/sci/ - Science & Math

Here's a photo of the 'experts'. Thoughts on what the best way to play this is?

Looks like a badly callibrated IR viewer, but its no secret that nuclear waste is still radioactive and heats up. Not significantly though as shown by their picture.

>>2386030
I know that, they're using the photo to mislead and imply that these things are leaking (ionising) radiation.

In all honesty that could be anything inside their warming the train. Greenpeace is apparently filled with retards.

>>2386034

They have an agenda, your email isn't going to change that, they will ignore you or send you a polite "fuck-off" letter

>>2386025
it looks like a bunch of drunk farmers broke into a physics lab

>>2386023

>OH NOES ITS HEATING UP

Residual beta decay that's stopped by the heavy duty casket wall.

Physics really needs to be mandatory in schools.

>implying greenpeace can be reasoned with
they are all batshit insane

>Greenpeace is full of shit

STOP THE PRESSES!!

I've gone down the neutral path of first requesting their measurements and the methodology.

>>2386099
Enjoy the process, because that's the best you can hope to achieve from this little quest for truth and justice.

It's nice that someone is making the effort though, and if nothing else, it'll remind them that there are people watching who aren't so simple to convince.

it is radiation
heat.
they're just too stupid to realize this.

>>2386202

it's worse than that, ignorance is excusable, rather they're abusing the ignorance of others with pseudoscience, like the EM sensitivity crowd

>>2386208
This is why greenpeace is so fucking bad. They have a few nice causes like battling against the deforestation of the rain forests etc, but they are so tunnel visioned they battle commercial logging in western societies (which is not even comparable). It's the same thing with nuclear power. They assume everything with the word 'nuclear' is bad and battle it with campaigns filled with assumptions, misdirection, misinformation and in some cases outright lies.

There was a discussion show in my country where they had a nuclear physicist, a greenpeace representative and two politicians with opposing views on the subject of nuclear power, and the greenpeace representative was corrected multiple times and after a while started spouting shit like 'what if another chernobyl happens'. It was clear he had no significant knowledge on the subject and could contribute nothing to the debate. Yet a lot of people listen to their arguments and make voting decisions based on it.

>>2386272
Found this gem on youtube.

>>2386323
>They need to de-educate themselves
My rage is approaching the critical mass....

Why the fuck are people like greenpeace even allowed to run free? Don't we have laws against the utter bullshit those people are peddling? "Save the whales" or "global warming/climate change/whatever the fuck the hoaxsters are calling it these days" and now this?

Someone needs to shut these fucks up.

>>2386334
We do, the problem is that those laws only extend to medicine.

>>2386355

Which is bullshit. In medicine all those laws are ever used to do is stop lifesaving cures from getting on the market. Leave it to liberals to get it ass backwards. Laws should PROTECT people, not leave them vulnerable to disease and lying, thieving bastards like greenpeace and their kind.

We should junk the FDA and spend that money hunting down greenpeace and throwing the lot of them in jail.

>>2386363
They stop the homeopaths claiming their water and sugar pills cure cancer. What examples are there of lifesaving drugs being significantly delayed?

Bear in mind, there's a delicate balance to be struck. It's easy in hindsight to say that this drug should have been rushed through but for every one of these there are hundreds where a very harmful side effect wasn't discovered until late in development.

>>2386363
>>2386375
With a couple minutes of google, I could find you a SCOTUS ruling which says that patient's may not voluntarily and knowingly take a drug which has not been certified by the FDA, though it may save their life, and it may kill them.

Which is bullshit. The FDA should regulate only large scale commercial ventures, not one-off sales where no deceit is occurring, such as those who want to knowingly and voluntarily try the dangerous new drug.

>>2386375
> but for every one of these there are hundreds where a very harmful side effect wasn't discovered until late in development.

Bullshit. Your "hundreds" of drugs that we are supposedly protected from are just things that anyone with a lick of common sense would know to avoid. Let the buyer beware. All that money is a colossal waste, if a drug has dangerous side effect, then it won't make it in the market because no one will buy it. All that testing does is waste money and create a false sense of security, does it stop poisoned Tylenol or shit in our spinach? No. Dump it, it's nothing but a weight around our necks.

