Al Gore

Consider specific people in the fusion research community, business, or politics who should be made aware of polywell research, and how we might reach them.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Postby Zixinus » Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:49 pm

The later stories hinted that most of it was thought to be stuck in the plumbing, though of course, some of it may have gone walkies, its hard to tell for sure if the paperwork isn't all in place.


If you can do the same paperwork and engineering, and do it flawlessly, then talk.

All I understand is that waste which should have gone to special landfill did not, and this is an example of breached regulations, who knows what other kind of regulations was breached if this sort of thing went on regularly.


So because a couple of nuclear engineers refuse to waste their time following idiotic regulations, nuclear engineers ,who know full well what hell they will be in if they mess up, are irresponsibles?

That is like accusing a police officer of being irresponsible because he didn't wax his uniform's shoes.

The west is no different when it comes to levels of incompetence, we have our 3 mile island, our windscale, they have Chernobyl.


Nanos, the Soviet Union built Chernobly so badly, that the frick KGB was the one talking how bad it is.

The.motherfucking.KGB. Their own secret service was warning the government that this is not safe. The fact alone that Chernobly was built the way it was anyway, is due to nothing else but the stupidity and unchecked power of the Soviet government.

If even one of the big mistake or shortcoming were corrected, then Chernobly would have been nothing but a footnote in nuclear history.

The frick difference, is that while Chernobly killed allot of people, while Three Miles Island failed to match the body count of Kennedy's car.

As for Windscale, the plant and stuff there is half a frick century old. Have you tried a car that is half a century old? What the hell do you expect? The site should be drastically renewed with modern technology.

To say that there is no difference between incompetence between the Soviet Union and the West is to say that there is no difference between a mental retard with a severe delusions and tendencies of hypocrisity and a surgeon who has three kids and a wife.

The heavy water was an example of something nuclear related that the UK shipped without telling the US at the time.


Heavy water has various uses, not all of them nuclear. Heavy water is a mundane resource, and even if you have it, you still need heavy metals to enrich heavy metals.

You do not tell how much Cadbury chocolate you sell to France or Sweden to the USA do you?

Link was only to show the document exists, the only way to view it is in person Smile (though they might have got around to digital online copies by now.)


So I must take your word for it what does it contain?

I don't recal what kind of nuclear material in question, only that UK sailers refused to handle the stuff and it eventually had to make its way there on the deck of a US supertanker.


Sounds like an administrative problem, which has nothing to do with it being nuclear.

All manner of rather worrying things go on behind the scenes, that in time we get to hear about, but they do and are happening as we speak, so caution is advised.


Caution is always advised when handling something dangerous, but what is your conclusion?

There is no such thing as fool proof security.


And there is no such thing as full proof opposition. We are talking about terrorists here, who have their resources and competence limited.

Also note that the high neutron activity only limits the size of the bomb you can make. Plus if I were tolerably smart there are ways around the problem. BTW I'm tolerably smart. Also note that the Los Alamos guys have stated that they could do a few tricks to make reactor grade plutonium suitable for a bomb. So Los Alamos and I think you could use reactor grade Pu to make a bomb.


Really? I have to look this up. Can you link the source of this? Does Los Alamos mention how possible it is to do this trick in practise with limited resources?

Also note: Once these "burners" proliferate what is to prevent the Russians from building one for Iran? How will 40 ton casks help then?


What "burners" are you talking about?

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Postby Nanos » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:55 pm

What next, the army telling us they have lost tanks due to paperwork errors.. ;-)

Ah well you see, these people trucking the waste around, wasn't nuclear engineers, they was just joe average doing their job, like cleaners, and the million and one other people in the loop who know jack about what really is important and what isn't, its those people you got to watch.

Hey, what to see crappy built reactors, just come to the UK and inspect ours!

Actually, I tend to find 50 year old technology a tad more reliable than todays junk.

I'm sorry, how many space shuttles has the US lost compared with the soviets.. and you talk to me about western superiority..

