EadTaes

Well lets hope the solar flare is indeed the cause.

Or the foundations of the reactors have cracked and fuel is starting to slowly leak through it.

This video explains more in detail how the Thorium Fuel cycle works. Should answer a lot of question people had. [video]http://youtu.be/7TQkLRQxgyY[/video]

[quote who="Kantok" reply="1921" id="3432478"] If you had bothered to read the thread, you would see Thorium reactors were discussed for several pages and most people, myself included, sung their praises. I'm on board. You could put a thorium reactor next to my house and I'd be fine with it. It could give me the power that my solar panels won't cover. In fact Thorium reactors are point number one in my argument (more in a moment).[/quote] <

[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="1918" id="3432463"] Quoting ZombiesRus5, reply 1917It's a good thing scientists were right on the money with cholesterol... http://www.pittsburghquarterly.com/index.php/Innovation/the-cholesterol-conundrum.html http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/ Yes, it was a good thing that scientists did a good job with cholesterol! If they hadn't, millions of people

I just found out that apparently the media is calling this a polar vortex and is something the liberal left just invented to try and explain why it's cold right now. But as the last guy points out in his manual printed in 1959 we knew about this for a long time. [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U2mRgQ_wts&feature=share&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=5[/video] But if you go to Wiki and search for polar vortex to find out what we know about them You wi

[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1899" id="3432320"]They'll just say that they're not, because they cannot predict the exact temperature on a cloudy afternoon 100 years from now ^^[/quote] Yup that is the idiocy we are facing here. Which shows they they totally do not understand how it works. Getting them to understand that everything human build and discover is first tested in model or models are created to try and recreate phenomena that is observed.

Wow very interesting research. As for the glow in the dark part it is being used today as far I know for for the fun of making glow but to be able to keep track of which animals are genetically modified and which aren't. The fact that the cat glows probably has little context to his virus resistance. Unless they tied the virus resistance in the GFP it's self.

[quote who="Cauldyth" reply="45" id="3432213"] On the internet, everyone is an expert on everything! [/quote] I am not an expert, I just educated my self as much as I could to understand as much as possible the going on and happening of our world. Don't ask me to build a reactor I wouldn't be able too. All I can give you is the brick and mortar version of the house, if you want all the electrical stuff and plumbing done go ask someone else. I hav

[quote who="starkers" reply="43" id="3432209"] BTW, Paul, did you know we had so many experts gracing these 'ere Stardock forums? We got nuclear experts; we got scientific experts; we got weather experts; we got political experts... and we got climactic change experts. [/quote] In the Climate change thread I said this at one point: (let me quote my self from an other thread) [quote who="EadTaes" reply="1820" id="3431547"]People when havin

Because it's a liquid fuel you can leave the fuel inside the reactor until it has been completely spent. A solid fuel reactor produces that much waste and is so inefficient because it doesn't allow for the fuel to be homogeneously mixed together. Yes the neutron absorber need to be chemically filtered out for for the 27 days period till they turn into U-233 at which point they re re-injected into the reactor to keep the reaction going. The chemical extraction method is provided by the

Solar and wind power are no wear near capable of providing the amount of energy that we need. They require that wast amounts of land be dedicated and they are location dependent and only produce power part of the time. At best solar and wind power can best be described as life support but nothing more. Solar and wind power are the most costly to build, use the most land per Mw/h then any other forms of power. Don't get me wrong they are cool but they are totally incapable of meeting our e

I have seen that article I will stop you exactly at the first lines in that article. [quote] The factors influencing the level of U-232 contamination in U-233 are examined for heavy-water-moderated, light-water-moderated and liquid-metal cooled fast breeder reactors [/quote] That talks about the method to produce U-233 in the current style reactor we have. All of which are solid fuels. All of which could produce U-235 and Pu-239 in lar

Even with all that the PPM of contimination of U-232 to U-233 need to be below 50 PPM and that would be concidered low grade. High grade would be 1 PPM. The best we can do so far is 220 PPM. And again even with a very low concentration of U-232 it is still a deadly material to try to handle or to put into a weapon. Only under-ground missile luncher could isolate the weapon enough to prevent it from killing over it's operator. Mobile of bomber base delivery methods would be to haza

Here is what MastorResources tried to inform you of but fail so horribly hard in doing it. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 [quote] The Escalator The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS</a

For the Lindzen article it provides no evidence, the article only has claims and all of his papers are pay to read 40$ or so and I cannot find any actual data that he has based his claims on. He copy-written his shit so hard i can't find any leaks. Although I could not find Lindzen work to check it out for my self I did find and detailed article refuting him that has read his papers and contradicted and proved him wrong. I have just started reading the article but here is the link

Reading quickly in on the MastorResource link I am almost quite literally rolling on the floor laughing, for 2 reasons. 1: he tried to demonstrate that by cherry picking data only until 2004 he can show a chart that will indicate the earth is cooling, which has been the most common tactic used by global warming deniers. 2: But then he goes on to talking that his chart plots the temperature variance all the way into 2009 which it CLEARLY does not. But if you look at the

Hey I didn't say it was safe, they did test multiple devices in the one spot after all which would make it more deadly with each consecutive blast. Thus will take longer to heal. I was comparing 1 blast vs 1 meltdown. Reason why people could re-inhabit the Nagasaki and Hiroshima general area and live there and why Chernobyl still has a massive exclusion zone and people living near it have Geiger counters as part of any complete kitchen set. People will need Gieger counters around

Just edited my post above while you post this. EDIT: [quote who="SivCorp" reply="1861" id="3432055"] Ooops, I usually try to include my source, sorry bout that... And Figure 2. Cherry-Pickers Guide to Global Temperature Trends. Each point on the chart represents the trend beginning in September of the year indicated along the x-axis and ending in August 2009. The trends which are statistically significant (p<0.05) are indicated by filled circles.

For the Lindzen article I am still in the process of checking it over so won't make a statement over it. As for the charts one of them only takes into consideration the extreme events which shows a slight increase and the other talks about global changes but stops but only covers 1989 to 2004. additionally you have failed to provide were those charts came from. A chart with no source and context is pretty much worthless. EDIT: especially that second chart lo

[quote who="Jafo" reply="29" id="3432040"] Ah...where were we before YouTube? ....oh, that's right....monitoring radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear testing performed by OTHERS on Australian soil. Always good to debate 'ideology' whilst real people have lived with the reality....[/quote] However when you compare a nuclear bomb blast vs a nuclear reactor meltdown. The bomb blast is o

[quote who="Andromeda05" reply="1854" id="3432035"] Most people don't debate the fact that the average temp of the planet is rising. However, the cause of global warming is what is in question and if you go outside the United States the debate is still going strong.[/quote] WHAT?!....... What rock you been living under? The only place the debate is still really going on is in the US media. Outside the Us their might be the odd denier h

[quote who="SivCorp" reply="1852" id="3432032"] No, we live in a world of control, as it has always been. The internet is no exception. Look up who funds these scientists, sites, and who ultimately benefits from them. NO one, is claiming humans are not impacting the earth, that is stupid. What we all are saying is that the DATA has been LIED about. We have looked at the "adjusted" models, the "accurate" temperatures, and grant money science.

Well just to say that in the scientific community their is no debate about weather or not global warming is happening. It's 97% for and 3% against. Their is no debate to speak of, no controversy, the reason simple because the evidence that has been accumulating has pointed to that direction. Far back in the early days their was debate about if it was getting hotter or cooler at that time there was a debate. However the continue accumulation of data and evidence has made the suffic

[video]http://youtu.be/tyqYP6f66Mw[/video]