Octopus Overlords

A wildfire burning near the desert birthplace of the atomic bomb advanced on the Los Alamos laboratory and thousands of outdoor drums of plutonium-contaminated waste Tuesday as authorities stepped up efforts to protect the site from flames and monitor the air for radiation.

Officials at the nation's premier nuclear weapons lab gave assurances that dangerous materials were safely stored and capable of withstanding flames from the 93-square-mile (240 square kilometer) fire, which as of midday was as close as 50 feet (15 meters) from the grounds.

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.

Moliere wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.

So John Oliver is allowed to say whatever he wants without being criticized?

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.

Defiant wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.

Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough.

Max Peck wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.

Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough.

If some people consider John Oliver to be a source of news, then maybe some people should crack open a dictionary and see whether they can puzzle out the difference between topical satire and journalism.

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Some people take comedy shows too seriously.

Thank you, William Shatner.

Considering that some people consider it a source of news, and that it draws attention to issues and can change people's minds, maybe some people don't take it seriously enough.

If some people consider John Oliver to be a source of news, then maybe some people should crack open a dictionary and see whether they can puzzle out the difference between topical satire and journalism.

John Oliver makes his living by blurring the line. It's valid criticism that he should be factually correct even if he may want to exaggerate for effect.

noxiousdog wrote:John Oliver makes his living by blurring the line. It's valid criticism that he should be factually correct even if he may want to exaggerate for effect.

Max Peck wrote: Was he factually incorrect in the nuclear waste segment? A barely-hinged twitter rant from an industry insider, making claims such as dumping drums of low-grade waste in the ocean is harmless (If so, why was it globally banned? Was shooting holes in the drums that didn't sink on their own a really well-thought out course of action?), didn't strike me as particularly compelling evidence to that end.

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote: Was he factually incorrect in the nuclear waste segment? A barely-hinged twitter rant from an industry insider, making claims such as dumping drums of low-grade waste in the ocean is harmless (If so, why was it globally banned? Was shooting holes in the drums that didn't sink on their own a really well-thought out course of action?), didn't strike me as particularly compelling evidence to that end.

Make up your mind. Was he factually correct or was it just comedy?

The U.S. then shipped 1,500 tons of tainted soil back to the states for disposal. The 55-gallon steel drums of radioactive dirt were buried at the Savannah River Plant in 20-foot-deep unlined trenches.

That burial ground is where the plant dumped much of its solid radioactive waste at the time, often in cardboard boxes. Radioactive contamination continues to leach from burial trenches into groundwater and periodically the Savannah River despite efforts to cap the trenches and stem the leakage. Plant engineers built a dam to block most of the flow and create a large pond.

The contaminated pond water is used as irrigation and regularly sprayed into the surrounding forest where it is absorbed by the trees and evaporates harmlessly into the atmosphere. The pond also is home to two radioactive alligators dubbed by workers as Tritagator and Dioxinator — after two of the wastes, radioactive tritium and toxic dioxin.

Solid radioactive waste continues to be dumped into unlined ditches and buried. But now it’s limited to low-level radioactive material with short half-lives — the time it takes for the material to lose half of its radioactivity. Plant officials say the material loses virtually all of its radioactive punch before it can leach into groundwater and spread very far from the trenches.

Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.

I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.

Max Peck wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.

I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.

I don't even know why you decided to argue about it in the first place. All I originally said was that some people take comedians too seriously, and y'all decided that THAT SHALL NOT STAND.

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote: Is there some logical reason that something cannot both be true and presented in a comedic context? The only thing I care about is that I found the segment to be entertaining, and as a simple layman I didn't spot any obviously fallacious information. That meets my standard for a comedy show. If I wanted an in-depth treatment of the subject, I'd hunt up some documentaries or crack open a book or three. I wouldn't rely on a comedian to do my homework for me.

If he lied about anything, then by all means use your vastly superior knowledge and rhetorical talent to enlighten me.

I think Katie and James already did that, but you chose to ignore it. Why would you be any more receptive to me?

This is like arguing about vaccines.

I don't even know why you decided to argue about it in the first place. All I originally said was that some people take comedians too seriously, and y'all decided that THAT SHALL NOT STAND.

Oh good grief. Relax. The only one freaking out is you.

