"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:36:44 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 9:42 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
...

Agreed, all I'm saying is they do go wrong.

But _NO_ commercial reactors have "exploded" from the fuel having had an
uncontrolled chain reaction.

Chernobyl was so destructive because the Russky's didn't build a
containment structure to save $$ and so the fire melted the housing
structure (essentially just a "Butler building") and thus let the smoke
plume disperse the gaseous and light fission products. But, it was a
conventional fire, not a nuclear explosion that was the event.

Would a nuclear explosion have been a lot worse?

Yes.

Twice as bad? 50 million times as bad?

Not possible to say without trying it.

Would it be similar to a nuclear weapon?

Nope, because those are normally fired well above ground level.

Or is there a big difference in yield?

Yes.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:52:33 -0600, dpb, the mentally deficient,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again:

On 12/10/2018 12:44 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:36:44 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 9:42 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
...

Agreed, all I'm saying is they do go wrong.

But _NO_ commercial reactors have "exploded" from the fuel having had an
uncontrolled chain reaction.

Chernobyl was so destructive because the Russky's didn't build a
containment structure to save $$ and so the fire melted the housing
structure (essentially just a "Butler building") and thus let the smoke
plume disperse the gaseous and light fission products.* But, it was a
conventional fire, not a nuclear explosion that was the event.

Would a nuclear explosion have been a lot worse?* Twice as bad?* 50
million times as bad?* Would it be similar to a nuclear weapon?* Or is
there a big difference in yield?

Of course it would have been, but it's pointless to speculate because
commercial reactor design is such that a supercritical mass required to
have a weapons-type reaction is simply physically impossible to occur.

Looks like we still need some more nuclear plants to cause catastrophes so
that even the most senile among you seniles will learn! BG

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:11:28 +0000, Dim Streater, an especially retarded,
troll-feeding, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:

Indeed. Reporters should be outlawed, poking their noses into
everything and making **** up.

Whooooosh !

Did his unwashed cock escape your mouth, senile cocksucker? BG

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:18:40 +0000, Dim Streater, an especially retarded,
troll-feeding, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:

I can't see any of them being practical in any meaningful sense. The
notion of something like a small bomb (such as some of Asimov's heroes
might have used) strikes me as fanciful.

Good Lord! Does the troll's unwashed cock taste THAT good to you? Can't you
EVER resist, senile idiot?

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:48:55 -0000, Tim J wrote:



"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:22:20 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 21:40:03 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

Bruce Farquhar wrote

A thermocouple produces enough to power a spacecraft?!?

It isnt a single thermocouple, it's a thermopile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space

Or just for some small electronics?

Not small at all.

Why are these not used on earth?

Probably not that cheap, once you've made the Pu-238.

Whatever happened to those AA nuclear batteries? I assume
they worked the same.

What on earth are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

Not wanting to read the entire article, apart from space are we using any
now?

Don't think so.

And eeek! Pacemakers! Don't think I like that idea.

Might be preferable to repeated surgery to change the battery tho.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:19:08 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein, another brain
damaged, troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered:



Not to worry, ain't no more of them.

What's to worry is that there are a LOT of senile idiots now whose only joy
in life seems to be sucking troll cock on Usenet! BG

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 06:33:23 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two prize idiots' endless absolutely idiotic bull****

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:14:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Sure, but it wasn't certain that it would explode if not vented.

Nothing is as sure as you two prize idiots driveling nonsense endlessly!

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:13:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Are you an ostrich or something? I don't read the news much, but even I
know many nuclear power stations have ****ed up. Lemme see, 3 mile
island, Chernobyl, that one in Japan....

Only Fukushima exploded.

The Chernobyl reactor exploded, senile wisenheimer! Just HOW senile are you
senile cocksuckers?

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:18:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the two sick idiots' endless sick ****

--
Marland addressing bull****ting senile Rot:
"Stay in your wet paper bag you thick twit."
MID:

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:33:23 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 03:39:31 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:28:59 -0000, danny burstein
wrote:

In "Bruce Farquhar"
writes:

Why are these not used on earth?

