ITT: neat things you've learned today
>Mycobacterium tuberculosis takes 15 hours to divide once
>XDR tuberculosis is the new MRSA
>Mycobacterium leprae, the main cause of leprosy, takes 20 hours to divide once, and visible symptoms can appear 20 years after infection
Other urls found in this thread:
thorconpower.com
bravenewclimate.com
physics.ucsd.edu
physics.ucsd.edu
thorconpower.com
twitter.com
>OP is a fag
>he literally cannot stop sucking dicks
I learned that in South Korea, construction costs for nuclear power plants has been decreasing over time, which provides excellent evidence that nuclear is not inherently costly, and it's the ridiculous regulations that are killing it.
>ridiculous regulations
>literally the entire Pacific Ocean is becoming irradiated due to one of the walls at one nuclear power plant not being high enough
>ridiculous regulations
It's not like a coal plant where when the power company does the minimum legally required to maintain safety the river it's on gets filled with toxic sludge, any sort of nuclear incident represents a major catastrophe for humanity
In actuality, nuclear power is the safest form of power generation that exists today (in terms of human deaths per Joule of electricity produced). By far. 10x or 100x less deaths than even solar, wind, and hydro.
Look, I'm all for proper and strict regulations to prevent accidents like Fukushima (which isn't as bad as many people think it is). However, nuclear power plant cost tripled in the US after Three Mile Island. Tripling of costs? That has no actual bearing with reality. You don't need to triple the cost to make it safe. It's ridiculous in the extreme. I strongly suggest this for reading:
thorconpower.com
Shit boys, we're all going to fucking die. Have you seen how many cm of radiation has leaked into the pacific?
Thank you user for the good sarcasm.
Well, fortunately the people in charge of actually making the decisions understand that causing massive scale nuclear catastrophes is simply not worth the cost of doing business.
For now. We'll see how long until the next one goes off. Probably in China.
Because, you know, China doesn't have the same kind of "ridiculous regulations" as the US and first world countries.
The historical facts simply disagree with you. As brute fact of history, about 300 people have ever died from radiation poisoning from civilian nuclear power, and maybe 4000 if you count the largest plausible estimates for Chernobyl. No one outside the plant will ever die at Fukushima. Radiation levels in the areas around Fukushima are already at like 2.5 mSv / year, which is quite safe. For comparison, people living in Denver are exposed to 10 mSv / year (mostly from radon exposure), and Ramsar in Iran is way higher still, all with no detectable negative health effects.
You've been lied to about the extent of the dangers of nuclear power by people indirectly funded by fossil fuel interests.
In the past century in the US 100,000 people have died from just coal MINING accidents. Nuclear has claimed a handful of unfortunate workers and up to 4000 people when soviet incompetence and a nigger-rigged reactor resulted in a meltdown.
Hell, millions die every year from normal coal pollution, airborne particulates, and other dirty fuel usage, including indoor heating and cooking. Literally like 8 million every year according to the W.H.O., and a quarter million in Europe.
>The historical facts simply disagree with you.
We have been using nuclear power for only a few decades.
We need sustainable forms of power that can last for centuries.
Just because we've been lucky enough to have only one major (not even really all that huge compared to the potential) and two minor noteworthy incidents in the past few decades does not mean that we will continue to be lucky enough to not experience any catastrophic events hundreds of years into the future.
Yes, the safety of the technology improves but we have an ever-growing need for power fueled by increasing numbers of plants operating at increased capacity. That means that the dice are being rolled more and more times each day, even if the odds of a catastrophic failure are extremely small the probability will become substantial over the course of decades and centuries. Much more so if we fail to promote solar, wind and hydro as much as is feasible.
You cannot reduce the costs to numbers like radiation measures and casualty figures when the potential cost of a catastrophic disaster is the loss of thousands, potentially millions of lives and the rendering of a vast area of land uninhabitable. We're not talking about a reduced number of minor incidents, we're talking about getting extremely lucky with the number of catastrophic incidents being zero because a single catastrophic incident will have higher costs than swapping out nuclear for coal from here on into the future.
>We need sustainable forms of power that can last for centuries.
And that's nuclear.
>Just because we've been lucky enough to have only one major (not even really all that huge compared to the potential) and two minor noteworthy incidents in the past few decades does not mean that we will continue to be lucky enough to not experience any catastrophic events hundreds of years into the future.
Actually yes, because current gen designs, like the AP-1000, are much safer, and next-gen designs, like IFR and MSRs, are much safer still. Had Fukushima been a AP-1000, there would have been no accident or danger of any kind.
> That means that the dice are being rolled more and more times each day, even if the odds of a catastrophic failure are extremely small the probability will become substantial over the course of decades and centuries.
Which is why I compared number of deaths per Joule of energy produced. That measure is independent of the total amount of power plants active at any one time. That's a fair measure of the inherent risk of the reactor. Chernobyl was almost quite literally designed to explode, and that's why it did a crazy amount of damage, relatively speaking. Even then, 300 people died, not millions. "Millions" is a scientific myth cooked up by professional liars at Green Peace, Sierra Club, etc., that has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's as bad as vaccine deniers.
