.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269697 Views
*

Wolf

  • 133
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth non-believer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #540 on: December 05, 2012, 11:29:07 PM »
sceptimatic, try geepun92's experiment.

I have a question for you. Would a rocket accelerate faster in water than in air? Can you swim in air?

In fact, if Newton's 3rd law was not responsible for the rocket doing what it does, then the low pressure gas coming out of the rocket would actually pull the rocket down. Think aerofoil.
lol - they actually believe the earth is flat!

?

geepun92

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #541 on: December 05, 2012, 11:42:30 PM »
sceptimatic, try geepun92's experiment.

I have a question for you. Would a rocket accelerate faster in water than in air? Can you swim in air?

In fact, if Newton's 3rd law was not responsible for the rocket doing what it does, then the low pressure gas coming out of the rocket would actually pull the rocket down. Think aerofoil.


Just realised, so sceptimatic's theory is that the hot air expands beneath the rocket, then other air rushes in and then pushes the rocket up.... That makes no sense, just have a look at how smoke and other stuff moves away from the rocket's base... And how would a rocket throw out gas, (more particles) and the pressure drops???

?

geepun92

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #542 on: December 06, 2012, 03:47:09 AM »
Your inability to comprehend is not a failure on the part of science

*

Wolf

  • 133
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth non-believer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #543 on: December 06, 2012, 04:43:09 AM »
Swiss cheese...
lol - they actually believe the earth is flat!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #544 on: December 06, 2012, 08:26:13 AM »
The only way I can describe it is by imagining the rocket gases pushing against a strong trampoline and pushing down on it, you know, as a person would.

The only problem with that analogy is that air makes for a very weak trampoline.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #545 on: January 22, 2013, 05:00:16 PM »
Here you go, sift through this.

I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #546 on: January 22, 2013, 05:26:35 PM »
Here you go, sift through this.

I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.

You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #547 on: January 22, 2013, 06:29:11 PM »
Here you go, sift through this.

I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.

You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.

Exactly why I skipped it. And Newton's laws work everywhere. And I thought we were talking about star distances and such?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #548 on: January 22, 2013, 09:23:22 PM »
Here you go, sift through this.

I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.

You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.

Exactly why I skipped it. And Newton's laws work everywhere. And I thought we were talking about star distances and such?
It would be nice to talk about that. Stars give us a point of reference that we cannot have in any other way. Galileo could not have understood the basic structure of our Solar System without them, and we cannot really accept supposed "theories" like the flat Earth theories seen here if they do not predict at least as much as Galileo did.

?

maptoreality

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #549 on: February 18, 2013, 09:09:17 PM »

This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.

The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 09:13:07 PM by maptoreality »

?

maptoreality

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #550 on: February 18, 2013, 09:15:05 PM »
Sceptimatic,

An easy analogy that helped me grasp this concept when I was a kid is watching a ball being kicked from across the field.  Have you ever witnessed this?  You see the foot and the ball make contact, the ball goes into the air and then you hear the 'thud' from the kick.  The thud took longer to travel to you than the light did so it appears to happen later.

When you hear thunder you think it just happened. But what you're actually hearing is lightning that struck a few seconds ago. (Unless you're lucky enough that it struck right near you)

Light is the fastest thing in nature; and perhaps nature's speed limit. (currently being challenged today by neutrinos)  The stars are so far away that there is no way to see them as they exist today.  We have to look at the light that left them years ago, however far away that might be.
As I said earlier. I don't have an issue with the speed of light for most part.
My issue is with the stars actually (as we are told to believe) light years away by calculation.

I just don't believe the distances of the stars that we see.

On what grounds do you mistrust the information? The light leaves the star, moves for six hundred years, and then falls into your photo-receptors (eyes). The light that was ejected at that time is what you see, so you see something that was that way six hundred years previous. So why is that so hard to believe?

I think Scepti has a trouble grasping scale.

?

maptoreality

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #551 on: February 18, 2013, 10:04:41 PM »
we should back off sceptimatic is the leading expert on so many different forms of science. he knows things that the leading experts dont even know about.
I'm not putting myself forward as an expert in anything, it appears that you and others are deciding that.
I'm questioning stuff and giving out reasons as to why I think stuff is wrong or suspect. It doesn't mean I'm 100% correct on everything, yet I haven't had anything to convince me otherwise, other than people putting up wiki or using Newton, Galileo and what not.

