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.
Penalty
The 5 point PENALTY was invoked because of the statement ...
"...NEVER HARMED ..."
Objectively, EVERY MEMBER of the USA citizenry has received some quantifiable health damage from the commercial nuclear power industry, in addition to health injuries from atmospheric weapon tests.
Regarding your other protest, the Clinton Administration declassified atomic weapon test results, using various plutonium isotopes. Such easily PROVEN falsehoods cannot be high scoring LIES useful for International Olympic Lying events.
The Olympic Lying Committee rejects your petition, which though unclearly worded; appears to be a request for a HIGHER lying score. Your request for a HIGHER lying score ... is rejected.
Perhaps your interrogations could be useful in future competitive LYING events.
Would a Senator, or 101 Senators, (counting the President of the USA Senate) lie?
Would you lie?
Would PBS lie?
Appeal Rejected, your FINAL LYING score stands at ... 4.4.
Perhaps your team should consider another event.
Nuclear power < 0.03% of natural background
Courtesy of the scientists at the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
The percentage of the average person's radiation exposure that is due to nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in the above table ) is < 0.03% .
Even if one were to use a linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption; the amount of radiation exposure, and hence its biological effect; is down in the noise.
You get more exposure by working a few floors up in an office building, or living somewhere not on the coasts where you are above sea-level.
Coal plants emit much more radioactivity...
From scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
2.2
Another shop-worn half-truth,
We are CARBON BASED life-forms. Carbon is as essential to the life of plants and animals as CO2.
Coal does not release Cesium-134, Cesium-137 or radioactive Iodine into the atmosphere and coal is plentiful, cheap and ... as clean, if so mandated.
The 'Coal is hot' spiel is not a high-point lie for international competitive events.
2.2 (but no penalty)
ERROR AGAIN!!!
Dummy; the radioactive emissions from coal plants have nothing to do with carbon!!! Can't you even READ the article, or didn't you get that far in school?
Cesium-134, Cesium-137, and radioactive Iodine-131 are all beta emitters. They emit high energy electrons.
Want to know what type of radiation is more harmful to biological systems than beta radiation? That would be alpha radiation; the type of radiation that is released by Plutonium-239.
Guess what - the type of radiation released by the radioactive species emitted by coal plants are also alpha radiation emitters.
EVERY SINGLE TIME the above poster attempts to use some scientific argument, the poster demonstrates a complete LACK of knowledge and intellect with regard to the science. He / she hangs themselves on his / her own petard.
Stick with the silly, and childish made-up Olympic Games. You do better with that than in attempting to make a scientific argument.
Your Score 0.1
Rude Dog,
It is generally an advantage to understand a subject, in order to LIE effectively about it.
You rather obviously do NOT understand the subject matter at hand sufficiently to attempt to lie about it.
The Rude Dog is allowed to persist, because his open LYING is characteristic of the commercial nuclear power industry.
Keep it up Rude Dog
You are a 'Useful Idiot'
Though a tiresome one at times.
Your Score 0.1
Confused anti-nuke...
Once again, we have the missives of the confused anti-nuke that can't distinguish between the actions of the "nuclear industry" and the Government.
Clinton didn't declassify what the "nuclear industry" did; he declassified what the Government did.
Your first statement is also WRONG. Your statement is rooted in the now discredited belief that any radiation, no matter how small, does harm.
Scientists no longer believe that. Research at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/443
6.5
Your recent ENTRY represents an improved effort.
"5.5 Scientists no longer believe that. 6.5 & 7.5"
The required LYING component is fully satisfied. The judges scoring showed some variation, with a final score of 6.5. MOST scientists and engineers subscribe to the ALARA, (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) viewpoint WRT ionizing radiation exposure.
Perhaps you, Ann Coulter and 'The Usual Suspects' within the commercial nuclear power industry can find, recruit and/or bribe the occasional liar and/or fool, within the scientific community to subscribe to any ludicrous theory. Trot them out.
Too obvious. (6.5)
ERROR!!!
As I've told you many times before, I'm NOT associated with the commercial nuclear power industry. I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry. ( This poster knows this, but conveniently keeps forgetting in order to use a claimed association with the nuclear power industry to prejudice the reader against my position. As I've stated here numerous times, I'm a retired university physics professor.
I consider myself a member of the scientific community; and one doesn't increase one's stature in the scientific community by subscribing to ludicrous theories. The information I've posted here is accompanied by a reference to a legitimate scientifc source; such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Of course, the above poster "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that the National Academy of Sciences is for sale to the highest bidder.
0.1 - Your Score
Rude Dog,
There is NOT an engineering bone in your body. Therefore, your oft repeated, but unsubstantiated assertion, "I'm a retired university physics professor". earns you a score of 0.1.
The Olympic Lying Event Judges have ruled.
Thanks for playing.
CORRECTION!!!
NO - most scientists subscribe to ALARA when it comes to regulations.