>>2386272
The founder (or one of the founders?) of greenpeace left the group precisely because he felt it was not about saving the environment anymore. Instead, it's become some sort of anti-mega-corporation thing. (Which isn't bad per se, but their antics are quite bad.)

>>2386380 . Your "hundreds" of drugs that we are supposedly protected from are just things that anyone with a lick of common sense would know to avoid.

Like thalidomide?

>does it stop poisoned Tylenol
Yes, the FDA spearheaded the introduction of better tamper evident packaging and solid powder caplets, which are harder to poison.

>>2386383
Not "become," they didn't "become" anything. They were an ecoterroist group from the start. Right from the beginning they were all about trying to force us to give up modern society for their hippy "one with nature" bullshit. That's what the "environmentalist" movement has always been about, trying to destroy our society, and that's why the fucks need to be in jail.

>>2386391
> Like thalidomide?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

> Yes, the FDA spearheaded the introduction of better tamper evident packaging and solid powder caplets, which are harder to poison.
After the fact, which the free market could have done without burdening people with unnecessary taxes.

>>2386397
Look man, I like that I know my beef isn't mixed with (too much) cow shit. Ever read The Jungle? It exists for a damn good reason. Unfortunately they went nazi with their powers, and the legislative branch needs to reel them in.

>>2386391
liberal statistfag detected
opinion discarded

>>2386393
That's just like, your (badly informed) opinion man.

Also, just quoting what that founder said. I'm not saying if he's right or wrong. Just bringing up the interesting point that even one of the founders of greenpeace thinks that greenpeace is full of shit.

>>2386397
>Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I do not see a purpose in responding to this.

>>2386399
> Ever read The Jungle? It exists for a damn good reason.

Purely emotional appeals mixed with bullshit propaganda about an ancient way of packing meat. That was 100 years of go, of course it wasn't as clean as we might like. This is now. We don't need the FDA or any of their bullshit rules, the market can handle it.

And their need to be more penalties for them getting that drunk with power, beyond just firing every damn one of them. When you spend your life stomping on liberty, you deserve to get you life stomped on.

>>2386406
I smell some butthurt, did the government stop you building an extension to your shack?

>>2386399
> The Jungle
Are you really citing a self admitted piece of communist propaganda as a reliable source?
Just when I thought you liberals couldn't embarrass yourselves even more. You never cease to amaze me.

>>2386406
So, do you consider yourself a libertarian? Do you agree with the Ayn Rand philosophy? Do you believe in laissez-faire markets? Do you think that people have the right to be as filthy rich as they're legally able to do? Do you think that we ought to break up monopolies?

I recognize capitalism as a very effective means to an end. I do not support capitalism on any grounds besides its utility in reaching those ends. I also recognize that capitalism sometimes fails horribly. It generally fails horribly when dealing with public ownership (aka the Tragedy Of The Commons), and it also only works when everyone is perfectly knowledgeable. However, learning information takes time, and perhaps it's not available. The original point of the FDA was to help mitigate this lack of time and knowledge by requiring goods to be rated according to their safety, etc., and then let the customers decide. Unfortunately, it's no longer that.

Also, arguing that we shouldn't give the state power because it will corrupt it isn't an argument. That's an argument for no state, aka anarchy, aka stupid. You need to qualify that to make a meaningful argument.

>>2386378
>I could find you a SCOTUS ruling which says that patient's may not voluntarily and knowingly take a drug which has not been certified by the FDA

nonscheduled, unapproved drugs are legal to buy/use (might have to import, but still legal)

>>2386414
> The original point of the FDA was to help mitigate this lack of time and knowledge by requiring goods to be rated according to their safety, etc., and then let the customers decide. Unfortunately, it's no longer that.

We don't live in a world where that knowledge is difficult to come by anymore. The FDA is utterly pointless.

And I'm glad that you're at least able to admit that the FDA is an atrocity that stomps on our liberties. Just get the fantasy that it was ever anything else out of your head. That nostalgia is getting in the way of people who are actually trying to live their lives.

