Just wondering..

[David VanHorn-2]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM, James Newton <jamesnewton@...> wrote:
> The soviets have used Navy nuke ships to provide civilian power. When our
> carriers are in port, why not use them to supply the grid?

Kauai (in hawaii) got knocked offline in a hurricane, what I heard was
that their sole turbine went down, and the diesel they used to start
it wouldn't go, so they had to call in a navy nuke sub to "jump start"
the island.

That's really hilarious in that Kauai was pretty much the center of
hawaii's anti-nuke community.

:)
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

James   Until you learn to factor in the glowing green frogs and the  
vampires, you just won't get it.  Nuclear Power is different than any  
other kind of science.  When dealing with NP, you must learn to throw  
out the scientific method and substitute "worst case is the truth"  
reasoning. No amount of safety procedures will work, people who are  
handed the responsibility to operate NP facilities rapidly go insane  
and pull levers at random, while singing a green frog song.  On top  
of all of that , NP has killed more people in that last 50 years than  
have died from all other causes during the entire history of  
mankind.  If you are alive right now to read this sentence, your  
chances of dying from out of control radiation clouds spewing from  
Yucca Mountain is  123%.  Trust me on this.
cc

>
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:33 PM, James Newton wrote:
>
> My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains  
> and caves
> and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste  
> (well, not
> waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even  
> apparently
> aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a  
> mountain
> that we DO know about?
>
> There are places where yellow cake sits around in national parks  
> and kids
> use it to draw on rocks. Xrays, high airplane flights, and bad  
> water cause
> more radiation damage than any nuke waste ever has. And coal power  
> causes
> more damage of all sorts (radiation, pollution, etc...) than anything
> nuclear does ever.
>
> So why do we get so upset about nuke plants and nuke waste? The  
> numbers
> don't account for the emotions.
>
> --
> James.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On  
> Behalf Of
> Carey Fisher
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 05:49
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..
>
> James Newton wrote:
>> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring
> veins
>> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural  
>> upheaval and
>> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.
>>
>> Shit happens.
> The "Law of Unintended Consequences" is the problem here.  I think  
> it's
> likely that something we
> currently don't know will bite us in the butt.  And do we want a
> mountain full of nuclear
> waste to be the biter?
> Carey
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:48 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:33 PM, James Newton  
> <jamesnewton@...> wrote:
>> My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains  
>> and caves
>> and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste  
>> (well, not
>> waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even  
>> apparently
>> aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a  
>> mountain
>> that we DO know about?
>
> And all that waste that we already DO have, is sitting in FAR less
> secure areas now.
>
>
> Everything has it's costs, and it does seem that embedded interests
> are hyping the dangers of the new stuff so that they won't loose their
> market.   There were at one time laws that required a motor vehicle to
> be preceeded by a flagman, etc..

And how many traffic deaths were there when a flagman insured your  
safety ?  Close to zero I imagine.  And now , about 50k people die  
per year.  Oh, I regret that we ever foolishly eliminated flagmen and  
flagfems.
cc

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:21 PM, sergio masci wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, wouter van ooijen wrote:
>
>>> We wouldn't. The point is that the above example shows that
>>> for the given conditions that natural reactor was exposed to
>>> the granite, sandstone and clays do a good job at keeping the
>>> plutonium and other wastes in place. You can then use that
>>> knowledge, and other geological knowledge, to make sure that
>>> a proposed dump will be exposed to similar conditions.
>>
>> I disagree. You are confusing correlation with cause-and-effect.  
>> Without
>> much much more proof (much more than 1 non-random sample) I do not  
>> trust
>> anyone to correctly identify the factors that made this site  
>> stable. Not
>> for anything as important as dumping spent fuel.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: it will always come down to
> trust. You can chase these arguments round and round but ultimately it
> always boils down to the same thing.
>
> Regards
> Sergio

So, Sergio , expand on this trust thing ...... Who do you trust ?  Do  
you vote ?  Do you drive ?  Do you trust yourself ?  I myself trust  
everyone as far as I can throw them.  And I want electricity and  
electronic toys and vacations and restaurants and medical care and I  
want to drive on the highway.  Do I trust utilities  and Apple and  
Greeks and AppleBees and my doctor and other drivers ?  Not really, I  
just have to fake it since I want all those things.  So what has  
trust have to do with it ?
cc
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Jinx-4]

> > Now the staff are presented with a dead rat

> :) Kitty pays his rent!