Regulations require a simplified structure which LNT gives, which is also conservative in that it overestimates the effect.
However, when you ask a scientist what the real physics / biology of radiation-induced biological damage is; they will tell you it is much more complex than ALARA or LNT.
You evidently didn't read the National Academy of Science BEIR - Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation - report.
Question the National Academy of Science?
You Betcha! In a heartbeat!
The (USA) National Academy of Science is presently considered an adequate, though not necessarily authoritative reference. And the BEIR paper conclusions are referenced below. However let us be perfectly clear ...
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/87-2/
Perhaps, when the NAS retreats from the Bogus Global Warming hoax, we shall assess their credibility.
For bogus 'approved' science, the global warming hoax is not on a par with the USSR Academy of Science. However there are some troubling similarities.
http://www.unz.org/Pub/AngloSovietJ-1952q3-00054
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vavilov/1948/30-years/x01.htm
Soviet Science: Thirty Years
Серге́й Ива́нович Вави́лов (Sergeĭ Ivanovich Vavilov) President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
First Published : 1948, Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow. Translation : Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow
The three decades that have passed since the October days of 1917 have brought about, on the territory of the onetime Russian empire, such social and economic change, such historical developments, as to reshape the very foundations of life in the country. Never before has human history, has the development of society, witnessed such momentous revolutionary upheavals as this transformation of old Russia into a classless, socialist stale based on the broad democracy of the Slalin Constitution into a close-knit community of Soviet peoples, with a heroic army that has attained unexampled victory, with a huge new industry and an agriculture of an entirely new type.
The most far-reaching conclusions and forecasts of the teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on the development of society have begun to be realized in the land of Soviets. For the first time in human history, scientific theory guides the building of a new slate.
Bill Duff
Late Entry Revision
Your recent revision, "when it comes to regulations" is, unfortunately a LATE ENTRY.
It cannot be separately scored at this time, as it would be unfair to other competitors in the Olympic Lying Event. Perhaps at a later date, an original submittal of this sort could be competitively submitted.
The DIFFICULTY with this bogus generality, may be related to the rather obvious circumstance that most scientists and engineers have a Personal Practice of ALARA. Rather than some nebulus views regarding future regulations. This may or may not prove to be a high scoring entry, in future Olympiads.
Thanks for playing.
Warning: CONTENT-FREE Post above
It's good as always to see this poster make another totally content free post playing his silly imaginary game and its equally arbitrary scoring system.
Scientists post scientific information.
People like the above poster can only post silly nonsense
Never changes.
3.5 A Laughable Attempt
Keep it up Rude Dog
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662560
BEIR VII reconfirmed that the linear no threshold model is the most practical model to estimate radiation risks, especially for radiation protection purposes. The updated risk estimates have not changed significantly from the BEIR V estimates, but the confidence intervals have narrowed as the result of the availability of additional data.
Your score 3.5
Estimate future risks - conservatively
The BEIR VII reconfirmed that LNT is a practical model to estimate for regulation purposes.
However, if you had followed this forum from the beginning; you would have also learned in one of the threads that they do not countenance the use of LNT for the purpose of estimating damage that has actually happened.
The key word is RISK. If we are estimating risk for regulatory purposes, then it is good to overestimate the risk, and LNT does that.
However, if you are advising someone about the health effects of a radiation exposure that has actually occurred, then since LNT overestimates the damage, it is not accurate. The radiation damage in living human tissue is much, much more complex than a simplistic model like LNT give.
For example, LNT doesn't take into account the "adaptive response",
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Low-Dose Exposure Can Protect
The team also discovered that the human lymphoblastoid cells exhibit what is called an adaptive response to ionizing radiation. An extremely low dose (also called a priming dose) appears to offer protection to the cell from a subsequent high dose (2 grays) of ionizing radiation. The degree of protection was measured by the amount of reduced chromosomal damage. A priming dose of 0.05 gray, administered about 6 hours before the high dose, can reduce chromosomal damage by 20 to 50 percent, compared with damage to cells that were not exposed to the priming dose.
?Pretreatment with a low dose of ionizing radiation sets the cell up to better survive a much higher dose of radiation. A tiny stress apparently helps a cell get ready for a bigger stress,? says Coleman. About 200 genes were found to be associated with adaptive response in the human lymphoblastoid cells. Of these, about half were turned on, and half were turned off. ?We want to know what genes and pathways are associated with adaptation. Is the adaptive response similar to the low-dose response? We don?t yet know.? Coleman says that adaptive responses were first reported in the early 1980s, although many scientists doubted the accuracy of the reports. ?Now people are saying this effect happens throughout nature, including in plants. Regulatory agencies are convinced these effects do appen and that they may play a role in human health.”
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.
Look up loser
Rude Dog can stare at the truth and ignore it.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/it%E2%80%99s-time-give-breeder-rea...
Certainly the Pennsylvania public was harmed by TMI.