Do you really, really, want chunks of plutonium
or strontium 90i sitting around?

We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....

Those ones used on earth don't.

Funny how some have in the past.

Just one has, Fukushima.

And even you should have noticed that with an unmanned
light house or warning light on the top of a mountain etc
that it's not that easy to stop someone grabbing it and
taking it home to power their remote holiday shack etc.

Yes but what has that to do with this conversation?

That's why few have used those on earth.

Even you should have noticed that they are a tad
harder to pinch for your holiday shack when in a
space probe tearing off to look at Venus etc.

Just what size of these things are you considering people might nick,

Varys with what they are powering. The ones that power lighthouses
are obviously bigger than the ones powering beacon lights

And it isnt might nick, the russians have had some nicked.

what does it power,

Mostly lighthouses, beacons and stuff like that. Not
sure if they ever used them to power mobile bases.

and why wouldn't they steal an alternate power device?

Those small nukes don't have any fuel costs.

Well, since you ask:

[wiki]

In addition to spacecraft, the Soviet Union constructed
many unmanned lighthouses and navigation beacons
powered by RTGs.[5]
......
One RTG, the SNAP-19C, was lost near the top of Nanda
Devi mountain in India in 1965 when it was stored
in a rock formation near the top of the mountain
in the face of a snowstorm before it could be
installed to power a CIA remote automated station
collecting telemetry from the Chinese rocket testing facility.
=======
rest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator
On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:04:59 -0000, Brian Gaff

wrote:

I'm sure you know this but the Voyager spacecraft are using
thermocouples
using the heat from decaying plutonium for power all the way out
in
the
cosmos. it may be reducing now but its been one heck of a long
time.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:50:29 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I have never said this.

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....."
You said "Wrong."

What was wrong was your implication that they does this often and on a
regular basis.

I said "can and do" - that doesn't mean "often".

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if no
injuries or deaths occur?

Because it already tells us a lot.

So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be ok for
me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?

In the case of Fukushima, repairs to what?

So you think no damage was caused? Do I really have to google it for you?

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

See Clare's reply to you, I can't be bothered teaching the ignorant.

What about future cancers to those nearby?

Who says there will be any?

Everyone.

You mean over and above background?

Clearly.

So who says and how many. There again, it depends what we mean by
background. Most of the evacuated zone was less radioactive than
Dartmoor.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

As it has been doing since the dawn of time. You are perhaps unaware
that, every second, some 4,000 disintegrations of radioactive nuclei
take place in your body - and mine, and everyone else's. And the body
has mechanism for repairing the damage, which are at work all day every
day.

And the presence of these radioactive atoms has nothing to do with
nuclear power stations or bomb tests. Or Chernobyl.

Go into the restricted zone at Chernobyl without any protection then
report back.

We could ask the people who live there.

Thy don't live in the restricted part.

"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:50:29 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I have never said this.

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

What was wrong was your implication that they does this often and on a
regular basis.

I said "can and do" - that doesn't mean "often".

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if
no
injuries or deaths occur?

Because it already tells us a lot.

So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be
ok for
me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?

In the case of Fukushima, repairs to what?

So you think no damage was caused? Do I really have to google it for you?

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

What about future cancers to those nearby?

Who says there will be any?

Everyone.

You mean over and above background?

Clearly.

So who says and how many. There again, it depends what we mean by
background. Most of the evacuated zone was less radioactive than
Dartmoor.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

As it has been doing since the dawn of time. You are perhaps unaware
that, every second, some 4,000 disintegrations of radioactive nuclei
take place in your body - and mine, and everyone else's. And the body
has mechanism for repairing the damage, which are at work all day every
day.

And the presence of these radioactive atoms has nothing to do with
nuclear power stations or bomb tests. Or Chernobyl.

Go into the restricted zone at Chernobyl without any protection then
report back.

We could ask the people who live there.
I will have to agree with Timmie that atomic energy is as safeas, or
safer than, most other forms of electrical energy production with a
few caviats.

