Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html
Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been well & truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be "investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to fork out the cash to clean up the mess. HN |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. Brian -- -- From the sofa of Brian Gaff - Blind user, so no pictures please! "harry" wrote in message ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
harry wrote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Just another pig ignorant lie. Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the 'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel. So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills' |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Brian Gaff wrote
The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. Not when its designed to be cheaply decommissioned by just pouring concrete into whats left when its defueled it isnt. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. And they mostly don’t realise that nukes put much less radiation into the atmosphere than coal power stations do. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. Its only the terminally stupid that are that bad. harry wrote http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 27/05/2012 06:46, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been well& truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be "investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to fork out the cash to clean up the mess. The City of London works that way... tax payer bailouts for bankers. Heads we win tails you lose is the merchant bankers primary maxim. Win or lose they still get their fat bonuses and golden parachutes. At least the nuclear industry is asking for indemnity against future costs of handling the waste caused by real manufacturing, operating power stations and producing of electricity to keep the lights on. Merchant ******s want bailing out every time their double or quits bets on complex derivatives go pearshaped. Dealing only in worthless numbers on a screen they produce nothing of value. They are all parasites. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On May 27, 6:46*am, H. Neary nearyh @clara.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax... Yes I have seen the date. *And we know the outcome. I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been well & truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be "investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to fork out the cash to clean up the mess. HN Exactly what I think. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On May 27, 8:13*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax... Just another pig ignorant lie. Yes I have seen the date. *And we know the outcome. Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the 'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel. So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills' You are a bloody halfwit. Even after reprocessing there is radioactive waste. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 27/05/2012 14:28, Martin Brown wrote:
On 27/05/2012 06:46, H. Neary wrote: On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been well& truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be "investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to fork out the cash to clean up the mess. The City of London works that way... tax payer bailouts for bankers. Heads we win tails you lose is the merchant bankers primary maxim. Win or lose they still get their fat bonuses and golden parachutes. At least the nuclear industry is asking for indemnity against future costs of handling the waste caused by real manufacturing, operating power stations and producing of electricity to keep the lights on. I suspect they are more keen on indemnity from costs that arise as a result of additional unforeseen costs arising from misguided future legislation that requires them to reprocess spent fuel to levels of radioactivity below normal background. As is currently seen in Japan, where they have an exclusion zone around an area less radiative than most of the SW of England. Merchant ******s want bailing out every time their double or quits bets on complex derivatives go pearshaped. Dealing only in worthless numbers on a screen they produce nothing of value. They are all parasites. So you would suggest we would be better off without 10% (£50bn) of total tax take that comes from the financial services sector, the ~1 million jobs, and the £40bn trade surplus as well? Not to mention the £50+bn GDP contribution from the London area alone. (a bigger slice of UK GDP comes from this sector than in any other nation). -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
John Rumm wrote:
So you would suggest we would be better off without 10% (£50bn) of total tax take that comes from the financial services sector, the ~1 million jobs, and the £40bn trade surplus as well? Not to mention the £50+bn GDP contribution from the London area alone. (a bigger slice of UK GDP comes from this sector than in any other nation). If the City of London were a country, it would be (just) in the top 25 worldwide, if you're talking about Greater London, it's between Turkey an Switzerland, so still in the top 20. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote harry wrote http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax... Just another pig ignorant lie. Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the 'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel. So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills' You are a bloody halfwit. Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart. Even after reprocessing there is radioactive waste. Not enough to produce anything like 'unlimited nuclear waste bills' They are in fact quite limited instead. And paid for by those who buy the new nuke fuel. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. Its Rowena Mason. By definition anything she writes is an ill understood press release from the renewables lobby. She can usually safely be ignored. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. It iosnt - if the plant is designed to BE rdecommissioned in te first place. When the original Magnox reactors were built they never considered it would be a problem. Leave em a few years and carve em up and bury em. After all Hiroshima was absolutely saturated with radiation, and after a few years people moved back. Fear Of Radiation was cold war propaganda designed to get democracies to exert political pressure on governments to de-nuclearise. KGB black op, essentially, using the CND. CND became the Green Movement, and as Delingpole has identified in his 'Watermelons' book, green outside, red inside is the color scheme.. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. COLD WAR propaganda - that's all. Very successful though. Brian -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
harry wrote:
