On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:55:04 -0000, dpb wrote:

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).

They do both in the UK. Or they certainly did when Margaret Thatcher was still with us.

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.

Like governments doing it secretly.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:50:01 -0000, dpb wrote:

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.

Implications are caused by people not reading the words correctly.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:23:07 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"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.

This thread should be in both groups, but Clare keeps stupidly removing one.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:30:34 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"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.

Can't they charge it magnetically like with electric toothbrushes? Or have some kind of recharger like watches that use wrist movement (oo er) to charge the battery?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:11:28 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:52:33 -0000, dpb wrote:

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.

What is the difficulty and the cause of reactor damage at TMI and
Fukushima is loss of effective core cooling and subsequent fuel cladding
failures or fuel melt. But, it's still not an uncontrolled nuclear
reaction event.

The most dangerous situation at TMI by far was making one's way thru the
crowd of reporters jamming cameras and microphones in your face on the
way to/from the gate at shift change...

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

Whooooosh !

Then make yourself more clear.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:23:07 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"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.

I don't actually notice what groups it's in most of the time, as I read all replies under my posts in one folder. I don't expect people to **** about with the newsgroups header. I do have one filter, anyone using the followup header is deleted.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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 ****.

There have only been two that have done that, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Both trivially avoidable but they were too stupid to do that.

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?

Its reprocessed into new fuel when that makes economic sense.

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.

Only in the sense that the increase radiation was measurable
for a short time so not a great idea to eat them for that time.
And Chernobyl was trivially avoidable. So was Fukushima.

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.

But no evidence of any increase cancer rate and both
Chernobyl and Fukushima were trivially avoidable
anyway. The increased radiation levels around Fukushima
were no worse than Dartmoor sees all the time and hardly
anyone is actually stupid enough to avoid Dartmoor all the time.

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.

They arent that noisy. They do **** the appearance comprehensively.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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?

Nope, the stuff used in bombs is made in specific purpose nukes.

It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

Why the govt paid for them, yep.

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.

"dpb" wrote in message news
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.

Not corrected so much as detailed.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:32:47 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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?

Nope, the stuff used in bombs is made in specific purpose nukes.

It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

Why the govt paid for them, yep.

Something in the power stations is required to make weapons. It may only be the first step I'm not sure, but the subsidies were for weapons, not "cheap" power. It's the same **** again now claiming solar is cheap. It's only cheap when the greenie subsidies come in.

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.

"danny burstein" wrote in message
news
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

That’s only true of the US which is only a minor player with power
generation nukes.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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.

Even when it does, 3 mile island didn't do anything special when it did go
wrong.

What happened with Chernobyl and Fukushima is trivially
avoidable. Ensure that the stand by generators are well above
where any tsunami can get to in the case of Fukushima and
don't play silly buggers with the reactor in the case of Chernobyl.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:55:04 -0000, dpb wrote:

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).

They do both in the UK.

Not anymore, and not for a long time now.

Or they certainly did when Margaret Thatcher was still with us.

Long time ago now.

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.

Like governments doing it secretly.

Not many do.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:30:34 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"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.

Can't they charge it magnetically like with electric toothbrushes?

They can now, but didn't then.

Or have some kind of recharger like watches that use wrist movement (oo
er) to charge the battery?

Doesn't produce enough power for a pacemaker.
They need rather more power than a watch does.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:39:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



What happened with Chernobyl and Fukushima is trivially
avoidable. Ensure that the stand by generators are well above
where any tsunami can get to in the case of Fukushima and
don't play silly buggers with the reactor in the case of Chernobyl.

The senile Ozzie troll ALL knows it better, AGAIN! ****ING HILARIOUS! LOL

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

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:34:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But it is implied if not corrected.

Not corrected so much as detailed.

Nope, it's just a typical senility problem, senile Ozzietard!

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

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:34:09 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"dpb" wrote in message news
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.

Not corrected so much as detailed.

If details are lacking, assumptions should not be made.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:39:29 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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
...
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.

Even when it does, 3 mile island didn't do anything special when it did go
wrong.

What happened with Chernobyl and Fukushima is trivially
avoidable. Ensure that the stand by generators are well above
where any tsunami can get to in the case of Fukushima and
don't play silly buggers with the reactor in the case of Chernobyl.

All very well if everyone is a robot or sensible. But humans will **** up.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:41:17 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:55:04 -0000, dpb wrote:

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).

They do both in the UK.

Not anymore, and not for a long time now.

Or they certainly did when Margaret Thatcher was still with us.

Long time ago now.

I'm not that old am I?

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.

Like governments doing it secretly.

Not many do.

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:32:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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?

Nope, the stuff used in bombs is made in specific purpose nukes.

It's why the governments subsidise them in the first place.

Why the govt paid for them, yep.

Something in the power stations is required to make weapons.

Its much better to have a nuke that only produces what
is used in nuke weapons, much more efficient. Power
generation nuke so produce some of the fissile material
used in weapons but dedicated nukes produce much
more of what you want much more quickly.

It may only be the first step I'm not sure, but the subsidies were for
weapons, not "cheap" power.

Not subsidys, the govt paid for the nukes.

It's the same **** again now claiming solar is cheap. It's only cheap
when the greenie subsidies come in.

That's not true anymore. Even with no subsidy at
all its now worth doing in places like Australia.
Not so much in places like that soggy little frigid
island where you get **** all out of them in winter.

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 23:39:29 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
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
...
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.

Even when it does, 3 mile island didn't do anything special when it did
go
wrong.

What happened with Chernobyl and Fukushima is trivially
avoidable. Ensure that the stand by generators are well above
where any tsunami can get to in the case of Fukushima and
don't play silly buggers with the reactor in the case of Chernobyl.