>>2386423
I'd like you to determine if the Safeway brand of thin spaghetti uses grain grown with pesticides, including which pesticides. I'd further like you to be able to determine these facts in a world without the FDA.

>>2386422
Well, shit, I was wrong. No actual ruling. Just refusing to hear an appeal from a lower court, effectively upholding the FDA's authority to ban access to drugs. Here's what I've found on such short notice. I'm still looking for something better.

http://houston.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-unapproved-d
rugs-case.aspx?googleid=230560

>>2386430
Further link. Apparently a copy of the lower court ruling.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/544/

those trains are as hot as that man's brain

THAT MAN IS A WALKING NUCLEAR WEAPON

>>2386430
>>2386434
And this fascist bullshit is exactly why we need to get rid of them.

>>2386453
Waiting for answers to the questions:
>So, do you consider yourself a libertarian? Do you agree with the Ayn Rand philosophy? Do you believe in laissez-faire markets? Do you think that people have the right to be as filthy rich as they're legally able to do? Do you think that we ought to break up monopolies?
That will greatly aid my replies and arguments.

>>2386459
Yes
Some good ideas, some issues, but over all vastly better than the liberal bullshit strangling our society right now.
Yes
I believe that if they're not breaking any laws you have no right to stop them just because you're butthurt that you're poor.
Monopolies are the product of unnecessary government intervention in the market place imposing obscene barrier to entry and generally protecting the monopolies from actual competition through oppressive regulation that only the monopolies can survive under. We don't need to "break them up." If you left the market alone it wouldn't be a problem.

>>2386434
>FDA tries to stop the sale of 50 year old snake oil
>lolbertarians: OH NOES, WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED!!1!

>>2386469
> HURRDURR LOOK I CAN MAKE A STRAWMAN!

Typical liberal.

>>2386466
Thank you for answering so nicely and promptly. For that, I'll avoid a scathing reply. I think this will be the best way I can phrase my reply:

Imagine a person who owns all of the land, and all of the possible private property. He would be a dictator with absolutely power, basically. The populace would be within their moral rights to rebel against such a dictator. Now, what separates the line between dictator and just a rich fuck? It's an arbitrary line that must be drawn somewhere.

In short, I do not recognize the right to be as filthy rich as you can manage to get legally under a laissez-fair system. With sufficient money, you become too powerful. You become a too-dangerous threat to the well being of the people.

Also, the world isn't fair. It's unfair that some guy gets to be rich because his parents are rich, and some dude is basically doomed to be poor because his parents are poor. Yes there are examples of poor people getting rich, but that doesn't argue against the fairness of the proposition.

Finally, I think you need to do some better research into history. It was the lack of government intervention which led to the existence of robber barons, company-owned towns in near slave labor conditions, and so on.

>>2386023

OMFG 32.8ºC!?!?!?!?!?!?

32.8ºC!!!!

IT'S HOTTER THAN THE SUN!!!

ITT: People politicising science.
>facepalm

>>2386480
>It was the lack of government intervention which led to the existence of robber barons,

But that's wrong.

>>2386480
Oh, and I forgot the most important problem with laissez-faire markets according to my world view.

In short, let me paraphrase Locke. Private property is not immoral under some conditions. For example, suppose I go out into the woods and gather 100 apples. Suppose I only eat 10 and let 90 go to waste. Suppose you show up at my door demanding apples because you're poor and hungry. It would be not evil to tell you to fuck off, precisely because your ability to go out and acquire apples from the woods is not hindered by my hoarding, and even wasting, apples.

Locke said that the land ownership situation in England wasn't unacceptable because if you wanted your own plot of land, you could go to America and get one for free. The problem is that there is no more frontier. There is no free arable land left. Thus the premise of the morality of absolute private property is no longer true in this world, and I think that the legal rights of private property need to be adjusted accordingly.

>>2386491
I notice that this is a similar image macro to the one else-thread which says that there was no such SCOTUS decision disallowing patients access to unapproved drugs. I proved that one wrong with google. Is this the sam asshat who can't formulate a proper reply?

