any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-07-13 01:25, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2019-07-12, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-07-11, jurb6006@gmail.com <jurb6006@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually no one has a long term solution.
Well if we put too much of it on the moon that will start flying
away Well that would take alot but it is opposite what most
people think, that the moon would start falling in toward us.

Anyway, someone is working on it. I don't need a link or
anything, it is simply that this is something that can be
profitable so someone who wants profits is trying to do
something.

They already reuse it some and I guess it becomes DU ? There are
only so many people we want to shoot with that shit.

DU is supposed to be U238 with only a little U235, but yeah there
have been highly radioactive bullets found, so someone is selling
nucelar waste as ammo.

Oh really? With all the controls surrounding the handling of even
very slightly radioactive stuff, somebody would have noticed that
before it ended up in bullets, I should think. This sounds fake,
or at least distorted. Do you have a reference?

No. Some documentary on telly in the early 2000s claimed spent DU
rounds were more radioactive than they should have been.

The thing is spent fuel goes to reprocessing, and that's the same sort
of equipment as used for enrichment so it's conceivable that there
could be cross-contamination or deliberate malfeasance.

Not sure I believe this one:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/depleted-uranium-weapons_b_32654

Guardian seems to be on the ball though,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/17/armstrade.unitednations

OK, the claim is that it contains some U236, not that it's much
more radioactive. That explains how it could end up in ammunition
without being detected.

I singled out this incongruous quote from the Guardian article:
"Asked if he was warned about DU weapons - fired by British tanks as
well as American armour and aircraft during the Gulf war - Sir Peter
said: "I was not aware there were any specific dangers to it."

Of course not. DU weapons are perfectly safe. No danger at all.
One marvels at the mindset that comes up with a statement like
that, and thinks it sane.

Jeroen Belleman

 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:06:34 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:23:06 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,

That was wrong as well. The SL-1 accident happened in the 60's. To be accurate you have to add another qualifier or two.

The issue is not that there is a history of fatalities littering the development of nuclear power. The issue is that it poses great risks from the potential of accidents, but also from improper storage of nuclear waste, which no one has addressed. Of course this has all been discussed here before and I don't think anything new will come of it.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

That was an experimental military reactor, not a commercial power plant..
And you're wrong, the 3 that died were killed by a steam explosion, not
from radiation. Two died instantly, one died of his injuries a
few hours later. If you want to harp about that, then add up all the
fatalities at coal plants, nat gas driven plants, hell even workers who
fall off windmills or roofs putting up solar panels.

Yes, it was a reactor accident. While the three deaths were due to the explosion, none would have lived anyway because of the massive doses of radiation they received.

Is that clear now?

Yes, it's clear. They died from a steam explosion at an experimental
military reactor, not from radiation. It has nothing to do with commercial
nuclear power, which is what is being discussed here, you were just just
trying to mislead people and now you're sore because it didn't work.

The only way you can claim there have been no nuclear reactor deaths is to qualify it in several ways.

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Did you see that episode of the Simpsons the did on people who drive
electric cars, where they all run around smelling their own farts while
trying to act so superior to everyone else?

 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:34:38 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:9d9dcd40-83b0-4c95-8d96-
c51eb02e4dba@googlegroups.com:

That went out the window with Chernobyl,

TraderTard4's logic is beyond retarded.

You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.

You sit right at the bottom of the total retard totem pole, child.

Nice editing job, totally deleting everything. Which of course is what
you have to do, because otherwise people would see that what I said was
true and you are once again wrong. Always wrong.

 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:83eb7772-0502-425e-9c5a-3d9c6c18d5e1@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:07:58 AM UTC+2,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:edec368b-11ab-47d4-8d61-
8d7a78180d9c@googlegroups.com:

that if one of those coils fails

That 'containment' is to keep it off the walls of the
'container'.

If one fails, the shutdown sequence would halt the reaction
likely
way before a burn through event. But regardless such a failure
would probably trash the vessel, and require replacement.

Keeping the plasma off the wall of the container is to protect the
plasma, not the walls of the container.

No, it is not. It (the containment field) is to CONTAIN the
plasma, and PROTECT the containment vessel FROM the heat of the
plasma. There is no "protect the plasma", ya dope. The field is
about controlling the plasma.

