It’s time to give up on breeder reactors
It’s time to give up on breeder reactors
http://fissilematerials.org/library/Breeders_BAS_May_June_2010.pdf
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | WWW.THE BULLETIN .ORG may / j u n e 2 0 1 0
Since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear energy advocates have dreamed of a reactor that could produce more fuel than it used. More than 60 years and $100 billion later, that vision remains as far from reality as ever.
In “Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status,” a new report by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, experiences with fast breeder reactors in six countries are examined. These studies make clear that the assumptions driving the pursuit of breeder reactors for the past six decades have proven to be wrong.
NIX-2-MOX
Typhoon Hits Japan MOX facility
http://ens-newswire.com/2012/10/01/typhoon-hits-japan-as-nuclear-plant-c...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121102b2.html
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/11/191367.html
Typhoon Hits Japan as Nuclear Plant Construction Resumes
AOMORI — Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. showed reporters Thursday its MOX nuclear fuel plant being built in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture. MOX fuel is made from plutonium and remaining uranium in spent nuclear fuel. It is reprocessed as a mixed oxide fuel to power nuclear reactors. The fuel is considered a key part of the nuclear fuel recycling program that was in play before the Fukushima No. 1 plant meltdown disaster started in March 2011.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4504
NIX-2-MOX
More DOE/WH Fraud
"The WH wants to move Abound forward."
"You better let him know that the WH wants to move Abound forward."
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WHAboundEmails.pdf
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/sources-documents-suggest-government-s...
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21883278/emails-link-white-hou...
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21882937/editorial-shining-light-ab...
Abound Solar was given a $400 million loan guarantee by the Energy Department, and drew on about $70 million dollars of the guarantee before DOE cut them off in September 2011 — the same month the Solyndra scandal began. Internal documentation and testimony from sources within Abound show that the company was selling a faulty, underperforming product, and may have mislead lenders at one point in order to keep itself afloat.
“Our solar modules worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun,” an internal source told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Talk about a steep fall from grace. In a shockingly brief period, Abound Solar has gone from being a symbol of the national green-energy agenda to a bankrupt husk of its former self and now the target of a Weld County investigation for possible securities fraud, consumer fraud and financial misrepresentation.
Mostly useful at night
What a concept ...
Solar panels that only function at night.
“Our solar modules worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun.”
The State Science Institute strikes again.
Disturbing Increases in Warrantless Surveillance
Disturbing Increases in Warrantless Surveillance
Background
EPIC is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information about the agency's surveillance of social networks and news organizations.
In February 2011, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the agency planned to implement a program that would monitor media content, including social media data. The proposed initiatives would gather information from "online forums, blogs, public websites, and messages boards" and disseminate information to "federal, state, local, and foreign government and private sector partners." The program would be executed, in part, by individuals who established fictitious usernames and passwords to create covert social media profiles to spy on other users. The agency stated it would store personal information for up to five years.
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbis-electronic-surveillance-increases-20...
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/06/27/the-fbis-secret-surveillance-lett...
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_surveillance_without_warr...
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-ju...
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/09/27/records-show-a-spike-in-the-use-of-w...
Supreme Court has said..
The Supreme Court has said numerous times that the law enforcement community does not need warrants if an ordinary member of the public has access.
If you are growing pot in your backyard, and a police officer sees it due to an open fence, or because he is flying overhead in an airplane; both vantage points that are open to ordinary citizens; then the police officer doesn't need a warrant.
If you are publishing online, with open access to the public; then police officers don't need warrants.
Florida v. Riley 488 US 445 (1989)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=488&invol=445
Nosy, Snoopy Voyeurs
Buzz Off,
Note that 'WE the People' do NOT wish to pay for all this needless surveillance. Nor do we intend to allow these obstructive, liars and agents provacateurs in every phase of the private and/or public spheres. WE intend to drive them out of our lives, by ANY and ALL necessary means.
Note the popularity numbers of the Nanny State. A million babushkas (snitches & snoops) have NO place in a Constitutional Republic.