You heard it here first, folks, Scepti is smarter than Newton despite failing to understand first grade Physics.  :D

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #552 on: February 19, 2013, 03:59:27 AM »
Or anything above primary school math.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 04:13:38 AM by Pythagoras »

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #553 on: February 19, 2013, 04:14:39 AM »
Well done you pointed out a mistake with auto type. You must so excited.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #554 on: February 19, 2013, 12:32:47 PM »

This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.

The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.

As I recall, skeptimatic doesn't believe that nuclear reactors are real either.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

maptoreality

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #555 on: February 19, 2013, 12:44:55 PM »

This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.

The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.

As I recall, skeptimatic doesn't believe that nuclear reactors are real either.
I don;t believe they fission Uranium. I have my suspicions as to what they could be but I could be so wrong, yet I'm 90% convinced that pellets or metal purported to be Uranium "cannot" sit side by side in tubes and somehow sling neutrons at atoms and go critical mass for years and years with no other energy source needed.
A classic Einstein E=MC2 masterful load of old fable in my opinion.

What convinced you? Have you tried the experiment yourself?

?

maptoreality

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #556 on: February 19, 2013, 01:05:35 PM »

This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.

The Universe is a very complex place. Humans trying to understand it is the equivalent of a pidgeon trying to understand a nuclear reactor.

As I recall, skeptimatic doesn't believe that nuclear reactors are real either.
I don;t believe they fission Uranium. I have my suspicions as to what they could be but I could be so wrong, yet I'm 90% convinced that pellets or metal purported to be Uranium "cannot" sit side by side in tubes and somehow sling neutrons at atoms and go critical mass for years and years with no other energy source needed.
A classic Einstein E=MC2 masterful load of old fable in my opinion.

What convinced you? Have you tried the experiment yourself?
Looking at nuclear bombs was the first thing that convinced me it was a sham. When I looked at how the atomic bomb was supposed to work, I just sat back and thought, "frigging hell, is there anything we have been told in our lives true about history."

From there I thought about power stations and wondered why people would build them in earth quake zones and such and how we have never had any incidents of rogue nations actually using a nuke on anyone, no matter who or what reason, except what we were told about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Asking me if I've tried the experiment itself is a bit lame isn't it.

But nuclear fission has been demonstrated in real world applications  ??? It isn't a theory, it's a fact.

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #557 on: February 19, 2013, 06:35:20 PM »




i dont think sceptic has heard of the radioactive boy scout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

?

Manarq

  • 567
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #558 on: February 20, 2013, 05:50:28 AM »
Who get Sceptimatic talking about nuclear stuff?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #559 on: February 20, 2013, 05:53:17 AM »
if i cant see it for what it is? i think you are the only person on earth who sees it for what you do. once again a sceptic statement backed up by no evidence or scientifically coherent explanation.

Who get Sceptimatic talking about nuclear stuff?

blame markjo lol. ;D

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #560 on: February 20, 2013, 07:05:12 AM »
But nuclear fission has been demonstrated in real world applications  ??? It isn't a theory, it's a fact.
It's only fact because they told you so. You haven't directly seen fissioning of Uranium and no university student has either. Tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong.  I've been to the nuclear reactor at Cornell University.  It's real and they really split Uranium atoms.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Manarq

  • 567
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #561 on: February 20, 2013, 07:07:27 AM »
Who get Sceptimatic talking about nuclear stuff?
You can explain why Nuclear fission works because you have read up on it or told that pellets of Uranium somehow fission into super heat emitters for years and years on end and you never think to go and look at just what Uranium supposedly is and how lumps of dense yet super strong "metal" actually does what it does.
Stick them in a tank of water, put the lid on, pull a few so called control rods away and wow, heated water into steam for years and years.  ::)

You see I knew you really had a deep understanding of how nuclear fission works, why do you pretend you dont? :)
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #562 on: February 20, 2013, 07:11:33 AM »
its realy ironic that he actually does show a basic understanding of how the process works but just calls it magic and offers the fact that he dosent understand it for the basis of it being fake.

?

maptoreality

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #563 on: February 20, 2013, 08:44:10 AM »

Then I started listening to how poisonous it was by people like Helen Caldicott and a supposed self confessed whistle blower in Leuren Moret, who told us of the dangers and I thought, "wow" this stuff is ultra mental, it's earth destroying.
Then I thought, I wonder what others have to say. And sure enough, there was a few more proponents like Arnie Gundersen and Christopher Busby, who echoed it all, so I thought, " this is real dodgy stuff, what are we doing using it."