Come now, just admit it, we are no better or worse than any other country, if you cannot, so be it, we'll just agree to disagree.

But meanwhile, I'll be just as suspicious of some western designed piece of equipment than I will be if its made in the east.

Of course, our sailers often refuse to handle fluffy toilet rolls due to administrative problems, and have no issues with nuclear material at all..

My conclusion is to listen to the people talking about how fusion might be used in an aggressive way and be aware that sharing this technology might not be such a good idea after all.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Postby Zixinus » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:25 pm

What next, the army telling us they have lost tanks due to paperwork errors.. Wink


Probably a few hundred, you just never hear about it because tank count are not followed by sensationist reporters.

Hey, what to see crappy built reactors, just come to the UK and inspect ours!


I cannot comment or verify whether the British fission reactors are of what quality in design, maintanaince and operation.

How do you?

Actually, I tend to find 50 year old technology a tad more reliable than todays junk.


Really? 50 years ago, cars had no brake zones, no seatbealts, no airbags and wasted gasoline for poor performence which were unreliable at times and who knows what else. I can tell you that cars made in the Soviet Union were notoriously unsafe as well.

I'm sorry, how many space shuttles has the US lost compared with the soviets..


This displays your underlying argument completly: The russians don't havea space shuttle.

But there is something that you can compare: the handling of RTGs.

All USA RTHs acted in the way they were designed, with only one accident where the Pu-283 containment was breached, during which all the material was dispersed preventing it to gather in dangerous quantitiy (this was Transit 5BN-3).

The Soviet Union on the other hand, had the Mars 96 mission (crashed in Northern Chile, containment was breached), Cosmos 1402 (unknown if any debris reached the ground), Rorsat Mission (it was a reactor, it crashed in the Pacific, it leaked) and two Cosmos Lunar Missions where containment was breached.

(...) and you talk to me about western superiority.. Come now, just admit it, we are no better or worse than any other country, if you cannot, so be it, we'll just agree to disagree.


The hoyl frick are you talking about? This isn't about about Soviet Union being superior or inferior (although, I can assure you, I'd pick greedy capitalist USA over the USSR any day), this is about the incompetence and stupidity of Soviet nuclear engineering.

Also, Chernobly was built when the Soviet Union was rather down, and had a very bad political movement. There were many, many things were the Soviet Union failed when it comes to Chernobly, much of it unimaganable in today's world, engineering and design. Also, I recall that the Soviet Union was not a member of the IAEA (Russia is now).

But meanwhile, I'll be just as suspicious of some western designed piece of equipment than I will be if its made in the east.


Well, modern reactors in the East are just as safe as those in the West nowadays. And Western reactors are safe.

My conclusion is to listen to the people talking about how fusion might be used in an aggressive way and be aware that sharing this technology might not be such a good idea after all.


If fusion doesn't work as planned, which has a good possibility, then we are going to go fission whether we like it or not. Fission is very good, it is a mature, clean, safe and proven technology. There were mishaps in the past, but that does not mean that due to human errors, the whole technology should be condemned.

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Postby Nanos » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:40 pm

I go by reading reports by experts on the poor design and errors, maintence issues and management mishandlings of UK reactors, of which there are a large number of.

LOL, you really have no idea how reliable 50 year old cars where, they could start every morning (gee, having a dad as a mechanic sure helped me see just how things work..), not like modern junk that has a windows protection fault at the slightest thought of going wrong, leading it to spending more time in the shop being fixed than out on the road..

Funny how new cars we have test drived in the last few years did just the same mpg as an old volvo of years ago, wow big improvement guys.

Oh yeah, I forgot the Lada, now there's a car your not safe in, I mean, all that thick volvo like steel, a death trap I'm sure.

I'd agree that the whole technology should not be condemned, but to describe it as mature, clean safe and proven is naive.

Its better than many other options (apart from perhaps geothermal..) but it has issues we need to be realistic about, and not religously crazy about it being perfect.


Return to “Networking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests