[ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities)
sjd at swcp.com
Sat Jul 12 21:49:48 CDT 2008
Some comments below (SD).
At 05:24 PM 7/12/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Thank you for your concern:
> > what do you want?
>Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble
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."
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.
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.
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?
More information about the RadSafe