On May 27, 8:13 am, "Rod Speed" wrote: harry wrote http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax... Just another pig ignorant lie. Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the 'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel. So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills' You are a bloody halfwit. Even after reprocessing there is radioactive waste. Harry. Your poo is radioactive and it sure is waste. How much is that costing te taxpayer to reprocess? Spiv. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
In message
, harry writes http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...7222/UK-taxpay ers-face-unlimited-nuclear-waste-bills-if-costs-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome. Its called a headline harry Scary word ... "unlimited" and "if costs spiral" Don't worry, all you'll be powering by then will be earthworms -- geoff |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On May 28, 12:43*am, geoff wrote:
In message , harry writes http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...7222/UK-taxpay ers-face-unlimited-nuclear-waste-bills-if-costs-spiral.html Yes I have seen the date. *And we know the outcome. Its called a headline harry Scary word ... "unlimited" *and "if costs spiral" Don't worry, all you'll be powering by then will be earthworms -- geoff Ah. Kick the can down the road syndrome eh? |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:49:12 +0100, John Rumm wrote:
I suspect they are more keen on indemnity from costs that arise as a result of additional unforeseen costs arising from misguided future legislation ... Or simply a government that decides that it doesn't want nuclear anymore and tells the comapnies to shutdown them all down almost overnight. -- Cheers Dave. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:23:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Fear Of Radiation was cold war propaganda designed to get democracies to exert political pressure on governments to de-nuclearise. Nonsense. "Fear of being blown up", would have been more accurate. KGB black op, essentially, using the CND. That, however, is true. The West was riddled with commie sympths and moles. CND became the Green Movement, and as Delingpole has identified in his 'Watermelons' book, green outside, red inside is the color scheme.. And this is news? |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:23:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Fear Of Radiation was cold war propaganda designed to get democracies to exert political pressure on governments to de-nuclearise. Nonsense. "Fear of being blown up", would have been more accurate. well yes BUT that didn't stop nuclear power of course. Nuclear power stations cant become atomic bombs. And neither are atomic bombs actually that scary, blast wise. The earthquake that smashed Japan was a hell of a lot bigger in energy than the average atomic bomb. So 'radiation' that nice unseen invisible Killer Of Babies was developed as a monstrous entity to make the whole thing Ghastly Beyond Belief, Worser Than The Worsest Thing There Ever Was. And that as neat, because since it was silent and invisible and mostly non-existent, it was the perfect bogey-man for an emotional narrative designed to stop Europe's nuclear weapons in their tracks. Since the power stations were where the plutonium was being cooked up. A greenish friend of mine built his won Geiger counter hoping to identify the deep cover up by the Government about all the radiation being released by nuclear power stations, US airbases and Sellafield. He didn't find any at all. A little bit around Sellafield beach I think. Nothing like Dartmoor tho. KGB black op, essentially, using the CND. That, however, is true. The West was riddled with commie sympths and moles. CND became the Green Movement, and as Delingpole has identified in his 'Watermelons' book, green outside, red inside is the color scheme.. And this is news? To some, it seems to be. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: A greenish friend of mine built his won Geiger counter hoping to identify the deep cover up by the Government about all the radiation being released by nuclear power stations, US airbases and Sellafield. He didn't find any at all. A little bit around Sellafield beach I think. Nothing like Dartmoor tho. How did he rationalise that away? i cant remember. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On May 28, 10:20*am, Nightjar
wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On May 28, 2:24*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , *The Natural Philosopher wrote: A greenish friend of mine built his won Geiger counter hoping to identify the deep cover up by the Government about all the radiation being released by nuclear power stations, US airbases and Sellafield. He didn't find any at all. A little bit around Sellafield beach I think.. Nothing like Dartmoor tho. How did he rationalise that away? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689 They are picking up flakes of plutonium from the beaches around Dounreay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ority#Dounreay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafi...ds_discrepancy |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. Not quite in the same league as watching water glowing blue around a source and knowing that, if that water were not there, you would very quickly receive a lethal dose of radiation. Colin Bignell |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28.05.2012 19:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: .... You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. Not quite in the same league as watching water glowing blue around a source and knowing that, if that water were not there, you would very quickly receive a lethal dose of radiation. The problem with harry is that he is not interested in science. Today we have Wikipedia and harry could study science at home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls When the project ended in 1993, detailed information of 2,403 cases had been collected. No symptoms were observed in those dial painter cases with less than 1,000 times the natural 226Ra levels found in unexposed individuals, suggesting a threshold for radium-induced malignancies.[citation needed] -- jo "When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." --William Thomson (Lord Kelvin). |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of fluorescent paint! -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am, Nightjar wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. I never believed they did any harm until you said that. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
John Rumm wrote:
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of fluorescent paint! No those were radium paint!" -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Den 28.05.2012 20:43, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
harry wrote: .... You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. I never believed they did any harm until you said that. He did not say that. A luminous watch do no harm to the user. If you and harry were interested in science, you would now have bought the book I told you about: http://www.radiationandreason.com/ -- jo "With climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened." -- Jo Stein |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Jo Stein wrote:
Den 28.05.2012 20:43, skrev The Natural Philosopher: harry wrote: ... You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. I never believed they did any harm until you said that. He did not say that. I did not say that he said that. A luminous watch do no harm to the user. You are a humourless moron. If you and harry were interested in science, I am verty intersted in ceince: I appear to know more about it than you do, you would now have bought the book I told you about: http://www.radiationandreason.com/ I told you, I don't buy books to tell me what I know already. -- jo "With climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened." -- Jo Stein Wrong again. With climate change those that know the most are also the least frightened. Its the reverse with 'renewable energy': THAT is scary. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28.05.2012 21:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jo Stein wrote: On 28.05.2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote: harry wrote: ... You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. I never believed they did any harm until you said that. He did not say that. I did not say that he said that.** We can all se that you did exactly that. **Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Cornell University, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 77, no 6, p 1121-1134 (1999) -- jo "La vĂ©ritĂ© est en marche et rien ne l'arrĂªtera." -- Emile Zola,"J'accuse ...", 1898. |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jo Stein wrote: [snip] If you and harry were interested in science, I am verty intersted in ceince: I appear to know more about it than you do, Well he knows how to spell science, so he's way ahead of you. |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. Mine was only phosphorescent. Went out after a bit. The physics master, on the other hand, had a real radium dial job he used for testing counters. Andy |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
In message
, harry writes On May 28, 10:20*am, Nightjar wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. Harry, you really should keep your head down when it comes to science .... or go away and learn some -- geoff |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28/05/2012 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote: On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of fluorescent paint! No those were radium paint!" Which was still fluorescent otherwise it would have emitted no visible light! -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
John Rumm wrote:
On 28/05/2012 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote: John Rumm wrote: On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of fluorescent paint! No those were radium paint!" Which was still fluorescent otherwise it would have emitted no visible light! There were two types of "gow in the dark" watches. They both used the same flourescent material (zinc sulphide). Cheap "glow in the dark" watches just used the zinc suphide in a normal paint, and used to stop glowing an hour or two after exposure to light stopped, while the expensive ones had radium or, later, polonium mixed in with the paint to keep them glowing all night. As it was low energy beta radiation, it was almost all stopped by the metal backplate, and a little (enough to test a geiger counter) used to escape through the glass. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
In article ,
John Rumm wrote: On 28/05/2012 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote: John Rumm wrote: On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of fluorescent paint! No those were radium paint!" Which was still fluorescent otherwise it would have emitted no visible light! Luminous and fluorescent are not the same. Watches had luminous dials so they could be seen in the dark. You need a source (usually UV) to see fluorescenmt paint. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
Jo Stein wrote:
On 28.05.2012 21:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Jo Stein wrote: On 28.05.2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote: harry wrote: ... You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. I never believed they did any harm until you said that. He did not say that. I did not say that he said that.** We can all se that you did exactly that. No, we can all see that I didn't. **Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Cornell University, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 77, no 6, p 1121-1134 (1999) I am glad you have discovered the perfect book to read - I suggest you read it several times. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it. |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28/05/2012 21:42, charles wrote:
In articleVtmdnT5kwJxwQl7SnZ2dnUVZ8nGdnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, John wrote: On 28/05/2012 19:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote: John Rumm wrote: On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: On May 28, 10:20 am, wrote: On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote: The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc. It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of radiation than when standing outside in the car park. Colin Bignell You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of fluorescent paint! No those were radium paint!" Which was still fluorescent otherwise it would have emitted no visible light! Luminous and fluorescent are not the same. Watches had luminous dials so they could be seen in the dark. You need a source (usually UV) to see fluorescenmt paint. Its a common misconception - they are the same basic technology, but the user experience is somewhat different. One is essentially a subset of the other. The fluorescent material will only emit visible light when stimulated by "something". If used on its own, then that something is usually ambient light. Hence the visible output tails away fairly quickly after exposure (the amount of time varying with the persistence of the material in question). The "luminous" ones contain a weak radioactive emitter to maintain that stimulation all the time, even in the absence of any incident light. So both achieve the effect in the same way, however one also includes its own stimulating energy source. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Waste costs
On 28/05/2012 20:45, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote: You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a schoolboy. Mine was only phosphorescent. Went out after a bit. The physics master, on the other hand, had a real radium dial job he used for testing counters. With some imagination, its surprising what you can get from one of those: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
O.T. Nuclear rod storage | Metalworking | |||
Connecting basin waste to WC waste | UK diy | |||
boiler costs - rough costs / options | UK diy | |||
sink waste connect to bath waste? | UK diy | |||
Nuclear reactors | Metalworking |