Oh and the supreme court is mostly a Supreme Disappointment and a Supreme Embarrassment. And it has been for years.
Jefferson and Jackson each abolished HALF the federal courts of their day. The USA would presently benefit from a 90% - 95% reduction in federal courts and federal LEOs.
Buzz Off
Why get mad at me??
Why get mad at me?
I'm just accurately telling you what the law is.
You attempt to give good, sound information to people, and they tell you to "buzz off".
Some people have no class
Grim Determination
Do NOT mistake focused, grim determination ... for an emotion.
I am merely describing what WE have in mind.
Relentlessly, Remorselessly ... Snuffing the Nanny State
Whatever it takes.
So quit mindlessly quoting a gaggle of 9 corrupt, fools.
WE are tired of hearing their opinions from KELO v NLDC, to corporate citizenship.
If you prefer ...
BuggerOff
Actually the ruling makes sense...
Actually, the ruling makes sense.
Why should the police need a search warrant to go where any ordinary citizen can go? If a police officer is walking the street and sees the commission of a crime in full view of anybody; then why should they need a warrant? The Constitution states that we are to be secure in our homes and on our persons from unreasonable searches. It doesn't say that the police need warrants for something that someone does in public.
If someone were standing on the street corner with a sign soliciting help in committing a terrorist act, or committing a crime in plain sight of everyone; then the police shouldn't need a warrant to arrest that person.
The Internet isn't private; it's public, it's like a bulletin board in the middle of the town square. If the police are monitoring a bulletin board in the middle of the town square without a warrant; the Constitution certainly doesn't forbid that.
Read the polls
You have already lost this argument in the court of public opinion. QED
Argue until you are blue in the face.
We have different world views. Your world view has been rejected, by the USA citizenry.
TTFN
Then you don't understand the Constitution
Evidently the above poster doesn't understand why we have a Constitution.
The purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
Even if the polls state that every person in the USA wanted some criminal imprisoned without a trial; we have the Constitution to say that is wrong, and that the person has to have a trial.
The poster above is trumpeting his ignorance and stupidity by saying that polls and public opinion have something to do with what is constitutional or not.
I wouldn't have believed that there were people on this University forum that were so DAMN STUPID as to believe that polls and public opinion determine what our rights are.
Oh well; we now see the results of a progressive education system.
the ultimate inversion
Ayn Rand
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
http://listverse.com/2007/12/13/top-25-ayn-rand-quotes/
Absent Consent
The present regime has NOT earned the consent of the governed. Quite the contrary, 'We the People' actively oppose the present regime.
The constitutional rule of law, was suspended under George W. Bush and has been brazenly discarded by Barry Soetoro. Congress and the federal courts have similarly violated EVERY WORD of their oaths of office.
Under Amendment XIV, the present regime is complicit in the constitutional offense of insurrection, in their violations of the oath of office.
The penalties prescribed in XIV are pointed at federal officers for Oath Breaking.
Constitutional RESTORATION is my personal mission.
Whatever it takes.
Oath Breaking Insurrectionists
Oath Breaking Insurrectionists
Amendment XIV § 3-4, in relevant part:
§ 3 No person shall hold any office, who having previously taken an oath, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
§ 4 The validity of debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Section 3 “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 4 “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
Heads Up Oath Breakers
Heads up oath breaking government officials; your pension, insurance and benefits are 'on the line' here.
We are facing some budget constraints in the near future. One excellent money saving TARGET is the pensions and benefits of oath breaking government officials.
Why, that could save us a tidy sum!
"A Billion Dollars here and there; and pretty soon you're talking real money."