Too right she does. Not much fun for the vermin though. I
had a cat once that kept me up one night. Thought she was
just being playful, jumping around on furniture etc. When I
got up I found pieces of her play-mate all over the place.
Discovered a little foot down the back of the couch a week
later

That's nature for you. Even if Kitty is just the darlingest little
fluff-ball, just wish they didn't toy with them like that

My pond fish disgust me too. God help the slug or snail that
falls in. Ugh

I have my laughs with them though. Throw in a couple of
foot-long pieces of cooked spahetti. Hilarious

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> The LOUC is the same as the bogeyman behind the tree, the
>> glowing
>> green frogs, etc.  LOUC is proportional to the Hubris
>> Factor.

This can be true, and too often is.
But using it as an excuse to ignore LOUC in all cases, or in
cases where it suits one desires to do so, helps guarantee
UC. Murphy loves this approach.

LOUC needs to be part, alas, of any study of a project of
any magnitude. A good question (or two) is/are  "What is the
worst possible outcome, and am I prepared to accept the
possibility of that outcome occurring". The first question
is often not able to be answered with accuracy but a skim
over the release-candidate answers usually gives you a good
clue to the second answer.

eg    As much for the stupidity that even engineers can
manage as for the sermon:        The Clutha hydro dam is
NZ's largest. To stand by the hydraulic jump at the bottom
of its spillway when the lake is full is to look into the
face of death at a few metres remove. Similar to standing in
the hillside caverns at Lauterbrunnen where the Eiger melt
water travels its subterranean path. An awe and fear
inspiring experience in both cases. But not my point :-).
The dam was built on top of an active faultline. Once the
implications of this were reanalysed during the decade or so
of construction they spent a vast amount of money not only
strengthening the design but in modifying the hill tops
around where the new lake would be to reduce potential size
of the quake induced avalanches will occur in a major
earthquake, so that any local 'tsunami' would be less likely
to overtop the dam catastrophically. Competent people have
reanalysed the result and claim that there is a reasonable
prospect that the dam will fail given too probable to be
nice circumstances.

If you offered me a cheap enough price on an Apricot orchard
a mile downstream from the dam I'd happily consider retiring
there without and great reference to the dam factor in my
reckonings.

This does not prove my strong like of surfing but rather
demonstrates that people who aregue for the predictability
of nuclear waste storage can be about as one eyed in their
decision making as I, and as the many current Clutha apricot
farmers.



        Russell



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner-3]

> Until you learn to factor in the glowing green frogs and the
> vampires, you just won't get it.  Nuclear Power is different than any
> other kind of science.  When dealing with NP, you must learn to throw
> out the scientific method and substitute "worst case is the truth"
> reasoning. No amount of safety procedures will work, people who are
> handed the responsibility to operate NP facilities rapidly go insane
> and pull levers at random, while singing a green frog song.  On top
> of all of that , NP has killed more people in that last 50 years than
> have died from all other causes during the entire history of
> mankind.  If you are alive right now to read this sentence, your
> chances of dying from out of control radiation clouds spewing from
> Yucca Mountain is  123%.  Trust me on this.

Ah ... I think I've got it now...