>>2386487
And that's why we should have jailed the environazis as soon as they reared their heads. They've made a mockery out of the entire thing, just look at the whole "global warming" hoax. They've taken science and twisted it to serve their own political ideology.

>>2386414
>Also, arguing that we shouldn't give the state power because it will corrupt it isn't an argument. That's an argument for no state, aka anarchy, aka stupid.

>>2386508
Have a point? What is it exactly?

Are you arguing for the lack of government? If so, you're an idiot, and we really don't have much to discuss.

>>2386480
> Imagine a person who owns all of the land, and all of the possible private property. He would be a dictator with absolutely power, basically. The populace would be within their moral rights to rebel against such a dictator. Now, what separates the line between dictator and just a rich fuck? It's an arbitrary line that must be drawn somewhere.

And that line is the law. He's not breaking the law in your example, so you have no right to attack him and steal from him just because you're jealous of him.

> With sufficient money, you become too powerful. You become a too-dangerous threat to the well being of the people.

Oh, your precious national security. The go to excuse for stomping on individual liberty. Next you'll be claiming that we need to all rally around the flag to not get eaten by the country next door. Again, not breaking the law = you have no right to steal from him.

>
Also, the world isn't fair. It's unfair that some guy gets to be rich because his parents are rich, and some dude is basically doomed to be poor because his parents are poor. Yes there are examples of poor people getting rich, but that doesn't argue against the fairness of the proposition.

Not my fucking problem. The world isn't fair. Deal with it. Still doesn't give you the right to steal.

>>2386500
>>2386500
Yes. Although I would extend that prison sentence to absolutely anybody who tries and warps science to serve anything other than science it's self or humanity in general. That includes the people in this thread.

>>2386512
>Hurr durr I agree that power attracts the corruptible
>Let's still have it
>But it unfailingly becomes corrupt and oppressive
>Lol your an idiot

>>2386514
In my world view, the laws are a means to an end. The law should not be supported simply because it's the law. That's just silly.

Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to say. I simply disagree.

Why not kindly inform them of how to do it better.

>>2386527
>Hurr durr I agree that power attracts the corruptible
>Let's still have it
>But it unfailingly becomes corrupt and oppressive
I agree. That does not make me stupid. You presuppose that there exists a better alternative. There does not. Hence the phrase "Republican democracies are the least evil of the available evils."

>>2386531
> You presuppose that there exists a better alternative. There does not.

We provided you with one, minarchism.

You just plugged your ears and refused to listen.

>>2386538
I missed your formal description of it. Would you please explain in some detail the legislative process, the executive process, and the judicial process?

>>2386528
Laws are there to protect the rights of the individual. If a person isn't breaking those laws, then you have no right to restrict his rights. If a rich person is rich without infringing on the rights of others, then you have no right to steal from him. Your bullshit about "national security" or "the greater good" are the exact arguments that were made by the soviets for wealth redistribution. That led to horrific famine, genocide, and a totalitarian state that spent decades stomping on individual rights.

You are defending the policies of thieves and tyrants. So yes, that does make you stupid.

>>2386553
Please see my paraphrase of Locke here:
>>2386496
tl;dr
Every piece of private property that you collect is one piece of private property that I cannot collect. There is a finite amount of resources in this world, so your private property is an abridgment of my right to have private property.

Of course, I know you disagree with that, but meh.

>>2386514

I'm curious...

Let's assume you are living in a country where some dude owns absolutely everything (including your home and food) and because of that, your options are either doing what he wants or dying. Well, or rebelling.

What would you do?

>>2386558
> Every piece of private property that you collect is one piece of private property that I cannot collect. There is a finite amount of resources in this world, so your private property is an abridgment of my right to have private property.

And private property has time and again been proven to be the most efficient way to use those limited resources. Anything else is an even greater infringement upon personal liberty because you are denying EVERYONE their right to property once you undermine it, and because private property is the right that is required to safeguard other rights, you are thus infringing upon ALL rights.