It took you that long to realize how dangerous nuclear power was? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl should have been enough.  :P

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #564 on: February 20, 2013, 09:33:06 AM »

Then I started listening to how poisonous it was by people like Helen Caldicott and a supposed self confessed whistle blower in Leuren Moret, who told us of the dangers and I thought, "wow" this stuff is ultra mental, it's earth destroying.
Then I thought, I wonder what others have to say. And sure enough, there was a few more proponents like Arnie Gundersen and Christopher Busby, who echoed it all, so I thought, " this is real dodgy stuff, what are we doing using it."


It took you that long to realize how dangerous nuclear power was? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl should have been enough.  :P
No. I mean , it took me a long time in reading as to how dangerous it was supposed to be in it's entirety.
For instance, I was under the impression it was dangerous but not world wide dangerous until Helen Caldicott said,"just one pound of Plutonium, spread evenly over the planet would kill every person on it."

It was this statement that made me actually delve into it more critically, because I fell for the sucker punch as in, a conspiracy within a conspiracy and I believe that's what we get fed.
We get fed bits of truth and lies and then dis-info proponents take to the stage to totally screw your head up.

I'll explain.
From the start of Nuclear bombs in the 1940's, we have all been dangling by a thread with our wits, wondering if a Nuclear war will happen and it's been with us since the supposed cold war in terms of us really getting fed mass media hype.
From this, Nuclear power is created and power stations built, which naturally brings out the anti Nuclear brigade as in greenpeace and such.

We all start to realise why they are totally against it when we get told how dangerous it is and the fact that it's poisonous for 1000's...millions and what not years and cannot be stored with any real safety.

We see power plants popping up all over the country and yet we are told that it's a clean, safe energy and will result in cheap energy for the future, so naturally everyone becomes happy on one side, which is cheaper bills, but cautious on the other side, as in health wise and environment wise.

Ok so now, it's fully ingrained into our psyche that oil/gas and other supposed non renewable resources are dwindling fast, so we accept Nuclear as the comfortable alternative evil  for our energy needs.
The problem is, it turns out that it's not cheap, as it costs a fortune to mine the Uranium etc and the security and manpower needed, plus the cost of building secure reactors, coupled with mammoth disposal of spent fuel costs, means we pay higher bills, not lower.

So you sit there and think, " oh well, at least we will have power, no matter what."
All of a sudden a Nuclear power plant goes boom and the town is cleared, as in Chernobyl and radiation has supposedly spread to farms in England, Wales, Europe etc etc.

Soldiers are sent into dispose of the remains of the reactor fuel and a big concrete sarcophagus is built that will last x amount of years. Ok job done for now but scary all the same, especially when they tell us that not many deaths are reported over the years, which starts to make you think..."huh" , surely this is not right."

So the stories come out that only so many have died because of it, then deformities are massive, then deformities are few, then millions have died over the few decades since, due to it...and it goes on.

You sit back and find out that a Nuclear power station has had to "shut down", yet in shutting down, nobody in that area loses power...they are still lit up like beacons.

Obviously we are being told lies and it's running, or the people who receive their power must be getting it from somewhere else.
Then you find out that amid all the disaster at Chernobyl with one reactor, the workers are still going to work at the other reactors on the complex???

Then you see Fukushima exploding with cameras fixed on it from helicopters, that somehow are there to capture the footage even though nobody knew it was going to explode.
Then you look at the footage and see that it looks absolutely substandard.

From there, panic ensues and people are rushing to get out of Japan, believing it's doomed over the coming weeks, only for the brave 50 to walk in and douse the melting reactor fuel to stop it melting down into the earth and water table etc.

Then you get the experts telling us that the radiation is spreading and the pacific is polluted, plus Japans goods are all tainted and then somehow it's all under control and everything is hunky dory...but...they will turn off "all" of their Nuclear plants that provide a massive proportion of the country with power and guess what?

Nobody suffers at all for it. We see a few snippets on TV where firms are told to not put on their air conditioners from a certain time for a few hours and that's about it.

So in  nutshell, we are scared one minute about after effects and the next minute it's fine and it's under control and back to work everyone, nothing to see here.

By this time though, we are all convinced we are not being told the truth about how "dangerous" it really is and the next minute, supposed whistle blowers are telling us how dire the situation is.
It's a classic head scrambler because the masses see it as dangerous and believe the so called whistle blowers, yet doubt the official story from the governments.

