I know what you mean - scientists can be a silly lot when when it comes to naming things.
However, a name like 'strangeness' is just a title, a way to start explaining something we may only be beginning to grasp.
The phrase "full of it" can simply mean "mischievous" - naming things is a balance between taking ourselves too seriously and not too seriously.
However, a name like 'strangeness' is just a title, a way to start explaining something we may only be beginning to grasp.
The phrase "full of it" can simply mean "mischievous" - naming things is a balance between taking ourselves too seriously and not too seriously.
I was living in Tokyo when the earthquake struck in 2011. There was an increase in radiation levels after Fukushima. When I looked at the data, the levels had more than doubled but were still lower than Singapore.
The Thunderbolt Kid led me to the work of illustrator Chesley Bonestell.
Below, he illustrates the A-bombing of New York City, 1948.
And below, the launching of nuclear missiles from the Moon, 1948.
Says Bill Bryson, "These illustrations were meant to frighten, but really they excited".
More of Bonestells illustrations here: https://www.bonestell.org/Image-Gallery.aspx
Below, he illustrates the A-bombing of New York City, 1948.
And below, the launching of nuclear missiles from the Moon, 1948.
Says Bill Bryson, "These illustrations were meant to frighten, but really they excited".
More of Bonestells illustrations here: https://www.bonestell.org/Image-Gallery.aspx
I do not think so. The radioactive stuff released in the environment is very small relative to our planet volume; Once diluted the induced radioactivity is not mesurable from natural radioactivité. Like an audio signal lost under the noise floor.
The only issue is local concentration before it gets diluted. Sure this has been calculated seriously away from controversies. There are enough anti nuke, eager to spread their ideology that we would know.
The only radio- health issue we had is Tchernobyl, but mostly from hiding the truth, wasting time to take appropriate actions to expose populations as little as possible. In France, we were told, the radioactive cloud had stopped at the border.
😆
A quick search returned this: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search...s expected a far more important contamination.
"In France the average dose due to Chernobyl accident represented less than 10% of the yearly dose produced by natural radioactivity, so French authorities were right not to take alarm."
There was another kind of 'fallout' after Fukushima and that was >
My shares in Australian uranium company ERA, went from $9 to 32 cents.
You could say "I got FOOKED by Fukushima" 🙁
I don’t think we can solve our energy needs or the climate crises without going nuclear. Modern reactors are nothing like Chernobyl, Fukushima and the UK one at Sellarfield.
There were mutterings about this area some time before this disaster. It's probably why atmospheric testing was ended once bigger bangs were more sorted out. One isotope in particular was mentioned - can't remember which.
An interesting fact. Sometimes radioactive free steel is needed, Seems it's obtained from sunken ships from before the nuclear era. Loads went down during WWII.
The most unhealthy isotopes from nuclear accidents are Iode131 and Cesium139.
Iode131 is highly radioactive so has a short half life.
Cesium139 is lower active but has a longer half lire.
This is how it goes with radioactive materials. It burns strong and fast, or it burns weak and slow.
This is important to be aware of, not to jump in the fear of very hight radioactivity over very long period....You only have both together with very large amounts.
Keep this in perspective to appraise realities about nuclear energy.
Iode131 is highly radioactive so has a short half life.
Cesium139 is lower active but has a longer half lire.
This is how it goes with radioactive materials. It burns strong and fast, or it burns weak and slow.
This is important to be aware of, not to jump in the fear of very hight radioactivity over very long period....You only have both together with very large amounts.
Keep this in perspective to appraise realities about nuclear energy.
I understand ES's article (and I scanned Kerr's paper as well), objects/matter going over the outer event horizon stay permanently between the space in the two event horizons. Theres a simulation in ES's paper showing how objects move in this space. Its then postulated that matter going over the inner event horizon does not end up crunched in a singularity, but moves in perpendicular to the inner event horizon's surface (or was it the spin axis - not sure I got it) and parallel to other matter. Quite where it goes is not made clear. The ergosphere, as you noted is the space outside the outer event horizon where you get frame dragging.