>>2386566
I work, earn a wage, and succeed or fail on my own merits. If I can't there I go somewhere where I can.

>>2386569
Fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Presumably you believe in taxes for police to enforce contracts is ok, and thus you support a limited form of theft. Thus not all abridgments of private property rights causes the downfall of society.

Thank you come again.

>>2386571
And if he tells you to bark like a dog or get no food, then what?

Also, in this thought experiment, there is no "someplace else". He owns all land.

temperatue does not equal to radiation wtf is this shit.

seriously use a freaking geigometer measure radiation, if there was any authorities would not allow it.

>>2386580
OP here again after the political faggotry, that's what I emailed them about, they did show some pictures of them pointing geiger counters (specifically, surface contamination meters, I assume because they're so sensitive that they'd make the background radiation in a neutrino observatory seem scary) at it but they never posted the results or the methodology for eliminating background radiation.

They probably left the results out because they showed nothing that could even be blown out of proportion to the frightening level, after all, if they had evidence like that they wouldn't need a bullshit thermal image.

>>2386591
Where did you find this shit?

>>2386591
Yep. Keep up the good fight and maybe reform greenpeace to be a force for good and not idiocy.

Don't waste your time, OP. People have tried to cal GP on their bullshit since forever, and it doesn't work. Too much money, political interests and good PR is on the side of those fucknuts.

>>2386591
i agree, I'm not aware of the regulation of transport for radioactive material but i am quite sure that independent measurements are taken by regulatory organisations and real scientists tell us whether it is safe or not.

>>2386593
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/slideshows/CASTOR-transport/
However it was (saddeningly) on national geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/pictures/110119-nuclear-waste-train-castor-antinucle
ar-protest-germany-power-energy-pictures/#

>>2386571

> I work

Yes, he wants that.

> earn a wage

Your wage is your food and housing.

> and succeed or fail on my own merits.

Succeed or fail on what?

> If I can't there I go somewhere where I can.

Going to be difficult with no money and food.

>>2386604
I honestly thought that you were making it up. Now, I wish you were.
<sadface>

>>2386608
Gizmodo picked up on it too http://gizmodo.com/5739402/an-infrared-look-at-123-tons-of-nuclear-waste

>Greenpeace nuclear experts carry out radiation measurements of the Castor train 10 meters from residential housing in Dahlenburg.
>Greenpeace nuclear experts
>Greenpeace
>nuclear experts

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeah, sure.

>>2386611
Why are people so surprised by this?

>>2386616
I'm not. Being fervently anti-nuclear is just a retarded stance nowadays.

>>2386569
>private property has time and again been proven to be the most efficient way to use those limited resources.
Every method of ownership will be abused. Heard about those guys who tried to privatize rainwater(and all other water resources) in bolivia?

There are also a fair number of examples, especially in utility and telecoms that have gone from goverment monopoly to privatized with the result of loss of service quality and increased price.

The ownership method does not necessarily affect the efficiency level of a company or the service it provides.

The general idea goes that because of private ownership people own it and thus work harder for it. This may be true in the upper management of whatever enterprise we're talking about, but it doesn't change the fact for all the minions who work for fixed minimum wage with no to little possibility of promotion. The same effect could be achived by providing economic incentives for upper management of a state owned or community project. Hell, companies that are traded(trough stock) work by this principle, there is private ownership trough the stock of course but it's extremely fragmented(and quite sensitive as a perception of things going to shit can self-reinforce itself to realize things going to shit(see 2008 crash)).

>>2386620
Would people stop with this shit. Fucking politics.

>>2386614
I bet that guy doesn't even understand what radiation is, let alone how to interpret the results

>>2386623
I bet he's got a degree from the university of Google.

>>2386620
I'd like to add that, since a private company has to turn profit, this will lead to laying people off, leading to the remaining people being overworked. Unpaid overtime. Luckily the land of the free moneygrabbers is also home of the guncrazy, so the pressure gets relieved when people shoot some holes in other people.

>>2386622
If you don't take care of politicss, politics gonna take care of you.