The very same people will then argue black and blue that other media events are 100% true and the Governments and those connected, wouldn't lie.
Nobody really gives it a thought that the whistle blowers could simply be planted to play with your emotions and scramble your heads, all in the name of maybe keeping your mind away from what really goes on at those plants and maybe they use a fuel that is actually harmless and abundantly cheap.

What those plants run on, I can only guess. Maybe they really do run on magical metals somehow fissioning, or maybe they are built close to the sea to extract a natural resource from it that's abundant, as in hydrogen itself, or maybe something else. Maybe it's to simply hide a gas pipe into the building. I don't honestly know, yet 6 to 10 years fissioning from long pellet shaped rods with control rods in between doesn't ring true to me, just the same as uranium discs and a Uranium bullet smashed into those discs from a  bundle of fused cordite as the trigger and yet as soon as the metal bullet is fired at the disc, ..BOOOOOOM, your city is in ruins.  ::)
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 09:40:56 AM by sceptimatic »

?

Alonewarrior

  • 103
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #565 on: February 20, 2013, 10:46:39 AM »

Then I started listening to how poisonous it was by people like Helen Caldicott and a supposed self confessed whistle blower in Leuren Moret, who told us of the dangers and I thought, "wow" this stuff is ultra mental, it's earth destroying.
Then I thought, I wonder what others have to say. And sure enough, there was a few more proponents like Arnie Gundersen and Christopher Busby, who echoed it all, so I thought, " this is real dodgy stuff, what are we doing using it."


It took you that long to realize how dangerous nuclear power was? Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl should have been enough.  :P
No. I mean , it took me a long time in reading as to how dangerous it was supposed to be in it's entirety.
For instance, I was under the impression it was dangerous but not world wide dangerous until Helen Caldicott said,"just one pound of Plutonium, spread evenly over the planet would kill every person on it."

It was this statement that made me actually delve into it more critically, because I fell for the sucker punch as in, a conspiracy within a conspiracy and I believe that's what we get fed.
We get fed bits of truth and lies and then dis-info proponents take to the stage to totally screw your head up.

I'll explain.
From the start of Nuclear bombs in the 1940's, we have all been dangling by a thread with our wits, wondering if a Nuclear war will happen and it's been with us since the supposed cold war in terms of us really getting fed mass media hype.
From this, Nuclear power is created and power stations built, which naturally brings out the anti Nuclear brigade as in greenpeace and such.

We all start to realise why they are totally against it when we get told how dangerous it is and the fact that it's poisonous for 1000's...millions and what not years and cannot be stored with any real safety.

We see power plants popping up all over the country and yet we are told that it's a clean, safe energy and will result in cheap energy for the future, so naturally everyone becomes happy on one side, which is cheaper bills, but cautious on the other side, as in health wise and environment wise.

Ok so now, it's fully ingrained into our psyche that oil/gas and other supposed non renewable resources are dwindling fast, so we accept Nuclear as the comfortable alternative evil  for our energy needs.
The problem is, it turns out that it's not cheap, as it costs a fortune to mine the Uranium etc and the security and manpower needed, plus the cost of building secure reactors, coupled with mammoth disposal of spent fuel costs, means we pay higher bills, not lower.

So you sit there and think, " oh well, at least we will have power, no matter what."
All of a sudden a Nuclear power plant goes boom and the town is cleared, as in Chernobyl and radiation has supposedly spread to farms in England, Wales, Europe etc etc.

Soldiers are sent into dispose of the remains of the reactor fuel and a big concrete sarcophagus is built that will last x amount of years. Ok job done for now but scary all the same, especially when they tell us that not many deaths are reported over the years, which starts to make you think..."huh" , surely this is not right."

So the stories come out that only so many have died because of it, then deformities are massive, then deformities are few, then millions have died over the few decades since, due to it...and it goes on.

You sit back and find out that a Nuclear power station has had to "shut down", yet in shutting down, nobody in that area loses power...they are still lit up like beacons.

Obviously we are being told lies and it's running, or the people who receive their power must be getting it from somewhere else.
Then you find out that amid all the disaster at Chernobyl with one reactor, the workers are still going to work at the other reactors on the complex???

Then you see Fukushima exploding with cameras fixed on it from helicopters, that somehow are there to capture the footage even though nobody knew it was going to explode.
Then you look at the footage and see that it looks absolutely substandard.

From there, panic ensues and people are rushing to get out of Japan, believing it's doomed over the coming weeks, only for the brave 50 to walk in and douse the melting reactor fuel to stop it melting down into the earth and water table etc.

Then you get the experts telling us that the radiation is spreading and the pacific is polluted, plus Japans goods are all tainted and then somehow it's all under control and everything is hunky dory...but...they will turn off "all" of their Nuclear plants that provide a massive proportion of the country with power and guess what?

Nobody suffers at all for it. We see a few snippets on TV where firms are told to not put on their air conditioners from a certain time for a few hours and that's about it.

So in  nutshell, we are scared one minute about after effects and the next minute it's fine and it's under control and back to work everyone, nothing to see here.

By this time though, we are all convinced we are not being told the truth about how "dangerous" it really is and the next minute, supposed whistle blowers are telling us how dire the situation is.
It's a classic head scrambler because the masses see it as dangerous and believe the so called whistle blowers, yet doubt the official story from the governments.

The very same people will then argue black and blue that other media events are 100% true and the Governments and those connected, wouldn't lie.
Nobody really gives it a thought that the whistle blowers could simply be planted to play with your emotions and scramble your heads, all in the name of maybe keeping your mind away from what really goes on at those plants and maybe they use a fuel that is actually harmless and abundantly cheap.

What those plants run on, I can only guess. Maybe they really do run on magical metals somehow fissioning, or maybe they are built close to the sea to extract a natural resource from it that's abundant, as in hydrogen itself, or maybe something else. Maybe it's to simply hide a gas pipe into the building. I don't honestly know, yet 6 to 10 years fissioning from long pellet shaped rods with control rods in between doesn't ring true to me, just the same as uranium discs and a Uranium bullet smashed into those discs from a  bundle of fused cordite as the trigger and yet as soon as the metal bullet is fired at the disc, ..BOOOOOOM, your city is in ruins.  ::)

The thing is, nuclear fission as a form of energy is extremely safe and beneficial for the environment. Yes, the chemicals, if exposed to the outside world, would cause great contamination and poison or kill many people, but that's why we strive to build places to store the used fuel rods. It's a far better alternative to coal/oil plants in terms of environmental health. All that is emitted from the towers at these plants are steam from the water. In fact, nuclear power plants emit LESS radioactive waste into our air than coal plants! This doesn't mean that coal plants are dangerous due to the radioactivity, but it goes to show just how insignificant it hurts us in terms of radiation and that nuclear plants are even less significant than that.

Here's more information on Chernobyl to help you better understand what's going on.

And for the sake of learning, water helps dissipate radiation extremely well. So much so that you could swim at the top of the pool where spent fuel rods were stored and experience radiation levels so minimal, they're far below the EPA standards. It is entirely safe to do so as long as you remain near the surface. The only real threat you face is the security guard with a gun pointed at your face for breaking and entering into a secure facility without permission, if they haven't decided to shoot yet for ignoring them and jumping into said pool.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 11:22:41 AM by Alonewarrior »

?

Alonewarrior

  • 103
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #566 on: February 20, 2013, 11:24:29 AM »
Yes, these spent fuel pools make me laugh. I mean, you can swim in them, as there was a case of a man falling into one and coming at as happy as Larry.  ;D

They worry over where to store the spent fuel and would you believe it, we have a massive ocean out there, a really really deep one where no man fears to tread, unless you're James Cameron of course.  ::)
Now, why can't they just dump it in the deepest part of the ocean. After all, we don;t eat anything from the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean do we?
So what's the problem?
The problem is, those so called spent fuel pools are not what they are portrayed I don't think. More like a pool of massive kettle like elements stacked in clumps of rods for dump load needs, when electricity output is in less demand.

Whoops, I incorrectly put the wrong url into the third link. Here's the correct one: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Also, the reason we aren't dumping them into the ocean would be, I assume, that we don't have any interest in disrupting the ecosystem at the bottom of the oceans. People would be complaining left and right if they decided to do that.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 11:35:10 AM by Alonewarrior »

?

Alonewarrior

  • 103
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #567 on: February 20, 2013, 11:54:15 AM »
Yes, these spent fuel pools make me laugh. I mean, you can swim in them, as there was a case of a man falling into one and coming at as happy as Larry.  ;D

They worry over where to store the spent fuel and would you believe it, we have a massive ocean out there, a really really deep one where no man fears to tread, unless you're James Cameron of course.  ::)
Now, why can't they just dump it in the deepest part of the ocean. After all, we don;t eat anything from the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean do we?
So what's the problem?
The problem is, those so called spent fuel pools are not what they are portrayed I don't think. More like a pool of massive kettle like elements stacked in clumps of rods for dump load needs, when electricity output is in less demand.