Often attributed to Everett Dirkson
http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere.htm
"Update, September 25, 2012. Historian John Steele Gordon concurs with the January 15, 2009, update. He also recalls Dirksen making the statement on Johnny Carson’s show. With regard to the lack of hard documentation authenticating the phrase, Gordon writes, “But I really don’t see a historiographical problem here. It’s long been attributed to Senator Dirksen and several people, including myself, remember him saying it at the same time and the same place. For this historian, at least, that’s good enough.” [Gordon to Mackaman, e-mail, September 25, 2012, Dirksen Information File]"
86% Distrust and Rising STEAM
Excerpts from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
When asked to describe their feelings about the federal government, 86% say either that they are frustrated (60%) or angry (26%). Just 11% say they are basically content with the federal government, by far the lowest percentage in a measure that dates to 1997. The share of Americans who describe themselves as angry with the federal government has nearly doubled since March, while those who say they are basically content has fallen by half.
In the current survey, 80% say they trust the government to do what is right only some of the time or never. Just 19% say the government can be trusted just about always or most of the time. When this question was first asked on the American National Election Study in 1958 nearly three-quarters (73%) of Americans said they always or mostly trusted the government to do what is right.
Compared with a year ago, the political gap has narrowed as anger has risen among Democrats and remained high among Republicans. Independents have grown consistently angrier.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/25/section-4-anger-and-distrust-in-g...
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/8-25-11%20Political%20Relea...
IMHO recent USA government policies and actions wrt nuclear power are consistent with this universal decline in confidence.
1% undecided
Shut up and play nice:
Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
By Jonathan Turley, Published: October 12 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-wo...
Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.
Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.
This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders.
Such efforts focus not on the right to speak but on the possible reaction to speech — a fundamental change in the treatment of free speech in the West. The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater, and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting “fire!”
They are NOT 'sheeple'
Contrary to wishful thinking in DC, the heavily armed, and increasingly agitated, USA citizenry are NOT 'sheeple'.
http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/157601/Trust_in_Media_120921.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High
Fewer Americans closely following political news now than in previous election years
by Lymari Morales, September 21, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.
The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views -- 20 percentage points -- is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 -- as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.
This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. The 31% and 26%, respectively, who express a great deal or fair amount of trust are record lows and are down significantly from last year. Republicans' level of trust this year is similar to what they expressed in the fall of 2008, implying that they are especially critical of election coverage.
Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008.
Spreading 'The Luv Disease' experiments
Reportedly, deliberate inoculation and rape were used to infect some Tuskegee ‘subjects’ with syphilis. That matter notwithstanding, here is a USA international version of the USELESS & IMMORAL ‘study’.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/10/us_apologizes_for_1940s...
http://morallowground.com/2011/03/15/u-s-guatemalan-syphilis-experiment-...
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/01/apologizes-intentional-inf...
U.S. apologizes for 1940s syphilis inoculation experiment in Guatemala
The United States issued an unusual apology Friday to Guatemala for an experiment conducted in the 1940s in which prisoners, mental patients and soldiers were deliberately infected with sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis and gonorrhea.
Clinton notified Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom about the experiment in a telephone call, according to Sofia Porres of the Guatemalan embassy in Washington. Porres said the embassy would issue an official statement later today.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins held an 11:15 a.m. briefing to discuss the matter.
By Rob Stein | October 1, 2010; 12:21 PM ET
Moving to the Top
Rude Dog,
Let's move your 'medical experiments' topic to the top.
And away from the deeply nested comments.
Volunteers?
Do we have any ‘volunteers’ to participate in these twisted studies, which appear to follow some troubling and macabre precedents? Among these are: Germany: Dr. Josef Mengele, Dr. Eduard Wirths, Japan: Unit 731 Commander Shiro Ishii, USSR: Soviet Poison Laboratory-1, Lab-12, AKA ‘The Chamber’, North Korea: Camp 22, and the USA: Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis.
Perhaps these radiation dual-dose experiments can be appended to the US Radium Corporation ‘Elixir Testimonials’ and the sad ‘Radium Girls’ case-studies.
Rude Dog, I would hope you are kidding, but experience leads us to an altogether different conclusion.
Rude Dog is seriously advocating this drivel
Take a bow Rude Dog
Strategic Anti-Radiation Drug Stockpile
Obama Hormesis
The MISSING USA Strategic Drug Stockpile is more HORMESIS than we bargained for.