When something DOES go wrong, the possibilities can be extreme.
There are several different competing technologies - and the SAFEST
one by a long shot is CANDU.
Disposal of spent fuel and safe shutdown and mothballing of reactors
MAY be a significantproblem in the future.

As far as Chernobyl and Fukishama, the effects of the leaked radiation
may never be fully known - but the FACT there will be detrimental
effects is known and accepted by anyone with hal;f a functioning brain
cell.

Radiation - man made or man influenced or not - is KNOWN to have
health issues - as basic as increased skin cancer from extreme
exposure to sun-light.

Anything that increased our exposure to harmfull radiation SHOULD be
of concern, but risks and benefits need to be assessed and balanced.

And many don't realise that coal fired power stations put
a lot more radiation into the atmosphere than nukes do
even than 3 mile island did.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:43:16 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:33:23 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 03:39:31 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:28:59 -0000, danny burstein
wrote:

In "Bruce Farquhar"
writes:

Why are these not used on earth?

Do you really, really, want chunks of plutonium
or strontium 90i sitting around?

We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....

Those ones used on earth don't.

Funny how some have in the past.

Just one has, Fukushima.

And even you should have noticed that with an unmanned
light house or warning light on the top of a mountain etc
that it's not that easy to stop someone grabbing it and
taking it home to power their remote holiday shack etc.

Yes but what has that to do with this conversation?

That's why few have used those on earth.

Even you should have noticed that they are a tad
harder to pinch for your holiday shack when in a
space probe tearing off to look at Venus etc.

Just what size of these things are you considering people might nick,

Varys with what they are powering. The ones that power lighthouses
are obviously bigger than the ones powering beacon lights

And it isnt might nick, the russians have had some nicked.

what does it power,

Mostly lighthouses, beacons and stuff like that. Not
sure if they ever used them to power mobile bases.

and why wouldn't they steal an alternate power device?

Those small nukes don't have any fuel costs.

Should be easy enough to make them unstealable. Lock them away somewhere. CCTV, etc, like with anything stealable.

Well, since you ask:

[wiki]

In addition to spacecraft, the Soviet Union constructed
many unmanned lighthouses and navigation beacons
powered by RTGs.[5]
......
One RTG, the SNAP-19C, was lost near the top of Nanda
Devi mountain in India in 1965 when it was stored
in a rock formation near the top of the mountain
in the face of a snowstorm before it could be
installed to power a CIA remote automated station
collecting telemetry from the Chinese rocket testing facility.
=======
rest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator
On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:04:59 -0000, Brian Gaff

wrote:

I'm sure you know this but the Voyager spacecraft are using
thermocouples
using the heat from decaying plutonium for power all the way out
in
the
cosmos. it may be reducing now but its been one heck of a long
time.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:20:02 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

See Clare's reply to you, I can't be bothered teaching the ignorant.

Who's she?

The person who replied to the same message.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:27:52 -0000, Tim J wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:50:29 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I have never said this.

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

What was wrong was your implication that they does this often and on a
regular basis.

I said "can and do" - that doesn't mean "often".

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if
no
injuries or deaths occur?

Because it already tells us a lot.

So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be
ok for
me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?

In the case of Fukushima, repairs to what?

So you think no damage was caused? Do I really have to google it for you?

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

What about future cancers to those nearby?

Who says there will be any?

Everyone.

You mean over and above background?

Clearly.

So who says and how many. There again, it depends what we mean by
background. Most of the evacuated zone was less radioactive than
Dartmoor.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

As it has been doing since the dawn of time. You are perhaps unaware
that, every second, some 4,000 disintegrations of radioactive nuclei
take place in your body - and mine, and everyone else's. And the body
has mechanism for repairing the damage, which are at work all day every
day.

And the presence of these radioactive atoms has nothing to do with
nuclear power stations or bomb tests. Or Chernobyl.

Go into the restricted zone at Chernobyl without any protection then
report back.

We could ask the people who live there.
I will have to agree with Timmie that atomic energy is as safeas, or
safer than, most other forms of electrical energy production with a
few caviats.