Federal Judges are for the most part, lying lawyers in black bathrobes. Federal judges are seldom if ever engineers, scientists, physicians ... or honest.
Evidently you didn't read the provided ruling
Judge Sylvia Rambo in the Three Mile Island lawsuit went by the evidence provided by scientists, engineers, and physicians.
Three Mile Island was extensively studied by scientists, engineers, and physicians in both the Kemeny Report and the Rogovin Report.
As she stated in her ruling, the scientists in the Rogovin Report stated that the public was not harmed. The only release from Three Mile Island of non-inert material was an intentional release of 15 Curies of Iodine-131 which is only 121 micrograms:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+15+Curies+I-131+to+grams
The Three Mile Island containment building did a very good job of "bottling up" the accident; so that 121 microgram release is quite trivial compared to ordinary background radiation.
Counter to the fabrications of this forum's resident idiot; the judge made her ruling entirely consistent with what the scientists, engineers, and physicians testified.
2.6 After 5 Point Deduct
Sorry,
Loud laughter from the event crowds, for several years, resulted tn a rule change, 4 years ago. Your raw score for the Olympic Lying event was a 7.6. After the 5 point deduct for this particular, shop-worn lie, your final score is only 2.6.
Perhaps an Olympic FARCE event will be approved at some later date.
Thanks for playing
Don't you ever offer any proof?
You've been sparring with Rude Dog for some time. However, I find your standard answer is to claim he lies without anything to back that up. The only one that cites references to back up his claims is Rude Dog. Your debate tactics ring pretty hollow without any proof.
Our dear CLUELESS ENGINEER is
Our dear CLUELESS ENGINEER is not the best representative of the anti-nuke side.
Continual chants of "you're lying", "you're lying", "you're lying" interspersed with the occasional paranoid fantasy and a complete inability to get any technical detail right does not bolster his credibility.
Simple Facts
The thing about Simple Facts is that repetition neither establishes nor negates them.
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, Rude Dog is a liar
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, Rude Dog is a liar
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, Rude Dog is a liar
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, Rude Dog is a liar
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, Rude Dog is a liar
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, Rude Dog is a liar
The proofs are evident, to the trained eye
Actually..
Actually, I find the above characterization befits you more than it does Rude Dog. As Rude Dog has demonstrated, you are the one that gets the technical details wrong. You are just too obstinate to admit that you are wrong.
Perhaps another assessment
Rude Dog,
Perhaps the following assessment, from another blogger is more to your liking.
"You have no RESPECT or HONOR at all and don't deserve any."
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/kaltofens-soil-measurement-100x-uc... "You have no RESPECT or HONOR at all and don't deserve any."
Oh, and there is an interesting 'Boo-Boo' (digital-artifact) present. How does a regular blogger, without departmental privileges, misplace a new, nested comment in the middle of a sequence of nested comments.
Oh Oh!
Some AgitProps have Privileges!
Does the Rude Dog have an access key ... or outsider-access capabilities?
Thank you for providing an
Thank you for providing an example of my point.
You responded with a paranoid fantasy that was based on an inability to get technical details right.
Look at the time stamps
Look at the time stamps. You have a post on 2012-10-17 at 9:09 in response to my post at 2012-10-17 at 10:46. In a recent post, you stated that Rude Dog has some type of priveledge on this board because the posts were not time ordered properly. It appears that you have that same privledge, or this is the fault of the board software and doesn't have anything to do with Rude Dog having some priveledge as you claimed.
Outed
Rude Dog,
Too bad, you are 'outed'. It is too late to lock the barn, the cows are out.
Move on
???
What the heck are you talking about? I'm not Rude Dog, and I didn't switch the posts around any more than you did. I've noticed this a fair bit on this forum, and I don't think anyone is switching posts around or has special privledges. I think the forum software has a bug.
In any case, you haven't answered my question about backing up and supporting your contentions. Anyone can claim someone is lying; but they need to prove it.
You haven't.
When your cover is BLOWN
Note to lying federal agents provacateurs with deficient survival skills.
When your cover is blown ... run.
Your usefulness is compromised. Your team is embarrassed. Your mission is over. Your effectiveness will not 'get better with time'.
In many circumstances, such as investigations of drug cartels, Jihadis and the like, your lives are in danger. So ... bugger off, and be quick about it.
Work on your skill sets and move on.
Nobody is gonna kill you for being a total jerk, in an engineering blog. However, your evident lack of intelligence, education and basic survival skills; may cause us to suspect the competence of your entire organization.
Evidently, Rude Dog's handler is equally brain-dead.
Bump
Bump Bump
Nested Comments
Rude Dog,
How did this 'Bump' which is time-stamped Mon, 2012-10-15 17:51; get nested into the above comment which is time-stamped Wed, 2012-10-17 08:39?
Oh, and Rude Dog, did I mention recently, that you are an incompetent idiot, as well as a pathological liar?
Just Asking