Whoops, I incorrectly put the wrong url into the third link. Here's the correct one: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Also, the reason we aren't dumping them into the ocean would be, I assume, that we don't have any interest in disrupting the ecosystem at the bottom of the oceans. People would be complaining left and right if they decided to do that.
Disrupting what eco system at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean?
So what you're saying is, they will spew all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and fill the sea with hazardous oil etc, yet they would be worried about what people think about them "secretly" dumping fuel rods into a deep ocean?

Come on man, you don;t believe that do you, seriously.

There are necessities in life, and right now most people realize that even though the coal/oil plants are spewing horrible gasses into the atmosphere it's not a compromise to damage ecosystems elsewhere to make up for our cleaner air. The real alternative is finding more efficient sources of energy. You do realize that there are living organisms even at the deepest points of the ocean, right? Even places we previously thought uninhabitable?

As of right now it's easier to maintain things we have immediate access to, but it's not that easy to make a trip to the bottom of the ocean every time we wanted to monitor the spent rods and ensure that there are no leaks. These coal/oil plants are still heavily regulated and are required to follow specific EPA requirements to operate.

?

Alonewarrior

  • 103
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #568 on: February 20, 2013, 12:22:04 PM »
Yes, these spent fuel pools make me laugh. I mean, you can swim in them, as there was a case of a man falling into one and coming at as happy as Larry.  ;D

They worry over where to store the spent fuel and would you believe it, we have a massive ocean out there, a really really deep one where no man fears to tread, unless you're James Cameron of course.  ::)
Now, why can't they just dump it in the deepest part of the ocean. After all, we don;t eat anything from the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean do we?
So what's the problem?
The problem is, those so called spent fuel pools are not what they are portrayed I don't think. More like a pool of massive kettle like elements stacked in clumps of rods for dump load needs, when electricity output is in less demand.

Whoops, I incorrectly put the wrong url into the third link. Here's the correct one: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Also, the reason we aren't dumping them into the ocean would be, I assume, that we don't have any interest in disrupting the ecosystem at the bottom of the oceans. People would be complaining left and right if they decided to do that.
Disrupting what eco system at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean?
So what you're saying is, they will spew all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and fill the sea with hazardous oil etc, yet they would be worried about what people think about them "secretly" dumping fuel rods into a deep ocean?

Come on man, you don;t believe that do you, seriously.

There are necessities in life, and right now most people realize that even though the coal/oil plants are spewing horrible gasses into the atmosphere it's not a compromise to damage ecosystems elsewhere to make up for our cleaner air. The real alternative is finding more efficient sources of energy. You do realize that there are living organisms even at the deepest points of the ocean, right? Even places we previously thought uninhabitable?

As of right now it's easier to maintain things we have immediate access to, but it's not that easy to make a trip to the bottom of the ocean every time we wanted to monitor the spent rods and ensure that there are no leaks. These coal/oil plants are still heavily regulated and are required to follow specific EPA requirements to operate.
Leaks?
They're solid metal pellets aren't they? Why in the hell should they leak?

The pellets are stored within these rods and decay over time. The decaying process occurs because the elements are unstable and will continue to decay until they stabilize, but until they do they release energy and this energy is what is used to heat the water. The problem is that when the metal is exposed to air it begins to oxidize. Heat from the spent rods also degrades the metal since they're very hot for a few years after being used. This can eventually lead to exposure of the pellets and then leaking radioactive waste. That's why they're stored in very highly regulated and secure locations in water for a few years until they've cooled enough to be removed and placed into their dry storage casks.

?

Alonewarrior

  • 103
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #569 on: February 20, 2013, 12:40:40 PM »
The supposed spent fuel rods are stored in a 40 foot deep pool. Forty foot deep pool, for decades allegedly and judging by your stick men, they are only dangerous about six feet above where they are stored and the rest you can go swimming in.
I think the deepest part of the ocean would pose no problems for this stuff do you?
The reason they are in that pool is because it isn't Uranium pellets...more like large elements for dissipating unused electricity, like a dump load and that's how they siphon it off maybe.

False again. You're on a record! The forty foot deep pool is there for precautions in case something were to happen. Again, the problem is that the rods are extremely hot and need to be cooled for twenty years at most. After that they are removed and placed into dry storage casks. All of this is constantly monitored to ensure that if/when the metal does degrade and expose the hazardous material we are able to react and stop any serious damage from happening.

At the bottom of the ocean we would still disrupt ecosystems nearby and if they degraded where we couldn't access them easily then further problems occur with the destruction of ecosystems.