When something DOES go wrong, the possibilities can be extreme.
There are several different competing technologies - and the SAFEST
one by a long shot is CANDU.
Disposal of spent fuel and safe shutdown and mothballing of reactors
MAY be a significantproblem in the future.

As far as Chernobyl and Fukishama, the effects of the leaked radiation
may never be fully known - but the FACT there will be detrimental
effects is known and accepted by anyone with hal;f a functioning brain
cell.

Radiation - man made or man influenced or not - is KNOWN to have
health issues - as basic as increased skin cancer from extreme
exposure to sun-light.

Anything that increased our exposure to harmfull radiation SHOULD be
of concern, but risks and benefits need to be assessed and balanced.

And many don't realise that coal fired power stations put
a lot more radiation into the atmosphere than nukes do
even than 3 mile island did.

Not in such a big lump at once.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:43:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH 95 lines of sick troll **** unread

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:25:56 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Would a nuclear explosion have been a lot worse?

Depends on the nuclear device, idiot!

Twice as bad? 50 million times as bad?

Not possible to say without trying it.

It IS possible to say it without trying it, senile idiot!

Would it be similar to a nuclear weapon?

Nope, because those are normally fired well above ground level.

It would be a LOT similar to a nuclear weapon, senile idiot!

Or is there a big difference in yield?

Yes.

No!

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:30:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two prize idiots' typical idiotic drivel

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:21:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 99 lines of stinking troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:27:52 +1100, "Tim J" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:50:29 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I have never said this.

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

What was wrong was your implication that they does this often and on a
regular basis.

I said "can and do" - that doesn't mean "often".

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if
no
injuries or deaths occur?

Because it already tells us a lot.

So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be
ok for
me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?

In the case of Fukushima, repairs to what?

So you think no damage was caused? Do I really have to google it for you?

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

What about future cancers to those nearby?

Who says there will be any?

Everyone.

You mean over and above background?

Clearly.

So who says and how many. There again, it depends what we mean by
background. Most of the evacuated zone was less radioactive than
Dartmoor.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

As it has been doing since the dawn of time. You are perhaps unaware
that, every second, some 4,000 disintegrations of radioactive nuclei
take place in your body - and mine, and everyone else's. And the body
has mechanism for repairing the damage, which are at work all day every
day.

And the presence of these radioactive atoms has nothing to do with
nuclear power stations or bomb tests. Or Chernobyl.

Go into the restricted zone at Chernobyl without any protection then
report back.

We could ask the people who live there.
I will have to agree with Timmie that atomic energy is as safeas, or
safer than, most other forms of electrical energy production with a
few caviats.

When something DOES go wrong, the possibilities can be extreme.
There are several different competing technologies - and the SAFEST
one by a long shot is CANDU.
Disposal of spent fuel and safe shutdown and mothballing of reactors
MAY be a significantproblem in the future.

As far as Chernobyl and Fukishama, the effects of the leaked radiation
may never be fully known - but the FACT there will be detrimental
effects is known and accepted by anyone with hal;f a functioning brain
cell.

Radiation - man made or man influenced or not - is KNOWN to have
health issues - as basic as increased skin cancer from extreme
exposure to sun-light.

Anything that increased our exposure to harmfull radiation SHOULD be
of concern, but risks and benefits need to be assessed and balanced.

And many don't realise that coal fired power stations put
a lot more radiation into the atmosphere than nukes do
even than 3 mile island did.
Like I said - NUKES are as safe as, or safer than, most
"conventional" alternatives

The thorium content of fly-ash constitutes an "atomic waste" with
thorium and uranium levels in crops around coal plants up to 200 times
higher than around nuke stations

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:20:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

See Clare's reply to you, I can't be bothered teaching the ignorant.

Who's she?
Not she - He. Me.

As a former teacher I've had lots of experience trying to teach the
unteachable.

There are some that are not worth TRYING to teach.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:20:02 +0000, Dim Streater, an especially retarded,
troll-feeding, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:



Who's she?

Oh, my! You really are especially senile, Dim! You obviously imbibed too
much of the Scots stupidity, every time you sucked him off! And I DID warn
you, didn't I? LOL

On 12/10/2018 1:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
....

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.
....

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected). It isn't
physically possible to create a supercritcal mass from the low-enriched
commercial reactor fuel.

The biggest risk of something bad at TMI was, in fact, the potential of
a H2 explosion there but were able to get it vented without having such
an incident. With the tsunami at Fukushima, the ability to have hands
on site and take corrective action was too severely limited to be able
to have any timely mitigating actions.

--

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:43:16 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:33:23 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 03:39:31 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:28:59 -0000, danny burstein

wrote:

In "Bruce Farquhar"
writes:

Why are these not used on earth?

Do you really, really, want chunks of plutonium
or strontium 90i sitting around?

We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....

Those ones used on earth don't.

Funny how some have in the past.

Just one has, Fukushima.

And even you should have noticed that with an unmanned
light house or warning light on the top of a mountain etc
that it's not that easy to stop someone grabbing it and
taking it home to power their remote holiday shack etc.

Yes but what has that to do with this conversation?

That's why few have used those on earth.

Even you should have noticed that they are a tad
harder to pinch for your holiday shack when in a
space probe tearing off to look at Venus etc.

Just what size of these things are you considering people might nick,

Varys with what they are powering. The ones that power lighthouses
are obviously bigger than the ones powering beacon lights

And it isnt might nick, the russians have had some nicked.

what does it power,

Mostly lighthouses, beacons and stuff like that. Not
sure if they ever used them to power mobile bases.

and why wouldn't they steal an alternate power device?

Those small nukes don't have any fuel costs.

Should be easy enough to make them unstealable.

Not in those very remote places that they were used in.

Lock them away somewhere.

Trivial to get thru that with a cordless angle grinder.

CCTV, etc, like with anything stealable.

Problem is that in those very remote places they were
used, even if it had full satellite comms, its still going
to be hours before you can show up and stop the thief
stealing it and that assumes the weather is decent and
in many of them it often isnt.

Well, since you ask:

[wiki]

In addition to spacecraft, the Soviet Union constructed
many unmanned lighthouses and navigation beacons
powered by RTGs.[5]
......
One RTG, the SNAP-19C, was lost near the top of Nanda
Devi mountain in India in 1965 when it was stored
in a rock formation near the top of the mountain
in the face of a snowstorm before it could be
installed to power a CIA remote automated station
collecting telemetry from the Chinese rocket testing facility.
=======
rest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator
On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:04:59 -0000, Brian Gaff

wrote:

I'm sure you know this but the Voyager spacecraft are using
thermocouples
using the heat from decaying plutonium for power all the way
out
in
the
cosmos. it may be reducing now but its been one heck of a long
time.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:20:02 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

See Clare's reply to you, I can't be bothered teaching the ignorant.

Who's she?

The person who replied to the same message.

That was in the other group he isnt reading.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:59:37 -0000, Clare Snyder wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:20:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

See Clare's reply to you, I can't be bothered teaching the ignorant.

Who's she?
Not she - He. Me.

As a former teacher I've had lots of experience trying to teach the
unteachable.

There are some that are not worth TRYING to teach.

If you persist in deleting one of the newsgroups from the crosspost, Tim won't see you. That's why he was confused. Tim is only in uk.d-i-y.

Crosspost returned so you'll at least see each other once. Please kiss and make up.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:13:27 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:20:02 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

See Clare's reply to you, I can't be bothered teaching the ignorant.

Who's she?

The person who replied to the same message.

I've never seen any message from someone called Clare on this ng. And
she's not in my filters either.

She keeps deleting uk.d-i-y from the crosspost. I've no idea why. It's a sure way to break a conversation into seperate paths and nobody can see each other.

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bruce Farquhar wrote

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen
gas (which came from decomposition of water and collected).

Sure, but he never said nuclear explosion, just explode.

It isn't physically possible to create a supercritcal mass
from the low-enriched commercial reactor fuel.