All very well if everyone is a robot or sensible. But humans will ****
up.

Trivial to avoid them ****ing up as badly as they did at Fukushima.
Not much harder with Chernobyl.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:36:05 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


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

That¢s only true of the US

Post proof, driveling senile idiot!

which is only a minor player with power
generation nukes.

Post proof, driveling senile idiot!

--
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 10:41:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


They do both in the UK.

Not anymore, and not for a long time now.

Post proof, driveling senile idiot!

Or they certainly did when Margaret Thatcher was still with us.

Long time ago now.

HOW long ago, driveling, senile idiot?


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.

Like governments doing it secretly.

Not many do.

Define "not many", driveling, senile idiot!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:32:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two prize idiots' usual absolutely idiotic drivel


--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:41:17 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:55:04 -0000, dpb wrote:

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).

They do both in the UK.

Not anymore, and not for a long time now.

Or they certainly did when Margaret Thatcher was still with us.

Long time ago now.

I'm not that old am I?

Winscale was shut down in 57 after the fire.

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.

Like governments doing it secretly.

Not many do.

On 10/12/2018 18:52, dpb wrote:
What is the difficulty and the cause of reactor damage at TMI and
Fukushima is loss of effective core cooling and subsequent fuel cladding
failures or fuel melt.Â* But, it's still not an uncontrolled nuclear
reaction event.

Well much as I agree it's not especially dangerous it IS an
uncontrolled nuclear reaction event.

The point being that reactors (Russian Chernobyl style RBMK excepted)
are designed to fail safely under core meltdown conditions. Wrecks the
reactor of course, but doesnt hurt people.

Even the RBMKs are now modified to be a lot safer. Though they do not
still have containment buildings.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:31:24 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 179 lines of the two prize idiots' endless idiotic drivel
unread again

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

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

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


That’s only true of the US which is only a minor player with power
generation nukes.


mentioned here :

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/uranium-nuclear/19224

is the
" International Atomic Energy Agency’s Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage,"

John T.

On 10/12/2018 22:55, dpb wrote:
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).Â* 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?Â* 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.

(http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...lear-fuel.aspx)


World commercial reprocessing capacity (tonnes per year)
LWR fuel
France, La Hague 1700
UK, Sellafield (THORP) 600
Russia, Ozersk (Mayak) 400
Japan (Rokkasho) 800*
====
Total LWR (approx) 3500

Other nuclear fuels
UK, Sellafield (Magnox) 1500
India (PHWR, 4 plants) 330
Japan, Tokai MOX 40
====
Total other (approx) 1870
=====
Total civil capacity 5370

* now expected to start operation in 2018

Processing used nuclear fuel is in accordance with the definition of
sustainable used fuel management set out by the World Nuclear Association.*


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.

--


--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 12/10/2018 5:51 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
....

Trivial to avoid them ****ing up as badly as they did at Fukushima.
Not much harder with Chernobyl.

And if the operators had just done nothing at all at TMI, it would've
been just a reactor trip and subsequent restart after reclosing the PORVs...

--

In "Rod Speed" writes:

I'm not that old am I?

Winscale was shut down in 57 after the fire.

Hey, I saw that documentary (oh, and it's "Windscale"
renamed to "Sellafield"):

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077921/

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

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

On 12/10/2018 5:24 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:50:01 -0000, dpb wrote:

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.

Implications are caused by people not reading the words correctly.

Or perhaps by leaving words out deliberately...

--

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:51:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

All very well if everyone is a robot or sensible. But humans will ****
up.

Trivial to avoid them ****ing up as badly as they did at Fukushima.
Not much harder with Chernobyl.

Obviously not so trivial that other, more sensible nations, are decidedly
getting away from nuclear power, senile Ozzietard!

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

On 11/12/2018 00:13, danny burstein wrote:
In "Rod Speed" writes:

I'm not that old am I?

Winscale was shut down in 57 after the fire.


Mmm. turned up the plutonium cooker a bit too high they did. I remember
that.

Hey, I saw that documentary (oh, and it's "Windscale"
renamed to "Sellafield"):

Yup.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077921/



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:01:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I'm not that old am I?

Winscale was shut down in 57 after the fire.

You were how old back then, senile Rot? Over or a bit under forty? BG

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

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:49:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two abnormal idiots' endless idiotic blather unread

--
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 11/12/2018 00:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/12/2018 22:55, dpb wrote:
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).Â* 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?Â* 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.

(http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...lear-fuel.aspx)



World commercial reprocessing capacity (tonnes per year)
Â*LWR fuel
France, La HagueÂ*Â*Â*Â* 1700
UK, Sellafield (THORP)Â*Â*Â*Â* 600
Russia, Ozersk (Mayak)Â*Â*Â*Â* 400
Japan (Rokkasho)Â*Â*Â*Â* 800*
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ====
Total LWR (approx)Â*Â*Â*Â* 3500

I don't know about the rest, but Thorp is mo longer reprocessing and
will store spent fuel for around the next 50 years.

SteveW

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:14:12 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 5:24 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:50:01 -0000, dpb wrote:

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.

Implications are caused by people not reading the words correctly.

Or perhaps by leaving words out deliberately...

I did no such thing.

danny burstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Windscale was shut down in 57 after the fire.

Hey, I saw that documentary

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077921/

I got that from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_Piles

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:43:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Can't they charge it magnetically like with electric toothbrushes?

They can now, but didn't then.

Never heard or read about it. There is a magnet mode for pacemakers, which
is a completely different thing. Post PROOF for you latest wild senile
assertion, you driveling senile idiot!

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