Jack


On 2/28/08, Apptech <apptech@...> wrote:

> >> The LOUC is the same as the bogeyman behind the tree, the
> >> glowing
> >> green frogs, etc.  LOUC is proportional to the Hubris
> >> Factor.
>
> This can be true, and too often is.
> But using it as an excuse to ignore LOUC in all cases, or in
> cases where it suits one desires to do so, helps guarantee
> UC. Murphy loves this approach.
>
> LOUC needs to be part, alas, of any study of a project of
> any magnitude. A good question (or two) is/are  "What is the
> worst possible outcome, and am I prepared to accept the
> possibility of that outcome occurring". The first question
> is often not able to be answered with accuracy but a skim
> over the release-candidate answers usually gives you a good
> clue to the second answer.
>
> eg    As much for the stupidity that even engineers can
> manage as for the sermon:        The Clutha hydro dam is
> NZ's largest. To stand by the hydraulic jump at the bottom
> of its spillway when the lake is full is to look into the
> face of death at a few metres remove. Similar to standing in
> the hillside caverns at Lauterbrunnen where the Eiger melt
> water travels its subterranean path. An awe and fear
> inspiring experience in both cases. But not my point :-).
> The dam was built on top of an active faultline. Once the
> implications of this were reanalysed during the decade or so
> of construction they spent a vast amount of money not only
> strengthening the design but in modifying the hill tops
> around where the new lake would be to reduce potential size
> of the quake induced avalanches will occur in a major
> earthquake, so that any local 'tsunami' would be less likely
> to overtop the dam catastrophically. Competent people have
> reanalysed the result and claim that there is a reasonable
> prospect that the dam will fail given too probable to be
> nice circumstances.
>
> If you offered me a cheap enough price on an Apricot orchard
> a mile downstream from the dam I'd happily consider retiring
> there without and great reference to the dam factor in my
> reckonings.
>
> This does not prove my strong like of surfing but rather
> demonstrates that people who aregue for the predictability
> of nuclear waste storage can be about as one eyed in their
> decision making as I, and as the many current Clutha apricot
> farmers.
>
>
>
>         Russell
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Chris Smolinski wrote:

>>Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
>>amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>
> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
> century, with lifespans of 30 years.

When was the last time you were outside the USA? That may not necessarily
be a time travel 400 years back :)

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner-3]

Moved into my last (so far) shop 10 years ago - Heavy duty rodent
population - Befriended a local lioness, one of whose excellent offspring
kept my digs rodent free, and was a stand-up guy to boot.

Sadly, he did'nt adapt to last year's move - He was a fine fellow.

Mop RIP

On 2/28/08, Jinx <joecolquitt@...> wrote:

> > > Now the staff are presented with a dead rat
>
> > :) Kitty pays his rent!
>
> Too right she does. Not much fun for the vermin though. I
> had a cat once that kept me up one night. Thought she was
> just being playful, jumping around on furniture etc. When I
> got up I found pieces of her play-mate all over the place.
> Discovered a little foot down the back of the couch a week
> later
>
> That's nature for you. Even if Kitty is just the darlingest little
> fluff-ball, just wish they didn't toy with them like that
>
> My pond fish disgust me too. God help the slug or snail that
> falls in. Ugh
>
> I have my laughs with them though. Throw in a couple of
> foot-long pieces of cooked spahetti. Hilarious
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Neil Cherry]

Jinx wrote:

>> 1) Bicycling
>> 2) Walking
>> 3) Train
>> 4) Bus
>> 5) Flying
>>
>> I love to ride my bicycle and as soon as my light system is
>> repaired it's commuter time! I'm building a new light system
>
> I like cycling too. Apart from the exercise, you get to gawp and
> investigate all kinds of things that you wouldn't otherwise even

I've had a good year last year, saw many Red Hawks, no with a
snake in his mouth, three male American Bald Eagles and a couple
of female (I think). Plenty of Turkey Vultures. I find it a bit
disturbing that they aren't afraid of me being 5 ft from them
as I ride by. Plenty of other animals and other oddities.

