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

[Steven Dapra]

Some comments below (SD).


At 05:24 PM 7/12/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Steven,
>
>Thank you for your concern:
>
> > what do you want?
>
>Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble 
>forms.

SD:

         Why don't you file an emergency petition with the NRC?

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

SD:

         Then why didn't you accept the proffered current rate?  Why did 
you start whining about the "mean expected 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.

SD:

         The preceding two paragraphs are a bunch of pretentious 
nonsense.  From what did you copy them, James?  My "Minkowski metric 
causality cone" tells me the "chaos" is between your ears, James, and 
that's no theory either.

>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

SD:

         What do you think the relation is between someone trying to bomb 
one of the old reactor cores, and the possibility of a magnitude ten 
earthquake shaking them up a little?