Naggsty Butler

Isn't it weird how turning 30 does that to you? I was studying for a test today and listened to Tom Petty, the Castlevania 2 soundtrack, and the original Blade Runner soundtrack. I have no idea what the childrens listen to now a days other than that air horn thing.

When I say we were too early for nuclear, what I mean is we didn't spend enough time trying to overcome the technological challenges before implementing it on a large, commercial scale. We should have spent more time on research and development and do a gradual roll out. It's like if we were to try and send a group of people to Alpha Centauri right now and put them in cryo sleep for 40,000 years when we could just wait until the technology develops to the point where it is practical to send them in a matter of years. In the mean time, they could focus on small scale things like getting people to other planets in our own solar system. Just look at this picture from the control room in the Three Mile Island plant- They had a million different gages for all the different parameters they were trying to monitor, and when the accident happened, it happened so fast that the operator didn't even notice something was wrong until it was too late to stop it. Their event recorder computer spent hours printing off all of the information, so they didn't have any idea of what happened until long after. On today's plants, all of those parameters can be monitored from one or two screens. The computer handles all of the protective actions, and even if there is something wrong, the computer can put the plant in a passive state so that the operator can talk about what to do, go get a coffee, go home and sleep for a night, and then come back and resolve the issue. We are much better equipped today to deal with the risks of nuclear power than we ever were when those plants were designed. Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs, are very interesting. They have been working on them for a while, and are currently building one in Idaho that will provide power for northern Utah and Idaho. They aren't necessarily one specific design, there are many out there. The Navy only uses Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs), which aren't the best or smallest but they know how to use them and they use them well. I think the SMRs supposed to be even smaller than what they use in the Navy, which is great because they will be cheaper and easier to build. I am excited to see how they progress.

No question, nuclear is inherently dangerous and more risky than any other power source. But we have learned a lot about risk management since the early days of shimming out control rods by hand. We are aware of how dangerous this power is, and we treat it very carefully. The designs you see now are designed with safety measures that make it impossible for something like Chernobyl over ever happening. The problem I have with nuclear today is our reliance on old, overly complex tech that depends on a lower margin of safety than what we can do with today's tech. I think we need to retire most of the older plants and replace them with newer, safer one where we don't have to worry about another Three Mile Island or Fukushima. We dove into Nuclear before we were ready, and we paid the consequences for it. Nuclear is something that requires a technology level closer to what we have today than in the 50s and 60s when all of the current plants were designed. But I think the benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks.

For any one who is interested, here is a very informative and interesting explanation on the Fukushima Disaster. We use this video in our training at the Navy Shipyard.

I don't know what to say. You've been presented with detailed explanations backed up with scientific evidence, and you still think we are just looking for excuses to shrug off the responsibility to future generations. You are no different from the climate change deniers who deny the scientific evidence and prevent any real positive change from happening.

Were you aware that steel, when placed in the right conditions, will take thousands of years to break down? So if we store this low level radioactive waste in steel casks under 900 ft of rock, the steel will probably last long enough for the radioactive particles to decay away. And even if the steel doesn't last that long, if it only lasts 100 years, you have some low level radioactive waste buried under 900 to 5,000 ft of rock, where it only needs a little bit of lead, steel, water, plastic, or rock to shield it from going any more than a few dozen feet, and will never be a threat to anyone, ever. Not in 10,000 years. If you are concerned about someone digging it up and rubbing it all over themselves and possibly getting cancer, then yeah that could happen. An asteroid could hit the earth and wipe out all life, too, but the chances of that happening are just as likely.

Which "poison" waste are you talking about? The coolant that has been purified to the point that the radiation levels aren't even measurable? Are you talking about the components used to operate the reactor that have become activated due to being exposed to neutron flux and are shielded before they are buried? Or the solid fuel waste that has been cooled and gives off such low levels of radiation that you can walk up and touch it? The solid waste that, when properly shielded, will not be hazardous to anyone? The waste that people are so freaked out about they won't allow it to be stored anywhere because they have such wild misconceptions about it? The waste that there is such a small amount of that it only would fill a space the size of a single football field 10 ft deep? Look, I understand that people are concerned with waste. They are concerned about it getting into the drinking water. It is a legit concern. That is why we want to store it in locations where it wouldn't be a concern, such as Yucca mountain. It is very easy to store radioactive waste. Put it in a steel cask and it isn't going to be a problem ever. If you are that concerned about it, bury it in a mine where even if the few feet of steel that would have to break down for the waste to leak out through it wouldn't even be able to affect anyone. At that point where it breaks down the steel, which would take a very long time, the fission products would have decayed away to a point where they aren't even measurable any more. We know how to handle this stuff. The public refuses to become educated about it and as a result, they make it harder for us to make any real progress with the technology. A similar example is the Concorde. There was one crash and everyone thinks that supersonic airplanes are dangerous. Any plane can crash if a piece of metal from another plane gets into the engine. We can't let fear of something stop us from understanding it.

