8 pts ยท February 19, 2015
No, I don't wear them.
You should add that light travels ~25% slower in water. That's why stuff can travel faster than light here without surpassing ~300000km/s.
Oh, I think you get me wrong. You have a lot of good arguments but I think you shouldn't say that bhopal is worse than all nuclear disasters
Page 106. Never the less I must admit my first number was incorrent.
Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum, Expert Group "Health", World Health Organization, 2006 (ISBN: 9789241594172)
Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes.
I rechecked sources and according to WHO, information of radiation exposure of liquidators is available and projections of resulting deaths.
50 died in Chernobyl? Sorry you should really reevaluate that information. There were alone 25.000 dead liquidators estimated.
Oh sorry, you are incorrect in this case. Bhopal (500k affected)is in terms of human effects comparable to Chernobyl (600k affected).
But thanks for taking time for commenting :)
Catastrophic events in case of nuclear power production have far higher costs in case of even single occrrences.
Bhopal was a pesticide production plant with a chemical reaction occuring. Far less potential for damage and costs for cleaning up (30mio).
The zirkalloy hull of the fuel rods was meant.
Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining.
AFAIK It's not about temperature. It's about the self sustainability of the chain reaction due to negative or positive neutron balance.
That's true the negative coefficent and the discontinued use of graphite was a great improvement in safety but not enough, obviously.
No nuclear explosion can occur, that's true but if a reactor overheats its zirkalloy hull can react with water and form detonation gas.
That's true but I think you get the idea that it is far more expensive than handling waste from other types of electricity generation.
It would be an improvement in terms waste of but never the less it would be a step back in terms of safety due to usage of graphite.
I'm speaking of the economic costs which would sum up for maintaining a secure deposition over ten thousands of years.
Well, would be really great if a good depostiton concept exists but so far it isn't the case.
Well, then answer me, what are the costs of a secure deposition of nuclear waste in comparison to waste of other "on demand" energy options?
Just try not to inhale.
Well, it does proof that the safety concepts are not failsafe. It's simply not enough that it works most time.
Yeah, producing power for the moment but leaving behind stuff to take care of for thousands of generations. How nice!
Well it would be far better if it would cover the most important problems: transuranic waste and safety deficits due to economical reasons.
For the big crunch theory, the expansion of space would have to slow down over time but it has been proven that the opposite is occuring.
Who the hell accepted that design o.O
Neat!
Oh god, my eyes!
Ah, another pharmceutics product placement event.
You should add that light travels ~25% slower in water. That's why stuff can travel faster than light here without surpassing ~300000km/s.
Oh, I think you get me wrong. You have a lot of good arguments but I think you shouldn't say that bhopal is worse than all nuclear disasters
Page 106. Never the less I must admit my first number was incorrent.
Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum, Expert Group "Health", World Health Organization, 2006 (ISBN: 9789241594172)
Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes.
I rechecked sources and according to WHO, information of radiation exposure of liquidators is available and projections of resulting deaths.
50 died in Chernobyl? Sorry you should really reevaluate that information. There were alone 25.000 dead liquidators estimated.
Oh sorry, you are incorrect in this case. Bhopal (500k affected)is in terms of human effects comparable to Chernobyl (600k affected).
But thanks for taking time for commenting :)
Catastrophic events in case of nuclear power production have far higher costs in case of even single occrrences.
Bhopal was a pesticide production plant with a chemical reaction occuring. Far less potential for damage and costs for cleaning up (30mio).
The zirkalloy hull of the fuel rods was meant.
Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining.
AFAIK It's not about temperature. It's about the self sustainability of the chain reaction due to negative or positive neutron balance.
That's true the negative coefficent and the discontinued use of graphite was a great improvement in safety but not enough, obviously.
No nuclear explosion can occur, that's true but if a reactor overheats its zirkalloy hull can react with water and form detonation gas.
That's true but I think you get the idea that it is far more expensive than handling waste from other types of electricity generation.
It would be an improvement in terms waste of but never the less it would be a step back in terms of safety due to usage of graphite.
I'm speaking of the economic costs which would sum up for maintaining a secure deposition over ten thousands of years.
Well, would be really great if a good depostiton concept exists but so far it isn't the case.
Well, then answer me, what are the costs of a secure deposition of nuclear waste in comparison to waste of other "on demand" energy options?
Just try not to inhale.
Well, it does proof that the safety concepts are not failsafe. It's simply not enough that it works most time.
Yeah, producing power for the moment but leaving behind stuff to take care of for thousands of generations. How nice!
Well it would be far better if it would cover the most important problems: transuranic waste and safety deficits due to economical reasons.
For the big crunch theory, the expansion of space would have to slow down over time but it has been proven that the opposite is occuring.
Who the hell accepted that design o.O
Neat!
Oh god, my eyes!
Ah, another pharmceutics product placement event.