Posts by yo2013

log in
1) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1544774)
Posted 20 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
Some of my posts were deleted by admins, and I'm getting tired of these stupid arguments, so I'll not write more here.
2) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1543751)
Posted 18 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013

Ernest Sternglass, "Low level radiation". Sternglass was a scientist of the Atomic Energy Commission and was charged to research on this subject. What he found frightened him and made him publish this book. Then he was fired.

The only peer-reviewed publications by Sternglass on radiation health effects that I can found are about nuclear weapon tests effects on health, and X-rays scans effects on health, not nuclear power plants effects. Also, many of his works seem to lack basic scientific rigour. Particularly, his (not published in peer-reviewed journal) claims about Three Mile Island accident show a methodology full of basic mistakes.

But let me add also J.Gofman and A.Tamplin, "Poisoned power: the case against nuclear power plants", Chatto&Windus, 1973.

Another not peer-reviewed publication.

A very similar accident happened in Trino Vercellese, Italy, in 1967 but nobody wrote a line about it. It was explained to me one night in Manarola, Cinque Terre, Liguria, by the former safety chief engineer of Trino PWR. In vino veritas, with a botle of Sciacchetra'.

If it was very similar, then there was no health effects on the population. Of course, we can't check anything because the only source is a conversation you had. So that proves nothing about nuclear unsafety.
3) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1543747)
Posted 18 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013

I wasn't talking about Fukushima mate they do have a sodium rector in Japan it's been there for over 20yrs and they have had trouble with it.

OK, I thought you were talking about Fukushima. There are 2 breeder reactors in Japan. Only one of them had accidents. The first accident affected the secondary cooling loop, so there was no radiation leaked. In the second one, a machine fell into the reactor vessel, and the workers had trouble trying to lift and remove it. They removed it 8 months later. There was no real danger to workers, only an engineering problem.

The same trouble the French would have had sodium leaks as pipes corrode

As I showed, there haven't been any pipe corrosion accident in either France, Detroit or Japan breeder reactors. Why you insist in repeating that lie?

Take your own advise and do your research go to the C.S.I.R.O web site and you will find out what I'm talking about

That's your duty. You are the one that talked about a new solar power system, so you should provide the references or at least explain how it works. I didn't make any claims about that power system, only asked what system are you talking about.
4) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1543732)
Posted 18 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
yo2013 you seem to be prone to making mistakes in simple arithmetic.

You deduce that for only one error?? Anyway, arithmetic has nothing to do with most of the thread.

Most of your references point to mistakes in location/design/operation of nuclear power plants.

Nope. I posted 19 references in this thread, and only 3 of them have to do with nuclear power plants accidents. All the 3 in response to people that mentioned them before. Maybe I'm bad at arithmetic, but you can't even count.

It's not up to the public to prove that nuclear power is dangerous,

If you say something is dangerous then YOU have to prove it. Likewise, if I say you killed someone, I have to prove it. If I can't you have the right to sue me by diffamation.

but rather up to the industry to prove that it's safe.

It has proven it many times in many countries.

Your self-righteous indignation is not doing the industry any favours.

It's better than lying about it, as too many posters in this thread did. It's also better than going crazy because of the 40 deaths in the 70 years of use of nuclear power plants, and saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of deaths of other energy sources.

You can't bully people into giving up their fear of nuclear power.

Yeah, people can think all the stupid things they want without any evidence, but don't expect that I will say nothing about their lack of evidence or plain contradiction to the facts.
5) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542634)
Posted 16 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
this statement is not true there are some ppl still there in fact1 I no of a farmer and is helping the ppl over there with samples and his cattle are being studied as they are showing signs of radiation poisioning he has not yet but radiation takes time

AFAIK, there are fines and arrest for people living there:

On 11 April, with ongoing concerns about the stability of the reactors, Japan considered extending the evacuation zone around the Fukushima I.[41] Then, on 21 April 2011, the Japanese government declared a 20-km zone around Daiichi as a "no-go" zone, and threatened anyone who entered or remained in the zone with arrest or detention and fines. The order affected 80,000 residents.[42] Shortly thereafter, on 22 April, the Japanese government officially announced that the evacuation zone would be extended from the 20 km "circular" zone to an irregular zone extending northwest of the Fukushima site.[43] Then, on 16 May, the Japanese government began evacuating people from outside the official exclusion zones, including the village of Iitate, where high levels of radiation had been repeatedly measured.[44][45]

About radiation poisoning, do you have any proof?
6) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542627)
Posted 16 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013

That's 3 of these type of reactors now that have caused trouble Detroit , Japan , and France !!