And protecting the plasma by keeping it off the wall, because if it
hits the wall, there is no more plasma. It's all about very high
temperatures, but not a whole lot of heat.







The vessel is the superstructure onto

which the field coils are built, and the steam production heat
exchange superstructure elements.

What steam production? So far no one has even gotten any
fusion experiment to the point of producing any steam period.
Or even to the point of generating more energy than is put into
it! These are all at the experimental stage, where they have been
for sixty years.

If the containment field fails, THE CONTAINER breeches where the
plasma contacts it. So, unless the retion is halted, the hot
plasma WILL do damage where it contacts surfaces the system was
designed to keep it from contacting. In fact, that is the entire
paradigm of fusion reaction. Where the output energy is so much more
than the energy required to contain the sun level heat source that it
becomes a useable heat engine. Currently containment is paramount.
Then getting it to produce enough to power itself AND a turbine.
Then deciding on a workable form factor.

So yes, the field is to contain the plasma and thereby PROTECT the
CONTAINER.

The plasma may be hot,

Fusion reaction plasma is as hot as the sun. 100 million degrees.

but there's not a lot of it, and it isn't
going to burn through the walls of the container, or have enough
effect on them to require their replacement.

Perhaps on the experimental version where containment refinement is
the job right now. In a real, producing reactor, I am sure the
plasma wad will be substantially larger as will the sphere.

Well duh? He was talking about now, not the future. We don't have
any idea what technology, if any, will finally make it to a fusion
reactor that actually can produce more energy than it consumes.

If it shuts off (discontinues fusing) immediately, sure. Nothing
happens. Except that you are not thinking very well. There will be
a larger amount than the experimental and it may not stop fusing
immediately (will not). Contact means instant breech.

Might be a better design to have a series of smaller vessels
than
the current, single containment of fission method.

Probably not.

Absolutely SO.

It isn't the kind of arrangement that lends itself
to being scaled down,

The experimental vessels are almost large enough to make steam
levels needed for a turbine. A series of them certainly would and
being individually serviceable would be a feature.

That's as big of a BS lie as any of the whoppers you've posted here.

The only logistics in the 'arrangement' would be that each gets
their own field coils.

One large reactor failure is more catastrophic than 1/20th of your
system having a problem which does not affect the remaining 19/20ths.
Far less catastrophic, if at all. Perhaps you should look the word
up.

Perhaps you should stop making an ass of yourself?

 

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:12:32 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3884bca3-e2fe-420f-9ec6-7863fb611a35@googlegroups.com:

ust let the Consumer Product Safety Commission know
and they will act on it. Of course you're just blowing your usual
BS.

That is for in country products, you fucking stupid twerp.

That's wrong too. CPSC has authority over products both made here
and imported. Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3884bca3-e2fe-420f-9ec6-7863fb611a35@googlegroups.com:

First time you said anything about poisonous. You said bullshit
toys,

Look at what I responded to. Bullshit toys means toys made with
plastics WE DO NOT ACCEPT here.

Yes, of course, how straightforward and obvious. And it's still a lie,
because the vast majority of Chinese toys are not made with plastics
we do not accept here. If they were, the CPSC would ban them. So,
if you have information on any such toys, contact them, yes?




IOW, plastics that exhibit toxins.

It is just that simple. We do not make them, so they need also to
not be allowed in from elsewhere.

We ALREADY have the laws on the books. It is simply a matter of
customs not doing their jobs at the ports.

Baloney.

Chase bank got caught bringing a ton of coke in a container. The
entire bank's assets should be siezed, and they should be rendered
defunct.

I'm sure a cite for that won't be forthcoming either.

I get spam from the retarded bastards and I do not even have an
account with them.

We need to look at and reject the unacceptable items. Period.

Tell it to the CPSC. Of course they will want more than just your
gums flapping BS.

One is not allowed to export into the EU any electrical product
that does not have CE certification. And they seem to be doing a
pretty good job of enforcement.

America's problem is that we do not look at tons of "trusted
source" parcels that come in. That needs to stop.

Yes, sure, we'll just increase the cost of all kinds of products to the
American consumer and create more govt jobs. Gotta find those Chinese
toys!