On the morning after the election, November 9, 2016, the people who ran the U.S. Department of Energy turned up in their offices and waited. They had cleared 30 desks and freed up 30 parking spaces. They didn’t know exactly how many people they’d host that day, but whoever won the election would surely be sending a small army into the Department of Energy, and every other federal agency. The morning after he was elected president, eight years earlier, Obama had sent between 30 and 40 people into the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy staff planned to deliver the same talks from the same five-inch-thick three-ring binders, with the Department of Energy seal on them, to the Trump people as they would have given to the Clinton people. “Nothing had to be changed,” said one former Department of Energy staffer. “They’d be done always with the intention that, either party wins, nothing changes.”

By afternoon the silence was deafening. “Day 1, we’re ready to go,” says a former senior White House official. “Day 2 it was ‘Maybe they’ll call us?’ ”

The dream of pollution and radiation-free electricity derived from nuclear fusion could be a step closer to reality thanks to a breakthrough by British scientists.

They have developed an exhaust system that can deal with the immense temperatures created during the fusion process and which so far have limited the viability of commercial fusion power plants.

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:34 am

The dream of pollution and radiation-free electricity derived from nuclear fusion could be a step closer to reality thanks to a breakthrough by British scientists.

They have developed an exhaust system that can deal with the immense temperatures created during the fusion process and which so far have limited the viability of commercial fusion power plants.

https://news.sky.com/story/commercially ... h-12317089

Sky.com wrote:"It's a pivotal development for the UK's plan to put a fusion power plant on the grid by the early 2040s - and for bringing low-carbon energy from fusion to the world."

What is new? What makes this new path possible now?

The SPARC approach uses a newly available superconducting material that allows operation at much higher magnetic fields than the previous state-of-the-art. Superconducting materials are required in fusion energy systems as no electrical power is required to operate the magnets that provide the plasma containment; the high magnet fields are critical because they dramatically reduce the volume of the plasma at a fixed fusion power output. This combination makes a net-energy fusion device, such as SPARC, much smaller and less expensive than if it were built with the previous magnet technology. As a result, smaller and much more streamlined organizations, such as MIT and CFS, can pursue net energy fusion devices. This is not to say success is guaranteed; but the cost and timescale to retire key technical risks becomes acceptable to private-sector investors.

Kraken wrote:Commonwealth Fusion Systems and the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center have made encouraging progress toward SPARC recently. The goal is for SPARC (a demonstration reactor) to achieve net-positive energy in 10-or-so years, with commercial ARC reactors coming online within 15 years.

What is new? What makes this new path possible now?

The SPARC approach uses a newly available superconducting material that allows operation at much higher magnetic fields than the previous state-of-the-art. Superconducting materials are required in fusion energy systems as no electrical power is required to operate the magnets that provide the plasma containment; the high magnet fields are critical because they dramatically reduce the volume of the plasma at a fixed fusion power output. This combination makes a net-energy fusion device, such as SPARC, much smaller and less expensive than if it were built with the previous magnet technology. As a result, smaller and much more streamlined organizations, such as MIT and CFS, can pursue net energy fusion devices. This is not to say success is guaranteed; but the cost and timescale to retire key technical risks becomes acceptable to private-sector investors.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:50 pm If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:36 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:50 pm If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.

What's the fission problem? The waste?

Drazzil wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:45 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:36 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:50 pm If we crack the fission and solid state battery problem and the whole "electric plane" problem we will be able to take a substantial bite out of carbon.

What's the fission problem? The waste?

The cold fission problem. There is very little waste produced by Nuke power, but the amount of power required by a jet takeoff (Air travel being 1/3rd of emissions) most of those emissions are in the takeoff. W/O cold fusion or solid state batteries you cannot solve the huge energy output required by jet takeoffs.

Putting nuke plants in airplanes right now wouldn't solve that and every plane that crashes has the potential to be a dirty bomb.

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:16 pm You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:45 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:16 pm You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.

no. Fission plants in planes would be bad. Fusion plants would be too big. If you're talking about going zero carbon then you need solid state batteries capable of powering a jets lift. Am I wrong?

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:45 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:16 pm You keep mixing and matching fusion and fission.

no. Fission plants in planes would be bad. Fusion plants would be too big. If you're talking about going zero carbon then you need solid state batteries capable of powering a jets lift. Am I wrong?