>>2386023
Sorry people didn't like the politics thread. Just wanted to see whether or not that anti-FDA guy was an effective Ayn Rand follower or not. (He is.)

Also, sorry to all of those who thought that greenpeace wasn't full of shit.

Well, I'm out. Night all.

Personal beliefs aside let's look at the possible outcomes:

We build wind turbines and nuclear power turns out to be safe, no one dies.
We build wind turbines and nuclear power turns out to be dangerous, no one dies.
We build nuclear power stations and they turn out to be safe no one dies but the planet is scarred by nuclear waste.
We build nuclear power stations and they turn out to be dangerous, lots of people die and the planet is scarred by nuclear waste.

Only an idiot or a liar with financial interests in nuclear power would argue in favor of building more stations.

>>2386641
Ok, one more post to correct this idiot, then bed.

Protip: Wind power requires building a shitton of turbines. That's expensive as fuck, in terms of money, and in terms of raw material.
Protip: Those turbines wear out after time.
Protip: It's not windy all the time, in all places. Also, power transmission isn't free.

Thus, stop conflating the efficacy of wind power and nuclear power. They're leagues apart.

>>2386641
0/10

>>2386646
Scientists believe that there's 10 times more wind energy to be had than the entire human race uses. As for space, I'd be happy to have a turbine in my back yard but I'd never have a dangerous nuclear reactor.

Nuclear power was born from weapons and big corporations, wind power is the future of the humble individual generating power for the good of the planet, not to line his pocket.

>>2386641
You do realise that we would need something like 250000 wind turbines costing something like £2.2million each.

So what are you getting for this price? Not much, for one it's not windy all the time and I'm pretty sure they wear out over time.

In short, you're fucking retarded.

>We build wind turbines and nuclear power turns out to be safe, no one dies.

Oh, but you forget that PER TWH PROVIDED THERE WILL BE MORE FATALITIES FROM WIND POWER THAN NUCLEAR.

OOOOPS!
It is also approximately ten times more expensive to build the wind power. Not only are the turbines fucking expensive per kwh max capacity, they operate at on average 25% of their capacity, at times even lower. And when they work at max capacity they provide so much surplus electricity that the price goes into the negative, you should theoretically get paid to use electricity to prevent grid overload. To prevent massive brownouts from this you need multi billion dollar grid upgrades so it can handle a capacity ten times greater than the actual need will ever be.

Take your fucking green energy pyramid scheme and shove it.

>>2386670
I should have mentioned that is just for the UK and when compared to a 5000MW power station. I don't actually know if such a power plant exists, but meh.

>>2386666
>Scientists believe that there's 10 times more wind energy to be had than the entire human race uses.

That's no argument for an energy source.
See, scientist knows that there are some trillion times more solar energy than mankind uses even at global peak hour. However, the solar panels required to cover just a fraction of the earth cost more than the entire fucking global money supply.

>>2386670
>>2386646
Nuclear reactors and what's around also wear out.

>>2386730
>Ignores all other points
>focuses on the only one he/she can understand

True, but it's more general maintenance, with wind turbines the whole thing has to be shut down while everything is replaced.

>>2386683
>Oh, but you forget that PER TWH PROVIDED THERE WILL BE MORE FATALITIES FROM WIND POWER THAN NUCLEAR.
Can you link a study about this ? Uranium mining doesn't sound like a safe activity to me.

>>2386641
I can do that too.

We train gardovore and pikachu turns out to be safe, no one dies.

We train gardovore and pikachu turns out to be dangerous, no one dies.

We train pikachu and pikachu turns out to be safe no one dies but the planet is scarred by electric blasts.

We train pikachu and pikachu turns out to be dangerous, lots of people die and the planet is scarred by electric blasts.

Only an idiot or a liar with financial interests in pikachu would argue in favor of training pikachu.

>>2386730
Nuclear reactors are rated for 40-60 years with extension plans for up to 100 years. Wind turbines have 10 years, with much more recurrent maintenance.

Improvements in nuclear fuel tech(rod geometry etc) and other research also allows for uprating of nuclear power. 20% increase in power output is a realistic number that happens even today, projections of 50% or more exists for future tech.
There's no uprating of wind turbines.

Next argument please, i have a whole fucking warehouse full of anti-wind ammo to waste on you.

>>2386738
Fire fighting doesn't sound like a safe activity to me.

>>2386735
I ignore the other points because I don't want to bother searching for the numbers you didn't provide in your comparisons. So I'm only pointing out the one statement that is obviously false.
What's your problem with that ?

>>2386746
Who said it is ?

>>2386738
Uranium Ore is not purified uranium, there's a lot of rock in it which makes for radiation shielding, you also get a lot of energy out of every KG of uranium. Now coal on the other hand, that's fucked up, you need tons of it, there's a fuckton of dust, and it's often done in bad conditions.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/summarizing-deaths-per-twh.html

>>2386743
>much more recurrent maintenance
Can you link to that too ? I would think nuclear plants require permanent maintenance.

>>2386753
Well:
1.) Wind turbines can produce a maximum of about 2MW of power, that's assuming 20m blade length and a constant wind speed of 15m/s

2.)The UK's power demand is about 500000MW

3.) Comparing that with a power station of 5000MW would mean that you would need 250000 wind turbines.

3.) Wind turbines cost about £2.2 million

Do you need any more information or is this enough?

>>2386764
Coal mining is also particularily dangerous because it's for a great part done in poor countries by local companies.
But all mining industries are dangerous, and there's not a lot of usable uranium per kg of rock mined.

>>2386767
Of course they require maintenance but they are not isolated on a 200 feet high pole, sometimes in the middle of the ocean, you also only have one nuclear power plants per 3000 or so wind plants in power generation equivalent

One of the things I like pointing out is THORIUM reactors are very safe they can't have a meltdown, refining thorium is relatively safe, most of the by-products of thorium reactors can be used to neutralize current nuclear waste stockpiles, and thorium can't be weaponized.

>>2386785
OH, and Thorium is pretty frigging common.

>>2386779
>250000

More like 100,000 because they won't be running at full power, normally less than 20%

>>2386793
What won't be running at full power?

>>2386797
Wind turbines.

>>2386797
Sorry, that was supposed to be 1,000,000 turbines. My glasses are missing.

>>2386809
That what I was thought you were trying to say.

>>2386783
That's not saying much. I have no precise idea how many individual days of work a nuclear plant worth 3000 wind turbines requires to function ten years, and how many those 3000 turbines require for the same period, and it'ss not obvious from what you said that the second is a greater number than the first.

>>2386793
Isn't the "not running at full power" included in >>2386779's figure of a constant wind of 15m/s ?

Didnt notice that it was a measure of heat until now. LOL. Are they really this retarded?

>>2386820
I don't think so, that was assuming a maximum of 15m/s. I would have thought it unlikely to have a wind speed above that. So I worked it to mean a maximum power output of 2MW.

As an expert in tranportation and storage of greater than class c waste (spent nuclear fuel), it is a good thing the container is rejecting heat. Also, for the system to have a temperature that low would mean it has a very low activity. Of course this would be expected because it is the non-useful portion of purex reprocessing.

>>2386820
Why do you assume that?

>>2386874
Those wind turbines have a maximum wind speed in which they can operate. Beyond the maximum, the brakes are applied to stop it. I wouldn't be surprised if 15 m/s was a reasponable maximum.

I read a greenpeace report once about some nuclear waste transport in my country
It was done really well, with all experimental conditions, the raw data, control measurements, etc
They had to admit in the end they found nothing out of the ordinary

>>2386641
and just when i thought pascals wager couldn't get any more retarded

>>2386874
Because I have no idea what is the average speed of the wind at 200m, and I suppose wind speeds would be the main reason why a wind turbine would not function at its maximum capacity.

>>2386883
I never thought of that, so yes, I guess that could be considered "not running at full power". However I can't find any figures on the matter.
>>2386899
Another good reason. The minimum average for a decent wind turbine is about 6 m/s. But, I have to admit that I don't know. I still think that 15m/s is a fair estimate.