ROFL

 

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:18:44 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:2406e797-756f-49c5-a844-5268ce408c21@googlegroups.com:

Actually no one has a long term solution.

Well if we put too much of it on the moon that will start flying
away Well that would take alot but it is opposite what most
people think, that the moon would start falling in toward us.

Nope. Any "tonnage" (of anything) we put up there means that we
*should* be sending back Moon soil of equal weight.

Yes, we should get right on that problem. It's already serious, we
left all those lunar landers on the moon and only brought back a couple
hundred pounds of rocks.

Anyway, someone is working on it. I don't need a link or anything,
it is simply that this is something that can be profitable so
someone who wants profits is trying to do something.

Pre accelerated rail gun push of parcels would work if the rail
accel part was after a speed ramp up. A Mag lev up a mountain side
into the rail gun segment at the end for the final accell and push.

They already reuse it some and I guess it becomes DU ? There are
only so many people we want to shoot with that shit.

I guess you ignored the explanation given of what DU is and where
it comes from. Likely also what it is used for.

I give it ten years. Of course by then solar and wind will have
gotten better but still there are advantages to have at least part
of it supplied by nuclear. Let's put it this way, I'd like to see
NYC go totally solar and wind. All they would have to do is get
rid of the people.

All that stupid shit just to finish with this last stupid shit.
I should have simply ignored the whole post.

That last sentence you actually got right.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 5:35:13 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:06:34 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:23:06 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,

That was wrong as well. The SL-1 accident happened in the 60's. To be accurate you have to add another qualifier or two.

The issue is not that there is a history of fatalities littering the development of nuclear power. The issue is that it poses great risks from the potential of accidents, but also from improper storage of nuclear waste, which no one has addressed. Of course this has all been discussed here before and I don't think anything new will come of it.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

That was an experimental military reactor, not a commercial power plant.
And you're wrong, the 3 that died were killed by a steam explosion, not
from radiation. Two died instantly, one died of his injuries a
few hours later. If you want to harp about that, then add up all the
fatalities at coal plants, nat gas driven plants, hell even workers who
fall off windmills or roofs putting up solar panels.

Yes, it was a reactor accident. While the three deaths were due to the explosion, none would have lived anyway because of the massive doses of radiation they received.

Is that clear now?

Yes, it's clear. They died from a steam explosion at an experimental
military reactor, not from radiation. It has nothing to do with commercial
nuclear power, which is what is being discussed here, you were just just
trying to mislead people and now you're sore because it didn't work.

Yes, and that is my point. To claim there are no deaths associated with nuclear power you have to add a number of qualifiers to fit the facts. I think you can state pretty much anything if you add enough qualifiers.

--

Rick C.

+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:51:21 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:23:06 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,

That was wrong as well. The SL-1 accident happened in the 60's. To be accurate you have to add another qualifier or two.

The issue is not that there is a history of fatalities littering the development of nuclear power. The issue is that it poses great risks from the potential of accidents, but also from improper storage of nuclear waste, which no one has addressed. Of course this has all been discussed here before and I don't think anything new will come of it.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

That was an experimental military reactor, not a commercial power plant.
And you're wrong, the 3 that died were killed by a steam explosion, not
from radiation. Two died instantly, one died of his injuries a
few hours later. If you want to harp about that, then add up all the
fatalities at coal plants, nat gas driven plants, hell even workers who
fall off windmills or roofs putting up solar panels.

If one believes a film made about the accident, the bodies were so
badly contaminated that the doctors performing the obduction, had to
use special precautions, not to get contaminated themselves.

If the three men made had escaped the explosion, would they have
killed by the radiation ?

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:378f6f25-fb8b-422d-863c-
0994e6c99b08@googlegroups.com:

Perhaps you should stop making an ass of yourself?

Perhaps you should get the fuck out of the thread with your bullshit
declarations.

It would be such a joy to mash your mouth... with a two pound
sledge. Maybe about ten times, being sure to 'miss high' and catch you
in the temple a couple times.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:378f6f25-fb8b-422d-863c-
0994e6c99b08@googlegroups.com:

These are all at the experimental stage, where they have been
for sixty years.