So, the point is, you are going to roll those dice for every plant, and on a plant per plant comparison, solar, wind, and hydro will kill more people than nuclear. This is an uncontestable fact based on the historical record. If you want to save more lives, stop building wind, solar, and hydro, and build more nuclear. Especially above all else, stop burning coal in favor of nuclear.
>And that's nuclear.
No.
It simply isn't.
This is exactly the problem.
Yes, it's a slightly longer-term solution than coal.
But it is not a long-term sustainable power source. Just a slightly better stopgap measure.
When people like you treat it like it is a renewable resource, like we can depend on it forever just because accidents are few and far between, you create the problem. You make accidents inevitable.
Radiation is fucking with forces that work on a hundreds-of-thousands-of-years timescale. We humans work on a timescale of years, decades at most, we often have difficulty seeing past the next few months. We should not be fucking with nuclear energy, any more than we have to.
>We need sustainable forms of power that can last for centuries.
Also, wind, solar, hydro, and the rest of the so-called green solutions are pipedreams. They do not work, and cannot work, barring extreme and unlikely technological advancements, especially in the energy / electricity storage sector.
bravenewclimate.com
physics.ucsd.edu
physics.ucsd.edu
All manufacture produces waste that is dangerous forever. Coal ash is dangerous forever. Solar construction involves a bunch of toxic chemicals that are dangerous forever. In this context, nuclear waste is just another kind of industrial waste that is dangerous if ingested or inhaled. Sure, the lethal dose of nuclear waste is higher than the lethal dose of other industrial waste, but there's also like a bazillion times less nuclear waste by volume.
Discussions about the dangers of nuclear power plant accidents are reasonable. That's a legitimate concern. Nuclear waste disposal is not a legitimate concern. Nuclear waste is not infinitely dangerous, and because the amount of it is so extremely small, it's a complete non-issue. Disposal is trivial. It's a political myth invented by people who don't want nuclear power for other reasons.
thorconpower.com
kek
>Hurr Durr thay camt werk guise
This is not /b/. This is Veeky Forums. Got any proper arguments and citations?
This is why TB is so dangerous, slow division along with its waxy membrane make it fuck with our immune system
Was worried I wouldn't see this brought up.
Costa Rica example is worth noting. Hydro is a reasonable renewable that could (should imo) make up a larger portion of the energy-source portfolio.
>All manufacture produces waste that is dangerous forever. Coal ash is dangerous forever. Solar construction involves a bunch of toxic chemicals that are dangerous forever.
This is mind numbingly false. I just got a bit dumber from reading your comment. Please try not to spread misinformation.
You're already dumb. I don't think you realize what rare earth element mining and processing does. It is far more damaging than a bucket of nuclear waste is.
I learned to calculate total ionising dose in a phantom material while taking compton scattering and photoelectric effect into consideration. Also learned to calculate beta radiation.
Learned that a 3,9GBq source of 90sr is not strong enough to iradiate my samples for my thesis. Feels bad
Haha true fucking hipies that dont know nuclear physics. Hmm mercury byproduct of coal mining stays forever mercury and wil forever be dangerous. Sr90 cs137 wil not be dangerous after 400 years hmm what should i pick. And true to make 1 MW through coal gives of way more waste than 1MW through nuclear energy. I am just waiting for fusion energy
>literally the entire Pacific Ocean is becoming irradiated due to one of the walls at one nuclear power plant not being high enough
oh yeah Fukushima totally means we can't have a nuclear plant in the middle of the Midwest without enormous quadruple-redundant systems around it
>any sort of nuclear incident represents a major catastrophe for humanity
bullshit
remember Three Mile Island?
it wasn't a catastrophe, it was barely a blip
I'm not sure you understand how much Uranium there actually is
Because there's a lot of it
>what is thorium molten salt reactors
Your uneducation is whats killing humanity.
Hydro is cool and all, except for some moderate ecological impact of flooding the site, and the lack of sufficient dam-able sites worldwide. It's dubious whether we could even expand hydro 2-fold, which means it's practically a rounding error and ignorable for the scale of the problem worldwide when discussing if we need lots and lots of nuclear.
Look, I'm all for nuclear power, but it looks like you've been meme'd by the "we need teh nuclear power or we'll never haf more energy!!" meme. Wind, solar and hydro are all legit solutions, and the guy you're replying to is right. Nuclear is great, but not sustainable over long time scales.
I encourage you to read those links at this post:
It shows that you're wrong.
Further, with next-gen breeder reactors, it's quite feasible to dig up literal granite rock, the most common kind of rock of the continental crust, leach it with acid to extract the few ppm uranium and thorium, and burn that in a nuclear reactor. When you do that, you get an amount of energy equal to the original volume of granite as coal, times 20. We are never going to run out of rock, and therefore we are never going to run out of nuclear fuel.
Also, seawater extraction may work, and that's another inexhaustible source. I'm less sure about that one, but it looks like it's making good progress.