Perhaps the word 'MISSING' should be replaced with 'TAKEN', 'DUMPED', 'COMMANDEERED', 'LIBERATED' or 'PAWNED'.
Perhaps SOMEDAY the USA Congress will 'grace us' with an investigation into the whereabouts of these drugs and the mysterious circumstances of their untimely 'disappearance'.
WE did not WILLINGLY volunteer to be 'lab rats' for macabre hormesis experiments.
The 'VANISHED' USA Strategic (Anti-Radiation) Drug Stockpile has 'volunteered' us.
Where did that STOCKPILE go to?
Just Asking
Who is advocating experiments on humans?
Once again this PATHETIC MORON demonstrates his monumental STUPIDITY.
I am NOT calling for medical experiments on humans!! I referenced a study done by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory which was done on human cells in vitro ( in glass ):
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Evidently the poor reading comprehension of this anti-nuke of grossly limited intellect is insufficient to discern that these studies were not done on humans, but on human cells. The scientists exposed the cells to radiation of various forms and magnitude and were able to quantify the damage done to the chromosones using techniques derived from recombinanant DNA research.
NOBODY, and certainly not myself; is calling for "medical experiments" on full humans.
Once again, this poster demonstrates his limited grasp on science and reality:
The poster didn't know that the emitted frequencies of EM due to incandescense were coupled instead of being independent.
The poster thought that a "bang stick" got the needed oxygen for combustion from its watery environment instead of having the oxygen built in to the explosive.
The poster thought that the fact that humans are carbon-based had something to do with the radioactive emissions from coal plants and the radiological effect on humans. The referenced article states that the emission of radioactivity from coal plants is due to impurities of uranium and thorium.
The poster thought the judge in the Three Mile Island case ruled against the studies done by the scientists, engineers, and physicians. In truth, the TMI case was well studied by scientists, engineers, and physicians; and their reports, ex the Rogovin Report; reported that the very limited radioactivity release from TMI was of no health consequence to the neighboring residents. The judge ruled consist with this.
Now this inept moron "thinks" that medical experiments on humans are proposed.
This poster has offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value to this forum. In every case, the above poster has been 100% WRONG However, this poster is so caught up in his / her own ego, he/she can't see the litany of mistakes and misunderstandings.
Each time the errors of this poster's ways have been demonstrated; the response is that someone lied to prove him / her wrong. However, the poster offers ZERO evidence of that.
I offer this online community an example of the typical anti-nuke; stupid beyond belief, but so self-righteous that they can't see their own errors, and thus are immune from improvement.
They can't get anything right; which is why their opinions should be TOTALLY IGNORED and DISCARDED.
Claim it Rude Dog
Rude Dog,
You brought the subject up.
CLAIM IT
Hormesis 'R' ewe
Take a bow, or is it a 'bow-wow'?
You hoser
OH BROTHER!!!
Evidently you don't know the difference between an "adaptive response" and "hormesis".
Additionally, the referenced article cites an experiment in which an "adaptive response" is demonstrated.
I know that an "adaptive response" is not in your vocabulary as it is not explained by LNT - linear no-threshold theory.
Do you not understand that any scientific theory is held captive to experiment. If an experiment contradicts the theory; then the theory is WRONG and has to be modified or discarded.
That's how we got relativity and quantum mechanics.
The existence of "adaptive response" and "DNA repair mechanisms" is well established fact in the scientific community; even though the LNT theory doesn't allow it.
The anti-nukes are clinging to a theory in LNT that is either incomplete or just plain wrong. So what else is new.
waiver (II)
Just Sign the ‘standard consent form’ and you receive a 'stipend'.
What demonic denizen of Hell would conduct such an experiment?
How is the experiment described to ‘the victims’?
1st, you will be given an unnecessary full-body CAT scan
2nd, you will be dunked in a nuclear reactor
We want to see if you exhibit an ‘Adaptive Response’ before the ARS kills you.