Sure, but he wasn't talking about a supercritical mass.

The biggest risk of something bad at TMI was, in fact, the potential
of a H2 explosion there but were able to get it vented without having
such an incident. With the tsunami at Fukushima, the ability to have
hands on site and take corrective action was too severely limited to
be able to have any timely mitigating actions.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:08:51 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:25:54 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:20:58 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:28:59 -0000, danny burstein

wrote:

In "Bruce Farquhar"
writes:

Why are these not used on earth?

Do you really, really, want chunks of plutonium
or strontium 90i sitting around?

We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....

Wrong.

Are you an ostrich or something?

No, I'm just someone who, unlike you, knows his arse from a hole in the
ground.

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I have never said this.

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.

Ok not an explosion then, but a ****ing big release of nasty ****.

but even I know many nuclear power stations have ****ed up.

Three is not "many".

You said never.

When?

Lemme see, 3 mile island

Where no one died or was injured. No external damage.

Chernobyl,

Where less than 100 died from the disaster.

So the radiation left won't hurt anyone or cause any costs or problems?
You
really are an ignorant fool.

That's a different issue.

But still very significant.

that one in Japan....

Yeah, that one in Japan - for your information that was at Fukushima.
Where no one died and no one was injured.

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if no
injuries or deaths occur?

Because it already tells us a lot.

So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be ok
for me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?

What about future cancers to those nearby?

Who says there will be any?

Everyone.

Wrong again, only some ignorant fools.

Nukes in fact put far less radiation into the
atmosphere than coal fired power stations.

But what about the spent fuel that cannot be disposed of without a 300 year sealed container?

What about the cost of rebuilding everything?

Rebuilding what? As it happens, the Fukushima plant was due to be
closed within 6 months of the incident anyway - end of life.

And no damage was caused by the reactors. All the damage was from the
tsunami, which caused some 25,000 deaths. Perhaps you should be
concerned about that.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

It didn't with Chernobyl or 3 mile island or Fukushima.

It's claimed sheep in Scotland were affected by Chernobyl.

And, for your information, you should look up "deaths from ordinary
industrial accidents", you'll find the numbers to be much larger.

Only if you take the numbers too literally like you do.

Why shouldn't I take them literally?

Because you're not taking into account other significant problems.

There are no other significant problems.

Cancer is a damn big problem.

And if your point is to say that nuclear power stations are a good idea,
then I agree with you. But they are not completely safe.

Much, *much* safer than other forms of energy generation.

Agreed, all I'm saying is they do go wrong.

Everything does, even roads and buildings.

Agreed. What makes me laugh is greenies who say we must use wind power, then the very same idiots say they don't want them scarring the landscape and making a really really loud noise.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:12:56 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 1:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
...

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.
...

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected). It isn't
physically possible to create a supercritcal mass from the low-enriched
commercial reactor fuel.

But don't commercial reactors create weapons grade stuff on behalf of the military? It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

The biggest risk of something bad at TMI was, in fact, the potential of
a H2 explosion there but were able to get it vented without having such
an incident. With the tsunami at Fukushima, the ability to have hands
on site and take corrective action was too severely limited to be able
to have any timely mitigating actions.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:57:01 -0000, Clare Snyder wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:27:52 +1100, "Tim J" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:09:27 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:50:29 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I have never said this.

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

What was wrong was your implication that they does this often and on a
regular basis.

I said "can and do" - that doesn't mean "often".

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if
no
injuries or deaths occur?

Because it already tells us a lot.

So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be
ok for
me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?

In the case of Fukushima, repairs to what?

So you think no damage was caused? Do I really have to google it for you?

What damage was directly caused by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station?

What about future cancers to those nearby?

Who says there will be any?

Everyone.

You mean over and above background?

Clearly.

So who says and how many. There again, it depends what we mean by
background. Most of the evacuated zone was less radioactive than
Dartmoor.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

As it has been doing since the dawn of time. You are perhaps unaware
that, every second, some 4,000 disintegrations of radioactive nuclei
take place in your body - and mine, and everyone else's. And the body
has mechanism for repairing the damage, which are at work all day every
day.