> see or have the opportunity to poke around in. Car driving is
> more of a point-to-point kind of travel, not an adventure like
> cycling can be. When needs be, the bike goes in the back of the
> car, which is parked a little way out of congestion areas. I'm
> always careful to be well-lit in town. Can't believe the people
> who ride down the middle of Queen St (a very busy central
> Auckland street) at night with no helmet or lights. And on skate
> boards too. Don't think my nerves were ever *that* good

I tend to ride the middle of the road when I need to but I have
to be lit up. Nobody can see what doesn't reflect light.

> Trains - good. 'cos you can take a bike with you. Which came
> in extra handy last weekend as I needed to take a whole load of
> power tools into town. Didn't fancy a 10 mile cycle in hot humid
> weather with a ton of baggage. No sir

Not allowed to bring bikes in until before or after rush hours
(before 6AM and after 9PM I think).

I have a nice trailer for carrying extras. I've ported about
50 extra lbs. so far. Then again my Camelbak weighs in at
40 lbs when I've really tossed everything in (it's for
training). I've got showers at work so sweat isn't a problem
and I need the work out anyway.

I think I'll skip that disturbing lunch. ;-)

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       ncherry@...
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:     Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to
>> the 16th
>> century, with lifespans of 30 years.

> When was the last time you were outside the USA? That may
> not necessarily
> be a time travel 400 years back :)

He didn't say it wasn't also a current occurrence (although
at a country level it's not) but that he didn't want it ;-)

FWIW - those under 50 years at present from UN.
CIA world fact book results differ and have  alower
minimum - still Swaziland - at about 32 years.

Only 4 of the below have a lower female than male life
expectancy - from bottom up Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Sawziland and
Afghanistan.

The top 8 female to male longevity ratios go to former
Russian republics !!!!!!!!!!!!, followed by Thailand.

Men live to be oldest in Iceland, then HK Japan

      Singapore
     80
     78
     81.9

      New Zealand
     80.2
     78.2
     82.2

      Canada
     80.7
     78.3
     82.9

      Israel
     80.7
     78.5
     82.8

      Macau
     80.7
     78.5
     82.8

      Sweden
     80.9
     78.7
     83

      Australia
     81.2
     78.9
     83.6

      Switzerland
     81.7
     79
     84.2

      Japan
     82.6
     79
     86.1

      Hong Kong
     82.2
     79.4
     85.1

      Iceland
     81.8
     80.2
     83.3




Numbers are overall / male / female.

177  Burundi 49.6 48.1 51.0
178  South Africa 49.3 48.8 49.7
179  Côte d'Ivoire 48.3 47.5 49.3
180  Malawi 48.3 48.1 48.4
181  Somalia 48.2 46.9 49.4
182  Nigeria (30% below world average) 46.9 46.4 47.3
183  Democratic Republic of the Congo 46.5 45.2 47.7
184  Guinea-Bissau 46.4 44.9 47.9
185  Rwanda 46.2 44.6 47.8
186  Liberia 45.7 44.8 46.6
187  Central African Republic 44.7 43.3 46.1
188  Afghanistan 43.8 43.9 43.8
189  Zimbabwe 43.5 44.1 42.6
190  Angola 42.7 41.2 44.3
191  Lesotho 42.6 42.9 42.3
192  Sierra Leone 42.6 41.0 44.1
193  Zambia 42.4 42.1 42.5
194  Mozambique 42.1 41.7 42.4
195  Swaziland (40% below world average) 39.6 39.8 39.4


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>>> Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently  
>>> 'accepted'
>>> amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>>
>> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
>> century, with lifespans of 30 years.
>
> When was the last time you were outside the USA? That may not  
> necessarily
> be a time travel 400 years back :)

Well, yeah.  Even if what we current consider the "first world"  
manages to use their energy more efficiently and cuts their energy  
consumption in half while maintaining what they consider a reasonable  
standard of living, there's still a good part of the world that would  
be INCREASING their energy consumption to reach that same standard of  
living.  I don't think it would be a good idea from either a moral or  
practical point of view to tell a couple billion people "I'm sorry,  
the energy is all gone, you can't have any."