Go away, little boy. You know nothing about it.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:820685d0-88ca-44d8-8dcf-
28f1fe313fcf@googlegroups.com:

> Yes, we should get right on that problem.

Fuck off and die, Trader Tard. Go back to your porn group.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:c38399dc-4da5-4cf4-94fb-
169b6700b1ff@googlegroups.com:

IOW, plastics that exhibit toxins.
It is just that simple. We do not make them, so they need also to
not be allowed in from elsewhere.

We ALREADY have the laws on the books. It is simply a matter of
customs not doing their jobs at the ports.

Baloney.

You are an idiot. There are thousands of counterfeit plastic toys
here from china. Lego blocks are a big one.

That is just the counterfeits.

Wake the fuck up, dumbfuck.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:c38399dc-4da5-4cf4-94fb-
169b6700b1ff@googlegroups.com:

I'm sure a cite for that won't be forthcoming either.

So, you are so goddamned stupid that you do not watch the dily news
either. How quaint.... not!

Just fuck off, you know nothing, total piece of shit.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:c38399dc-4da5-4cf4-94fb-
169b6700b1ff@googlegroups.com:

> gums flapping BS.

What are you, punk, eleven years old?

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 12:27:27 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:51:21 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:23:06 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,

That was wrong as well. The SL-1 accident happened in the 60's. To be accurate you have to add another qualifier or two.

The issue is not that there is a history of fatalities littering the development of nuclear power. The issue is that it poses great risks from the potential of accidents, but also from improper storage of nuclear waste, which no one has addressed. Of course this has all been discussed here before and I don't think anything new will come of it.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

That was an experimental military reactor, not a commercial power plant.
And you're wrong, the 3 that died were killed by a steam explosion, not
from radiation. Two died instantly, one died of his injuries a
few hours later. If you want to harp about that, then add up all the
fatalities at coal plants, nat gas driven plants, hell even workers who
fall off windmills or roofs putting up solar panels.

If one believes a film made about the accident, the bodies were so
badly contaminated that the doctors performing the obduction, had to
use special precautions, not to get contaminated themselves.

If the three men made had escaped the explosion, would they have
killed by the radiation ?

Yes. The radiation level spiked by a huge amount giving all three lethal doses.

--

Rick C.

+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

>So, you are so goddamned stupid that you do not watch the dily >news either

I think we may be on to your problem. You watch TV news in the US ? You're the fucking stupid one then. They definitely had something to do with indoctrinating you to hate the best President we have had in decades.

Sure, he's an asshole but tell me who the fuck is better. Who ? Did you vote for that autistic cunt ? Them was the choices. And i didn't make it like that and the republicans didn't make it like that. How many guesses do you want who did ? Maybe a box of rocks could beat him but he beat her. And he did it with brains, she tried to do it with the nigger (of any color) vote. Autistic, like half of the democrats out there. Never even heard of the Constitution.

Despicable. I am much happier being deplorable. Richer too...

TV news, that is a very amusing oxymoron, there is no news on that thing.

 

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 1:52:11 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:c38399dc-4da5-4cf4-94fb-
169b6700b1ff@googlegroups.com:

IOW, plastics that exhibit toxins.
It is just that simple. We do not make them, so they need also to
not be allowed in from elsewhere.

We ALREADY have the laws on the books. It is simply a matter of
customs not doing their jobs at the ports.

Baloney.



You are an idiot. There are thousands of counterfeit plastic toys
here from china. Lego blocks are a big one.

That is just the counterfeits.

Wake the fuck up, dumbfuck.

Counterfeit? Sure. But you claimed they were POISONOUS, which is a whole different thing. I just googled for "China counterfeit
Lego toxic" and came back with lots of hits about counterfeit Legos,
nothing about any of them being toxic. And the hits show that the govt
is acting to seize the counterfeit product.

Wrong, always wrong.

And still making several separate replies to the same post.

Wrong, always wrong, even on that.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:c826696a-4404-4f9c-a2ad-
6da7382dd51c@googlegroups.com:

> I think we may be on to your problem. You watch TV news in the US ?

You are a goddamned idiot.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d2cc106b-925e-4adc-b318-
ef5b7ba06ad1@googlegroups.com:

Wrong, always wrong.

Fuck off and die, you retarded putz.