(Incredible that Kerr, at 89 years old, is writing stuff like this. That's a real genius for you!)
Actually I understand that Chernobyl mostly resulted in upgrades in the containment area. Meanwhile the French have been studying lifetime before they have to be decommissioned . Sort of live study on the reactors they have.
I feel Blare made the best comment on our need for nuclear. Needed if we want to keep the lights on. Wind is fickle. Currently the aim is to top up with gas fired turbines when needed. Hence renewed interest in n sea gas. This aspect is completely ignored by some. The alternative is import liquefied from far away. A very ungreen process in several respects even in terms of producing the stuff.
Nuclear costs. They need a lot of money to build and take a while before they actually produce. This has a dramatic effect on the financing costs even when the gov guarantee loans the builders take out. Local sources and labour are always used where possible. A bit of a plus. Wind etc are financed in a similar fashion and i hear they still need paying if they aren't producing.
Small kit build reactors. Noise from Rolls Royce but no signs of action. I've seen a comment that one country has 1/2 dozen on order from some where or the other.
Greening in general. The Swedes intend to include their imports too. UK ???? They have also forced garages to provide some grades of fuel. 🙂 Sore point with me, we don't. The UK was similar with lead in petrol. No action until long after others had ended it's use.
China - reports crop up. More spent in this area than the whole rest of the world put together. They have a much bigger problem than many other countries. End imports from them? What major country could do that?
🙂 The gravity of the situation is disturbing.
Yes about Chernobyl, a graphite gas reactor, abandonned, was already known bad.
No, Fukushima is "water pressure” a very common reactor worldwide, only missing some security the french had told them.
UK, I think you refer to EPR reactors that are nothing but "water pressure" improved on security and power.
Another reactor class is "fast neutron", that allows recycling and use and disposal of wastes. This is not SF, proven in France.
'Small kit build reactors. Noise from Rolls Royce but no signs of action. I've seen a comment that one country has 1/2 dozen on order from some where or the other.'
This is the future of nuclear I believe. I read many years ago that Toshiba and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries were both independently working on 'mini-reactors' that were cheap and could provide power for local grids. More recently Rolls Royce, but they need to extract digit and get on with it.
Agree that the issue is always about decommissioning. Sellafield cleanup costs given in a recent Guardian article are now pegged at £260 billion and 70 years (up from £60 billion about 10 years ago). I understand it is even a bone of contention with the USA who are worried about it. Some of this stuff will be around for thousands of years. The best solution is to give the South Africans £100 billion and bury the waste at the bottom of a disused goldmine 10 kilometers down surrounded by solid rock (I've been down 7 kilometres 😳). Slap 1000 tons of concrete over it and leave it.
This is the future of nuclear I believe. I read many years ago that Toshiba and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries were both independently working on 'mini-reactors' that were cheap and could provide power for local grids. More recently Rolls Royce, but they need to extract digit and get on with it.
Agree that the issue is always about decommissioning. Sellafield cleanup costs given in a recent Guardian article are now pegged at £260 billion and 70 years (up from £60 billion about 10 years ago). I understand it is even a bone of contention with the USA who are worried about it. Some of this stuff will be around for thousands of years. The best solution is to give the South Africans £100 billion and bury the waste at the bottom of a disused goldmine 10 kilometers down surrounded by solid rock (I've been down 7 kilometres 😳). Slap 1000 tons of concrete over it and leave it.
France built the Nuclear power station in South Africa in the mid 1970's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koeberg_Nuclear_Power_Station. The IAEA certified it as robust against a mag 7 earthquake.
Some of Bonestell's illustrations truly are delightful.
Below is Saturn as seen from Mimas, 1943.
Note the little astronaut figures!
Below is Saturn as seen from Mimas, 1943.
Note the little astronaut figures!