NOBODY is proposing human experimentation.
NOBODY is proposing human experimentation.
Experiments are being done on human cells; but not whole humans.
So the CAT scans and dunks in a reactor are just figments of your imagination, as is any intelligence on your part.
Versions
Children’s Version:
Today, our field trip is a special heated pool. Stay with your ‘buddy’.
Canadian Version:
“Everybody … Into the pool Now … A
Other Experimental Subjects …
Prisoner version:
We will put in a good word with your parole board.
Homeless version:
You can have two (2) desserts for participating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
False assumptions
All the assumptions have proven to be FALSE!
http://fissilematerials.org/library/Breeders_BAS_May_June_2010.pdf
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | WWW.THE BULLETIN .ORG may / j u n e 2 0 1 0
The rationale for pursuing breeder reactors was based on the following key assumptions (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit):
(1) Uranium is scarce, and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if light water nuclear reactors, which do not breed more fuel than they consume, were deployed on a large scale;
(2) breeder reactors would quickly become economically competitive with light water reactors (the dominant reactor design used today); (
3) breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light water reactors; and
(4) the proliferation risks posed by breeders and their “closed” fuel cycle, in which plutonium would be recycled, could be managed.
These assumptions, however, all proved to be wrong.
Make up your minds...
(1) Uranium is scarce, and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if light water nuclear reactors, which do not breed more fuel than they consume, were deployed on a large scale;
All the anti-nukes I know keep telling me that there is only 50 years or so of Uranium left. You can't have it both ways - saying Uranium is scarce or not depending on what you are talking about today ( and the phase of the Moon or Lord knows what else. )
Really cheap uranium is scarce. However, the fuel is such a miniscule part of the cost of nuclear power, you can double the fuel price and not affect the bussbar cost of the electricity much. At double the price; there's lots of uranium.
In any case, one certainly wants to close the fuel cycle instead of leaving long-lived radionuclides for future generations to watch over.
Dr. Charles Till, formerly of Argonne National Lab, addresses that:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive...
We have made up our minds
We have made up our minds and are determined to shut these dangerous beasts DOWN.
ASAP
Then you condemn the human race
Then you condemn the human race to having to live with the Plutonium.
Nuclear reactors can get rid of the Plutonium.
What are you going to do with the Plutonium????
If you can't destroy it in a reactor; you have to bury it in a Yucca Flats.
OOPS - anti-nukes don't like waste repositories like Yucca Flats.
What are you going to do with the Plutonium?
It's not going to disappear.
You may have made up your minds; but you obviously have not thought it through.
Bury IT
Some antinukes may oppose a given disposal method.
I favor deep depository in crystaline rock.
Bury the waste deep.
Shield it well. Case it in glass.
Lots of Boron, Zeolyte, carbon and lead.
And hope to gawd it never again sees the light of day.
If you burn it up..
And hope to gawd it never again sees the light of day.
Yes - you have to hope to gawd that it never sees the light of day.
However, when the fission products decay so that there is no longer a high radiation field around it; you've just created a plutonium mine.
If someone wants to build nuclear weapons; you've given them the perfect place where they can mine the fuel. They don't have to create the bomb fuel; they can just mine it.
If you do what scientists like myself suggest; the plutonium will be burned as reactor fuel, and we won't be burying it.
So while you are hoping to gawd that the plutonium doesn't get out; we will be sitting back confidently because we know the stuff is gone.
Scientists think things out better than anti-nukes.
6.0
Sorry, the Olympic Lying Event judges have assigned a 6.0 to this rather poorly crafted 'crock of chit'.
Too many 'folks' already know that MOX fuel use does not result in less plutonium. The mass of plutonium remains fixed. No net plutonium is consumed. The occasional 'moderated prompt criticality' (AKA atomic explosion), such as Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 also renders this 'crock' relatively useless as a world class competitive lie performance.