Nope. The France reactor didn't cause any trouble. And the Fukushima reactors aren't sodium reactors nor breeder reactors.

Why are people talking so lightly about nuclear power, making statements they didn't check about things and facts they know nothing about?

And YO2013 you don't need photovoltaic cells to produce base load power from the sun .

C.S.I.R.O here in oz have only recently announce that they can produce base load steam from solar power so Nuclear is fast becoming a old and dangerous tech to continue to use here on Earth they announced it about 2-3 weeks ago

This is the same organisation that brought you
ADSL and many other things including H.A.R.P yes ppl we invented H.A.R.P ozzy's

What are you talking about?
7) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542624)
Posted 16 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
France was wise enough to kill the Superphenix fast breeder reactor, paid one fourth by Italy, after it was discovered that the liquid sodium coolant had corroded the steel tubes. At least we avoided a "nuclear excursion" danger similar to the case of the Enrico Fermi fast reactor in Detroit. Read "The day we almost lost Detroit".

What a lot of lies... There wasn't any "nuclear excursion" in Detroit. No nuclear material was ever released outside the reactor. Also, there wasn't any corroded steel tubes in Detroit nor Superphenix. The accident of Detroit was caused by a loose zirconium plate that blocked sodium coolant flow. The closure of Superphenix was caused by nucleophobic protests (mostly by the Green Party), not by any accident.
8) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542618)
Posted 16 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
The reports of increased birth defects and cancers in areas around nuclear facilities is troubling, and difficult to put a price tag on if true.

What reports? (I mean, a real scientific report, not a newspaper article.)
9) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542617)
Posted 16 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
I am very sure the people of Chernobyl and Fukushima will give you some very strong words and feelings for your glib dismissive nonchalance...

I am very sure you don't know what you are talking about. People now in Chernobyl EZ had chosen to live there. Surely, if they have any complaints, they will not live there. There is no people living in Fukushima EZ, and probably most people that lived there will complain. In either case, that has nothing to do with the real fact that no long term health effect have been detected in any of both zones. Your groundless words have nothing to do either.

There are also many other areas than just those two large areas that are exclusion zones or will take many more expensive years yet to clean up...

No, there aren't.

Nuclear fission certainly has its place. However, the financial aspects that always compromise the design and operation are such that a messy disaster can be expected.

Your false claims are a messy disaster.
10) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : NASA Reveals Latest Warp-Drive Ship Designs (Message 1542316)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
I don't need FTL travel, only a cheap way to travel at 99.999 % light speed. Time dilation will do the rest.
11) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542302)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013

Just think of all the land area covered by the exclusion zones around nuclear
accident sites

That's simply ridiculous. Currently, there are 434 nuclear reactors connected to the grid in the world. There has been only 2 exclusion areas in accidents in nuclear power plants since the first nuclear power plant was operated in 1948. I don't know how many nuclear reactors there has been since that, but let's say there are 1000 reactors, for example.

That is, in 70 years and around a thousand reactors, there were only 2 (TWO) exclusion zones: Chernobyl exclusion zone (around 2,600 km2) and Fukushima exclusion zone (2,800 km2). That makes a total of around 5 km2 per reactor. Since each reactor occupies already around 1.5 km2, that's not very impresive.

Also, exclusion zones are maintained mostly by political reasons, not public health reasons. There are people living in Chernobyl exclusion zone (some people never abandoned it, and some other people returned afterwards). Almost all the zone lies in Belarus. There is no detectable difference between cancer rate in people living in the exclusion zone and the general population of Belarus. And cancer rates are lower in Belarus than in the US, Australia and other 40 countries.

Even in Hiroshima, a much worse scenario than Chernobyl, there is no detectable genetic diseases increase in the children of the bomb survivors.

or the 75 Billion dollar price tag on cleaning up Fukushima.

Nope. The zone cleanup cost is around 20 million dollar. The decommissioning of the plant is what will cost tens of billions of dollars (it's not clear exactly how much). The cost of building a nuclear power plant is around 10-20 billion dollars, so the above decommissioning cost isn't so much money. Around a thousand nuclear reactors in 70 years, and only 2 plants will need a decommisioning cost equal to their building cost... Not very impresive.
12) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542247)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
I don't intent to misinform people. That's quite unpolite on your part.

