Fukushima after five years

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11388
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:44 am

Tasmanian salmon is the best.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:52 am

Bobbo

Having an interest in healthy eating is very good. But bear in mind that the worst things in food are those things found in large amounts. These are, in no particular order, saturated fat, trans fats, sugars, purified starch. Things that are present in tiny amounts are usually not something to be concerned about. Processed meats are not good, but purer meats, like your big steak, are not really a problem. Just balance it by eating lots of fruit, vegetables and nuts.

Hormones in meats are not a problem. All meat contains hormones, anyway, and a tiny bit extra is not going to harm you, since it gets digested anyway. The human body is simply not that fragile. We evolved as omnivores, and we can do well on an amazingly wide range of foods, including farmed salmon.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:57 am

Lance: HEY!!!!!! Stop trying to convince me with facts. You have already been TOO successful. My mind "flipped" quite a bit a few years back reading up about organic food production. Done according to standards.....you are/were about x10 times more likely to get an e coli infection compared to sprayed fruits and veggies. Simple cheaper (wiser) compromise: wash your food before eating and don't buy waxed. ............ Still hate seeing little girls start menstruating at age 8.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:59 am

Sorry, Bobbo. I cannot help myself. I am a fact addict. Do you think I need treatment ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:10 am

Well.........seriously...............you don't seem to appreciate "values." Just because values are harder to amass data points against doesn't mean values aren't important....even controlling in most issues. Choosing facts/data over values..............is a value laden (emotional) decision. Ain't that cool?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:27 am

Depends on the values. As I told you once, my value system is mainly about human welfare, and the greater good for the greater number. Nailing down the best way to achieve that is best done with solid data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:17 am

No.......you're still not getting it.

Values: Beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

"Depends on the Values" .......... aka: everyone thinks their own values are the best, everyone else is wrong. The very category you proudly claim. See any problems with that approach?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 am

I suspect, Bobbo, that if you and I discussed it for long enough, we would realise that we have similar values. The values I find annoying are those from religion, which are wishy washy and ill defined. Often, if anything, anti-human.

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:24 pm

greater good for the greater number of humans
---- if that were 2 really happen ---- if everyone were to get an ideal diet . the population would be what ?
instead of 7 billion
greater good for humons destroys the planet
for the real minority ; there will be no justice , there will be no peace .
makes sense 2me , so it has 2be wrong .

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:05 pm

Pias

Your statement is one of those made without data. If you check the United Nations web site (www.un.org/popin) you will be able to dig out the true data on population growth. That is, the greatest growth is in those places where people are poorest. Help people achieve a decent standard of living and population growth drops.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I suspect, Bobbo, that if you and I discussed it for long enough, we would realise that we have similar values. The values I find annoying are those from religion, which are wishy washy and ill defined. Often, if anything, anti-human.

One value might be love of argument.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:38 am

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-chinese-c ... reuse.html

A bit of irony here. With all the fears of radiation from nuclear power stations, Chinese coal burning power plants are producing ash that is too radioactive to be recycled as filler material.

Also interesting to note that China is going to build a full scale nuclear power plant using thorium as fuel. Plus a major expansion of nuclear power across the board.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/c ... scale.html

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:20 pm

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/m ... urdle.html

For those people who think nuclear is going to be too expensive, the reference above shows a new method that will be cheaper than almost any other way of generating electricity. It will be cheap and clean. It will operate steadily 24 hours a day, unlike wind or solar, and not require energy storage. It will not put out greenhouse gases. It will be compact, unlike solar and wind which have to cover vast areas of the landscape. As a compact plant, it can be hidden away so that it does not offend aesthetics, unlike wind towers , which I think are ugly as sin and a blot on what would otherwise be beautiful landscapes.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:58 pm

LK,
this is exactly what I have posted above: there is no question whatsoever that current types of reactors in use are too expensive.
That is the current state of affairs.
You seem to be implying that I said that nuclear power would always be more expensive - which is not the case.

Molten salt has great potential, but this is still early stages and investors will be wary. Even small problems could cause major setbacks.
I would be happy if this technology leads to safer and cheaper nuclear power, but until we have a few of them running for a couple of years we won't know.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:09 pm

Fair comment, EM.

I was not, in fact, directing that comment at you. But your reply was sound.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11388
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Also interesting to note that China is going to build a full scale nuclear power plant using thorium as fuel. Plus a major expansion of nuclear power across the board.

Which will undoubtedly break the day after the warranty expires.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:56 pm

MM

There will be problems earlier than that, since this is novel technology, but the Chinese will be sure they can handle any such problems. Every new technology must start somewhere.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:07 pm

The Chinese also had expertise in building dams. If only they had taken maintenance seriously.
But they have an even greater history of corruption - accidents will happen, as cutting corners is the primary method of making money in China m
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11388
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:34 pm

And thorium reactors aren't something you skimp on gravel in the concrete.

You need three chained reactors. Your typical uranium reactor, then you feed the waste from that into a second fast breeder reactor to make plutonium, then you feed the plutonium and thorium into a third reactor to make uranium, which you feed back into the first reactor.

And it all goes round and round. In theory, extremely high efficiency. But the more complexity, the more points of failure...
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:52 am

Thorium has the interesting property of being very reluctant to undergo fission. You have to force it. There are two consequences of this.
1. It is impossible to get a runaway reaction and subsequent melt down.
2. It cannot be used to make weapons.

For people who are paranoid about nuclear safety, you guys ought to approve.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11388
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:58 am

You need a plutonium reactor to make it into uranium, dumbo.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10058
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:37 am

I reject the dumbo label. I also reject the misinformed statement about plutonium. You do not need a plutonium reactor. A small amount of uranium 233 is sufficient to drive the thorium fission. The neutrons from the U233 convert the thorium.

In addition to the points I made earlier, we can add that thorium is much less rare than uranium (there is more than 2,500,000 tonnes already identified in known ores) , and thorium ores are 100% fissionable, as opposed to uranium ores, which are mostly non fissionable U238. There is enough thorium to keep humanity supplied in energy for 10,000 years.

The waste left is also much less. In fact, the USA considered thorium many years ago, and basically rejected it because they wanted to have an industry that made fuel for bombs as well as reactors.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 360spider [spider] and 1 guest