This low score will NOT qualify you for the finals. Perhaps in 4 years, you will qualify for this event. Obama, Romney, Biden and Ryan bested your efforts at least 15 times each, during the recent debates.
Thanks for playing.
BALONEY!!!
How can you say that the amount of Plutonium stays constant???
You sure as HELL don't know about reactor physics.
You aren't looking at the complete cycle; you are stopping part way through. It's like looking at the exhaust in the exhaust manifold of a car and saying that the unburned hydrocarbons exceed spec, and that catalytic converters don't work. The catalytic converter has YET to do its job.
You don't understand that the larger portion of Plutonium in the core due to MOX recycling; means that you get more Plutonium burned. Simple physics; there's more Plutonium atoms exposed to the neutrons; so more Plutonium gets burned.
Why do you keep FABRICATING and MAKING UP false scientific statements when you don't understand the science.
This same poster told us that all photon emissions were independent - which is WRONG. When you have incandescence, the object radiates photons at lower frequencies; which is why incandesent bulbs are so inefficient; they radiate the lower frequency heat.
The above poster also told us that "bang sticks" used to kill sharks get their oxygen from the watery environment and didn't know the oxygen was built in to the explosive.
The above poster LIED about there being a "power phase" and "energy phase" of a nuclear explosion. He fools no one; since anyone can Google those terms along with "nuclear explosion" and find that the only references belong to the above poster.
We also have the interview with a true nuclear physicist, Dr. Charles Till, formerly of Argonne National Lab:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
"Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years."
Here a real nuclear physicist tells us that eventually the waste will be only fission products. Plutonium is recycled, but that eventually we have only fission products.
If in the end we have only fission products then the amount of Plutonium sure as Hell didn't stay constant; did it dummy!!
Your score is 1.1
Reposting is a ZERO point element
Continuing to post the same old tired 'Till quote' is a ZERO point element. The ad hominem examples of informal logical fallacy IS a scoring element in this event. It is however a low point element, and additional elements would be required to receive a competitive score.
Your score in the Olympic Lying Event competition is 1.1.
Thanks for playing
I'll repost it until...
I'll repost it until you understand it - which means probably NEVER.
We have what a REAL SCIENTIST says, and not your phoney made up scoring system.
I really have to laugh at all the progressives who laugh and demean conservatives because the progressives say "They don't listen to the scientists" when talking about global warming.
Here we have the other side of the coin; the progressives IGNORE the scientists when the word of the scientists runs counter to the progressives' politics.
The progressives are no "friends" of science; they are only "fair weather" friends.
If the scientists' views run counter to the progressives' politics; then the progressives ignore the scientists just as much as their arch-rivals.
3.6
This ENTRY is a much better effort.
WRT the USA political spectrum, my personal political views can be somewhat fairly characterized as a PALEO-Conservative, NOT a Progressive or a NeoCon.
Thus the LYING component, for your effort ... is satisfied.
However, as indicated earlier, Logical flaws, such as ad hominem attacks, are not high scoring lies, in these competitive events.
Your 3.6 score is relatively high for an ad hominem attack, due to originality, and delivery.
Still not a winner.
What do you expect from the anti-nukes????
An anti-nuclear group isssues a report saying nuclear is bad or whatever, and then people quote it as if it were issued by a non-involved organization like the National Academy of Sciences.
What do you expect the anti-nukes to say?
The USA had a very successful program at Argonne National Laboratory for many, many years which culminated in the development of the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Too bad President Clinton cancelled a fine program to appease the anti-nukes.
Dr. Charles Till of Argonne stated:
"Let me answer the question this way. Nuclear power for very many years was not a party proposition. There was bipartisan support for the development of nuclear power. That changed in and around the 1976. It was certainly changed dramatically during the Carter Administration, from '76 to '80. The Reagan administration was supportive of nuclear power development, but not madly so. They supported a continued effort, probably at a level of something like 10 or 20% of the effort that had been carried out in the country a decade or so before. That was also true of the Bush administration. The Clinton administration, I think, firmed up quite an anti-nuclear power position. The position of the administration is that present day reactors are supported, but that there is no need for any further nuclear reactor development or improvement. And the implications of that are that nuclear power then will be a passing thing. But without recycling, there is no real future."