Regardless, it would takes hundreds of years, even thousands, to exhaust more conventional sources, before we even had to go these extremes. The problems of uranium and thorium shortages are vastly exaggerated.
Specifically, read the first link, catch-22, and understand EROEI, and why that means solar and wind cannot work.
Hydro maybe a little.
Intermittent power (solar and wind) is not scalable beyond 10-12% of total power produced and pushed to grid. Without massive changes to the existing grid infrastructure even incremental increases in share are challenging. If we choose to operete in a world where costs matter (ie reality) the pricing structure is completely inverted.
>>literally the entire Pacific Ocean is becoming irradiated due to one of the walls at one nuclear power plant not being high enough
ebin meme, my friend
YOU'RE A MORON AND LITERALLY KILLING THOUSANDS OF COAL MINERS EVERY YEAR BY YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. COAL AND OIL ARE KILLING PEOPLE IN EXTRACTION RIGHT FUCKING NOW. A MILLION LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF IT WERENT FOR STUPID FAGS LIKE YOU
REEEEEEEE!
kys
>fusion energy
I work in this field and don't count on it yet.
>GUYS I JUST HAD MICROBIOLOGY 101 LECTURE
>In actuality, nuclear power is the safest form of power generation that exists today
No, because it's the least safe form of power generation, it's approached with the most caution.
To argue that, because nuclear is so obviously terrible that we have dealt with it extremely carefully thus far, therefore we should regard nuclear as inherently safe, greatly expand its use, and relax our safety standards, is completely insane.
By its inherent qualities, nuclear is the dirtiest and most dangerous source of power, with the worst environmental effects and the greatest catastrophic potential.
>useless shit
Scallops are supposed to be raw in the middle
Bdelloid Rotifers have active genes from other organisms that were gained from repairing double strand breaks. They can also carry out simultaneous multi-point insertions through this method.
Bott Periodicity theorem
cool as fuck
Coon
Nice. I posted an article about that on here one time
Neat
More shit
>the brain produces fructose
>there is a manga that is basically Osmosis Jones except from the view of a red blood cell
how to do calculations with channel width modulation on mosfets
which is entirely useless because its negligible in the real world
You can turn a bucket of water into a useful computer.
They've made a sponge that can absorb ~90x its weight in crude oil with a 6:1 specificity over water and the oil can be purified and used as well as letting the sponge be used >100 times.
Just woke up so yesterday:
The "best beer" in the world is made by monks so they can support their monastery and be good monks
The word story (to mean different floors) comes from having like pictograms on the sides of buildings that told stories. More floors = More stories, so eventually they became synonomous.
In WWI, planners painted ships with "distractive camouflage". Torpedo operators needed to time their shots right, because torpedos would take some time to get to their target. The painted ships, would confuse periscope users on tack and speed, and ships would then miss that torpedo.
>In positive selection, MHC restriction occuring during T-cell development within the Thymus
>T-cell trafficking
The greatest potential catastrophes of nuclear has already played out: Chernobyl and Fukushima. In Chernobyl, 300 people died, and maybe 4000 according to the worst plausible estimates.
How many people die every year from normal airborne particulate pollution? Including indoor heating and cooking instead of electric heating and cooking (or properly handled nat gas, etc.)? About 8 million people every year. Coal and fossil fuels are the most dangerous forms of power, by an extreme margin, even before you add global warming.
The current regulations can be lessened without appreciable differences in safety. In South Korea, their reactors are 3 or 4 times cheaper than Europe and US. This also used to be true for France. Some safety regulations are required, and necessary. However, the amount of money spent to 4x the price is not necessary. That kind of safety regulation is entirely unnecessary, and it does nothing to increase our safety. If anything, it makes us less safe, because it prevents the adoption of safer current-gen designs like the AP-1000 and next-gen designs like IFR and various MSRs.
You're simply wrong about the level of threat of nuclear power. You've been lied to. The actual threat is far far less than what you've been lead to believe.
chernobyl was literally the worst case nuclear scenario and it wasn't actually that bad.
>There are 12 cranial nerves, 3 of them control the eye muscles.
> Neurons can reset their action potential and fire about 800 times a second
>Leadership in a political party who's name literally translates to "socialist left" in Norway is against banning circumcision under the argument of "religious freedom"
>All electronic driving aids on the bmw e46 can be fully disabled.
>It's estimated that 20-40% of the brains energy consumption goes to driving calcium pumps in the neurons.
Well, not "today" since today has just started.
And following the radioactive theme of this thread
I recently learned that potassium 40 K40 is one of the most common radioactive isotopoes in the planet, and it takes an improtant amount of the potassium in our body. And it's probably the greatest source of radiation found in living things.
That and that Sievert (sv) is the unit of cumulative equivalent radioactive exposure. And that at 7sv about 90% of the humans exposed die of radiation
>I am just waiting on fusion energy
Nah, it's still many years ahead.
Actual green energies are good enough to mantain the world in the foreseeabke future, as long as the batteries catch up.