[ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities)

James Salsman BenjB4 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 12 19:24:26 CDT 2008


Thank you for your concern:

> what do you want?

Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble forms.

> You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate."  You asked for the "current rate."


Mike Brennan wrote:

> James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION!  The word "current" is in there.

The current rate has three components:

(1) First, the past rate.  It is an established fact from statics that
there is nothing anyone can do to  change the past.  This includes
values for which the certainty is not absolute.

(2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero.
The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over
time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in
the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the
current rate.  Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate
decreases with proximity.

(3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected
rate.  According to chaos theory and various interpretations of
quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on
expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the
noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of
which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling
from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring.

The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly
measuring expected events.  For example, if the extent of the likely
hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured
correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either
unnaturally raised or lowered.

Another example is Yucca Mountain.  The longer we leave old reactor
cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to
bomb one of them.

James Salsman

More information about the RadSafe mailing list