And the presence of these radioactive atoms has nothing to do with
nuclear power stations or bomb tests. Or Chernobyl.

Go into the restricted zone at Chernobyl without any protection then
report back.

We could ask the people who live there.
I will have to agree with Timmie that atomic energy is as safeas, or
safer than, most other forms of electrical energy production with a
few caviats.

When something DOES go wrong, the possibilities can be extreme.
There are several different competing technologies - and the SAFEST
one by a long shot is CANDU.
Disposal of spent fuel and safe shutdown and mothballing of reactors
MAY be a significantproblem in the future.

As far as Chernobyl and Fukishama, the effects of the leaked radiation
may never be fully known - but the FACT there will be detrimental
effects is known and accepted by anyone with hal;f a functioning brain
cell.

Radiation - man made or man influenced or not - is KNOWN to have
health issues - as basic as increased skin cancer from extreme
exposure to sun-light.

Anything that increased our exposure to harmfull radiation SHOULD be
of concern, but risks and benefits need to be assessed and balanced.

And many don't realise that coal fired power stations put
a lot more radiation into the atmosphere than nukes do
even than 3 mile island did.
Like I said - NUKES are as safe as, or safer than, most
"conventional" alternatives

The thorium content of fly-ash constitutes an "atomic waste" with
thorium and uranium levels in crops around coal plants up to 200 times
higher than around nuke stations

Until the nuke station goes wrong.

....and much better air in here again!

--
Marland addressing bull****ting senile Rot:
"Stay in your wet paper bag you thick twit."
MID:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:13:27 +0000, Dim Streater, an especially retarded,
troll-feeding, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:



I've never seen any message from someone called Clare on this ng. And
she's not in my filters either.

You haven't eh, troll-feeding senile idiot? Figures!

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:26:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen
gas (which came from decomposition of water and collected).

Sure, but he never said nuclear explosion, just explode.

And you denied there was one other than in Fukushima, senile idiot!

It isn't physically possible to create a supercritcal mass
from the low-enriched commercial reactor fuel.

Sure, but he wasn't talking about a supercritical mass.

Nobody was, other than you driveling senile trolls while you were sucking
off the juvenile troll!

--
pamela about Rot Speed:
"His off the cuff expertise demonstrates how little he knows..."
MID:

On 12/10/2018 4:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bruce Farquhar wrote

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected).

Sure, but he never said nuclear explosion, just explode.
....

But it is implied if not corrected.

--

On 12/10/2018 4:29 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:12:56 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 1:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
...

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.
...

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected).* It isn't
physically possible to create a supercritcal mass from the low-enriched
commercial reactor fuel.

But don't commercial reactors create weapons grade stuff on behalf of
the military?* It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

No, and no they don't subsidize commercial generation (at least outside
places like N Korea and the like).

There is no reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel at all in the US and
afaik, none currently going on anywhere world wide outside the few rogue
states that may be doing some.

Enrichment for weapons is a totally separate enterprise from commercial
nuclear power; it's a very inefficient way to do so so only those
needing to subvert other restrictions would go at it that way.

--

In dpb writes:

No, and no they don't subsidize commercial generation (at least outside
places like N Korea and the like).

Bzzzzzt. Aside from all the rate/game playing (don't
get me started about NY and NJ surcharges to all
the other utility customers), there's the
Federal insurance cap....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%...ndemnit y_Act


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:50:01 -0600, dpb wrote:


Sure, but he never said nuclear explosion, just explode.
...

But it is implied if not corrected.

Not REALLY, oh senile one!

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:55:04 -0600, dpb, the mentally challenged,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered:

But don't commercial reactors create weapons grade stuff on behalf of
the military?* It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

No, and no they don't subsidize commercial generation (at least outside
places like N Korea and the like).

Good Lord! Is there NO bait silly enough set out by the Scottish ****** that
you will NOT swallow, hook, line and sinker, every time, senile Yankietard?
tsk