Perhaps the US will become a backwater part of civilization "still  
BURNING fossil fuels" while the rest of the world goes nuclear and  
passes us in any number of ways.  I hear that France is up to about  
85% nuke for power generation.  Good for them!  (too bad about the  
glowing frogs' legs...)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Jinx-4]

> > I like cycling too. Apart from the exercise, you get to gawp and
> > investigate all kinds of things that you wouldn't otherwise even
>
> I've had a good year last year, saw many Red Hawks, no with a
> snake in his mouth, three male American Bald Eagles and a couple
> of female (I think). Plenty of Turkey Vultures

I'm afraid I don't see anything that exotic on my travels. I did find
an inhaler though and, in the spirit of not wasting anything, may take
up asthma

> I tend to ride the middle of the road when I need to but I have
> to be lit up. Nobody can see what doesn't reflect light.

Cops would have you here for not being as far left as practicable.
Major roads though I'll wait in/on the median

> Not allowed to bring bikes in until before or after rush hours
> (before 6AM and after 9PM I think).

Train patronage in Auckland isn't all it could be. There's usually
room at any time

> I have a nice trailer for carrying extras. I've ported about
> 50 extra lbs

My big trips used to be with a long, low trailer to get my oxy-
acetylene bottles exchanged. Nothing else keeps motorists at
a distance in quite the same way !! I don't do that any more
(the distributor moved) but it still gets used for timber etc

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Rikard Bosnjakovic-2]

On 28/02/2008, Andre Abelian <aabelian@...> wrote:

>  I used HSPLL instead of ECPLL to program some boards that it is too late
>  to open them. HS is for crystal and EC is for external clock. HS works for both.
>  Does any one know why HSPLL works for both and it is safe to use it.

What boards?

And I'm a bit confused. If HS works for both, why asking why it works
for both? Are you talking about PIC-chips or complete set of
demo-boards? Or, what are you really asking? We have no clue.


--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> radiation coming out of it.

Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.

> The type and effect of the
> radiation is absolutely the same.

I doubt that is correct, but if it were: amount of radiation does make a
different. Ask any aussie whether sunbathing is a good for your health.

> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> total energy than the original substance.

Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> >Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently
> >'accepted' amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>
> Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
> century, with lifespans of 30 years.

You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health of my
offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment' now.

I don't think your 2nd scentence needs a serious response.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wed]

What's wrong with asking why it works? Could be good to know when it no
longer works. And if it's the "proper" way to go.

Wed



2008/2/29, Rikard Bosnjakovic <rikard.bosnjakovic@...>:

>
> On 28/02/2008, Andre Abelian <aabelian@...> wrote:
>
> >  I used HSPLL instead of ECPLL to program some boards that it is too
> late
> >  to open them. HS is for crystal and EC is for external clock. HS works
> for both.
> >  Does any one know why HSPLL works for both and it is safe to use it.
>
>
> What boards?
>
> And I'm a bit confused. If HS works for both, why asking why it works
> for both? Are you talking about PIC-chips or complete set of
> demo-boards? Or, what are you really asking? We have no clue.
>
>
>
> --
> - Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Rikard Bosnjakovic-2]

On 29/02/2008, M Wedin <wedinm@...> wrote:

> What's wrong with asking why it works?

Without proper information about the project in question, it's hard to
answer that kind of questions.

Other than that, it's fine by me.


--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>  > >Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently
>>  >'accepted' amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>>
>>  Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
>>  century, with lifespans of 30 years.
>
>You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health of my
>offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment' now.

Yes, the health of my children is important also, which is why I want
us to continue to maintain the current level of technology, as well
as nutrition. If others wish to return to living in thatched huts,
that's fine with me.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> > materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> > radiation coming out of it.
>
> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.

Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.

According to this site:

http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm

Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.

> > It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> > materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> > have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> > total energy than the original substance.
>
> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.

I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
decayed by then.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist