in the rest of the world -- you know, the places we're actually concerned about?

Until last year, I still supported nuclear power, as I figured that smart people could handle it. But the truth is, the only people I trusted more than the Japanese to be that smart with it are the Germans, and they already ditched it. If they won't touch it, and the Japanese can't handle it, then no one can be trusted to do it safely. (Unless you honestly believe that the U.S. has better safety management than the Japanese -- when we can't even out-weird them on vending machines.) Until and unless we adopt a thorium-cycle process, I can't support fission production anymore. And until and unless someone demonstrates *practical* fusion power production, we might as well be talking about power from unicorn tears, for all the good it will do anyone.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:
Until last year, I still supported nuclear power, as I figured that smart people could handle it. But the truth is, the only people I trusted more than the Japanese to be that smart with it are the Germans, and they already ditched it. If they won't touch it, and the Japanese can't handle it, then no one can be trusted to do it safely. (Unless you honestly believe that the U.S. has better safety management than the Japanese -- when we can't even out-weird them on vending machines.) Until and unless we adopt a thorium-cycle process, I can't support fission production anymore.

People said the exact same thing (and I do mean exact) about high pressure steam. Too dangerous, can't be trusted, etc. Of course that was when steam power was in its infancy, perhaps only 50 - 70 years old. About the same age as nuclear fission technology really.

Which is the thing people should keep in mind, often the problems with nuclear are a combination of "immature technology" and "someone did something dumb with it"; running a reactor designed to last 25 years on to it's 40th birthday or not phasing out older designs for much safer and efficient newer ones type of things.

But the same thing happened with steam. Once we figure out fusion we'll see the same cycle repeat again... and then for anti-matter most likely.

Vaneshi: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:
Until last year, I still supported nuclear power, as I figured that smart people could handle it. But the truth is, the only people I trusted more than the Japanese to be that smart with it are the Germans, and they already ditched it. If they won't touch it, and the Japanese can't handle it, then no one can be trusted to do it safely. (Unless you honestly believe that the U.S. has better safety management than the Japanese -- when we can't even out-weird them on vending machines.) Until and unless we adopt a thorium-cycle process, I can't support fission production anymore.

People said the exact same thing (and I do mean exact) about high pressure steam. Too dangerous, can't be trusted, etc. Of course that was when steam power was in its infancy, perhaps only 50 - 70 years old. About the same age as nuclear fission technology really.

Which is the thing people should keep in mind, often the problems with nuclear are a combination of "immature technology" and "someone did something dumb with it"; running a reactor designed to last 25 years on to it's 40th birthday or not phasing out older designs for much safer and efficient newer ones type of things.

But the same thing happened with steam. Once we figure out fusion we'll see the same cycle repeat again... and then for anti-matter most likely.

Nuclear power is not analogous to steam. Nuclear power is legitimately dangerous, in very serious ways that steam is not. The problems extending from the Fukushima accident are unique to uranium-based fission. Probably the only other power production method that could lead to the wholesale emergency evacuation of an entire corner of a country is something like Three Gorges Dam. Just a couple of years ago, an *entire* CNG plant exploded in Connecticut, and no one had to be evacuated from the area.

I've been a booster for nuclear power most of my life. I've written several reports on it. It's only since Fukushima that I've realised that we're apparently just not up to the challenge of *always* being safe with it. And like skydiving, this isn't one of those things we need to get right *most* of the time. As I said, the most damning detail is that the nation that screwed up is Japan, one of the most technologically sophisticated and professionally advanced societies in the world. I consider their systems management superior to ours, and if this could happen there, then it can happen anywhere.

For as long as we've been working with fission, we've known that there's a variety of isotopes that will work. We happened to choose some of the more dangerous ones, because it was consistent with a wartime priority that does depend on those particular isotopes. It's been decades, the Cold War is over, and we should have gotten off uranium by now and onto thorium. There are no good excuses anymore, and by now all the evidence needed to direct us to do what we should have been doing years ago.

As for fusion, there's no guarantee we'll ever "figure it out". We have a good idea of what *should* happen and how, I personally believe that we eventually will. On the other hand, it seemed only about ten years away.. 30 years ago. It doesn't seem much closer now. After awhile, a prudent person doesn't put their bets on such an uncertain future. Even if and when we do figure it out, we're unlikely to have power production online for at least several years after that. We can't be forming our public policy about such distant unknowns. And while we already know how to do thorium production, we should be pursing that.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:
Nuclear power is not analogous to steam. Nuclear power is legitimately dangerous,

And the fact you do not see how it is analogous to steam power's infancy pretty means means those 'papers' you claim to have written are utter bollocks.

Plenty of people died when experimental boilers exploded. Funny thing as both our understand of it and materials sciences developed it became a non-issue.

Like nuclear really. But you wouldn't know that because... you're an idiot and you just proved it.

Vaneshi: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:
Nuclear power is not analogous to steam. Nuclear power is legitimately dangerous,

And the fact you do not see how it is analogous to steam power's infancy pretty means means those 'papers' you claim to have written are utter bollocks.

Plenty of people died when experimental boilers exploded. Funny thing as both our understand of it and materials sciences developed it became a non-issue.

Like nuclear really. But you wouldn't know that because... you're an idiot and you just proved it.

Vaneshi: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:
Nuclear power is not analogous to steam. Nuclear power is legitimately dangerous,

And the fact you do not see how it is analogous to steam power's infancy pretty means means those 'papers' you claim to have written are utter bollocks.

Plenty of people died when experimental boilers exploded. Funny thing as both our understand of it and materials sciences developed it became a non-issue.

Like nuclear really. But you wouldn't know that because... you're an idiot and you just proved it.

Boilers that exploded did not continue to pose a threat *after* they were done exploding. Both methods are thermodynamic power generation systems, but the difference between the heat sources and their ramifications is fundamental, not comparable. You don't need me to explain this, and I can't for the life of me understand why you insist on this ridiculous thesis.

I've not only written papers on nuclear power plants, I've personally toured them -- including a very brief but treasured and memorable visit inside the inner containment skirt of a PWR under construction in the '80s (something that I imagine would be all but impossible in today's paranoid world).

I've been a lifelong supporter of nuclear power, and I still am. What I've changed my mind about is the practical safety of the uranium fuel cycle. It's always been problematic, but until last year I considered rampant fears about it to be overhyped, on my now-discredited theory that smart people can be trusted to handle it safely. I know that TMI is greatly overplayed, why 'The China Syndrome' (both the fictional work and the asinine notion it's based on) are bullshiat, why Gardner's 'License Renewed' (a Bond novel about averting global nuclear catastrophe from scuttled plants) is garbage, and why Chernobyl doesn't represent what people think it does. (Though it actually represents something equally or more unsettling -- the capacity of even some top humans be almost deliberately stupid.)

Uranium isn't safe, that's all there is to this. I don't mean objectively, on its own terms. In theory, *anything* can be safe, if handled properly. What Fukushima proved is that even the world's top engineers can't be trusted to do that, as reliably as they need to in order for uranium to be considered a safe long-term fuel source for nuclear power. Alternatives exist that we already know about, and we should have been working on that all along, not just noodling around with them in research laboratories. Thorium is a proven better alternative. There's no longer any good excuse not to be switching to that.

But this all started with me rolling my eyes at the the thrust of TFA, which argues that fusion power won't lead to proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear materials -- a thesis that's not only self-evident in the fact that fusion power doesn't make use of primary military fissiles, but in that fact that for all practical purposes in this time, 'fusion power' does not yet exist. To suggest that switching to an unproven power source instead of to an available and proven alternative with the same stated advantages, that's available right now, is moongazing, not prudent argument.

I don't understand why you seem to think it's silly to argue that uranium might be unsafe, never mind that it's in any way comparable to steam -- especially given that 'steam' is a general term, applicable to the dynamo stage and not the heat stage: nuclear power IS 'steam power,' not something different. A BWR produces steam directly in the reactor; a PWR produces it through a second-stage heat exchanger; an LMFBR through several second-stage (metal) and third-stage (water) exchangers -- all with the end goal of producing steam. To argue a comparison, you'd have to explain what's objectively different about them first, and you haven't done that. That oversight renders your entire case meaningless.