I expect
What do I expect from the Anti-Nukes?
I expect that their concerns have been validated by our global accumulated experience.
I expect that the Pro-Nuke group is dwindling to 'On-The-Payroll' and 'Next-Of-Kin' ... if that.
Validated by WHAT?
Validated by WHAT - a bunch of LIES from known anti-nukes.
Take for example the claim that breeders have to be proliferation risks.
That was DISPROVED by Argonne's Integral Fast Reactor:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?
A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.
It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.
The Argonne results were reported to Congress and two US Senators, Simon and Kempthorne; responded to a New York Times editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium...
You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium.
(Senator) PAUL SIMON (Senator) DIRK KEMPTHORNE Washington, June 28, 1994
Puffery proves nothing
A puffery piece in the media ... proves nothing
Shut them down
Not Puffery
It's NOT puffery!!!
It's a letter from two U.S Senators giving information that they got from the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory SCIENTISTS!!
You do realize that the only scientists that really know what can and can not be made into nuclear weapons are those at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.
By LAW those are the only places where such science can be studied.
The authors of the piece referenced in the original post; got the science WRONG!
Nagging
Pro-Nuke nagging, lying, whining and pseudo-proofs convince nobody.
Nuclear power has proven to be inherently nasty and dangerous.
It will take eons to clean up the stinking mess.
So it is time to join Japan, Germany, Switzerland & Taiwan and stick a fork in these losers.
The commercial nuclear power plants are rapidly becoming 'history.
And the sooner, the better.
Proof??
Proof??? What proof??
Nuclear power in the USA has NEVER HARMED a member of the public; never killed nor injured.
In the one serious accident the USA has had, Three Mile Island; when people sued claiming they were injured, the judge threw their case out of court:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.
The Soviet Union had an accident with a very poorly designed reactor at Chernobyl. The Japanese had poor safety design like not burying the diesel fuel tanks and putting the back-up generators in a non-watertight basement, when they knew the plant could be hit by a tsunami. When people don't follow good safety practices and have an accident; that's NOT PROOF that the technology is flawed.
Even with all, that nuclear power has killed and injured far, far fewer people than air travel. So I guess the anti-nuclear morons would ban air travel too if they had their way.
Again people; listen to the scientists and not idiot anti-nukes.
9.4
Sorry,
The Olympic Lying Committee only scored you a 9.4 for this effort. Nice try, but this lacked originality and 'street cred'. You will need to do better.
Ooops another bunch of nations have ceased their nuclear programs. They don't even want one; much less a fleet of the nasty beasts.
The commercial nuclear power industry is floundering like a fish on the beach.
TTFN
Corrected Score 4.4
Sorry,
Following a rules appeal, your score has received a technical correction. The mandatory 5 point deduction referenced below has resulted in a Final Score of 4.4.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/it%E2%80%99s-time-give-breeder-rea...
Thanks for playing!
What did I lie about?
Please identify what you call a "lie".
I presented evidence that Dr. Till of Argonne says that IFR Plutonium can NOT be used for weapons. Am I lying about Dr. Till saying that? Or is Dr. Till lying?
Dr. Till's statement appears to be backed up by the only true US experts in nuclear weapons, namely the scientists at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Labs. That is what two US Senators told the public in their letter to the New York Times.
Am I lying about what the two US Senators are saying?
Are the two US Senators lying about what is in the Lawrence Livermore report?
Are the Lawrence Livermore scientists lying?
When it is demonstrate that you are WRONG, you make these childish claims that it is all a bunch of lies. However, you never quite make clear what the lie is and who is lying. You offer only muddled "thinking".
Then you have this childish analogy about a Lying Olympics.
The readers of this forum know that you don't know what you are talking about; and better than that; you, above all, know that you don't know what you are talking about.