Let's do the math:

The Planta Solar 20 (PS20) solar power plant is a solar thermal energy plant in Sanlucar la Mayor near Seville in Andalusia, Spain. It was the world's most powerful solar power tower until the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California became operational in 2014.[1] The 20 megawatt (MW) solar power tower produces electricity with large movable mirrors called heliostats.[2][3]

PS20 consists of a solar field of 1,255 mirrored heliostats designed by Abengoa Solar. Each heliostat, with a surface area of 120 m2 (1,300 sq ft), reflects the solar radiation it receives onto the receiver, located on the top of a 165 m (541 ft) high tower, producing steam which is converted into electricity by a turbine generator.

1255 heliostasts
120 m2 each

From the image, it's clear that between the heliostats there is some separation, at least of the same lenght than the heliostat. That implies that each heliostat occupies at least four times it's size. So, you have a total area of:

1255 x 120 x 4 = 602400 m2

They produce 20 MW during 8 hours a day. That is, they produce the same energy as a 20/3 = ~7 MW nuclear reactor operating all the day.

So, to produce the same energy as a 1 GW nuclear reactor you need:

602400 * 1000 / 7 = 86,000,000 m2 = 86 km2

So yes, there was an error somewhere.

Now, let's see how much area covers a nuclear power plant. Let's take the biggest nuclear power plant in the world, Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. It occupies 932 ha, that is, 9,320,000 m2, or 9.3 km2. It has a total power of 2 x 772 MW + 2 x 730 MW + 4 x 817 MW = 6.272 GW. So it has 1.48 km2 per GW.

So nuclear power plants occupy 58 times less area than solar power plants.
13) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Eavesdropping on ET: Two new programs will listen for aliens (Message 1542220)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
14) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1542036)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
How many 0's is "a few 0's"? How do you know I'm wrong if you didn't calculate the value?
15) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : CERN (Message 1542035)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
T4T already did the changes:

Anyway, LHC@Home Classic will not probably change any time soon.
16) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Russian Brothers Attempt to Re-create Wardenclyffe Tower Experiment (Message 1542030)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
Best to read up on what Tesla said he was doing it was not using microwaves the energy is already in the atmosphere the tower was to be a receiver

That's only half of the story. According to candorchasma's links, the current goes from one tower to the other through Earth's crust and oceans (mostly the oceans) and returns through the upper atmosphere.
17) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Eavesdropping on ET: Two new programs will listen for aliens (Message 1542027)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013

I challenge that statement, radio or TV waves don't travel that fast. And even if they did, the power would degenerate quickly.

If you don't provide any proof, there is no challenge.
18) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Eavesdropping on ET: Two new programs will listen for aliens (Message 1542021)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
I don't understand this part - "By setting distance as the criteria, the SETI team hopes to alleviate any bias that might otherwise result from focusing on systems similar to that of Earth. The team selected stars for study based only on how far they lie from the sun." - What's wrong with aiming toward systems we think might have planets capable of supporting life?

We only have one example of life and intelligence. So we don't really know what is typical for ET life, ET intelligence nor life-bearing planets. So it's better not to introduce a bias by searching for signals only from Earthlike planets. We simply don't have enough knowledge to restrict the search to only some kind of stars or planets.
19) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : NASA: People to Mars and hijacking an asteroid. (Message 1542013)
Posted 15 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
I can think of better things to spend $27.3 million on.

What's exactly the problem with this project?
20) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : US to Withdraw fro ITER (Message 1540259)
Posted 12 Jul 2014 by Profile yo2013
What I see in Italy and also in Germany is a shift in paradigm. We go from a centralized electricity production to a distributed electricity production, following what happened in computers, from centralized processing to distributed processing. Of course this shift has many problems, which can be overcome using new tools, like "smart grids" and energy storage.

No, they can't. No smart grid will power the factories with domestic photovoltaic panels.

Following the computation I posted before, if 40,000 km2 of solar panels are needed to produce 1 GW, then, to supply the mean of ~30 GW of electricity that Spain used in 2009, you need 1,200,000 km2 of solar panels. Since Spain's area is ~500,000 km2, you need to cover Spain more than two times with solar panels. Great idea!

Next 20

Copyright © 2015 University of California