I'd gladly move there. Lots of cheap property. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to THIS poison, a vague boogeyman that people like you refuse to learn about and perpetuate myths about. Thomas Edison is rightly famous for helping make electricity a household commodity, but in his fight with Telsa over DC vs AC, he made some wildly absurd claims about AC to try and scare people into not using it, such as using an AC circuit to electrocute an elephant, something you can do with DC as well. People are doing the same thing with Nuclear power. They want everyone to be scared of it because like electricity, it can be misused and hurt people as a result. But we have learned how to make electricity safely, and we can do the same thing with nuclear power. And if informing ignorant people like you about something as basic that 19 year old Navy enlisted kids are trained on makes me an internet tough guy, then I gladly wear that label. I guess that makes you dumber than an 19 year old kid.

The problem with Nuclear Power is that people lack the fundamental understanding of how radiation works. There is no radioactive glowing sludge that you see on The Simpsons and everything else that tries to make Nuclear Power scary. Radiation is energy that is emitted from a radioactive source. Radioactive particles are ions (atoms with a charge) that, when they come in contact with other atoms that are sensitive to charge, can interact and cause a reaction. Radiation is dangerous due to the fact that when a radioactive particle comes in contact with tissue, it can knock an atom out of place or break a piece of DNA. Fortunately, the human body can repair itself relatively quickly, and will not be damaged very long. But when there is a lot of radiation, there can be so much damage that the body can't keep up with the repair and cancerous tumors replace healthy cells. There are 3 types of radiation related to nuclear power: Gamma, Beta, and Alpha. Alpha, which is a Helium atom with a +2 charge, is the most dangerous since it has such a strong charge and can cause more reactions from otherwise stable atoms. Beta is a high energy, free electron with either a -1 or +1 charge. While not as reactive as the Alpha particle, it can still be dangerous if there is enough of it. Finally, there is Gamma, which is a high energy electromagnetic wave. It is the least dangerous. While alpha is the most dangerous, it is also the easiest to shield, due to it reacting so easily with any material. It can be shielded by skin, paper, or even a few inches of air. Beta is has a stronger penetrative ability, but can still be shielded with thing metal or wood. Gamma, since it is much less reactive, is likewise much more difficult to shield. It is generally shielded with layers of lead or water. For it to be dangerous, though, there needs to be a lot of it. Since Alpha and Beta can both be shielded by skin or paper, they are really only dangerous when they become ingested. Once inside the body, they can interact more easily with cells. Gamma on the other hand, needs to be actively shielded. Once it is properly shielded, it really isn't much of a threat at all. I work with in 30 ft of an operating reactor and receive less radiation in a year than people living in Denver do. We know how to deal with radiation, and we do it well. The Navy has been operating nuclear reactors for nearly 70 years and hasn't had a single major accident. Zero Fatalities. Zero lost reactors. And every single one of these reactors are being operated by some kid who enlisted out of high school. We know how to do this, but people are just too scared to give it a shot.

The meltdown killed exactly 0 people. The radioactivity in Fukushima is less than that of Denver. There are already people that have moved back to Fukushima.

One of the most interesting factors that contributed to the Fukushima disaster that you don't hear about is how Japanese culture itself made the disaster worse. There were tons of protective systems on the system that weren't operated quickly enough or just ignored completely due to the workers not wanting to admit that there was something wrong. This was due to the concept of honor and face that permeates through Japanese culture. In my work as a Navy Nuclear Engineer, a lot of people I work with were over there working on the George Washington when then quake happened and the carrier was used to provide assistance. Many of our personnel were on site immediately after to evaluate the problem, and they found that a lot of these protective measures weren't put into action because people didn't want to have to deal with the shame of having to admit that there was a problem. Since the accident, the Japanese nuclear authority has been working to address the issue to make sure that that kind of stuff doesn't happen again. It has been a huge wake up call for them.

Well for starters, Hindu-Arabic has 10 unique characters as opposed to Roman's 7: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for Arabic, and I, V, X, L, C, D, M for Roman. It is harder to represent all of the numbers in the Roman system, considering there are only 2 symbols that can represent a single digit with a single symbol: 1(I) and 5(V). You have all 10 digits from the Arabic system to represent a single digit. Of course, there are advantages for the Roman system, as you can represent a multi digit number with a single symbol, e.g. 10(X), 50(L), 100(C), 500(D), and 1000(M). Also, the Romans did not have a way to represent fractions. There are other differences. You can Google them if you want.

While you are correct, zero is a difference between Roman and Arabic numerals, that is not "simply" all the difference.

Negatory, it's the Curse of Ham. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham Basically, after the ark landed on dry land, Noah got really drunk and his son Ham humiliated by undressing him. Noah cursed his son, saying his descendants would be slaves. It was believed that Africans were descended from Ham, and slave owners used this as justification for slavery. It was taught by a lot of early Christian groups, especially in the South. A lot of Confederates believed that slavery was God's Will, and therefore it should be defended. The attitudes about race have obviously lingered on to today.

Yeah, it's their original HQ. They set up a secondary HQ in Texas, but I believe the Colorado City has always been the primary one.